BLOG V JOURNOS

This has been an ongoing issue since the blogosphere appeared - does traditional media represent true journalism?

With the Times going behind a paywall, what function does a paper hold in the modern world?

WIth 24-7 news, why would someone pay to look at the news section of the Times when an app on their phone or a quick trip to one of the numerous newssites would give someone an overview of the world?

So what is the print media's function?

What is the model to counteract falling readerships and sales?

For newspapers, there is going to have to be a shift into views, comments and special features which are unique to the identity of the paper.

Also what coverage does a newspaper have?

The illustration below is based on a study by journalism.org which looked at the US stream and what is driving blogs, newspapers and twitterers.



By its very nature, the web can offer a broader, disparate number of views than traditional print. The complaint that the blog is not true journalism ignores the very origins of newspapers ie. the pamphleteers.

Blogs and tweets are the modern equivalent - people pushing their opinion onto the public.

If the pay-model for traditional media fails then we could see media falling into a world of citizen-journalism, one powered by personal opinion rather than driven by commercial, editorial, owner-needs.

A world where every person is plugged into their own network of information and opinion, not relying on pravda, newsinternational etc for news and views. A network where the person is relied on to filter through the rubbish.

Could it work? Or would a million voices drown out the one screaming "fire"?

Pic ht: flowtown

ON A LIGHTER NOTE...

My daughter's been published at the grand old age of five!

It was a fund-raiser book for her school but I thought you'd like to read what she wrote.

G ruffalo's child was feeling brave
R un mouse the child is coming
U h ha! Trap the child
F rightened of course
F ighting of course
A h roasted mouse
L ucky us
O f course

I blame the parents ;)

FIVE YEARS ON

Do you remember where you were on 7/72005?

I was on a freelance contract at Moorgate and thanks to the incompetence of the Tube I was both put at risk and saved from risk at the same time.

The Northern Line was down due to a broken train - which was why that bomb went off on the bus - so I jumped on the District Line thinking I'd change at Aldgate East.

My train was being cancelled at Tower so I jumped off at Mansion House and walked up to Moorgate - I would have been at Aldgate East at the time the bomb went off.

Got into work to find hardly anyone in, everyone caught up in what we thought was the usual chaos from London Transport.

As the clock ticked round and reports began streaming in on the wires about explosions, a colleague turned round and said: "That is no accident."

When I had got in, I'd heard of the "exchange" explosion, so phoned my wife to say I was OK - which was lucky as the mobile network was shut down shortly afterwards so she could tell anyone who phoned that I was OK.

It was extremely surreal in the office, no work was done as people just stared at the images on the TV.

More surreal was a line manager who wanted a meeting at 4pm. I pointed out that maybe we should have the meeting the next day as people would have to get home - to which she replied: "So? I have to get home as well."

Sanity prevailed and the office was shut at 4.

The walk over to Waterloo was amusing in its way. People who have never seen Cheapside, Blackfriars or Fleet Street from street level, or only from through a cab, looked lost, wandering around trying to pick up the last available A-Z from the few shops still open.



After the bombing, our fine tradition of liberty and freedom (what you think the Americans invented it? They were British y'know) took a pasting with more and more obscene "anti-terrorist" laws being enacted.

On today, five years since the bombings, I would hope this government will finally live up to the true traditions of both Tories and Liberals, and remove these pernacious laws permanantly from the statute books.

People died and were maimed in the attack because of our liberal traditions, not so the British people could be considered potential criminals by their own State.

MORE FROM THE AGE OF AUSTERITY

The government has revealed that it spent nearly £100,000 on apps for mobile phones.

Seriously, £100,000 on four apps.

Here they are

* NHS Drinks Tracker £10,000
* NHS Quit Smoking £10,000
* Jobcentre Plus £32,775
* DVLA Masterclass £40,000

According to the Beeb, apparently these apps don't work with the iPhone 4.

Amusingly the Home Office turned down the FoI request on grounds of national security. What sort of apps does it have? An i-Spy app???

53,000 people apparently downloaded the Jobcentre Plus app, though as has been pointed out - how can people be on benefits if they can afford an iPhone?

Jeez, the expense and incompetence of departments - and they wonder why the private sector thinks it's about time the Civil Service is exposed to private practice?

Oh and lets remember that there is to be a review of all 820 government websites. 820?!?! The government spent£94m on website development and running costs and £32m on web staff in 2009 - 2010.

SPINNING AROUND

There has been a lot of coverage over the latest Special Advisers list from the government.

The interesting thing is that, yes numbers have gone down, but the thing is - why does a government need that many advisers? What do they all do? Most are comms experts but I worked in organisations that had one or two PR people, not 18.

Also, how does less people cost more? Then again I suspect there has been some dodgy accountancy in the past considering how stable the figure was previously.

In this age of austerity, surely the numbers could have been cut even further.

Anyway, for your enjoyment here's the breakdown from 2003 to 2010 of No. 10 SPaDs and SPaDs in total:

David Cameron
2010 -
Number of No10 SPaDs: 18
Total Number of SPaDs: 61
Total Cost: £6.8m
Hansard: 10 Jun 2010 : Column 34WS


Gordon Brown

2008-2009
Number of No10 SPaDs: 25
Total Number of SPaDs: 69
Total Cost: £5.9m
Hansard: 16 July 2009 : Column 74WS


2007-2008
Number of No10 SPaDs: 23
Total number of SPaDs: 73
Total Cost: £5.9m
Hansard: 22 July 2008 : Column 100WS

2006-2008
Number of No10 SPaDs: 18
Total number of SPaDs: 68
Total Cost: £5.9m
Hansard: 22 Nov 2007 : Column 149WS

Tony Blair
2005-2006
Number of No10 SPaDs: 22
Total number of SPaDs: 74
Total Cost: £5.9m
Hansard: 24 July 2006 : Column 90WS

2004-2005
Number of No10 SPaDs: 20
Total number of SPaDs: 68
Total Cost: £5.5m
Hansard: 21 Jul 2005 : Column 159WS

2003-2004
Number of No10 SPaDs: 26
Total number of SPaDs: 76
Total Cost: £5.3m
Hansard: 22 Jul 2004 : Column WS41