Fact Check Please, why Benn left Shadow Cabinet @guardian

Report on deselection possibility today in Guardian

Benn was then sacked from his role as shadow foreign secretary amid claims that he was encouraging colleagues to resign as part of an attempt to replace Corbyn as leader.

No mention of stories in Observer and Sunday Times. Both clearly reported Benn as linked to resignation project. No way a party leader could live with this sort of report. Benn seems to have accepted this during phone call. Later he denied being the source of the story. So who was? How many versions of the print report existed? It seems to have gone from "Benn plans  to resign" to "Benn sacked in middle of the night" where "middle of the night" means leader sees the morning papers. If this story came from a source other than Bennor unknown to him who was it? Long enough ago for a bit of investigation. Somebody at Sunday Times or Observer probably knows.

Today Guardian story continues

A source close to Benn said: “Hillary is incredibly polite and a positive person and has welcomed the new [Leeds Central] officers.  

“The excitement in the media [over deselection] has been slightly distracting, but he is clear his number one job is to hold the government to account on Brexit. For many who want a good relationship with our Europe partners in the future, he is our last hope.”

He may be the last hope for Guardian readers who rely on the Guardian alone as a source of news. Unless they watch Andrew Marr show. No report on John McDonnell questions re Brexit this Sunday. Corbyn at PMQ? maybe this will be more reported. only time can tell.

Guardian Media Group needs an online extra in the struggle against Brexit

I am getting more convinced they have decided not to report Corbyn. Negative reporting during the leadership election did not do the trick so now they seem to just prefer the Lib Dems and the House of Lords plus the occasional Conservative MP.

Saturday story mostly about apparent splits around Keith Starmer. Thing is I cannot find what the difference is in what various shadow cabinet people have to say. They accept the decision from the referendum. There are policies for parliament to discuss. I recently saw John McDonnell on Andrew Marr show. The opportunity he sees is to meet with other left political organisations in Europe. I can't see where this clashes with anything Starmer has said.

Paragraph 12 just in the middle, the bit that interests me.

The Labour leader was praised at Westminster for his robust performance against Theresa May at this week’s prime minister’s questions, when he accused her government of being in a “total shambles” over Brexit.

Surely if the Guardian was mostly concerned with Brexit rather than rubbishing Corbyn, this is the sort of thing that would relate to the headline and be further up the story?

Then today Andrew Rawnsley writes about the difficulties for Liberal opinion faced with Trump and Brexit. Nine paragraphs in -

You can say the new “populists” are phoneys and presume their mendacities and contradictions will be exposed once people have experience of how they wield power. Jeremy Corbyn was doing that yesterday when he had a pop at the “fake anti-elitism of rich white men like Nigel Farage and Donald Trump”. The Labour leader makes a good point. But there was a better one he could have made. Why have a former commodity broker and a billionaire property developer proved more effective at mobilising voters discontented with their economic lot than did the Labour party at our most recent general election?

This is I think the only reporting of Corbyn's speech in the Observer. Corbyn was not fronting the Labour Party at the last general election. A bit more space could be given to the history around Blair and Brown and others who kept popping up during the EU referendum as arranged by Will Straw and Lord Mandelson. How well did this work out? Lord Darling sharing a platform with Osborne for example.

Trouble is that Guardian Media Group seem to be set on this path. They worry about the universities, UK image as well as research funding. Corbyn may be reaching a wider audience, much more likely if reported.

So the Guardian etc should be read alongside Twitter and YouTube as a way to reach the sources they choose to ignore and devote their journalism to hiding.

ITN vid now on YouTube, you decide where the damage is

Now found the ambush vid on YouTube

Why do they do this? A public event, every chance for press to ask a question.

Then on Sunday the BBC Sunday Politics ignored Corbyn in Sunday Mirror. Used this clip, nothing from the formal speech. Polly Toynbee follows up as if unaware of Sunday Mirror.

I realise I am repeating previous post but just a recap now the vid appears.

Mainstream media is getting much worse as bias.

For news about Corbyn and McDonnell suggest a search on Twittter and / or YouTube.

By the way while repeating things, Channel 4 blocked the Last Leg complete clip from Corbyn's own YouTube channel. My guess is that Lord Mandelson or whoever arranged the TV schedule did not allocate Corbyn a lot of space. He turns up for the youth vote, copes with indignity, and then cannot take home a copy of his very sensible extended case.

Blame Corbyn. Of course, if you rely on just TV.

PS I wonder if the BBC will upload a clip of Polly Toynbee on Sunday Politics ? Let the public make of it what they can.

update @guardian reporting on #corbyn

The Monday print version is as disturbing as I could imagine based on TV and online over the weekend.

Corbyn is reported but very sliced up. Bottom of page 4 his readiness to welcome an election was interpreted as a threat to block brexit apparently, later amended to something else. Actually he made a clear statement at a public event on Saturday and gave an interview to the Sunday Mirror.

Polly Toynbee on TV chose to rely on the ITN ambush, so why this garbled version of a clear answer to the question?

Workers rights panel opposite page. half way though Corbyn on workers rights as a condition for supporting May on article 50.

So strictly speaking the reporting of facts is just about included. But the journalistic skill is invested in forms of obscurity.

Meanwhile Zoe Williams mentions the "once vilified figures who periodically pop up as the voice of reason" - Tony Blair, Nick Clegg, John Major. Thing is in parliament the official leader of the opposition has some basis for asking questions. Always more effective if reported. Yes you read this in a blog, sometimes lost on @guardian just my opinion.

A newspaper that ignores facts available from other sources just to fit their brand of opinion is in some danger if the echo chamber fails to resonate.

Labour supporters backing off so LibDems can win an election? Based on what would you think? Get ready for another Polly Toynbee on blame Corbyn.

What happened during the referendum is still obscure. Lord Mandelson may have been involved in some media arrangements. Corbyn was not fully reported. Project Fear was all about the economy as in the City. Worker rights no more discussed than the Sunday Mirror interview this weekend was reported by BBC or Guardian. So I think an understanding of what happened is getting more clear.

Guardian should study the Mirror, just my opinion

More later in the Fleet Street blog, things are becoming more clear.

But meanwhile watching the BBC I notice that the Andrew Marr press review had no mention of Jeremy Corbyn in the Sunday Mirror. A bit strange, some might think.

Later on the Sunday Politics Polly Toynbee opines that Corbyn is not prepared to answer a question about an early election. This is based on an ambush by ITN. At least they reported the main speech, unlike the Guardian website yesterday that concentrated on the refusal to answer.

You can see from the clip on the ITN link above that this question was not part of a formal press conference. I guess ITN could request an interview.

Or else read the Sunday Mirror. I guess the Sunday Politics is live so Polly Toynbee has a chance to read the Sunday Mirror before she has another go at Jeremy Corbyn.

I used to think the problem with the Guardian is that reduced resources have limited the scope of reporting. But now it seems the opinions are driving the choice of facts.

If there is a loose coalition of well meaning conservatives, LibDems and various columnists I think they should consider what the priority is. Is it so important to damage Corbyn that they ignore or distort anything he says about Europe? Was this so during the referendum? What was the damage from this?

