Shaping Tomorrow’s News – the emerging digital leaders who are creating the next iteration of media

During the past couple of months I have been developing and running a number of digital strategy workshops for emerging news leaders from across Africa and Asia.

Called Tomorrow’s News, the Thomson Reuters Foundation programme aims to help participants consider their next digital news steps by learning about the latest industry practice and academic research, and by creating a community who can support each other through the challenges ahead.

It’s been an enormous privilege to meet some of the creative and innovative journalists who’ve taken part and I’ve learnt a great deal about challenges they face in developing high quality digital news services.

From news services that tell the stories of India’s disempowered and dispossessed communities, to data journalism services that are finding new ways to report about Indonesia, to digital services using mobile technology to deliver east Africa’s farmers essential information – these are  smart, innovative forms of media that will set the pace for the next phase of disruption.

Two final thoughts on all of this.

Firstly, a lot of the problems people are facing in newsrooms (or virtual newsrooms) around the world are similar. Persuading legacy media to embrace digital rather than tolerate it, going digital  or social or mobile first, finding the right mix of skills and training. Or for digital native publishers, establishing a revenue model that’s robust enough to support future development.

And finally while we may be on a journey with digital transformation, the journey’s end has to be more than mere survival. There is real social importance in creating sustainable journalistic outlets that deliver high levels of public value through content. And I am confident that’s a goal to which these brilliant and creative journalists are committed.

 

 

Advertisements

7/7: How UGC of a terror attack changed the news forever

Ten years on from the London suicide bombings of 7th of July 2005, I’m struck by how different the news landscape was then.

Today people have been posting their memories of the attacks on social media, back then it didn’t really exist. Today people have been posting images of their journeys to work, back then newsrooms weren’t set-up for UGC. Today people have access to mobile digital news wherever they want it, back then they were reliant on the radio or going into shops to watch rolling TV news channels.

My own memories of the day are still sharp.

I was Deputy Editor of the ITV News Channel at the time and, after having been out the night before celebrating the awarding of the 2012 Olympics to London, I was on a day off. Having slept in I flicked on the news, just in time to hear Emily Reuben report that a bomb had gone off on a bus in Tavistock Square. Seconds later my phone rang with a colleague calling me into work.

Public transport was down so I drove as far as I could, eventually abandoning my car at London Bridge station and jogging the rest of the way. I had to stop at a suit shop on Gray’s Inn Road and buy a new shirt.

By the time I made it into the office the newsroom was in full swing. ITV had opted into the News Channel and the longest ever open-ended coverage of a news event in ITN’s history was under way. Colleagues from the regions were being brought in from outside London, as were the satellite trucks and newsgathering equipment to support them. Craig Oliver, then head of output at ITV News, was running the live coverage that was comprehensive and smart. You can see a taste of it above in a short section of the final retrospective programme broadcast on the channel.

These days news organisations are more sensitive about the potential trauma to staff covering a big attack than they were then. They take more seriously the impact on teams in the field and in the newsroom. But that was the first time I’d ever seen a senior colleague in tears as they tried to cover a story.

This was the kind of event that 24 hour news channels were set-up to report. And it was, in my opinion, the ITV News Channel’s finest hour. It was a minnow compared to Sky News or the BBC but it punched above its weight that day. A few months later I put together the award entry for the Royal Television Society journalism awards and I was again humbled by the professionalism of the teams both in the studio and on the ground, trying to explain one of the biggest stories of their careers as it happened around them. The channel’s coverage that day was nominated in the News Event category, I’m biased but I still think it deserved to win.

So, how did 7/7 change things? The first and most obvious way is that it was the dawn of the UGC era. It was the first time that mobile footage of a news event was brought into a newsroom and used in coverage in any significant way. ITN was off the pace digitally and had neither the capacity to receive or transmit it easily. We were unprepared for the deluge of content that was being offered and those with video from early phone cameras had to bring it into the office in person so the engineers could try to extract it and upload it to the system.

It also changed how TV news organisations thought about newsgathering. ITV News was beaten to air with pictures of some of the events because it was still thinking about newsgathering for bulletins. After 7/7 newsgathering had to be geared up for instantaneous transmission of content – 10 years later we think of that as mobile journalism and the ability to go live on a story from anywhere at any time via your phone. It was 7/7 that started news organisations on that journey.

