Monday, October 23, 2017

Speculation around MOOC and MOCC

Trying out a radical stance, not getting much response, so maybe just stating obvious anyway. So far posts on other blogs about decline in newspaper sales probably reaching a crunch sometime soonish. and when will TV stop assuming the newspapers decide what is news? Blogs now various so follow @will789gb for sequence.

This one about education. Follows on from Guardian and change of format to tabloid. I find there is very little in print about what the plan is for online. Lots on negative aspects of social media but no obvious plan for what the Guardian intends. Reporting on education seems similar somehow. Peter Scott has stated he will not write about the MOOC ( Massive Open Online Course ) and this pretty much true for other reports.

Headline explanation, MOCC is Monetised Online Course Certificate. Maybe becoming more of a trend.

Latest example Anna Fazackerley on how elite universities would like higher fees and more than others. Apparently the older established need a bigger slice of the cake. Funding is a problem. I cannot see anything in the story on how technology could cut costs. Just how to get more money. Meanwhile the Open University ( not in the Russell Group) has decided to close buildings and invest in online. I am not sure if any other uni has a similar approach.

What is worrying is some of the implications of the article.

One idea rumoured to be doing the rounds in the Treasury is that fees should reflect the salaries graduates can command. In June the government published the first full set of its Longitudinal Education Outcomes dataset, the first of its kind to track higher education leavers from university to the workplace. It highlighted real disparities in earning power across subjects and institutions, with subjects including the creative arts and mass communications coming out particularly badly.

My guess is that "creative arts and mass communications" are not part of the UK research unis to start with. But there could still be economic possibilities, probably around the Pacific.

Pushing my luck even further

The salaries for some subjects varied widely according to which institution graduates had attended. For instance, five years after graduation average earnings for business and administration degrees ranged from £19,400 at the University of Wolverhampton to £71,700 at the University of Oxford.

Is this supposed to mean that Oxford should charge much higher fees? It could be a lot of factors, contacts in the south east etc. Anyone know a difference in what is on offer as content? Could just be an expensive networking situation. Facts welcome, even those to show I am off on a rave.

Meanwhile at MIT the Intersection of Leadership and Technology. Looks good value.




Monday, October 09, 2017

Hello Roy Greenslade, facts please

In the Guardian today, Roy Greenslade writes

A dozen or so years ago, the public’s striking back at the gatekeepers of news seemed refreshing. It notified journalists that ; the top-down journalism of old was no longer relevant. Audiences were not passive consumers. They had opinions too and, at last, were able to express them. 
That initial healthy phase has been transformed into something much more worrying. Having exploded the myth that journalists deal only in facts, aA significant portion of the public, especially the younger generation, have adopted a virulent strain of anti-journalism journalism.

During those dozen years the Guardian started something called Unlimited Talk, arguably an early form of social media. It was closed down without warning. No option for any contributions to be copied by the people who wrote them.

Stories about the web and the Guardian now fail to mention this at all. My impression. Could you please point me to something I missed or find out more? What happened and why?

My conclusion at the moment is that newspaper journalists are unable to come to terms with social media. Comment is Free seemed to have a comment capability but I never got a reply and have stopped looking much. I read the paper out of interest in what I fear is a final phase.

Things could change, there could be a form of citizen journalism that newspapers recognised. But first the facts please.





Sunday, October 01, 2017

What is the convention on sacking front bench? / Corbyn strong leader

This is another go at getting some info.

While ago story in both Observer and Sunday Times that Hilary Benn would encourage other members of shadow cabinet to resign as he had lost confidence in Jeremy Corbyn. I think the story may have changed in later editions. In Exeter I get an early one. No way could a party leader allow this sort of story without a response. So I thought.

No surprise then that following a phone conversation when print version available, Benn resigns or is sacked or however you want to describe it.

"Benn sacked in the middle of the night" as some journalists remembered this when reporting the leadership challenge, the non "coup" etc.

With Boris at this time it is perfectly clear who the journalists are, where the info is coming from. (Sun , Telegraph ) some extras no clear source.

Benn has stated that the original stories did not come from him. Strange, some might say. What happened? Some one probably knows.

Main point obviously that Corbyn was strong enough to take action, whatever appeared to be the case as reported in newspapers.

But a bit of detail would be good to know. It becomes more clear that the Brexit disaster was caused in part by media priority for knocking Corbyn at a time when his style of support for Remain would have had a positive consequence.

Monday, July 31, 2017

Guardian Print Media Page - what we might be missing

See previous post, I cannot find Media page in print version of Guardian today. Same last week. No reply yet to tweet query. Same last week.

Have now found blog from Roy Greenslade, might have been intended for print when budgets allowed. My guess, happy to repeat any accurate info from Guardian on when if ever Media page returns.

Very interesting blog post, should be widely known.

Demise of tabloids linked to rightwing politics. Brexit papers listed as Mail. Express, Sun. Should include Telegraph to get a higher number.

Some 64% of Express readers and 63% of Mail readers are aged over 55, while 55% of the Sun’s audience is aged over 45........The rightwing press is heading for its coffin.