Maybe all of Fleet Street has now become an opinion shop. They sometimes describe social media as an echo chamber. But they offer a predicted slant as the main benefit. By the way, I also think the Guardian has got it a bit wrong as to the number of readers who welcome the Corbyn bashing. There are probably a good few who would accept some direct reporting.

I propose to do a daily search on Twitter and follow the links. YouTube also a good source for direct info.



From the Sunday Mirror

Mr Corbyn’s bottom lines are:

• UK access to 500 million customers in Europe’s single market.
• No watering down of EU workplace rights.
• Guarantees on safeguarding consumers and the environment.
• Pledges on Britain picking up the tab for any EU capital investment lost by Brexit

Hard Fleet Street and Soft Fleet Street

Still thinking that Fleet Street is close to the City. They seem to guess whatthe City might like or at least benefit from. Will Hutton today calls for more energy against Brexit and claims that "the centre and left – and the best of the conservative tradition – can unite" . However he also says that " no success is possible without the full-throated support of the Labour party, strikingly absent from the unfolding trauma." Trouble is I think this statement is just untrue and I can only guess it is part of a continuing Guardian Media campaign against Jeremy Corbyn.

I cannot find any reporting in print of PMQ on Wednesday. Maybe benefits and disability are not news. Thing is, there was hardly any reporting on John McDonnell last week with fairly detailed questions on the economy. When Corbyn asks questions about Brexit will this be reported or will the same topics just turn up later from other sources, closer to the columnist views in general?

See the Fleet Street blog for more on Corbyn during the referendum.

For this blog I think the Labour Party / Brexit situation possibly needs more reporting facility than the Guardian can afford. They recently did a long read on tabloid problems but they might have considered their own situation. The reader sourced reporting from Liverpool was quite a bit different from the Westminster view. They need a lot of space to cope with what the readers find for themselves and the opinions they prefer.

"Full Throated" remain might mean supporting the City based case made by Cameron. Labour is probably going to be different to this. If Fleet Street , both hard and soft, just fails to report this then the Brexit case is going to carry on.

Since the print version was puiblished for today there has been a court decision. I wonder if Corbyn will be reported in the Guardian tomorrow? Dedicated blogger though I am, I also wonder how long to spend a couple of quid each day just to check what has not been reported.


(Labour supporters backing off in Richmond just to make life easy for the Lib Dems? Not very likely unless something positive happens somewhere else. Just my guess ) 

Short term test of Guardian politics follow the columnists

I have more or less given up on Fleet Street reporting Corbyn with much accuracy. Anyway my idea at the moment is to ignore this for a while.

Today Zoe Williams proposes left unity around a Liberal Democrat candidate in Richmond. Seems to be a continuation of the weekend press. Adam Boulton is standing by for "the rebirth of the remainers". Nick Clegg is on ITV attacking the "Brexit Press".

A couple of things could be expanded.

The Tory chaos surrounding Brexit is the point at which we realise how many fundamental values the left shares – on a spectrum from the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, to the architect of New Labour, Peter Mandelson (on the single market)

Could we have a b it more clarity on John McDonnell and the single market? I think he and Corbyn have a clear view but this is not often reported. Indeed it is sometimes claimed to be vague.

Perhaps the most understandable fear is that any alliance, between any combination of centre-left to green-left parties, spells the end for Labour, whose internal tensions are only ever alleviated when it can promise electoral dominance. It may be comprehensible, but it’s yesterday’s politics, and traps us in this egregious dichotomy where either Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters must take the whole country with them, or he must be obliterated to make way for “sensible” Labour. It’s time to start considering a new reality in which the two wings of Labour, whether as two separate parties or within the same party, draw energy from one another and the vision they share.

This sounds wonderful but I am still finding that Corbyn is not much reported. OK the Guardian may well believe that the Richmond election is best served by quotes from Nick Clegg, Tony Blair, Lord Mandelson etc. However Corbyn gets to ask a few questions once a week and McDonnell provides a lot of economic policy detail. Others may well repeat the same points but there is no reason not to report them. Unless you still have some habits formed during the leadership election or some other wierd

No, stop there. Just till the test of the Richmond election, maybe the Guardian columnists have a point.

But if it totally obscures the official Labour case this may be a bit of a worry.

From the north, the just managing, the left behinds, whatever you want to call them, it may all seem a bit metropolitan.

So the Corbyn ideas about worker rights and extra budget for regions etc may come back later. Maybe even somewhere in the Guardian sometime soon.

Guardian still very confusing

I heard John McDonnell on Today prog and he seemed to be making sense. It was ahead of an announcement I think. So have looked in print Guardian but not found anything.

PMQ reporting was ok, mention for Corbyn. I did tweet support for the Guardian take on this.

But all I can find is John Harris. Very dismissive of Labour, then promo for the Liberals.

Search on Twitter finds this online I cannot see how this shows Labour not interested in access to EU market.  Maybe I missed it in print but similar things keep happening so I now go to Twitter for the news and the Guardian for rather strange opinions based on their own selection of the news such as keeps me guessing.

More reporting please, or maybe invite John McDonnell to fill a long read in his own words?

Corbyn now not much reported

I have not done a thorough study but this is a note a bit longer than a tweet. I will come back to longer posts sometime soon, together with more in the blog about Fleet Street and Europe.

I found out that Corbyn was in Brussels last week from a tweet linked to the Daily Express. I don't think there was anything in the print Guardian. Search through the Guardian found nothing online. Search through Google found this blog post with not much reporting if anything.

The week before he asked some questions of the PM about Europe that were fairly strong I thought. Again not much reporting, detail to follow.

So my guess is that although Corbyn is leader of the opposition the Guardian has not much intention of reporting what he has to say. The weekend before that the Observer editorial demanded he do more on Europe. So you might think they would report what he said and did.

So situation continues as in the referendum period. Corbyn is making a case but is just not reported, especially by the "soft" end of Fleet Street.

Is Neil Kinnock in print for @guardian on #corbyn and #remain ?

Yesterday I saw online an opinion from Neil Kinnock and a news story around it. This repeated the claim that Corbyn is to blame for the Brexit vote because of a poor contribution to the campaign. I saw some negative comments on this on Twitter, some about Kinnock in general, and a robust defence from @campbellclaret  .

I was interested to wait till it appeared in print. Would there be any context such as facts about Corbyn during the actual referendum?

Today I find there is nothing in print at all. Maybe I missed it yesterday. If anyone knows where or when Kinnock was in print please let me know.

As in previoius posts my impression is that Corbyn contributed a lot and the idea of blaming him for losing votes seems to have been around for a long time. Spectator podcast had the "give him enough rope to hang himself" narrative as early as during the first leadership election.

So maybe somebody realises this is getting a bit thin and the Kinnock comment is free is not being promoted.

What would be interesting is how decisions were made as to who got which slots on TV. How closely was Will Straw working with Downing Street. Honors list might be a clue. Who had the idea that Lord Darling should share a platform with Osborne? Did Corbyn know this was going to happen?