Finally, while it was the high water mark of the ITV News Channel, looking back it was the moment that the long, slow but inexorable decline in 24 news channels began. As news organisations woke up to the potential for live coverage of breaking news using digital technologies, so the news channels have begun to look increasingly anachronistic. Six months after the 7/7 attacks the ITV News Channel was closed down. One of the reasons given to staff at the time was that in the future all news would be digitally delivered by broadband. We’re living in the future now.

2015: my five predictions for the media year ahead.

2015_vuurwerk_900_450_90_s_c1_smart_scale

Having started this blog in 2014 with a series of predictions, it seems sensible to keep up the tradition. You can see how successful I think last year’s were here. Naturally, predicting the future inevitably means egg on the face for those foolish enough to try it but I’ll give it a shot anyway.

1. Podcasts are back in fashion.

There’s nothing like success to breed imitation and Serial, the podcast investigation of a murder case and trial has been a phenomenal success. Sarah Koenig’s drawn out story seems to have been averaging around a million and a half downloads an episode. It would be wrong to say that this came out of nowhere; Serial’s an off-shoot of the brilliant This American Life on NPR. But these are big numbers.

Podcasting’s been around for more than a decade now . When it first began it promised a new multimedia future for print products and I’ve written elsewhere about my efforts as a podcast producer, including setting up The Bugle. But for much of its history, podcasting has been the unloved child of multimedia content. It was quickly eclipsed by online video. I remember going to a strategy meeting at The Times at the tail end of 2006 and being asked about my plans for a new slate of podcast products for 2007, and causing consternation by saying podcasting was over – it was now all about online video.

Well, maybe I wrote podcasts off to soon. But the success of Serial shows once again that overnight success rarely happens overnight. You need to support teams and products over the long-term and give producers the space to fail as well succeed. And a long-term commitment means strong nerves and resilience as you wait to see a return on your investment. It means allocating hard pressed resources in the face of budget pressures. It also means learning lessons from competitors and using the medium to the full. And it puts story-telling back at the heart of audio journalism.

Some commentators have said that Serial is unlike anything else out there. I’m not sure that’s true. It feels very American to me and very much a child of its NPR roots. But it is true to say that it doesn’t sound like anything on British radio or newspaper sites. Be assured that’s about to change. In the same way that Snowfall led to a rash of imitations, Serial is about to get some inferior but heavily promoted competition. And its pick-up by BBC Radio 4 Extra means that Serial inspired documentaries are likely to feature heavily in this spring’s Radio 4 Commissioning Round.

But now podcasts are back, shouldn’t they be called something new with the announcement that Apple is killing off the iPod Classic?

2. The TVisation of the web

It’s long been a truism about digital that TV hasn’t made the most of new formats and mechanisms for securing the audience of the future. To begin with dial-up and slow broadband connections meant that the experience for web video was so poor, TV companies felt able to dismiss the new upstart medium as having an irredeemably poor user experience.

That’s all over now. The exponential increase in broadband speeds has allowed a TV-like experience to be delivered by a new generation of suppliers.  Up until now that’s meant platform owners such as Netflix or YouTube have seen big benefits but there are two distinct trends in place at the moment that are changing that.

Firstly, the lo-fi. The punk, just do-it, ethos of Stampy, Zoella and others has captured the imagination of a generation who appear to be less engaged with TV. This is about content makers becoming stars on new platforms and new styles of video-making. And if you’re over the age of 25, you just won’t get it.

Secondly, the high-end. For example, Kevin Spacey’s House of Cards or Vice trying to corner the market in Millennial broadcast news. This is about replicating a traditional lean-back TV experience using a different delivery mechanism.

The web is moving closer to a broadcast platform. Yes there’s interactivity but as Twitter has shown, it’s not essential for success. And this is post-text – or at least a staging point on the road to post-text. Back in the CB-radio-like days of the 90s and early 00s it seemed everyone would be a publisher – now it’s clear publishers and platforms will be corporates and that talent and content can be sourced from everywhere. And that is a broadcast model.