But what about newspapers in general? Fairness for the The Mirror-

...staff cuts have had a deleterious effect on its output. It cannot match the Mail for the quantity and range of its content nor the quality of its reporting.
As the Labour party’s faithful supporter, it has also found it hard to find a coherent voice. It has been unable to reconcile its own position, a post-Blairite centrism, with the leftist surge of Jeremy Corbyn. The result? A flip-flop editorial stance. Therefore, the Mirror, while probably reflecting the views of the overwhelming majority of its ageing readership, fails to appeal to the younger generation.


Could not much the same be said about the Guardian? Probably more space hostile to Corbyn than in the Mirror over recent years.

My guess is that things are closer to a crunch than is being reported.

Guardian print readers who are also part of social media should get ready to be agile.




Has Guardian stopped Media section? will circulation drop?

As far as I can tell, unless my confusion is progressing, this is the second week that the Guardian has not had a page for Media. Previously it seemed to be a post from a blog in rotation. Now nothing.

Will this continue? Is it a summer blip? No information I have been aware of.

Thing is these are interesting times for newspapers. Election showed declining influence for Brexit supporters, online support for Corbyn. Much to discuss.

I did tweet last week but got no reply. Maybe a blog post will get more notice. I am not raving on about citizen journalism. Just wondering whether to spend £2 next Monday.

See previous posts for more on citizen journalism and the question, what is the Guardian web strategy?

Monday, July 24, 2017

Guardian Circulation, is there a web strategy?

I noticed Peter Preston mentioned circulation numbers on Sunday. Observer up 8.6 June on May, Guardian 3.8 . "while Tory-backing competitors stayed stagnant or slipped back. Not much of a market, it appears, for the drum beaters of pending Tory triumph".

Well, this sounds ok and explains why Labour did better with social media. Newspapers losing an edge.

But when I start looking for detail through the Press Gazette, things are worse still including the Guardian.

The Sun dropped 10.5 per cent to 1.6m sales a day, the Daily Mirror fell 17 per cent to 641,000 copies and the Sunday Mirror fell 20 per cent to 556,000.
The year-on-year declines may have been worsened by the increased interest in news in June 2016 around Britain’s referendum on leaving the European Union.

Possibly the referendum editorial made a connection but the election was more nuanced.

Guardian down 7%, Observer 6%. Not as striking as the Mirror but not a good trend.

My guess is that the Mirror did not catch much Corbyn support as they were opposed most of this time. Guardian similar. So maybe most of the readership went online. Speculation obviously but facts will follow, especially if trends continue as this would suggest

( see another blog for even more opinionated post on recent journalism )

There must be some level of circulation at which the news operation is not viable. It may not be far off. They seem to concentrate on opinion or a package for news that readers know already from somewhere else.

Twitter / YouTube seems to work well as I find it. TV and radio clips now turn up for most events so you can make your own mind up on what was said.

Guardian still not putting much in print about what they intend to do online. There is much moaning about the web in general, especially Facebook and Google. But is the hard copy just going to complain till the circulation completely vanishes?

By the way there used to be circulation numbers published on the printed Guardian media pages but it seems to have gone completely today.


Monday, July 10, 2017

detail on corbyn heckle, see previous post re trust in media @guardian @afuahirsch ‏

A bit of search on the first Corbyn heckle

full story from BBC site

EU referendum: 'It's your fault, Jeremy' - Corbyn heckled
Jeremy Corbyn has been heckled by Labour activist Tom Mauchline over the EU referendum result while attending the Pride in London march.
He was accused of failing to convince his party's supporters to back the Remain campaign, but replied "I did all I could".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36629976/eu-referendum-it-s-your-fault-jeremy-corbyn-heckled

Then a story from Public Affairs on Canary claims about coup plot and Portland

https://www.publicaffairsnews.com/articles/news/portland-denies-corbyn-plot-claims

"It also noted that the BBC had featured Portland consultant Tom Mauchline in a news item about Corbyn being heckled."

As memory serves the BBC did not introduce the heckle as coming from Tom Mauchline as Portland consultant.

======

Anyway, having started another post and continuing the possibility that mainstream journalists might connect with blogs etc. I am still interested in how it gets to be decided as to who is on which TV show. During the EU referendum there was the official Remain, close to Cameron and No 10, the Labour Remain with Alan Johnson and somewhere Lord Mandelson and Will Straw. It is still unclear to me how much influence Corbyn had in any of this. Was it his own idea to go on the Last Leg? still more reason he should be allowed to use the clip on YouTube. When the polls wobbled Cameron made space for Labour. Turned out to be Gordon Brown then Lord Darling sharing a platform with Osborne. Did not go down well. Will Straw press release after result found space to blame Corbyn. What actually happened? All fine now with the PLP but journalists should explain just a bit what went on.

=====

buzzfeed

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/let-our-friend-stay-corbyn-insists?utm_term=.aueYr1nmO#.fa68LVERA

The Man Who Heckled Jeremy Corbyn Is Actually A Lib Dem Candidate

The criticism of the Labour leader at a pro-Corbyn rally made the evening news bulletins – but it was shouted by Lib Dem Zack Polanski, who was making a stand for the EU.