The Guardian has got another story about leaked emails showing reservations about #remain. Actual Corbyn views and actions are way down the text. I wonder if there are any emails showing how Corbyn was treated by the #remain players. If the gameplan for any election or vote is to blame Corbyn later then there must be some difficulty in the situation.

Anyway, main point today is just to check a fact. Kinnock not in print so far.

Margaret Beckett MP , request for comment

This is only a blog but I am trying to move forward a bit in the social media discussion around the Labour leadership election. Anyone can respond to the Today prog  @BBCr4today     so this is another version.

I am slightly asleep when listening to Today but I think I heard that most of the £25 vote forms rejected were because of previous membership of the Greens. Not sure how that will help with tactical voting in 2020. But anyway the main event was an interview with Margaret Beckett. As reported in the Guardian -

She said some in Jeremy Corbyn’s inner circle appeared “perfectly happy” for a split to happen, adding: “I’ve got no idea what they think is going to happen in the future or whether they actually don’t care at all what happens in parliament.”

 As mentioned previously I am now using the hashtags #nonspiracy as well as #remain and #corbyn. Rather than just raving on I have accepted that there has been no conspiracy to blame Corbyn for lost votes / get rid of him. But I am still puzzled as to what happened. I still think Corbyn was under reported during the referendum. So how were decisions taken? Lord Mandelson on Laura Kuenssberg report seemed upset that Downing Street took control. Will Straw part of Cameron honours. Did Corbyn end up on the Last Leg on his own initiative or part of a series of media deals? If Lord Mandelson has been correctly reported in suggesting moves against Corbyn should wait on vote problems what to make of comments in media from undisclosed sources that Corbyn is terrible etc.? When did this start? Certainly I think the #remain case would have worked better if Corbyn was reported.

How did it come about that Lord Darling shared a platform with Osborne to announce a "punishment" budget? My guess is that if we knew about the "nonconspiracy" around this we might know more about the "nonconspiracy" around Corbyn.

Apparently there has been a random sequence of events. Hilary Benn is reported in the Observer and Sunday Times but had no idea at all how the report happened. Later it is mostly just mentioned that he was sacked. Most of the Shadow Cabinet resigns, apparently in a series of individual decisions. The PLP continues to be what appears to be a series of events intended to destabilise the leadership. Personally I find it even more shocking to be told nobody had thought this through than to consider it was some sort of plan.

But the danger of a Labour split must have been considered at the time. You would think.

Meanwhile the Guardian , back on topic for this blog , has repeated reports on every form of Trotskyist or Bolshevik organisation ever to exist in the UK. In most cases there is a named leadership and a postal address.  So far as I know there has been no Guardian reporting on who is involved in #savingLabour or where the money is from.

Anyway I am sticking with the #nonconspiracy idea unless I get some solid info on something else. There is just a random set of people who more or less know how to work with each other. No detailed script.

On a previous occasion when social media was under scrutiny for a lack of politeness that some MPs found shocking, Margaret Beckett said something like it did not worry her because "I don't do Facebook". So I don't really expect to get any direct comment from her. But possibly someone will add something. They may or may not be Labour voters. Considerate Greens maybe. Any comment welcome, especially clues on how the #nonconspiracy actually works.

Guardian advert clue for MBA cost story, check at BETT 2017

Following previous post about Guardian story on parental funding of bring your own Apple device, today I find an advert for online courses from Liverpool University. Checking the website I find some details but no clear claim made about costs. Then I find a website, Startclass, that seems to have some numbers. they show Liverpool MBA cost at under $20,000 compared to similar at over $100,000. Now these numbers may be out of date. I have tried other search on Startclass that suggests they concentrate on the USA, (Exeter is in the UK by default, just my take but not much easily found about our local uni) Also I realise that as a Russell Group member Liverpool is not going to advertise strongly with the feature of saving money. However they are clearly promoting online options, a move on from just the MOOC. Questions about costs do arise.

At BETT previously I have not been able to discover much from the Leadership streams, either for HE or FE. Presumably moves towards online courses are considered. FutureLearn may turn up as part of BETT Futures but the OU has stopped having a stand. BETT 2017 is towards the end of January so a good time to check some facts. Have any schools or universities got a clear plan for moving online or using more tech such that there are lower costs for staff and buildings? Is this evident in how courses are promoted? Student feedback so far?

By the way, based on visiting the campus in Exeter and Lancaster every so often my guess is that the budget for iconic buildings is still steady on course.

Meanwhile I have been thinking about the Guardian story and the way parents are expected to pay the costs of tech as an extra. What about a Chromebook or similar? Has it got to be Apple? other tech is available. BETT worth a visit even if you just think of learning as something at home.

Tech for Education, Guardian has missed the crunch time my guess

Education pages yesterday complain that parents are expected to pay £785 extra for an iPad for each child in school.  Tom Bennett from ResearchEd explains that tech may not be needed. This seems to continue a long line of such articles. They do have a point. Schools should by now have worked out some savings on buildings and staff costs so that tech resources are free for students. But there has been no encouragement of this from Guardian coverage.

Page 13 report from Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology that children who play games on computers get better results on subject tests. Peter Etchells from Bath Spa calls for more nuanced data and more research to discover what is happening "if anything".

Peter Scott recently wrote about the troubles of UK universities post Brexit. He made no mention of technology as an option that might be positive. Polytechnics now usually described as "post 1992" without any consideration of tech as such. Outside the UK there are universities with the word "Technology" in the title.

Peter Scott a while ago promised not to write about the MOOC. He sticks to this resolve. My guess is that the technology around the MOOC is now doing well in the locations where it has been acted on. I think the Guardian fails to report anything because they don't really have a plan to get beyond print and somehow think that readers will be happier if online is played down in all respects.

Not sure where or when but some sort of news event will crop up eventually. Search on Twitter could be a way to find it.

Print version seems at another angle to online

I continue to update the Blog about Fleet Street and Europe. It seems to be becoming more about television. But often the Labour Party aspect gets more space than seems balanced. It is still interesting how the Guardian and BBC spin things around Corbyn. But more should be in this blog.

Found this link through Twitter. Long interview by Ewen MacAskill but I have not seen this in print. Maybe I missed it but seems mopre likely the Guardian is hiding things. G2 today  features Tom Watson on the Trotskyists in the Labour membership apparently. Nothing about who is behind #savingLabour.

So my guess is the Guardian will connect a bit online still but the print version not so sure.

more about the absence of any sort of plot re #Corbyn

Various bits about Corbyn and Labour Leadership will be in this blog because else the #EUref blog will be out of proportion. I still think the rewriting of referendum story as part of the leadership story is interesting but not so interesting to forget what the blog was about to start with.

Anyway here is a quote from Liz McInnes MP found through a tweet by Polly Toynbee.

