The end of the line

So in a couple of days this whole assignment will be over. I thought it would be a good idea to reflect on how it’s gone and what conclusions, if any, I’ve come to.

First of all, I wont lie, it has been tough to keep a blog going and to keep coming up with ideas whilst doing so much other stuff. But we’ve managed it.

I think we addressed the question in a well-balanced, structured way. We outlined what we thought the question meant and all the implications of the words. Then moved on to what the challenges were for each section.

Hopefully our presentation was the point that we reached a conclusion.  We decided that UGC is here to stay and that might cause a challenge to quality, but certainly not diversity. However, we think that if the BBC keeps its filter systems and ‘quality’ firmly at the heart of its programming, then they can maintain quality and diversity in the digital age.

I think if we’d have had more time, we could have gone into PSB in other countries but then I think our coverage of all would have been thin. I think we’ve delved really deep into the debate with the BBC. Our posts have generated discussion and disagreement, and hopefully made people think a little more about the topic.

I’ve enjoyed reading other people’s blogs too. Some posts were particularly interesting and I think press freedom and impartiality were rather difficult topics to write about and explore.

All in all, I think a good job has been done by all. Many of the topics, including ours, were difficult to come to conclusions about….but I think in the process of trying to… we learnt a lot.

The Future of the BBC?

The video we used in our presentation…

Will the demand for quick, accessible news reduce broadcasts to twitter correspondents and ‘soft’ living room presenting?

We spoke to Tim Hubbard…he has faith in the BBC filtering process… believing the digital will only enhance output.

How’d it go?

So we’ve done our presentation….

we were in time….

everything worked.

So I guess that’s good!

Questions were good and I think we answered in a well rounded and info- heavy way… no debate, but I’m not sure a debate would have been possible on this topic.

Personally, I felt like I spoke a little fast… because we had so much to get through…but that’s no excuse really.

I hope people enjoyed it anyway and had a little something to think about…

Question Time Moves To Glasgow

Cuts across the board have apparently prompted the move of Question Time to Scotland. Now this to me seems a little odd given all the work they must have to do at Westminster.

Is this an aim for diversity? Is it the rules gone a little mad? Or, is this a good move?

Article in the Guardian on Question Time.

Question Time is produced by an outside company but it’s staff report to the BBC.

The History of Social Media

BBC ran a radio series on social media….where it came from and where it’s going….and here it is…..

BCC Radio 4: The Secret History of Social Networking

Get the lowdown on what the BBC thinks of this form of digital media…

User Generated Content on TV

This is something we see on TV that screams of the digital impact on the medium. Smartphones mean anybody can capture an image, a bit of footage, some sound and send it to a news outlet.

Citizen journalists

The everyday folk who see something newsworthy and capture it before the professionals even know it’s happened. Great really! But also dangerous. UGC has sped up news. Where before TV outlets had to get someone on the ground, to a far away, unwatched corner, now there are potential eyes everywhere. Pictures in a moment. Sometimes they make the news.

The media coverage 7/7 bombings for example, was dominated by mobile phone video in the underground and the most famous image from that day was taken on someone’s phone.

In this case UGC allowed the viewer to be in the thick of the action. A place where journalist wouldn’t, couldn’t, have gone. So yes, it adds to the quality and the diversity of output.

It’s not that simple though.

What about some images that people filmed? Distress, the dead, people wounded on the side of the road. Citizen journalists generally don’t know the rules. They don’t know where the line of decency lies and how fine a line it is. They might not be aware of the broader implications of the event, what lies beyond the frame of the film. They might seek out the trouble and put themselves at risk getting good pictures.

If this is then broadcast what does that do to the quality of output?

If a journalist, who hasn’t actually witnessed these events, stands beside these pictures and reports, how trustworthy is that?

Do they lose credibility or are they admired for keeping up with the 24/7 rolling news demands?

The BBC, acknowledges that UGC contributes to the diversity of their output, but realizes that quality is at stake. A few times they have chosen to give up great pictures because of the way they were gained, risking look like they lag behind the likes of Sky. But, crucially, attempting to retain quality.