----
not widely reported at the time, and we still get statements that Corbyn was "lacklustre" etc during referendum.

Hello @afuahirsch update re some topics around @guardian

Today the print Guardian has a media page by Afua Hirsch. Appears as a blog online but is most of what was once the printed media section.

Some positive signs here in awareness of how the mainstream media is regarded. Based on reporting around the Grenfell tower. Previously Emily Bell mentioned the Grenfell Action Group blog but then stated

The local blogs run by tenants, activists and other citizens, find themselves isolated and crowded out in clogged social streams, short on attention, funding and traction. Often they rely on the tenacity and unpaid labour of their founders for survival.

So I return to my question of how there can be some connected way of working in which professional journalists recognise the value of blogs etc. I would like to call this citizen journalism.

Previous posts cover my writing for OhmyNews and their take on citizen journalism. The English language version is no longer published but I subscribe on YouTube and know something continues. Briefly the argument is that journalism needs to adapt to recognise the read / write web and change connection with readers/ the public / do they mean us? Investment in editing and training, not a vast news room.

Guardian at the time thought citizen journalism as was a joke. Maybe they thought the media pages only read by pro journalists not the public but can't say I found it funny.

Anyway, and I am trying to be positive, main decision was to junk Guardian Unlimited Talk without warning and without any offer for contributions to be backed up. As memory serves Comment is Free was promoted around the same time. So comments could be added but nature of discussion changed.

Facebook often reported as getting most of the online advertising. Any theory as to why this is? Do print journalists think about the format?

My guess is that it is now too late for much to change. Print version has so much about online troubles, not much about any potential in Guardian website.

But I ask the question anyway. Could the next Guardian take on social media include some accurate history about Talk Unlimited? If there is a backup some offer to original source would be welcome.

Something might work better on a local basis. Video for example as local newspapers have limited resources but can make links.

Corbyn in Europe

Another thing to mention. Afua Hirsch writes about a "feeling" that Corbyn has been deliberately maligned. We can get to facts as well as feelings. Mostly about what actually happened during the referendum and how reported. It has been assumed that "Blame Corbyn" was an option waiting for an occasion. Briefly from previous posts

- heckles reported by BBC news blaming Corbyn for result appeared to be from Labour supporters, actually from people linked to Portland Communications and the Lib Dems

- Channel 4 refused permission for Jeremy Corbyn to show clip from Last Leg on his own YouTube channel. So reports on 7 out of 10 score were out of context.

Also

"Hilary Benn sacked in the middle of the night" was initiated by two newspaper stories in Observer and Sunday Times, both saying Benn was stating a lack of confidence in Corbyn. Both stories changed in later editions but we get an early one here in Exeter. Later Benn denied knowing how the story started. Surely some print journalist knows what happened?

-------

could expand this but mostly repeating previous posts

comment welcome and/or where to go into detail






Sunday, May 28, 2017

Social media is significant part of the 2017 election

In short, a tumultuous week showed mainstream media doing what it’s supposed to: reporting, reflecting, arguing, stirring. And social media? Many heartfelt exchanges, many echoes of shock and sorrow, but with customary fakery and trolling – instructions for bomb-making mingled with denunciation and perspective damned hard to come by.

So says Peter Preston. No perspective?

Thing is, may be changing. See another blog on Fleet Street in Cyberspace and Europe for recent comment on anti Corbyn bias. But Preston has this covered for the BBC

 There’s been mounting disapproval over its hostile treatment of Jeremy Corbyn, and deference to Theresa, since campaigning began. But nobody who saw Laura Kuenssberg tear into the PM on U-turn morning could maintain that now

However at that time the press were in competition to find the most quotable manner in which to be obvious. Have a look at the IRA questions from @afneil #marr etc. btw I still think Kuenssberg doc on Corbyn and referendum missed out a whole section on Lord Darling, how Lord Darling came to be centre stage, soforth. Someone still knows, only a year ago)

=====

Andrew Rawnsley

The focus on leadership, the “presidential” strategy that looked such a no-brainer when this election was called, has not had the effect that most anticipated. I think some of this is down to Jeremy Corbyn. Not because he has fought an outstanding election, but because his frailties as a candidate for the premiership were extremely well known before the campaign had started. A hefty majority of his own MPs had previously declared him unfit for leadership, so anything the Tories had to add to that was likely to be superfluous comment. I expect the Tories to launch a monstering of the Labour leader in the final leg of the campaign. This may not have the impact that they are looking for, if I am right to suspect that attitudes towards him were already largely baked in to Labour’s share.

Thing is, I think this is completely wrong. Guardian and BBC as much as any media have been in total Corbyn attack mode since he stood for election as Labour leader. No change there maybe. But public image much changed by talking direct to camera without any spin from press reporters.

Also social media allows direct communication, feedback, response to questions.
Next few weeks could be interesting, followed by more facts and analysis on who reads newspapers and what to think.

=============

repeating yet again but meant as a positive suggestion

possibly Guardian Media Group in in transformation to something online

when the print version is always knocking social media it is not helping the brand

Guardian Unlimited Talk trashed the work of a mass of people, lost from history as in Guardian writing

but consequence continues