Since my resignation I have been bombarded with conspiracy theories from some of Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters. I would like to confirm that I was not bullied into standing down, as some would have it. I have not been offered a job/promotion or any other incentive, another favourite conspiracy theory. Nor was I ‘got at’ by plotters, indeed I am unaware of any plot ever having existed. The series of resignations appeared to be an organic process triggered by the sacking of Hilary Benn, leading to members of the shadow cabinet considering their own position and making their own decisions. Some of them, like my colleagues Lilian Greenwood and Thangam Debbonaire, have since written very eloquently about their own experiences of Jeremy’s leadership. Their accounts are shocking and, knowing both Lillian and Thangam, I have no reason to doubt them.

This is where I find things hard to believe. Repeating previous blogs I get the early versions of newspapers in Exeter. Both Observer and Sunday Times had stories of  a move or whatever you want to call it against Corbyn with the Hilary Benn name very clearly reported. Later stories seemed to start with Benn being sacked for no clear reason. I do not see how any leader could allow the stories to be published as first appeared without doing something.

Later we are told that Hilary Benn was not the source of either story. So who was then? No plot, no coup , just a series of personal decisions made on the spur of the moment without any long term plan. Surely not.

This is just a blog so I have n way to find out other than ask questions. Not sure who reads this anyway. Somebody at either the Sunday Times or Observer might have a rough idea of how things come to happen. It was not that long ago.

more investigation please @guardian #plot #coup

Having read much of today print Guardian there are a few things I would like checked out.

Decca Aitkenhead for interview with Len McCluskey puts a couple of words or phrases into quote marks-

"the plotters" and "Blairite grandees" as if these terms were about something imagined or made up for some spurious motivation.

I am still trying to make sense of proper journalism such as the Guardian given what I know from tweets and links.

For example this video, uploaded to YouTube by Portland Communications on 30th June

There is not a complete plot here. Other than regime change, the phase when Corbyn might not have gone is a bit vague, but there is mention of possible candidates and it is hard not to imagine that someone from Portland has not had conversations.

Corbyn heckles as reported on BBC news turn out to be from individuals connected with Portland and the Lib Dems. I am assuming this as fact based on tweets. I realise response to this blog is asking a bit much but I have not seen any refutation of these facts in main stream media. So the attack on Corbyn came very fast after the EUref result.

Steve Richards suggests the attempts at a coup were uncoordinated. This may be true but is hard to believe. He writes that Hilary Benn had nothing to do with the reports in the Observer ( also Sunday Times but not mentioned in Guardian) . In Exeter I think I get the earliest version of the papers. Later ones from what I hear reported a sacking for no good reason. From the story I saw I don't think Corbyn had any alternative. How did the story happen?

Recently there has been a well funded campaign by #savingLabour though no info about who this is or where the money comes from. the Daily Mirror did have some info but not followed up in more recent stories.

Angela Eagle had a website registered some days before she decided to run. Maybe this was just another PR being over hasty? but again how could this happen?

I am often half asleep when listening to the Today prog but I just about remember a suggestion that words like #plot and #coup could be seen as bullying if linked to the PLP in a tweet. Well all I can suggest is that in the absence of transparency speculation is more possible and imagination can take various forms.

Anyway, Steve Richards is surely right that there can be some sort of Third Way. Possibly what Corbyn actually said during the #EURef will be reported, discussed and amended. Something like that is clearly needed as part of the post BREXIT debate. So more on this later.

But meanwhile I find the idea that recent events were just a series of isolated decisions without any awareness of a series of consequences to be actually more shocking than the theory around #plot and #coup.
  

Daily Mirror has info on #savingLabour

I rushed into too many tweets yesterday about the lack of reporting on #savingLabour. Had the info come in a different order I would not have been so blunt about the Daily Mirror. I found it a bit strange to report J.K.Rowling as a supporter of #savingLabour when there is no information at all on who organises it or how it is funded.

I later found a Mirror report from 7th July that names Reg Race as having a connection with an address linked to the website.

 asked if he was the sole person involved with the site, he said: "Absolutely not - it's a whole bunch of people".he said the group was planning to announce more about itself in due course. 

but as far as I can tell this aspect of investigation has not featured in more recent stories. It is interesting that Reg Race has a connection with the NHS

He is a director of Quality Health Limited, the country's biggest provider of NHS staff surveys working for 360 health trusts.
Despite being listed as the managing director on the firm's website, Dr Race said he is now retired and the information is out of date.

given the concerns about Owen Smith in the Times it is surprising that more journalists are not interested in this situation.

Search on Twitter will reveal speculation. But in fairness to Fleet Street it should be acknowledged that the Daily Mirror is on the case.

Meanwhile the Guardian has several pages in G2 with an update from the SDP years with some guidance on which groups may support Corbyn. However nothing about #savingLabour at all that I can find. Still, the leadership campaign has only just started and the Guardian has a lot of space to fill.

Guardian advertising standards, who is @savingLabour ? , journalism as curiosity @ewenmacaskill

Blog post expands on tweets from last week and weekend.

I realise there is general interest in data protection and various groups connected to the Labour Party. However I am concentrating on @savingLabour as it is still a mystery. I am surprised that there seems to be nothing in mainstream media explaining it.

Today there is an ad in the print version of The Guardian, bottom of page three. No address is shown. From the website also there is no address or way to locate any named person.

Couple of questions anyone might consider. Has the Guardian got any standards or guidance that might relate as in what sort of advertising it includes? If it was for an election I think the promoting agent should be identified. Has the Labour Party got any views?

Second question, is any of this of interest for mainstream media? @savingLabour clearly has some funding. Who are they? Where is the funding coming from?

To simplify, the Guardian seems to have two voices - most staff columnists well connected to London PR, and then @ewenmacaskill on an occasional trip to Liverpool with the help of Guardian readers. There may be interested Guardian readers even closer to King's Cross.

Search on Twitter reveals several links to supposed information about @savingLabour . But we live in times of challenged facts and speculation about the motivation of the twitterers. There is value in proper journalists checking out this sort of thing, possibly with public support.

Could truth turn up in a tweet?

Only time will tell.

Who is #savingLabour ? clues please, project for Guardian readers?

Reading the Observer and watching Sunday Politics I gather that social media is facing a reputation problem. Andre Neil suggests the Labour Party is now the Nasty Party, based entirely on what is said about the tweets.

My guess is that the conversation would be less heated if there was some answers to the questions and a bit of transparency. Words like "coup" and "plot" are used to describe something that seems to be happening even though the leadership is obscure.

BBC has not as far as I know investigated the heckles they reported. Tweets suggest they were linked to Portland Communications and the Lib Dems. Both were part of suggestions that Corbyn has lost support because of the EU referendum so could be seen as setup for later moves. But no mainstream fact check so far. That would have cleared the air but I have to say my guess is that the claims about Portland Communications and the Lib Dems are probably true as far as the heckles go, at least about the connections. No evidence of a sustained plot but nothing reassuring in the BBC reporting.

So I think it should be public who is backing #savingLabour. If it is true that they are paying for Facebook ads, where is the money coming from? i am not alone in this. Search Twitter on the #savingLabour tag and you find similar queries.

I find the Guardian quite hard to predict. They probably will publish opinions close to the PLP. But they also send intrepid reporters to Liverpool and welcome contributions by readers.    @ewenmacaskill Maybe they will find the answer. Or it will just turn up on Twitter.

