Too much son, not enough Illumiere

Something interesting has happened in the BBC blogosphere.

A fixture has gone on hols (like MPs, many in the state broadcaster seem to get the same as my kids), and the substitute is scoring well.

It has been noticed.

However, I have been minded to offer a cautionary comment to those who see her contribution as an improvement, and one to be retained.

However.... for some reason (I surmise below), the number of posts is currently significantly down.

This may be a problem. The market rate talents of the boxtickocracies need measures to justify their worth, and hence, regardless of the value of meeting the theoretical main remit (quality journalism) one tends to find that controversy pays better and hence gets hired and protected. Think Polly T in the Grauniad (at the BBC, on occasion). Or, for 'balance', the new Telegraph commentariat regime, where some new bloggers boast of being hired just to provoke. Any old nonsense will do as long as you can crank up a 500+ thread, even if it is folk going 'Huh?'.. or worse.

As many have already mentioned, I am settling in to savour more factual, objective reporting, with links and without narratives being enhanced or events being interpreted thanks to unique access and bestowed briefings resulting in little more than unsubstantiated gossip and spin.

Which may well mean I don't need to comment as the topic is served. Executives please take note. Numbers don't always mean quality. Noise need not accompany light for full sensory illumination.

Addendum

The author has penned another blog - Open primaries for all? - and I was struck by her use of 'left-wing' to describe a publication. I have found this happens rarely, and was moved to comment:

As, with many 'guest' commentators invited in at the drop of a producer's iPhone, it is a rare instance where I have seen a publication that is not 'right wing' or 'conservative' labelled as anything at all, I was wondering if there was, anywhere, an accepted (hah!), objective list/chart/guide where the political positionings of various reference sources was listed. I am not a big 'wing/ist/zi' designation fan.

If not, and to any degree of standardisation, I am in a variety of minds as to whether these appellations should be used. But for once I don't err on shades of grey. I think it should be one or t'other. The 'all' option is, inevitably, open to subjectivity. While 'nothing' remains, in the care of the reader's own eyes and independent thought, still mostly objective.

I am erring on the latter. That said, the provenance of a source is still often very pertinent to the take it/they provide, and of course there are also the numbers and extremity of views held that remain the gift of those who book individuals or quote stories.

Tricky. But as I suspect my preference will be in the minority, and as 'all' will... should be revealed, it can be refreshing to see the possible context of a quoted source and why some who use them may prefer that environment. So long as it is applied equally from all directions.

One also looks forward to certain 'research', by various 'think tanks', etc being framed by affiliations that might colour (blue, red, green...) their findings, being too often merely a means to introduce a spurious degree of separation from what are too often partisan opinions. And without the time or means to check more deeply, if taken at face value for some in the audience, this can stray into misrepresentation.

Biter Bit

Journalists don't seem as able to take it as they like to dish it out.

I actually value this lady's missives usually, but then there is this:

Will blog commenters eventually leave journalists fragile husks of insecurity, sobbing in the corner?

What on earth did she expect, on a blog, by way of reply?

If commenters are complaining about lazy journalism, journalists have an equal bone to pick with lazy commenting.

Thing is, who owes who what?

I’m all for open commenting on blogs, but I every now and then I imagine a halcyon world where a bit of judicial editing leaves us with only the comments that are worth reading - negative or not.

Well, there is always that magical moderator’s delete facility, used every now and then for perhaps less than professional reasons, in the spirit of some speech being freer than others.

It would certainly save us all a lot of time currently spent scrolling through endless “First!” comments.

Forewarned, I will hence refrain from attempting to note the relative location of this comment in the current thread.*

Annoyingly, as I was penning my witty tailpiece, some other sod got in first and rather stole the thunder.

How to run a blog

I may have additional tweaks on mine, but it's hard to argue with this:

Order-order - New Here?

I still think he gets, and allows, too many ad homs and ranters to make scrolling worth much (other than to find mine at 567), plus the reply queue is a nightmare, but hey, 100k a day can't be argued with.

Objective is as objective does...er...?

Just got an email telling me that a comment I made on BBC's Andrew Neil's Political blog was 'off topic' and had been deleted.

Odd, as I didn't recall making one for a fair while, and these little moderations tend to be fairly bud-nipping in alacrity.

Anyway, on having a quick gander it seems there has been a bit of a retroactive purge, and almost all have been removed. I am guessing as a consequence, belatedly, of this...

During the MEP and council polls, in line with political parties and other UK broadcasters, the BBC will not be reporting the election campaign or offering discussion about the campaign.

I suppose 'off topic' was the best template they could throw as an excuse, if not reason as of June 4. Check 48 thur 79.

However, as with all of Aunty's 'unique' ways, there do seem some, well one, allowed to remain...

75. At 10:18am on 04 Jun

I do not believe that is why Robinsons blog got shut down early, otherwise so would this one. Robinsons blog is starting to be hi-jacked by extreme people using all kind of insults and it is putting the sensible contributor off. It certainly is me, they are changing names to attack you under another name. However they slip up by using faces or phrases they have used under other names. I notice things like that. I honestly believe people should only be allowed one user name.

If the BBC are making an effort to clean this up to make it more civilized like this one has been I am all for it.

We can have disagreements without resorting to some of the insulting remarks I have had and seen lately.

Which, I presume, is the only one deemed, uniquely, 'on'.. topic.

Heck of a way to ensure that you are the last post standing. Not sure it makes the BBC look too objective, mind.

Newsnight - Not happy here, either

Blogging off

It's really rather odd.

Two of my frequent blog visits, and even sometime posts, at rather opposing ends of the media spectrum - BBC's Newsnight (all editors) and BBC is Biased - have both recently been 'improved' in design, navigation, posting systems, etc.

And both, as far as my experience goes, have been total disasters.

Loyal followings lost, rampant trolling almost encouraged and the loss of worthwhile avenues of free speech.

The BBC I can understand, if not applaud. They really seemed to be having no fun at the hands of independent thinkers and despite the best, or worst, efforts of their moderating policy are getting hung out to dry daily.

What better way to deal with the quality posters than drowning them in trolls and various 'ists'.

BBBC is harder to understand. They exist to debate, and though the name speaks of a clear agenda (I am on record as being more concerned with sloppy reporting as much, if not more than editorial agenda) the appeal lies in having a venue for worthy debate.

Now it is a zoo, with 'Anons' up the wazzoo dictating what is going on, or simply messing it up. A pity.

At least the latter I do not have to pay for. As to Aunty, well, I can only hope we get another outlet, and a better designed one, soon, to keep her on her toes.

We're heading for a world where more honesty and facts, and less spin and 'opinion', will be key to sensible decision-making, especially at the voting booth.

The internet is a powerful weapon, but like all such, it needs to be well directed to inflict blows on those it targets, and not blow up in the face of those wielding it.

Spring Cleaning

Time to rethink the blogging.

Junkk is still well worth it, as relationships can get established that drive the site, and its missions, well.

This one... not so much. Though actually I think I will retain it as a 'release valve'.

But I have found I spend a wee bit too much time on other sites, and their value, and certainly the value to me or my causes, is hardly worth the effort of engaging.

It is a pity, as many, if not most can offer a wealth of valuable opinion and onward information, but the ratio of trolls and other negative influences make even the time invested in reading hardly worth it. As to go so far as engaging, the replies can now be less than pleasant, and almost designed to threaten or inhibit dialogue.

It was, and is, interfering with my work, and indeed mood. So time to haul back.

I doubt my absence will be noted, and hence missed. Too many too invested in pushing their prejudices I fear.

But maybe a chance for me to get back to what's a bit more urgent , and important in these crunchier times. I just wonder if that doesn't rather play into the hands of those who would prefer the more moderate aspects of the Internet didn't prove quiet so effective at finding things out, being told stuff and interacting. Making a venue an unpleasant place to be is a very good way of driving away custom, no matter how good it is intended to be.

Ah well.

Moderation views

This comment on a thread about blogs, and moderation caught my eye...

"Incidentally, if you are a regular at Guido's establishment, I'm surprised you find the tone here too robust for your taste! "

I gave up reading the comments ;o)


Thir... er.. fourthed!

I still check the site as the introductory topics are still often well worth noting and can indeed be worthy 'scoops'.

The comments are however not worth a second's attention (I think the owner is recognising this as I recall a year end post about policing more effectively. Wise, as he is in danger of losing more moderate readers, and certainly potentially valuable contributors by the % of silly dross).

It's the curse of the moderator to walk the line between freedom of speech and policing time-wasters, wafflers, trolls and professional saboteurs 'fairly'.

What I value about this site to date is the majority of comments are often well considered (if a bit ripe and hence for me detracting from their potency, IMHO) and, crucially, based around well-support fact, with some great onward links. If I had a critique, it would be to lump those who do have decent views in 'groups' too easily just for having other views. 'Is see the beeboids are out', 'are you an antisemite?', etc. Ad hominems that weaken any other aspect, no matter how valuable, severely, at least when I read them. And, possibly why genuine debaters from other viewpoints may no linger as long as one might hope to see if the power of argument of opposing sides can be resolved. It takes guts to go into a Lion's Den of contrary views (CiF is a daily chore). I found David Gregory a bit faithful to the party line in the face of potent counters on occasion, but what on earth would one expect if he's prepared to own up to his allegiance... and paymasters? Plus he was usually arguing about science with at least a fair bit of justification as to background. I for one was sorry to lose him.

As I'm no IT expert I know this is a suggestion based in impractical fantasy land, but after suffering as a user and vicariously as a blog owner the travails of many sites, I was wondering if it were possible to run a two track side-by-side or perhaps colour coded traffic light style system.

It's still a compromise, but uses the power and expandability of the internet in ways Voltaire might see merit in.

All posts go up, and hence are not 'censored', but those that really seem to be contributing little (or detracting) could be either sidelined or at least flagged for folk to check, and indeed still engage with (I really don't like some sites that have all sorts of threads spinning off, but can see this working on the basis that if the first is not really doing much, anything subsequent, even reasoned rebuttals, are unlikely to go anywhere of much value, which is how trolls thrive), at their leisure.

The flagging could be down to the site owner/moderator, and/or tipped off or supported by site users in much the same way as any 'Report this comment/recommend' links are used on such as CiF. Only without the oblivion aspect to the former that such champions of press freedom (when it suits) as the BBC can impose.

I for one would value an amber or red hue when the owner and/or many others think things are not faithful to the site rules or mission, and then would have the option of skipping over easily... or checking the culprit out if still so disposed. I do it now anyway when certain names appear.

It's just a very top of mind thought. One designed to help any site that deals in heated issues, to try and keep temperatures down (or at least properly vented) and debate values maintained with site reputation free(er) from those who would seek to compromise it though pushing to discrediting extremes.

There are some fine minds as well as some savvy IT bods here, so I am simply interested in whether it's doable or indeed desirable.

Head ducks down behind parapet.

Newsnight

Time to put the kettle on

It's a view certainly.

And despite thinking major media types knocking spots off each other (I don't count this blog as 'major', so feel being still able to refer to others' writings with a cranked eyebrow as legitimate) is an exercise in all sorts of counter-productive things (such spats seldom progress, or end, well), and hence don't see much point in weighing in on the thread (don't want to get labelled 'Right-wing' just by association), it still seems worth keeping a log of here.

Polly Toynbee will never understand Right-wing bloggers

If only because I have a sneaking feeling our Polly, and those like her, not only would get rid of all bloggers from the right if they could, but also those of a fiercely independent bent, too.

So in this case, at least, the critic of my critics is my friend.

What I think. What you think. And what I let you think I think.

The role of citizen journalism in modern democracy

"Take Robert Peston's blog... This highlights the difference in the audiences between those who are happy to read what others have to say and those self selecting minority who want to join in ... These numbers are also a useful warning not to set too much store by the tone of the comments. Those who join in the debate are by definition a vocal minority."

I better not join in here as, by this definition, I will be deemed to have moved from the acceptable 'Shut up and take what you are given/silence is deemed consent' camp to the, one presumes, non-BBC group of choice, here described as the 'vocal minority'.

Oh.... rats.

Newsnight - Peter's got Google. Ashley's got Microsoft. What nice little number is Helen gunning for?

I need to be related to and/sleep with more senior execs.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

Flying over the richest patch of desert in the world

I'm currently sat in front on my PC typing.... more soon...

Not sure I have got the hang of this Twitter thing yet.

It's going to knock quality blogging into a cocked hat. Apparently.

Physician, don't piss off other doctors

I have not left a post (that'll show him), much as I was tempted, to praise the fact that the author cannot be accusing of sock-puppeting by virtue of rarely, if ever, getting any comments, but this has to rank as one of the better navel-gazing pieces I have ever read:

Andrew Gilligan, "kennite" and sockpuppeting

A bloke I don't get on with has his blog 'analysed' by a mate of mine and this forms the basis of an article.

Slow news. No news. Or... Guardian journalist news?

Feel free to cut 'n paste. That'll have them excited!

Short 'n sw..

Blogging is passe: Official

People only read 140 characters b4 moving on.

Cld expln an awfl lot.

Gaurdian - Has blogging had its day?

I'd say, so long as those in the 'major', 'professional', 'paid' media think that they and only they should be guardian's (no pun meant) of what we see, learn and think, it's pretty safe.

Mind you, as the same PR was raised over at the Telegraph I learned that People only read 140 characters b4 moving on, which to my mind Cld expln an awfl lot.

Especially the actions of some editors who think what they stick in the headline and/or link can be mitigated by a line in para 37 'by way of balance'.

Ah, the new media age. Still with old media mentalities.

It's a bit like claiming the Reader's Digest will kill books. Some will only have time for it, but others will benefit from the time taken over the whole story.

It must be true; I agree with it

CNN, Steve Jobs, and a dodgy rumour

The ''mainstream" press is alive with such pieces these days.

Thing is, like the political commentariat's odd, slavish support of bunker-mentality policy, when they do so on, ironically, their blogs, they get rightly slaughtered.

The lazy, arrogant notion that we should believe anything we read any more is spectacular, especially from the BBC, and that there is this odd notion that sources might not be trustedworthy in not posting porkies without being verified is a professional own goal of the highest order.

Guardian - Slavish reporters join Microsoft in cloud cuckoo land

I'm not sure, but it seems some in the Guardian at least are seeing Aunty as a relative whose marble retention might suggest some distance is required.

Part Troll

Why you're more troll than you think

Love the cartoon. Didn't know it was possible for a computer screen to also act as a mirror.

And the piece resonates in its basic premise.

However, across the blogosphere (which I do inhabit perhaps more than I should), I am amazed how in complement to this piece there are so many telling me and many others that really we should not be having opinions, especially not posting them and really it should all be best left to those in the BBC, Guardian, etc who 'know better'.

Um... no.

Yours, Part Troll (sorry, Bill)

If in doubt, doubt. Then check.

The web encourages lies and deceit. It's impossible to know who lurks behind a funny nickname

How very odd. A Guardian writer thinks the state should muscle in on freedom of speech.

I remain yours, as ever... Junkk Male

Telegraph - Another voice expresses worry about internet

Telegraph - Derek Draper wants a rapid rebuttal unit for blogs

Telegraph - NEW - The fight against Futurechurch: blogging

Is there an out-of-touch, minority, self-delusional, unpopular, elitist, holier-than thou, we know better' entity that doesn't want to waste its time trying to herd eels or, failing that try and shoot them in the ocean?

Labour's Mr. Draper. The EU... and now this merry crew.

It would be funny if they were not serious. And dangerous.

I can't heeear you... la,la,la!

An interesting piece on blogging:

On the importance of engagement in blogging...

It has long struck me that 'real' journalists (which somehow also includes folk papers or TV just pay to write or read stuff out) have been working through some stages of denial.

First was that it wasn't really happening.
Then that no one was paying any attention.
Now it's not the same, not relevant and hence must be ignored.

Good luck with that, guys.

Fingers in ears...'la, la, la..'

You say tomato, I say a red fruit-like thing that is not the same thing

An interesting exchange on the Newsnight news blog (the distinction is, apparently, now significant), as opposed to the other news published/broadcast by the national entity we fund.

Bank balance sheets become focus of scrutiny

Look at 13, 14 & 15 and then the reply from a rather defensive reporter in 16... and wonder about the mindsets at work.

'...if this were "reporting" then you would have a point. As it is, it is blogging. It is not meant to be award winning journalism.

And I am not reporting "unsubstantiated gossip" - I am reporting a...

Not sure I can get my head around this, not just as a possible official insight into national media broadcasting/publishing editorial definitions, but also consistency...:

'...if this were "reporting" then you would have a point[ie: not reporting]. As it is, it is blogging.... I am reporting [or...] a...'

So... is it reporting... or blogging, and what then is the difference as it still appears in print, for public consumption, from a BBC reporter on a BBC organ of news sharing?

I am to in future ignore all I read on these pages?

Addendum: I have had a reply:

21. At 11:15pm on 29 Jul 2008, PaulMasonOfNewsnight wrote:
In on-screen reporting you can pursue bar stool intelligence and try to stand it up as fact. With blogging, I think it's legitimate to explain what people are saying if it's relevant and plausible and doesn't libel anybody, and especially when as "sentiment" it is a material factor in events. If people are beginning to act on an idea it becomes relevant even if not true. I'm trying to help people understand the scale of private concern in the financial sector, is all.

I could ask what the heck he is trying to say, as it is almost Rumsfeld-Clintonian in not clarifying, at least to my satisfaction, how onscreen is different to blogging when it is from an official, national media reporter, and how he in nay case seems to have contradicted himself on this distinction on one sentence anyway.

I think it best to leave that masterpiece of doublespeak as its own epitaph. Then again...

P-EU

Blog off EU

Apparently, this is not all about the EU that is arrogant, barking and proving rather unpopular.
As I can currently write on my blog. For now.

Erosion by stealth

I now have a new word for the lexicon: 'shutters'.

Comments on ‘BBC's Today Programme shutters message board’

I do concern myself when those who believe they know better 'protect' me from the thoughts and opinions of others so I may be better guided to the 'correct' viewpoint that they seem to believe they are in a better position to judge... and moderate.

Whilst trolls and the like can be very wearing, one can always skip and/or delete grotesque viewpoints. But in seeking information it is often interesting what diamonds may be found in the slurry. Which makes wallowing solely in one's own comfort-zone mud hole a rather restricted exercise in navel-gazing.

Hence I lurk (and occasionally pitch-in, which can be... 'testing') across all sorts, from Biased BBC to Guardian CiF.

As to the BBC... well, I think they opened a Pandora's Box with 'free' (subject to moderation) comment, regretted it, and are trying to either kill it off or reduce it to a more manageable entity.

Under the guise of 'resolving' what was a totally inexplicable, but certainly woeful system (Error messages all the time), they have instituted a whole new effort that has reduced both numbers and quality of comment to a dribble... of mostly dribbling numpties. So where once I enjoyed participating on the BBC2 Newsnight blog, on top of the 'regulars with a bit too much time in the day' it's hardly worth it any more (lack of preview, no more hyperlinks, no user ID links, concerns of data security, etc). Certainly I have better ways to spend my day.

Just, one might imagine, what the were trying to achieve. 'First they ditched HYS because of all the nasty righties, and so I could not post....'