For the third general election in a row, the run-up is seeing numerous meetings and articles asking whether this election will be the first internet general election.

However, much – in fact, nearly all – of the discussion falls into two traps which are common across political journalism in the UK. First, an undue focus on the central, national picture and, second, an undue focus on the novel.

Ask those involved in organising internet campaigning for any of the major parties about what really matters and you’ll get two answers repeated. They repeatedly – and rightly – emphasise the importance of the internet for local campaigning and they also emphasise its importance for the equivalent of plumbing and sewage systems in a political party – that mostly hidden infrastructure which is vital to effective operation. continue reading… »

Sunny has highlighted that the Press Complaints Commission is carrying out its annual review of the Editors’ Code.

Given the low key nature of the review, and the fact that the new PCC chair Baroness Buscombe has made it clear she doesn’t see any overall crisis in the media’s standards, the best chance for change I think comes from one or two specific, narrow and well worded suggestions which are supported by a large number of people.

There certainly are some much bigger issues that should be at stake – but this isn’t a process likely to resolve those.

So what changes might it be sensible to suggest? My favourite is to lobby for a change so that in future newspapers have to properly acknowledge the source of stories lifted from others, most notably blogs.
continue reading… »

“Let me make sure you know exactly who I am and what I am going to do at the PCC” – so said Baroness Buscombe, the new chair of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), at the annual conference of the Society of Editors.

Having read her speech in full, I fear I do know what she is going to do at the PCC – and that I’m not going to like it.

It’s a curious speech in several ways. She started off by recounting in some detail her Conservative Party roots. Leading off with the fact that she’s a Conservative, added to the jibes at Labour and the silence about other parties (even though her reference to civil liberties gave an obvious opportunity to mention the Liberal Democrats, for example), leaves an obvious question about what her motives were.

I’m sure she’s a smart person and can’t have been unaware that the message many people will take from her speech is, “I’m a Conservative”. Is that really the right message for the chair of the PCC – which has to deal with complaints about political stories all in an equitable manner – to send? Is it the best way to reassure the public about how self-regulation will work on her watch?

There were also some rather astringent comments about Google and news aggregators:
continue reading… »

Almost all the discussion of how newspaper should make more money has been based on the implicit assumption that the only business model available is ‘put some content behind a login that requires people to pay‘.

Up against that is the argument ‘but lots of other news is available for free, so why would anyone pay?‘

But there are actually quite a wide range of business models.

The existing model
Both the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times have shown how paywalls can work. It hasn’t worked for some, but is there any reason to believe the current demarcation is set in stone with no scope for future changes? No. The Guardian looks to be thinking about a variant on this where the paid-for content is more like the benefits of club membership than the specialist news approach of the FT.
continue reading… »