It is clear who is supporting #savingLabour from tweets by Ben Bradshaw and @ChukaUmunna so this is welcome. What I find disturbing is a project on this scale without any clarity at all on how it is organised, who is involved, or where the money comes from.

Corbyn balance depends on scale and print version of @guardian

If you look carefully on the Guardian website you can find some reporting of the views of local Labour Party members when they happen to be also Guardian readers. It is very much different to what you might find in print.  PLP secret discussions were all I could find in the printed version.

Even as lobby journalism there are some unanswered questions. Extract from linked article

Smith said he was not prepared to see Labour split, did not take part in a coup orchestrated by those on the right of the party and would never be part of any breakaway faction.

Well, could he say a bit more? Could he name names? What right wing coup? Somehow the reporting of the PLP is usually with anonymous sources and very discreet until the charismatic leader emerges.

Meanwhile Ewen MacAskill is retweeted with reporting on an actual motion. Repeating my previous tweet, this is normal procedure not a bullying tweet or whatever is often claimed in mainstream media. 

So this situation remains hard to assess. There is a fringe part of the Guardian that relates to what I recognise online as apparently close to local membership. But the print bit is still in the lobby. Not sure what the scale of any of this is in actual numbers round the UK. Time will tell.

Future of print newspapers and social media looks more certain.

Update on Corbyn and Guardian

My guess is that this story about Eagle was written in London. It appears like a lobby sort of thing.

Whereas this story from Liverpool is much closer to what you may find on Twitter. Ewan MacAskill has previously asked for help from Guardian readers. Not sure how this is working out .

But there seems to be a divergence, lobby journalists at one end and online at another.

I am interested in what Corbyn has to say and disturbed how badly he is reported. But this situation is also of interest just as a test of social media sort of surviving in a mainstream context.

Twitter not an echo chamber btw. Many stories of bullying and soforth coming from sustained tweet campaigns in newspapers and tv. So far "bullying" term not applied to those keeping others off the ballot. But will this help to calm things down?

Normal practice on moderation suggests some response to concerns and a flow of information.

Corbyn reporting could be a tipping point for Guardian

There is some balance but in general the Guardian seems pretty much with the PLP and worried about the bullying from social media, Twitter and Facebook etc. There was a sort of counter last week, David Graeber on why the elites hate Momentum. But this is rare and not written by the staff regulars. Graeber sees the Corbyn social media as a threat both to Westminster politics and the normal role of journalists.

Since the leadership election has been clearly going to happen there has been increased coverage of the supposed bullying nature of tweets from Corbyn supporters. I am not a member of the Labour Party but I have been struck by the misleading reporting of Corbyn during the referendum. I am concerned that the views he represents continue to be fairly represented.

The Guardian is losing print circulation and hopes to find a business model online. See previous posts for facts and comment about Guardian Unlimited Talk. Briefly, they scrapped the original social media and then Comment is Free seems increasingly intended for a smaller group of writers with comments not much welcomed. Now the rude nature of Twitter land is a frequent theme for the columnists. this is getting a bit out of proportion.

I still read the print version of the Guardian, but mostly just to see how things are spun and which bits of online will turn up. If Twitter is the most reliable way to find the content that interests me then I suppose print will be less compelling in normal times.

If the Guardian continues online I really do hope there is some thought about how the people that tweet are represented. they may be the same people who are supposed to check the website.

Hello @emilybell not just liking tweets, more complicated than that

My blog posts are getting spread out over several blogs, well at least three. May sort this out after my break at the end of this week.

Meanwhile links to two recent ones. EU referendum post mostly about the Guardian and another one about Chilcot to be updated later.

Emily Bell today seems to claim that the online aspect is the cause of a lack of fact in the Brexit situation.

Not sure this is true. Guardian seems to have decided long ago that Corbyn is a loser sobest to get rid of him, My take is that his campaign was strong, just not reported by @guardian and others who might be expected to. Sundayt Mirror print version, not sure if this is available wherever Emily Bell is, was a reminder of how Corbyn could be presented. Guardian was just negative, always an anonymous opposite comment and that is just the PLP leave aside how the BBC will add to it.

I lost trust with the heckles. One might be from @portlandcomms another from a Lib Dem. Lots of suggestions on Twitter. But no official fact check or refutation on mainstream media. So I continue to believe the tweets on balance, whjatever I see on @BBCNewsnight.

@guardian now has a reporting trip to Liverpool and social media or some sort of crowd sourcing. Shows slightly different result to the take from columnists in the "lobby" . Emily Bell please consider how this comes over for the average punter.

No surprise that Corbyn is direct on social media, breaking now as they say.

Guardian readers invited to citizen journalism, could be too late

I bought the paper and have now found the online version. Apparently Guardian readers will become members and then help to report on what Guardian readers think.  In print on  a Saturday. Surveys show anger at sniping by MPs. Thing is, we have no idea who these MPs actually are. The leader may be Eagle or maybe someone else much the same but joined after Iraq votes. Is there anger at Guarcian journalists who build stories and comment around the supposed views of these MPs ? Could you guess from the comments on opinion? Polly Toynbee is upset at the comments on an opinion from Gaby Hinsliff. Why not consider the feedback as if it may be valid in some sense or possibility? Or just have a look at Twitter as if some of it might link to accurate info?

My guess is that the balance of Guardian journalism will stay much the same, the print sales will decline, the online approach will not adjust. Hope I'm wrong of course.

Hello @guardian please watch @jeremycorbyn on @YouTube

I have been working on a blog about Fleet Street and the Europe debate. It is called Fleet Street in Europe and Cyberspace. It continues but I have decided to move my thoughts about the Guardian back here. The main issues are about the Brexit press and what happened, how this decision was made. The Guardian is the paper I read most often but it is not a large part of the story.

No doubt the Labour Remain case copuld have been stronger but there is not much Corbyn can get over if he is not reported. the Guardian may have decided some time ago that another leader would be a good thing so Corbyn should be undermined on every occasion. I just don't know. But I have noticed that when he makes a speech it is rarely reported in a straight manner. Of course it is now clear that the anonymous quotes from other Labour MPs are well sourced so maybe don't blame the journalists. It has been explained that they don't really hate Jeremy Corbyn, it is much more complicated than that. They would prefer to be closer to power and exciting events. So an interview with David Cameron is front page on the eve of poll even if the main concern is Labour voters and research shows he has a negative effect.

Anyway, see previous blog for more of this sort of thing.

Recent notes.

"The left right business will be less important than who has some charisma" Polly Toynbee reviews the press.

Paul Mason opinion as tweet link has over 800 likes over 800 retweets, not sure when this will be in print. Can't find it but have skipped the g2 so far today.

Opposite the editorial in the print version Zoe Williams writes that "Corbyn has opposed the EU since the 1970s...nothing suggested...that he had changed his mind." I honestly find this amazing. She must have relied on the Guardian reporting only. Corbyn ran a solid and consistent campaign on social media throughout. Find the Sky News on YouTube. He puts a complicated case but it is listened to.