And who does broadcast and high-end lean back experiences? TV companies. My guess is that 2015 is, finally, the year the TV industry fully embraces digital as an entertainment medium and not just a threat to their core business.

3. Towards a sustainable future for papers

The newspaper industry continued to show two distinct trends in 2014: the decline of print and the growth of digital.

That will continue and accelerate in 2015.

The industry is still drunk on digital numbers, but three, or perhaps four, clear business models are emerging. Advertising supported, subscription and advertising, and philanthropic and membership. I expect those to continue to consolidate during the next year and I also expect newspapers to continue to cut costs as the digital advertising fails to fill the hole left by the decline of print adverts.

I also wonder if we might not see a return to products providing an edited bundle. While the trend towards personalised news continues, for me there remains value in seeing someone else’s take on the news. Relying on news to find you via your Twitter feed can be just too samey.

4. The content bubble deflates

Money has rushed in to new digital products. Name journalists have established new brands. Digital native producers have built successful new platforms. And some astonishing values have been put on the new players.

So, will this continue through 2015? I don’t think so. The valuations look distinctly frothy to me. There’s a lot of old media money being thrown at new platforms but with money comes obligations. There’s a lot of people trying to establish market share, with no clear route to profitability. You’d think the legacy media would be sensible enough to see the warning lights here, but that’s far from guaranteed.

My guess is that the content bubble will deflate this year. Probably slowly, although I wouldn’t be shocked to see a high-profile closure. And if there are any external economic shocks that degrade the advertising industry, it may be bumpy.

5. The first UK-wide digital election

It’s already begun, of course, but the coming UK general election will be the first fought using social media as the primary battlefield – especially if the TV debates fail to go ahead. At the last election, social media was still in the early adopter phase; now it’s mainstream and I expect all the parties to use it heavily in the run up to May.

What’s less clear is what the nature of that engagement will look like. I don’t expect social media to feature a particularly positive campaign. This will be about parody, pastiche and mocking your opponents’ positions. There will be enormous amounts of half-truths, spun facts and campaigning hyperbole. Journalists will have an enormous job to do separating the fact from the fiction.

Still, it was ever thus. And it’s likely to be enormous fun.

Who’s making great online video?

 

Which news organisations are doing great online video?

A couple of recent articles have prompted me to take a look at this – firstly  this one from Media Shift, in which Janine Gibson, incoming Editor-in-Chief of theguardian.com says it’s so entrenched in the system they barely think of it as a separate element anymore. Then there’s this one from journalism.co.uk in which The Times’s deputy head of digial, Lucia Adams, talks about their shift from quantity to quality.

To begin with I’d better declare an interest.

I set up the multimedia department at The Times and Sunday Times back in 2006 and ran it until 2008. We started experimenting with video in 2007. Much of that experimentation took the form of throwing mud against the wall to see what stuck, but there was an underlying strategy based on some key principles.

Firstly, that the quality user experience for online video would continue to improve so everything had to be done with the highest possible quality at the point of production. That meant buying kit and building facilities and not being derailed by those who wanted everything done on mobile phones.

Secondly, that videos should exploit the key drivers of traffic on the site; and, finally, that it should not compete head to head against existing broadcast outlets.

So, we made films about cars with the InGear supplement of The Sunday TImes, such as this one about the Porsche GT9, and got Gordon Ramsay to make recipe videos. I also pressed hard for a content sharing deal with a news broadcaster which would give us scale with news inventory but wouldn’t be competing on an unequal basis with ITN or the BBC.

We had our successes and I also made mistakes – auto-roll videos on the homepage being, perhaps, the most egregious. But it was new territory and, like all innovations in the newsroom, part of the challenge was creating new content and formats and part of it was embedding change and new workflows.

By mid 2008 we had reached around a million video streams a month – small beer by today’s standards but it felt significant at the time.

That was around the time I left the paper. It seemed to me that video was becoming less about trying to do something different, establishing a new brand and new ways of telling multimedia stories, but more about focussing on repurposed news clips. There’s some value in that but I didn’t feel it was playing to the paper’s strengths. So, I read Lucia’s comments about moving away from news and focussing on quality with something of a wry smile.

