Draft outline, digital disruption and business schools

This post is to check out for response and get some updates on recent developments. For a while I have been interested in how media organisations transition with digital technology. It sometimes seems to me that academics and business schools comment about this as if they are not part of it. Somehow the buildings and campus will continue as a base even if FM radio for example disappears in the cloud.

Next week Learning Technologies has some involvement from HE so I will try to check things out. This week at BETT there were a couple of events that might make a lead news item.

Futurelearn won the BETT Award for Free Digital Content/Open Educational Resources for Schools. I don't think they are yet much recognised at HE level. The Open University has cut back on regional support centres in the UK though they continue to invest in Futurelearn. I don't know of other examples where this sort of switch has already happened.

The Department for International Trade had a theatre where one presentation was from the Online Business School. I did do a video but the background noise is a problem Here are some stills to show the gist of it. BETT is a solid tech show and I guess there will be more HE over time, including some more examples of digital plans, maybe with some disruption in the background.

Any links or content most welcome. I will try to do an expanded post in the next week or two.

Steven Poole , content marketing, MOOC , Peter Scott

Today Steven Poole in Review on native ads and other aspects of being online. Trouble is he makes no obvious mention of the situation around newspapers. Why is the darkside of the web finding so much space in newsprint nowadays? Meanwhile the Postgrad pullout section is the only place for news about the MOOC. See post on what is not at BETT in another blog.

When will the Guardian write about the MOOC in context of a general article on policy and context? Will it involve Peter Scott? Maybe the Tuesday section no longer sells enough advertising to justify the sort of expense required. So the MOOC will only turn up in the pullout sections with the initiative coming from advertisers.

Also could there be reporting of the MOOC as value compared to the Guardian courses? You know the sort of thing - £49 for three hours on how to be a critic. Why not try a MOOC and decide if you want a certificate towards the end of the course? It may not be much more expensive. Surely there is copy here for someone?

Fake News and loss making newspapers

Things are speeding up. See previous posts for usual comments, here are some notes on recent Guardian.

Paul Mason on Facebook and Google. He likes Soundcloud and Medium but doubts they can survive. I do not think he is fair about the length of clips on YouTube. There is a lot of long clips from lectures and conferences.

10th Jan news that Trinity Mirror is trying to work with the Express. there could be more reporting on the business background for this kind of move.

Today story about "fake news" quickly becomes one about social media

The News Media Association has previously warned ministers that Google and Facebook were unfairly making money out of journalism produced by its members.

I think we should get more about what the plan is and less knocking copy on the web as it is. Any news could be "fake" and needs to be considered with a views on who is writing it. the newspapers need to consider that the web is read / write so involves the audience, people like us, see previous posts etc.

If Jeff Jarvis was still writing on a Monday I would be more positive about weekday print continuing in 2017. As it is I expect more about "fake news" and not much in print about what the news organisation websites are trying to do or how the public can relate to them.

So far neither Google of Facebook have closed a site without warning destroying all content I contributed. Sorry to keep repeating this, probably time to move on.

Guardian hello

This is written as if someone at the Guardian may read it. Just to clarify. I mention this because of a Steven Poole opinion on Saturday.

Generally speaking, just as people say things over the internet that they would never dare say to someone’s face, abusive marginalia is not meant for the author’s eyes. In an age when furious readers fire off torrents of poorly spelled invective directly to the author via email or Twitter, simply writing rude comments in a copy of the book that the author will never see seems the height of good manners.

This post is meant for the Guardian, readers writers edit suite whatever. What time is it? Trends in print sales? Should there be some guidance on web policy? The print version recently is mostly negative on web. So what else is proposed?

In this way, then, the centuries of marginalia in printed books make up a kind of invisible republic of readers and writers having extended conversations through history. By contrast, the fact that you can’t scribble in the margins of electronic books reflects the paradoxical atomisation of an internet age in which everything shouts about how “social” it is. And so here is one more reason to cherish the printed book: you can talk back to it, and to future readers.

Nonsense, surely? Is there some sort of archive on Unlimited Talk?

By the way, thanks for the discount tokens. But I stick to my forecast. either print Guardian Monday to Friday will cease during 2017 or at least the possibility will reach some sort of public conversation.

Citizen Journalism worth another look?

Not sure what citizen journalism is at the moment but I come across signs of problems with newspapers especially. Is it time to look back at this and work out some new variation? I contributed to OhmyNews International. the English language version. Recently I come across OhmyNews video on YouTube but I don't understand Korean.

One of the points made when OhmyNews was launched ws that the business model of existing news was not going to work online. The web is write as well as read. Some sort of collaboration would follow.

It seems though that news organisations are still reluctant to change their approach. I find the Guardian is now going backwards. Unlimited Talk as closed down. In print there is some negative coverage about social media but very little about how the web site is different or what the plan is.

Recent article from Peter Preston inludes much history and some numbers.  I notice that the "users" only appear when prepared to pay money

users, especially young people, were used to paying to use their mobile phones.

although this did not last long on tablets. Thing is, no mention at all of the reader as a source of content in any form.

I have found another article by Jay Rosen that has some possibilities. Part one was about the problems for US media in Trump era. Part two looks at positive ideas-

From journalists is only one way Americans get news now. They get it directly from newsmakers, as with Trump’s Twitter feed. They get it from ideological cadres styled as news sources, like Breitbart. They get it from entertainers like Rush Limbaugh (an opponent of the press) or John Oliver (an ally of accountability journalism). They get it from friends and family members passing along a personalized mix of stuff. They get it from people interested in the same things who collect online and pool information. 

Thing is, why not work with this? The people who collect online pools of information may have a perspective.

In the UK I find it easier to follow Jeremy Corbyn directly on Twitter than rely on the Guardian for fair reporting. Maybe this is just me but I guess more of this direct content will be part of the future. Some journalists also turn up on Twitter with links to comment. Somehow more connections could develop. This is likely to be through social media rather than platforms such as OhmyNews. At least that is my guess. The editing function is still there when links are repeated or comment added.

More on this later in the year. Meanwhile stories around BETT will be partial, derivative and a bit vague. Still they may contribute something. Sort out in Feb may suggest a better pattern for future occasions.

Corbyn Finds Voice ( in the Guardian )

To be fair and balanced as one tries to be in a blog, you have to consider the facts. Recently the Guardian did have an interview  with Jeremy Corbyn and it seems to have been well reported. He compares Teresa May with Henry VIIIth for use of the royal prerogative. So this may bode well for 2017. As the Guardian campaigns around Brexit the official leader of the opposition is a useful part of the mix.

Also the interview clarifies Corbyn views on immigration and the single market. Guardian can refer back if they get puzzled. Sometimes the reporting has been so limited that all sorts of claims are made.

My guess is that Corbyn will find more of a voice on Brexit during this year. He is now working with socialist groups in Europe and making a positive case away from the influence of Cameron and Mandelson. I doubt if it will be much reported in much of mainstream media but social media now finds a larger proportion of UK opinion.