Re the editorial, splitting the party and the MPs could happen whether it is a kill or just a wounding, hope you think about this as the non coup continues

-------------------

Anyway, this blog is about the transition from paper to online. I happen to think that Corbyn did a solid job with the youth vote and ok the luvvie cosmopolitans who tend to tweet. This part of the UK may get larger. Few cannot find YouTube even if Channel 4 restricts the copyright on their content.

Theory around citizen journalism has been around for about a decade. The Guardian seems to be moving more towards celebrity opinion than costly reporting. They may survive online but I fear the conventions around the print version may not be revised in a timely manner.

attempts calm tone to refute alarming claims about social media as blog continues

Streaming music, maybe the web is one way to find it

Some links

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/books/review-in-every-song-ever-ben-ratliff-helps-the-listener-discern.html?_r=0


http://www.fsgworkinprogress.com/2016/02/expanded-ways-of-listening/


http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/category/music/popcast-music/

based on print version of Guardian today, here is link to web page
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/feb/19/slave-to-the-algorithm-how-music-fans-can-reclaim-their-playlists-from-spotify


thing is, the popcast is only about three minutes in and they start complaining about different versions of YouTube uploads so the stats are not comparable. Why do they need this info? Are they part of a community where opinion is shared? through likes or attention or suggestions?

Not the sort of aspect that ever comes over in Guardian print. If the message is DEPEND ON THE CRITIC IN PRINT IGNORE THE WEB then this means you can review your own book

seems a good idea I will think on

YouTube now getting same treatment as Citizen Journalism some years ago

My blogging has moved into LinkedIn Pulse where it gets some sort of audience. Now I am linking back to the original blogs which I left for tweets and soforth. Pulse posts are a form of blogging but you have to appear as a sort of consultant / objective comment. You can't just rave about whatever annoys you at the time. Or at least you have to wrap it up.

My most recent post is about a remix of Guardian story about OU. They start with the closures of local support centres in the UK. The background about the MOOC model and Futurelearn in particular is towards the end though I think this is the news and has a lot of positive aspects, well worth reporting.

I had thought I was a bit blunt but now today I read in the Guardian a view of YouTube in the context of public service broadcasting -

Before they started at secondary school two years ago, my older children regularly read the sports pages over breakfast or cuddled up to watch The X Factor on a Saturday night. Nowadays, they constantly scroll through Instagram and YouTube on phones that appear to have been grafted on to their fingers. The biggest threat to public service television is there, live and kicking, in my front room.
Where do they get their news from? Or learn about the world? Surely not just from videos of how to paint nails in ever weirder ways, or from vlogs on how to beat their mates at imaginary football games?
Their ability to make and share video content or communicate with their friends and the world beyond is infinitely greater than mine ever was. But just how good, for want of a better word, is that content? Does it make them better citizens as opposed to just bigger consumers with a lot more choice? 

This seems to me to be totally inaccurate as a description of what YouTube is. I find loads of content from universities. For example weekly updates from a Monash MOOC.  It reminds me of the way citizen journalism was mocked in Guardian media jokes a while ago. My guess is that things will change. Before too long the Guardian will offer courses at £49 a time about how your university can best use YouTube for content marketing.

I will try to swap tweets with David Puttman. I resist joining in the Guardian professional networks when there is still no reasonable explanation of how Guardian Talk came to be trashed. Our contribution could just vanish at any time. Jane Martinson claims that the Guardian networks can help to replace the decline in public service broadcasting for education.  Not sure about this, and no reason to knock YouTube as part of the promotion. By the way, Jam from the BBC was quite a good idea and the newspapers that blocked it have not really filled the space. Just my opinion.

Could someone at the Guardian spend half a day actually looking at YouTube and report on what they find? Please stop the nonsense. No good will come of it.

Digital Literacy, the Guardian and the BBC not at BETT

The Guardian is campaigning this week around Digital Literacy.

This is timed to coincide with BETT. and is supported by Google.

Thing is, some time ago the BBC did a lot for digital literacy. I say this not only because they gave away pots of Jam. The BBC micro is well known. Then the Guardian and others claimed that the BBC was unfair competition with other offers of content for schools.

So the BBC stopped attending BETT. My guess is that Google will have a stand with some buzz. So there is a shift to globalize the scene. BETT is in London but you might not notice much UK specific. The archives don't have enough budget to have a stand. Don't remember one last year.

Still, I will buy a print Guardian tomorrow. I almost added online support to their website. Then I remembered what happened to Guardian Talk. I still think this was a disaster. As a social media network ten years or so ahead of time it was just ignored then dumped. A lot of digital literacy is about culture and I'm not sure GMG gets it.

Joss Stone PDF backup from Guardian Talk, a direct link

http://bit.ly/gyU8V0

Oh dear, the PDf includes a form for adding to the Talk. Obviously now a complete waste os space but I don't know how to delete it. So Acrobat.com invites you to download the form, can't be done embedded in Blogger. so try the direct click.

More rescued from Guardian mess soon, not sure about the format.

#guardiantalk testing code, a techie speaks

I think the closure of Guardian Talk is a major event. It may be the point in time when a news organisation failed to transition from print to web. Time will tell.

What I think is this is a disaster. They just don't get it. @arusbridger talks about mutuality and transparency. At least he answers a tweet on a Saturday, but just to say there will be a thread on a Monday. this is after everything is deleted on Friday.

And nothing in print. We know from the phone hacking stories that print journalists have a selective view on what is news. For reporting social media the guardian is shown to be as reliable as any other paper.

They seem to think that if Tweet explanation stops there will gradually be a collective memory loss. Seems unlikely to me. How to find the Guardian on Facebook is just an invitation to go away.

Martin Belam is continuing to comment

MartinBelam
1 March 2011 10:24AM
Mind you, I think Martin has taken things in good humour, all things considered.

In fairness, I tend to mumble my job title when I introduce myself. It is fine at conferences full of similar webby types, but not so good at parties...

"What do you do?"

"I work at The Guardian"

"Oh, are you a journalist?"

"No, I'm *mumbles incomprehensible job title*"

[Tumbleweed]

Maybe that is it. The journalists don't really value the tech so the significance of deleting a server or two is not something they would realise.

I have found some backup from long ago but stopped copying recently. Blog post on Posterous. Can't get the embed code to work so the PDF is on Posterous as well. Maybe it works here



Chance of Adobe deleting content without notice, quite low you would think. but life is full of surprises.

English Sputnik Moment Continued

I wrote about "an English Sputnik moment" on a Posterous blog as will789gb. It may be that a sputnik moment story works because people want to know that a route has already worked out ok for someone else. The "first mover advantage" only works for some people, and there may not be many of them.

Peter Preston at the weekend was unhappy with the ABC numbers and other guides to when the web will work out for news finances.

Will newspapers ever make true financial sense of the web? Not until we know which figures matter, which convince advertisers – and which are mere febrile concerns.

But if the FT print audited circulation drops below 50,000 and yet it is still in operation, this could be a clue.

