Au Revoir

Like my colleagues, I feel we’ve covered certain valid aspects of Public Service Broadcasting but like many of the opinions on here indicate, it’s a vast area to look in to. Add the factor of impartiality in the digital age (which was our main focus) there are more guesses involved than factual evidence of which way we’re headed.

Social media has indeed taken precedence over our lives when it comes to information, which makes it absolutely imperative for the BBC to maintain their strong filtration channels and use them ever more than previously.

With regards to the importance of Twitter and it’s influence over the younger generation, I was divided untill I saw the example used below by my colleague, featuring tweets from Channel 4′s Jon Snow. Having read some of them, the spelling errors and grammatical errors as a result of trying to cram everything in to 140 characters worries me.

Not just because I personally cannot stand cryptic writing and “txtng lng” but common sense tells you that there will be many of the younger members of Jon Snow’s following, whose spelling and grammatical abilities would be subconsciously affected by reading what one of British journalism’s stalwarts writes on his feed.

I don’t doubt his abilities for a second but the point is, whatever the reasons are for the misspellings and confusing grammar, they still went on the feed because there isn’t a filter to correct them. That is where the filtering of the BBC is not just imperative but a necessity as well.

Not just for impartiality but to maintain the high standards and high regard for public service broadcasting in the public’s eyes.

Having criticised Jon Snow to some extent, I feel it’s only fair I open the doors of my tweets to you in case you find any errors in my work. Do drop me a line if you do. It’s only fair and impartial.

Thanks for joining us here on the blog, it’s been a privilege. Been an absolute pleasure working with my colleagues Jessica Dowse, Lucy Bickerton, and James Horrell. Hope to see you soon.

All good things come to an end… (even this blog)

As we near the end of this blogging experience its time to sum everything up, wrap it up in a parcel and put it to bed.

However before we do I want to leave you with a rather funny set of blooper reels. Yes, we have been discussing how quality and diversity of public service broadcasting will be maintained in the digital age. We expect news at our fingertips 24 hours a day, so this said, mistakes are bound to occur – and they do… take a look at these spectacular, laugh out loud BBC bloopers -

The future of PSB in Europe

Unfortunately, I feel as if we have slightly neglected looking at public service broadcasting in other countries around Europe and the world. Some details may have been mentioned in passing, but we have not gone into too much detail about other countries that use PSB.

Here is an article from 2005 that gives an outline of the future of PSB in European countries:

The Future of Public Service Broadcasting in Europe and the Commonwealth

It may be slightly dated in terms of its publication, but nevertheless provides an important overview of what was planned for PSB in Europe over the last 6 years.

Preserving Impartiality

The argument was really about whether impartiality as a virtue could survive the huge influx of technology which has constantly been paving open the way for a double ended conversation.

Doubts have been raised over whether this raises the chances of biased views and opinions and appearing on news websites, which have always worked towards maintaining a balanced view. But surely that itself preserves impartiality in the bigger picture doesn’t it?

It’s about not presenting just one view which is straight down the middle but also housing the various ones existing on either sides of the equilibrium – from extreme ends to the more liberal centre.

Whether it’s television, online, radio, it still ends up representing everyone’s views equally.

Without Bias. Surely if it houses every kind of opinion under the sun. Obviously there are comment filters but they are generally there to prevent abusive and intentionally offensive points of view. People can still have extreme views without malice. Then surely, that is only going to contribute to further preserving impartiality in the digital age.

User generated content: love it, or hate it?

In the world of journalism and the media there seems to be an increasing fear – at least amongst trainee journalists like me and my colleagues – that user generated content (UGC) is going to begin to weigh in more and more on the industry and take away part of the difficult trade that we are trying to perfect.

Personally, I originally only saw the bad side of this – news organisations able to get pictures and stories without the use of a journalist. Now, this seems a slightly far-fetched assumption. Having talked to Tim Hubbard from BBC Radio Cornwall and from looking deeper into the prospect and the future of user-generated content it seems an increasingly promising aspect of the media industry. The BBC , for example, have a very select filtration process in which they use only the best pictures they receive, as well as double or even triple checking stories before they are published.

UGC is unlikely to ever take away a journalist’s job, more likely it will only serve to aid them. This content can provide pictures and stories which might not otherwise have been found. In my eyes UGC is more a source or contact for news that is occasionally used if the pictures are amazing or unavailable otherwise.

Take a look at these videos from BBC employees to see what they think and then make up your mind:

Video shot on a camera phone by Rory Cellan-Jones and an interview with Matthew Eltringham, Head of User Generated Content at the BBC:

Matthew Eltringham, discusses UGC and social media in news:

How reporting on “Breaking News” has changed in the digital age.

At 08:50 on the morning of the 7th July 2005; 3 bombs exploded on the London Underground within 50 seconds of each other.

On that day the BBC 10 O’clock news led with two mobile phone video clips sent in by the public. The main picture on the BBC news online service was taken by a passer-by. The age of citizen journalism was established.

More than 300 emails containing an average of 3 images and about 30 video clips were sent to the yourpics@bbc.co.uk address. The iconic picture of the devastated bus at Tavistock Square was sent to the BBC within 45 minutes of the bombing and was used on the front pages of the Guardian and the Daily Mail the following day. Some mobile phone video footage was on air just 20 minutes after being received by rolling news channels.

As this tragedy happened within minutes, footage and experiences, of the immediate event, from passers-by and people involved in the attack were far more relevant, than that by reporters and told the story more accurately.

Immediate

For us the worried citizen sitting at home as this news story unravelled – we were able to keep fully up to date with rolling news being broadcasted on TV and on the online news pages.

However the BBC on that day were slow to respond. In the fear of reporting false accusations they were one of the last broadcasters to report that the incident was in fact a bomb. They were running with the story that there had been a power surge disruption within the city.

This slow response was because the BBC had only just published it’s new editorial guidelines, which stated, ”accuracy is more important than speed.”

Roger Mosey, head of BBC television news, said that the BBC would only “put on screen what we know is right – reports from our own correspondents, the official emergency service figures and information from members of the public that we’ve checked out”.

However Nick Pollard, head of Sky news, said that viewers have come to expect a more complete picture of what is going throughout the day when breaking news occurs. He says: ”We take very seriously our reputation as the place to turn to when there’s big breaking news. It’s what we’re there for. We tell viewers what we can see, what we know and what we don’t know.”

Number crunching

As many scrambled to find out the latest information, the BBC, Sky News and the Guardian websites reported a large increase in traffic. News websites accounted for 5.6% of all online traffic on 7/7/2005, up nearly 50% on the previous day.

As more and more are turning to the internet for their news fix…it becomes increasingly important that the sources are telling us everything we need to know about the event. In my opinion the BBC were too cautious on that day. Sure, the BBC are a source of trust and reliability  - but when news is breaking within seconds, we too want to be kept informed at the same speed.

The BBC have now admitted that they have rewritten the policy and guidelines since the 7/7 attack.

Head of Sky’s news service, John Ryley, has said:  ”News does not usually break cleanly. Big stories emerge in dribs and drabs, bits of information from many sources. Often conflicting and confusing … when a big story breaks we report new information, clearly attributed to its source, even if things turn out differently. It was precisely that policy that the BBC decided to adopt after the London bombings.”

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?