So here we are, six years on, videos never been more prevalent online. Everyone’s got fast broadband connections, the audience is there, what’s being done to service them? I’ll be taking a look at my old shop, The Times, plus The Guardian, Sky News, The New York Times and Vice. This is an entirely arbitrary list – but I think covers a good range of outlets.

1. The Times

Compared to the films we made back in 2007/08 the material being produced by The Times feels much more measured and professional. The material is well shot and there’s an emphasis on quality of production. The films are also well-distributed through the site, rather than being ghettoised under a video tab.

It’s clear video, and specifically sports video, is a key driver for users to pay to vault the paywall. The use of Premiership football is especially smart.

But for me, there are still some key problems. What is video to The Times? Is it just a nice to have added extra, or is it an integral part of their story-telling? There’s no doubt that video needs to be an element of a multimedia package. But I don’t see stories here both using video as a driver and playing to video’s strengths. For example, this film with Norman Lamont is good – but what are the specifically video-led elements that drive the story. Video is led by pictures, what images are used here that make this a must see video?

And I think that lack of identity extends to the look of the videos – there’s no Times style. That’s an issue, I think, after seven years of production and one they wouldn’t accept from the website. Perhaps Lucia’s drive towards a less-is-more approach will remedy this.

2. The Guardian

The look is something The Guardian is getting right. From news clips to longer format material, everything is in-style and recognisably on-brand. It feels as though the creative director has given this the once over and ensured everything is formatted correctly.

The Guardian has also worked hard to distribute video through the site, from short news clips from ITN and Reuters through to self-produced content, there’s considerable variety of video here.

But there’s also an issue. They’re just not using the medium to its fullest extent. Take a look at this video  with the excellent Alexis Petridis. It’s a good concept, Alexis is an engaging and eloquent presenter and the look is modern, metropolitan and recognisably “Guardian”.

But there’s just no reason for this to be a video – where are the must see-images, or must-hear sounds? This is radio with pictures. Or a column read aloud. And this mistake is repeated time and again around the site. They’re just not using video to story-tell effectively. I know with music reviews you can argue there are rights issues. But if you want to be the biggest website in the world and you want to do music reviews, man up and pay the MCPS.

3. Sky News

Storytelling using video isn’t something you would expect Sky News to struggle with. This is their bread and butter. The site is filled with video elements, live feeds, repurposed news packages, cut up two-ways, interviews, and short clips of must see video. If you want video, Sky News has it.

The problem for Sky News though is two-fold.

Firstly, the presentation is dull, conservative (with a small c) and old-fashioned. The site looks like something from the middle of the last decade, not the sort of all-singing, all-dancing digital experience you would expect of Sky. The channel’s been hugely innovative in television presentation, but that innovation doesn’t seem to be reflected in the digital experience. That’s a shame and I hope it’s something Sky quickly sorts out. Sky News needs to transform into a multiplatform operation, and that transformation needs to be quicker and slicker than is demonstrated by this site.

The second issue for Sky News is that they’re not making any concessions to the digital user experience. The content is offered up for consumption in the assumption that people will watch for the same duration and in the same way as on TV. That just isn’t the case. Like many broadcasters turned web publishers, they suffer from the problem of thinking more-is-more, rather than starting with the user and trying to deliver a news service that fits their needs.

4. The New York Times

Ah, The New York Times. Serious, dull, worthy New York Times. Don’t be expecting any fun here. That’s the cliche. And so it proves. This is the high-fibre version of online video. Serious subjects treated seriously.

But it’s done well. Really well. Take this video  – beautifully produced, well told. Money has been spent here and you can see it in the coverage. This is good video storytelling and story selection, mixed with decent budgets and worthy intent. Yes, this could all be a bit more dramatic; yes, it could display a little more wit and attitude. But if you’re staying on brand with the New York Times – this works.

And speaking of cliches, here’s a video where an American cooks a hamburger.

5. Vice News

To the other end of the spectrum and Vice – the wannabe MTV of digital and broadcast news. The brand is testosterone filled and in-your face. The words “woah dude” never far from any presenter’s lips.