Then today he writes about libraries not being really needed so much today as if it was easy to work through the technology changes and realise that transition is obvious.

My best friend hasn't been near a library or bookshop for weeks: not since the whole of Trollope came downloaded free on a Christmas Kindle.........We can't embrace something fresh without leaving older ways behind.

If only he wrote so clearly about newspapers! I think it will be Printweek that offers a definitive take on the transition. see blog on IPEX for more.

There will never be the sort of financial information that shows for sure that a course of action is free of risk. But a few examples can help to build a case.

relimarual writes sense on Guardian books blog

Today the Guardian print literary review includes some extracts from the blog. Also there is a comment from the original writer responding to the other contributions. This is not always the case with Guardian blog extracts and is rare with Comment Is Free. Some of the columnists were not consulted about online versions of their print writing in the first place.

Original story by Laura Miller on how novels come to terms with the internet. Miller appears as relimarual on the blog and claims to have mentioned science fiction. I tried to add a comment pointing out what she originally said, that writers who specialise in character based fiction have "ceded the field to authors of speculative fiction, such as William Gibson and Cory Doctorow, whose hacker and brand-ninja characters exist primarily to explain or propound ideas about bleeding-edge technology." Well, I am not sure this is actually the whole picture for SF. DavidMW has a point in claiming that SF has been largely ignored.

Anyway, it turns out that my comment is no longer anywhere near the one from rellimarual. She has the last one as first displayed (and as in print) but loads more appear as a new one is added. Still much better than Comment Is Free where comments are closed quite rapidly.

So repeating this in my own blog helps me to keep track of things. For the same reason I still like Guardian Talk. The readers can start a topic. Much better than CiF from my point of view. I don't know why Guardian staff do not join in. I have contributed to media topics on PDF and citizen journalism. Not sure how much provocation to mix in, the Guardian voice will never appear. Over the years there is less going on with Guardian Talk I think. some people move to CiF but more to Facebook etc. I would guess.

I am trying to study the plot structure of Timequake as a way to edit blog bits together. There may have been another Timequake for ebooks in the first decade of this century. Many topics just seemed to repeat. Has it ended? 2010 seemed far off for Vonnegut. I may have written about this on another blog but it seems to fit in here.

I think Laura Miller may be the same Laura Miller that Google finds as working for Salon, based in the USA. Most of the references are to novels from the USA. The Guardian in print makes no mention of this. Has the copy appeared somewhere else? My guess is that London publishing scene is still some time behind in web awareness.

Preston suggests Google TV for UK local media

Over the weekend Peter Preston suggested Google TV as a way to resolve the issues around local TV in the UK.

In a sense, there's nothing totally revolutionary here. 71% of university students (on one recent YouGov sample) already watch two hours of TV online every day. 52% habitually watch television and mail or text their mates at the same time.

That is a YouGov poll for the UK. So as Google TV spreads in the USA the only gap will be to establish some UK local search tags.

There are dedicated TV sets with google TV software but the approach could start without them. Watching video online is possible with many devices. This can coexist with many forms of TV.

Preston welcomes print prospects for news

Peter Preston claims there is still a future for print.

The point to note isn't how vulnerable our printed newspapers are but how surprisingly resilient.

However I think he should visit print trade shows every so often. At IPEX there was no equipment on show from Man Roland. They may not expect to sell many new machines in the UK.

At Graph Expo in Chicago I notice there are no stands from Heidelberg or Komori. So litho may not be facing up to digital print this time around.

Digital is suited to short runs or relatively short runs. There could be more regianla variation in the Saturday Guide or other supplements. I think the Guardian should check out forms of print that benefit from web input.

What would Jeff Jarvis do?

The Guardian / Observer seems to be quite interested in the Times paywall. It is not that clear that they have a different policy.

Peter Preston seems to think that not only will people subscribe but then rethink their experience of the Web -

So, once I've stumped up cash for access, I don't necessarily look at paywalled paper newspaper sites in the same old digital way. I may read them as I would a print newspaper. I'm not clicking around, adding page view to page view, following a tale that interests me from site to site. Consistency counts. My habits have changed because I've paid good money. The stuff behind the wall looks like a newspaper and basically exists to be read as an electronic newspaper. There's a certain logic here.

Well, time will tell. It is not only Peter Preston but also Media Guardian on a Monday that is on the Murdoch case. Charles Arthur asks whether Facebook is a friend or foe? The assumption seems to be that the media pages are only read by people who work as journalists, probably in print, and that most print journalists see Murdoch as a champion of their views. The suggestion is that Facebook is a bigger threat to newspapers than Google so Murdoch should redirect his "ire". The evidence is muddled because there is a detail in the depths of the story. Google UK directs "21.9% of clicks to news and media sites, compared to 6.72% for Facebook." So the earlier remarks about Facebook compared to Google dotcom do not make a lot of sense except as a base for sweeping claims in the headline.

Anyway, my main point is that this directing of clicks through to news sites is seens as evidence of the terrible danger posed by social media, clearly a bad thing. Apparently Facebook is full of quotes lifted from newspapers. My own impression is that most of Facebook is based on personal experience. Twitter is followed by journalists looking for news.

If the Guardian is taking a different direction then acceptance of social media could be a consequence of an open site. The OhmyNews model welcomes contributions from readers and links to other sites. I realise this is repeating earlier posts but we seem to be going back in time.

I still think Jeff Jarvis is not getting the space in media Guardian that he did last year. I have tried to check this but got no reply. It was never definite but seemed to be every other week at one point. He turns up on the central pages but not as a regular towards where the ABC numbers on newspapers might be.

What would he do if on the Guardian staff with a regular spot? Is there a case for being more direct about the Times paywall? What sort of involvement from readers would be welcome?

James Murdoch recently suggested that the British Library should limit public access to newspaper archives so that there was more of a market for publishers. There is a lot to discuss.

Social Media

Still thinking about time and place. Settling back into Exeter so less likely to visit London again this week. I have started two new things at "Tales of Things" for Internet world, a stand for Brand Republic and the keynote theatre featuring Meg Pickard. This may be a way of asking a question. Or it may need to continue. What I wonder about is what these "Media Groups" actually think about print. Haymarket and the Guardian both seem to be moving online but still the print versions are a bit negative about digital. I did not find anything in the Guardian or Observer about the Digital Zone at the London Book Fair. Not long ago there was questioning piece about the "paperless office".

Blogger Jo Francis has reported on the digital aspect of the London Book Fair on her blog, but claims that the screen of the iPad is smudgy so not easy to read.

Top tip for putative iPad purchasers: you'll need to carry a microfibre cloth with you at all times, the screen's ability to pick up fingerprint marks is on a par with that of a black glass coffee table from Argos.

So at Internet World there will be Brand Republic with a stand and Guardian social media with a keynote. What to think?

Readers of Printweek could get involved in production of digital content. I asked at the Digital Zone if there would be a presence at IPEX and the view seemed to be that this was a different world. Last year there was an Espress book machine at the bookfair, later delivered to Blackwells on Charing Cross Road. Jo Francis has commented about the quality of the binding and also the problems with spare parts that closed it down for weeks at a time. However the idea of getting short run production closer to retail is worth investigating. Currently it seems that short runs are delivered into the existing national distribution. Generally I think there are ways for print companies to develop as part of communication, even though mostly digital.