Their website COJO explains:

CoJo site

 

What are the digital challenges that TV faces?

In the days of yonder TV news was something handed down to viewers. Journalists were revered for their knowledge, their believability…they were there in the thick of the action and you trusted them to be telling you the truth.. .because they’d been there.

As the video illustrates…it took time. Time to fly film in from all around the world…look through it and make their reports…. Although, this was fast enough then, it has always been a race against time.

Nowadays in the age of 24hr news and non-stop updates that race is so much faster. In this world of immediacy and instant culture, the newsreader is no longer handing down news when it so pleases, but engaging in a constant, never-ending conversation about what’s happening everywhere. Now.

Interactive audiences have added to this, making the newsreader on our level. The audience doesn’t want to be imparted with wisdom. They want to be involved. They want a conversation. They want debate. They want to be able to challenge the news they’ve been given, or add to it, or suggest further things people might be interested in.

With TV this level of interaction has always been a little harder. You wont see Fiona Bruce taking call-ins on air, or Huw Edwards answering a viewers question. However, it doesn’t mean that digitization hasn’t changed TV. Email makes it easy for viewers to contact presenters or any journalist they know the name of and Twitter means the previously out-of-reach can engage in conversation with the newly empowered viewer.

Diversity

All of this must add greatly to the diversity of output… Contributing thought and conversation from people all over, must enhance and broaden perceptions.

But what about Quality? What does all this User Generated Content and debate do to the quality of output?

Quality is something else. Who is to say if these contributions are unbiased, not motivated by malice or revenge and that they haven’t come from the result of viewers putting themselves in harms way?

 

Quality…

Something to think about…

Do tweets have high quality? Are they well thought out? Does the length make them more accessible, of more use… and so of more quality?

How about comments on the end of say a BBC article…does that average Joe demean the quality of the original if he offers up a differing view, or enhance it by adding a new angle? What if he doesn’t know anything? Does he undermine the knowledge of the journalist? Do we care what the general public have to say…why? Does it have quality?

Jon Snow discusses how the trust in journalist is sometimes undermined by digital advances…. leading to mistrust and, I would argue, a lack of quality. Although he’s not talking about PSB, I think it’s still relevant:

Chapter 4: http://fora.tv/2009/09/04/Jon_Snow_on_New_Media#fullprogram

Quality. What defines the quality of news and current affairs?

At first this seems a fairly easy question to answer…we all know quality when we see it don’t we? It’s how good something is. But what is good? My brother happens to think Hollyoaks is good…I don’t, does that make me wrong?

But who can really say what’s good and bad…who has the right to make that call…the expertise and knowledge to be able to assess all the factors, impartially and decide what is good and therefore has quality?

Elusive

No one. Not even the director general of the BBC sat down on his own and defined what quality was before he wrote his speech about putting it first: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/speeches/stories/thompson_ft.shtml

He will have considered what the masses view as quality. Aggregated the opinions and tastes of everyone from the Queen to a homeless man… taken into account all the diverse parts of his audience and found quality to lie with those somewhere in the middle….because there’s more of them…and general consensus on quality is an integral part of the whole concept.

Quality journalism

In terms of journalism where does this leave us? Well, with Public Service Broadcasting the public pay, so the public should receive what they generally regard as quality output. They trust choices to be made that do put quality first.

Especially from PSB, people expect more truth, depth, authority, impartiality and knowledge from their journalists, thus, more quality. But these things take time. Perhaps that is the definition of quality…things that take time, care, real thought and consideration? I like that.

A matter of trust

But how can journalists produce quality work, pieces that take time and need deep analysis and research to be understood, in the days of 24hr news? When they must constantly tweet, update a website, load a photo, write a blog, where do they find time to become knowledgeable, to check they know all they can and produce something of quality?

The BBC is certainly trying to figure this out: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/2010/08/bbc-online—putting-quality-f.shtml

Twitter

So we are now up and running with a twitter account…

Add us if you fancy joining the debate: @digi_challenge

More posts to come…