But there’s some good reporting here – take this one from Ukraine – or this one on a far-right protest in Austria. Well chosen images, good interviews and insight. There’s no reason why any of the broadsheets or broadcasters should turn their noses up at this.

You might argue that there’s little breadth to the coverage – the story selection is all broadly similar. But this is absolutely on brand for the core Vice audience. The durations of some of the pieces are also surprising – there’s a lot of very long content on the site. Presumably this is repurposed TV content being used elsewhere in the rapidly expanding VIce empire – but are lots of  people really watching 45 minute docs on YouTube? Maybe, provided the storytelling is good enough.

It’s a bit of a cliche to suggest that digital-native publishers are doing online content with more verve and style than legacy media. But there’s no doubt that’s what’s happening here. Vice’s content has lessons for everyone, even if no-one should be aping their exact output. Seven years after I started doing web films for The Times, I’d say there are still big lessons to learn for newspapers and broadcasters when it comes to making engaging, well-made and well told stories for digital viewers.

Can BBC World be digital first?

I’ve been taking a look at Sir Howard Stringer’s fascinating report looking at the future of the BBC’s world news operations.

Commissioned by new Director of News James Harding, it takes a look at how to achieve the new Director General Lord Hall’s vision of a 500 million global audience for BBC products by 2022. And it was written by the man who may well be the new chairman of the BBC Trust.

So, this isn’t just hot-air. Both Stringer and the BBC say this isn’t a blueprint for the future. They’re being disingenuous. It is exactly that.

What’s the plan then? Well, it’s simultaneously radical and conservative; strategic and reactive; bold and yet curiously cautious.

Let’s take the big one first:

Mobile and social first. For a pure-play digital news organisation this would be a no-brainer. The BBC already says its website has more mobile users than those using traditional PCs. By 2022, one would expect this to be by far the most dominant method of accessing digital news.

But it’s hard to under-estimate what a large change in mindset and culture this will require of the BBC, for World Service radio, World TV and the digital news operation. What will it mean for newsgathering and output? The website’s a powerful player in BBC News these days, but even with Harding’s emphasis on digital, it’s still not the primary driver of output. Forget meaningless calls to action, such as the nonsensical claim that more people follow @BBCBreaking than watch an edition of the 10 o’clock news (they do, but who are they, where are they, what are they and how do they interact with BBC services?), when it comes to driving newsgathering and the daily output it’s still the big beasts of output that matter most. The TV news bulletins, Radio 4 news programmes, World Service news.

To break down that powerbase and to move towards an always on-air approach to digital news will be a huge strategic, cultural, and managerial change. Reworking the digital output so that it’s targeted at global mobile users is an editorial as well as a technical challenge. And it’s a laudable ambition that signals an appetite for the future which should be welcomed.

Lots of the coverage of the review has focussed on Sir Howard’s reflection that the BBC doesn’t punch its weight when it comes to social sharing of news. He points to Buzzfeed as one of the new kids on the block with global traffic that’s similar to the BBC’s once you exclude the UK (which is a bit of an odd thing to do given that’s the home market). This has prompted much horrified and rather literal comment. As if the BBC’s content is now going to solely be made up of lists such as this absolute corker or GIFs of cats that look like Hitler.

But it is worth reflecting on whether there are things that can be learnt from the mechanisms and brands of social news. Why can’t Newsbeat be a global youth news brand? Is the news coverage of the website too strait-laced, where the programmes themselves have personality. Where, for example, is the website version of Newsnight or PM – not just as a brand extension but in style and tone for digital natives? Channel 4 News has made great strides in reflecting it’s broadcast brand online, why haven’t BBC news programmes?

These, it seems, to me are perfectly sensible questions to ask. There’s no dumbing down here. But for all those newspaper editors watching with crossed fingers, hoping that the BBC’s getting out of straight news reporting…. don’t hold your breath. It seems to me this is tinkering at the margins of the core product not reinventing it.

And after the big bombshell it’s back to business as usual. Earn more money from commercial ventures, tick; grow the big language services and get rid of the small ones, tick; partner with local providers, tick. All long-standing BBC ambitions that rarely seem to have much impact. Yes, Top Gear makes a lot of money, as do other programmes, but there’s been less success with other commercial proposals – cf Lonely Planet. Because, in the end, the BBC is not a commercial organisation – it doesn’t have the profit motive embedded in its DNA.