Also, as Haymarket develops online what to make of the Printweek views?

Meanwhile Emily Bell has a few worries about Facebook and what established news organisations should be doing.
T

o completely spurn out of hand the incredible reach this platform could offer would simply be madness, at a time when finding a relevant audience for news and other content is the biggest challenge. But to hand over all of this activity wholesale to Facebook suggests that within five minutes there will be another head-scratching session as media executives hunt for the teaspoons from the family silver Google left behind.

I think it could have been sensible to make more of Guardian Talk, a board i have contributed to. The public can start a new topic as suits their interest. There has never been any promotion in the print Guardian. No Guardian staff have ever contributed anything as far as I know, except one prepress bit of news on PDF. The format for Comment Is Free assumes that the journalists set the topic. Comment is closed after quite a short time. The only coverage of OhmyNews that i know about has been on the Technology pages, now closed down. True, the not very funny series on a fictional citizen journalist has ended, but not much factual content has replaced it.

So will Facebook make more sense for most people? Probably. There is no print version with a dissonant view.

It will be interesting to see what turns up online from Earl's Court this week.

Rusbridger tests the iPad

The Observer had a long review of the iPad from Alan Rusbridger. There may be some clues for the future of the Guardian. He likes the options for video and rich content. He would prefer a keyboard but seems to think about it as a device for people to consume content. Maybe this is why it gets more space than other devices. He is a bit dismissive of the Kindle and Sony Reader. The issue is not covered that there could be damage to eyesight if staring at a backlit screen too long. I think there is still a demand for text and also through moving text about people can select and comment. The iPad is only one option.

#likeminds , citizen journalism

Found this Idio blog through Twitter and following @scottgould from #likeminds connections.

Citizen Journalism / Crowd-sourcing

With every major international event that occurs, it seems that citizen journalism takes another step into the mainstream. From Twitter reports emerging out of the streets of Iran, to videoblogs during the earthquakes in South America, the world is taking notice of personal voices, as tools such as Twitter and Youtube become a protocol for mass individual reporting. Many publishers have made great strides in this area, but still the vast majority of mainstream news is produced by paid journalists. There are certain areas which are very likely to move towards the crowd-sourcing model in the next years, including sports reports and hyperlocal news. And since a lot of reporting is already been done for free, why shouldn’t publishers take advantage?

This is about fourth in line as an idea to lower the cost of journalism. Thing is, citizen journalism also involves some editorial scope for the citizen. Not just video of the earthquake for the professionals to select. But at least citizen journalism is still on the agenda.

By the way, still no reply from the Guardian as such. Jeff Jarvis has commented on this blog, and returned to Guardian in print. But I would still like to know how to check a fact about the Guardian.

Jeff Jarvis leaves you wanting more as Victor Keegan relaunches on Twitter

There was Jeff Jarvis in the print Guardian yesterday but I still get the impression some coverage is reduced. He was on the main page for comment. Last year there was often more pages to come, including analysis on newspapers. I will look carefully for how this continues.

Meanwhile from Twitter I discover that Victor Keegan is leaving the Guardian. When is not stated. The Technology pages were really good to read. Blogs etc are ok but there is nothing wrong with considered print once a week.

Apparently there will soon be an app based on poetry in London. And Tweets will continue.

Guardian conversation continued

Jeff Jarvis has commented on the previous post and it turns out he will be in the print version of the Guardian tomorrow. So I look forward to this.

However I have not heard from the Guardian as such. I have an email for the Press Office from the switchboard and have left a couple of voice messages. My statement that there has been less Jeff Jarvis than I would expect is still reasonable. Why this could be is speculation, only encouraged by a lack of information.

Generally I think the Guardian could explain itself a lot more, especially to people who might be supportive. The Talk website is hardly ever mentioned in print, there is never any reply from Guardian staff to any contribution. My interest is in PDF and citizen journalism/OhmyNews .

Today Peter Preston states the losses for the Times and Independent. Why do executives leave the Guardian? Who knows? Some sort of citizen journalism model might be useful sometime soon. Requires engagement in conversation.

Any views on Jeff Jarvis in the Print Guardian ?

I am still trying to check out my guess that the print guardian has reduced the frequency for Jeff Jarvis on a Monday. Two voice messages now for the Press Office. I have been told an email address but no reply to that either.

This is only a blog but I do try to check some facts.

There are losses for the Guardian and I know there are job losses. But my general point is that readers who could also contribute would do more if there was more open information. So far this year there has been the closing of Technology in print and a "slimmed down" Observer. There was an announcement that Simon Caulkin was dropped. Jeff Jarvis just seems to have gone away.

There is still almost no detail on citizen journalism. Both reports i know of were in the Tech pages. OhmyNews has some problems and is changing the business model to seek subscription support. But I think the value of interactivity has to be a part of a new approach.

The print Guardian has done almost no explanation on the closure of local TV in Manchester.

So if anyone has any info on when or if Jeff Jarvis will appear in print, please add a comment.

I realise he contributes to a podcast but I am still concerned with the print product I subscribe to.

Meanwhile Buzzmachine continues. Spheres of discovery shows human links as part of the scene.

-----------------

And how is money made? We don’t know that yet, either, of course.

Finding Jeff Jarvis

More mystery on the Guardian Media page for Monday. No mention of the closing of Channel M in Manchester that I can find. The Guardian must know about this. Why not share with the people who buy the paper?

I think the future model must involve the public somehow.

Also is the BBC worth some consideration? roughly what the print journalists have done is to block the BBC, then sell off the print and back off the video. My guess is this will be the pattern for the UK. The established media have enough clout to block new models but not enough whatever to actually base anything much in the UK. there is local news on Facebook, hosted somewhere. Here in Exeter we are still officially in Plymouth.

Another thing I think Jeff Jarvis may have been discontinued or cut back a bit. Very unusual now to find him in the Media on a Monday. Buzzmachine continues. Recently some excellent thought about comments. I wonder if Peter Preston reads this sort of thing?

Augmented Observer

I cannot get used to where to find things in the Observor. The Media page is much reduced for anything positive about the Web. The Networker is now in the Review along with Discover Science though this turns out to be technology again on several occasions. Technology was closed down in the Guardian for a Thursday, maybe this is where to find it. But is has a fashion gossipy kind of gloss. The argument seems to be that barcodes can be used to add multimedia to print. This is amazing for advertising. Surely this could be on the Peter Preston page?

It was interesting for me that Exeter was mentioned. I live in Exeter but the #likeminds event feels like a disconnect with usual life. More on this another time.

Yet there are some who think that AR has already had its brief time in the sun. At the Like Minds conference in Exeter at the beginning of March, Joanne Jacobs, a social media consultant, described an AR application that demanded you buy a T-shirt and then go and sit in front of your webcam – so you could play Rock, Paper, Scissors. By yourself.

"It's hopeless," