Interesting Stuff 2009-05-31
Post categories: round up
| 23:17 UK time, Sunday, 31 May 2009
There's been a lot going on lately.
Tom Scott on a new set of natural history sites under the umbrella of "´óÏó´«Ã½ Earth".
Jennifer Clarke at the Radio 4 blog describes how the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s prestigious Reith Lectures are being "multi-platformed".
Erik Huggers' thoughts on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ iPlayer in a recent speech at a Broadcasting Press Guild event provoked . The ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trust have released a statement (:
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has no plans for charges to use the iPlayer or changes to the licence fee. In any case changes to current arrangements would need to be made by Parliament.
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ has issued some stats on online radio listening. See , and the numbers themselves are on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ radio website.
Philip Morton of "The State of Subtitling in Online Media"
And while we're on the subject of how ´óÏó´«Ã½ people use microblogging I discovered that Director General Mark Thompson had .
There isn't really a Chinese Wall you can draw between personal opinion and what appears on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ - the same thing with the blogs and the tweets. What you can't do easily is take off the cloak of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ and put it back on at will.
Nick Reynolds is editor, ´óÏó´«Ã½ Internet blog
Comment number 1.
At 1st Jun 2009, Dr_Bean wrote:All these online radio listeners and no radio messageboard for them to comment on the output (well not for Radios 2, 5Live or 6Music anyway). Strange eh?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 1st Jun 2009, Professor Techno wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 1st Jun 2009, Nick Reynolds wrote:ProfessorTechno - off topic again I'm afraid.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 1st Jun 2009, TV Licence fee payer against ´óÏó´«Ã½ censorship wrote:Nick, perhaps you could remind us what the topic is, your blog seems to have been meandering around all sorts of subjects, in fact as your blog (above) seems to refer to other blogs it could be argued that any comment here is off topic as it should have been placed elsewhere!
I trust that you won't find my comments off topic...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 1st Jun 2009, Nick Reynolds wrote:Professor Techno's comment was about the POV boards which are not the subject of any of the links on this post.
The blog post about POV boards is still open and you can comment there.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 1st Jun 2009, TV Licence fee payer against ´óÏó´«Ã½ censorship wrote:re comments @ #5
Nick, the problem seems to be that you are no longer replying to that blog, your last reply was mid May, the board might be well be still open but some seems to be worried that no one from the ´óÏó´«Ã½ monitoring it.
I trust that you won't find the above comments to far off topic.
Back to this blog... You highlighted comments made by Mark Thompson in an interview with "journalism.co.uk", it reports that Mark said the following;
"It may be in the form of a blog but it's carefully balanced - it's checked by a senior editorial manager, it's fact-checked. It's a piece of essentially broadcast journalism."
[unquote]
Does the above, if it's correctly reporting what Mark said and thus the ´óÏó´«Ã½ editorial policy, apply to any later public statements of editorial comment (such as replies) made by those who have written the blog (or other ´óÏó´«Ã½ employees), are these official editorial decisions checked by a senior editorial manager before they are published or are they just unilaterally applied - my concern is that a reply could be as problematic as an original article could, in terms of balance or bias etc. - what checks and balances are in place, I see this as one of the problems with things like Twitter (and indeed blogs for that matter) etc. were the read/write interface is less formal?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 1st Jun 2009, TV Licence fee payer against ´óÏó´«Ã½ censorship wrote:Gone very quite in here all of a sudden...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 2nd Jun 2009, Nick Reynolds wrote:Boilerplated - just to reassure you the ´óÏó´«Ã½ already has policies in place for official ´óÏó´«Ã½ use of social media and personal use by ´óÏó´«Ã½ people of social media.
All blog posts are subject to editorial supervision. For example on the Internet blog there is a "second pair of eyes" to read each post before it is published. And to take myself as an example, if I was posting a comment which I felt had an impact on an editorial decision or policy made by someone else I would check it first before commenting.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 2nd Jun 2009, TV Licence fee payer against ´óÏó´«Ã½ censorship wrote:In reply to "NickReynolds" comments @ #8
What I was asking was, to use the comment I'm replying to as an example, was your reply @ #8 checked by "a senior editorial manager" before it appeared - would such replies via Twitter be treated in the same way? Also (on a related issue) are any editorial decision to close a blog for new comments or remove a previously published comment - ´óÏó´«Ã½ or user sourced - reviewed by "a senior editorial manager" or are such decisions made on the spot and unilaterally - surely two very simple yes or no questions.
I trust that you won't find the above comments to far off topic.
Getting back to the thorny subject, the use of Twitter, the URL you posted offer these bullet points amongst others;
#2. Could you achieve the same effect or better on bbc.co.uk?
#3. Does the site appeal to a key demographic not available via bbc.co.uk? Is this the right site to engage with your audiences?
#4. Does anything similar already exist? If it does, would working with an existing presence be better for users and for the ´óÏó´«Ã½?
My comments to the above points follow;
2). Judging by what people have been saying on the various ´óÏó´«Ã½ blogs that cover this issue (the use of Twitter in place/as well as blogs or message boards) it's clear that many do not consider that the above tests have been passed, it's always better to officially reach bbc.co.uk users via a bbc.co.uk owned and run site.
3). It's clear that many consider that social networking sites are probably not the best place to engage with the ´óÏó´«Ã½ audience about bbc.co.uk content, services or problems accessing such services.
4). It's quite obvious, by your own admission that something similar already exists, the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s own message boards and blogs and - again - users have been telling you that the existing presence would be better for users - and surely better for the ´óÏó´«Ã½, who will be in better control of the interface, Twitter could close down overnight, could become a subscription based service, could start carrying unsuitable advertising etc.
Then there are the following two points;
#5. What commitment are you willing to make to the site? Do you have the resources you need to keep it refreshed and relevant? For how long?
#6. What is your exit strategy?
5). More to the point, what commitment would any successor have to the use of none ´óÏó´«Ã½ social networking site - or are we all going to be marched to the top of the hill only to be marched back down again - is this policy of using Twitter etc. an official ´óÏó´«Ã½ policy of just departmental/personal, how 'set in stone' is it?
6). So just what is the exit strategy?
It's quite clear (from the feed back that has appeared on the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s message boards and blogs) the use of non ´óÏó´«Ã½ social networking sites fail the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s internal editorial question outlined in bullet points 2 - 4 whilst points 5 and 6 have serious questions still. So, out of ten tests for the use of services such as Twitter, it seems that five fail (or still have serious questions)... I will be most interested in your reply Nick.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 3rd Jun 2009, Nick Reynolds wrote:Boilerplated - since these days I suppose I am "a senior editorial manager" I don't refer every comment I make on this blog to my boss although I would do if I thought it raised significant points that needed checking. So I didn't refer comment 8 to my boss or to anyone else.
Editorial decisions to close a blog for new comments would be taken by the blog owner. In this instance me. I think I have only closed one blog post for new comments in two years. I ask my colleagues who run the moderation service for advice before deciding.
Removing a previously published comment (´óÏó´«Ã½ or user sourced) is about moderation. This blog is reactively moderated so anyone can complain to the moderators about a comment (including me as the host/owner). The moderators decide whether to uphold the complaint and remove the comment or not uphold it and keep it there.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 19th Mar 2010, U14390976 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)