There’s some other mildly interesting thoughts, a multi-genre channel for Africa akin to BBC America and a new Korean language service. Again these are extensions of current strategy, rather than radical new ideas.

And then there’s the completely pointless and bonkers idea: the international op-ed forum. Because the BBC really needs to be republishing controversial opinion pieces like a hole in the head. Firstly, this is hardly an under-served market – everyone from The Guardian, to the New York Times, to Al Jazeera does it. And secondly what possible benefit does it bring to the BBC? This feels like a concession to the fact that senior journalists like leader and opinion columns and conferences, but the BBC should leave it well alone.

But all of this doesn’t even begin to tackle the big challenge for World News on radio, television and online. It needs to justify itself to the licence fee payer. At a time when the licence fee is coming up for renegotiation and domestic viewers are seeing services close, can the BBC really justify an increase in spending on services that don’t have a sound commercial under-pinning?

It seems to me that’s the big issue that Sir Howard’s report is missing. Why should the licence fee payer support a new Korean news service when the BBC is closing its youth TV channel? The costs may not be comparable, but without a solid argument as to why this is the right strategy, the BBC is setting itself up for a confrontation with the people it relies on most.

And if you want to see Buzzfeed school the BBC in how to cover a BBC story in Buzzfeed style – take a look at this.

 

Google and the Right to be Forgotten

Normally when I post something on Twitter it doesn’t have very much impact. I have a few hundred followers and occasionally one will retweet me or reply to something I’ve said.

But last night I found dozens of people had retweeted or favourited a tweet I posted a few days back:

I was slightly surprised, until I spotted it had been retweeted by the great Graham Linehan, writer of Father Ted, The IT Crowd and more.

The result was I felt obliged to engage with some of the replies about “The Right to be Forgotten” – a throw-away comment had forced me to think a bit more about the ruling from the European Court of Justice.

Effectively the ruling is based on this premise:

Do I have the right to control data relating to me on the internet?

Yes, says the court. It’s not a ruling without caveats but essentially it states an individual should have control of the way information appears about them online.

The law which underpins this case was passed back in 2012. There’s a good write up of it here from the Stanford Law review. Quoting Google’s chief Counsel, the author argues, there are three real world examples that one might draw on to understand the implications of the law – each progressively more dangerous to freedom of speech.

1. If I post something online, do I have the right to take it down?

2. If someone republishes the thing I posted online, do I still have the right to have it taken down?

3. If someone posts something about me online, do I have the right to take that down?

For most people, I suspect, the first example would be uncontentious, the second more difficult but still arguable. The third is the most controversial and it’s this argument that the case of Mario Costeja Gonzalez relates to. He was unhappy that a Google search returned a link to a bankruptcy case involving him in the 1990s. He successfully argued that he had the right to be forgotten – that this information was no longer relevant. He says he has settled the case and the fact there was such a case two decades ago is of no relevance to people doing business with him today. The fact that it was published in a newspaper, that it was accurate and truthful didn’t matter to the court.

It’s this element of the case that has taken many commentators by surprise. The court has ruled that truthful, accurate information published about a person can effectively be removed from the public domain without recourse to legal action.

There’s two big caveats here – firstly the court said that information linked to people of public interest would be exempt. For example, Google could refuse to take down a link to a political figure which revealed a past conviction for a hate crime. Such a case would clearly have a public interest in remaining available to users.

The other big caveat is where information is being used “solely for journalistic purposes or the purpose of artistic or literary expression.” 

The court has recognised that there is a clash here between the right to privacy and the right to free expression. But it appears that the court is suggesting  a two tier system of publishing. A person might be able to request the removal of a link on Google to a news story about them, if they were able to make the case that it was no longer relevant. But that person would not then automatically be able to force the original publisher to remove the content from their site. Effectively creating a two tier search system – can’t find any information about someone on Google, you’d better double-check on a newspaper’s own website too.

It’s also unclear what happens if the newspaper is using Google site search as the search engine for their own website. Although if I was a publisher I would be playing safe at this point and moving to a white label search tool.

This system seems ripe for abuse, not least because it’s far from clear what the legal checks and balances should be.

Google will now have to create some kind of tool allowing people to flag content for removal. They will then make a decision on whether to remove the content. That raises a number of important questions. Who is making that decision and what is the process? If I own the content, how do I appeal against this decision? What incentive is there for Google to ever decide to continue with publication and fight the case in the courts? Who bears the costs of any legal case?

These processes are going to be tested in the coming months and years. There have already been requests for information to be removed. According to The Guardian:

A former UK politician now seeking election again wishes information about their behaviour while in office to be removed. A man convicted of possessing child abuse images has demanded links to pages about his conviction are removed, and a doctor has said that negative reviews from patients should not be searchable.

A couple of final thoughts here.

Firstly, this is yet another court ruling which assumes that Google is not an information blind generator of links but a publisher which should have editorial mechanisms in place to police the links it creates. That can’t help but have implications for both Google and future tech businesses. A platform, not a publisher is no longer any kind of defence. In effect, Google is being asked to act as a curator for the web rather than just be a navigation tool for it.

Finally, the court seems to be calling for a technical solution to a human problem, but how hard would it be to envisage technology circumventing this ruling? Could a freedom of expression campaigner create a bot which detects when a link is deleted from Google and republishes on a new URL, forever staying one step ahead of the deletion requests? This could easily end up as the digital equivalent of Whack-a-Mole.

Well, this turned out to be a longer post that I intended. If you’ve got this far, well done. Have a John Oliver video on the right to be forgotten as your well deserved reward – and the flowers were forget-me-nots… see what I did there….

 

 

Why Al Jazeera English needs to think again about digital news

The Guardian has published an interesting interview with Al Anstey, Managing Director of Al Jazeera English.

It’s a wide-ranging piece, covering everything from the disgusting behaviour of the Egyptian government in arresting Al Jazeera journalists on trumped up terrorism charges through to the network’s expansion plans.

I’ve worked with Al at ITN and Al Jazeera. There’s no question in my mind that he’s one of the sharpest people in TV news. Highly intelligent and thoughtful about the role of international TV news, he’s robust in defending Al Jazeera’s reporting and has a comprehensive vision for its development.

Which is why I found this quote so disappointing:

“We already have the highest quality content gathered by a fantastically diverse team around the world. If you break up the constituent parts that go into a two-minute television package, what you have that hits the cutting room floor is gold dust,” he says. That “gold dust” – longer interviews, more informal chats with the correspondent, explainers – can be “tailored to different platforms and provide a much richer resource depending on which platform you are looking at”, adds Anstey. “It’s about changing the mindset.”

The idea of digital news as DVD box-set extras is very old-fashioned. It’s the same kind of thinking that saw TV companies early attempts at digital include behind the scenes video-diaries or cross-promoted longer versions of broadcast interviews.

The reason it’s so disappointing is that it starts from the wrong premise. Rather than looking at what the audience wants and needs from a news service, it starts from the point of view of “we have this unused stuff, let’s shove that up online”. It’s the antithesis of providing a user-focused news service.

Put crudely, journalists have made editorial decisions about cutting material to emphasise the key lines – if they thought there was value in using the stuff on the cutting room floor, they’d have already used it. Why would anyone think that time poor digital users want to sit through the extended cut?

But change is needed.

Al Jazeera English’s website needs over-hauling. The navigation is based on inheritance from the TV channel’s structure and its reporting looks divergent from the core news operation. It also needs to continue to break new ground using digital media to report from around the world and to engage with an increasingly digitally literate global audience.

I’d also like to see put more focus on its eye-witness reporting, rather than the less interesting opinion pieces which, for me, sit oddly with the channel’s desire to provide impartial coverage of complex situations.

I applaud Al’s desire to bring greater convergence between the digital and broadcast sides of his operation, but I hope he will bring change that will see more digital innovation based on satisfying audience needs rather than on making more of costly newsgathering at the expense of user experience.

And just as I was thinking about this blog, I spotted this piece from Buzzfeed on innovative short-form video. It may work, it may not – but it seems to me to be a sophisticated attempt to engage with a tough to reach audience.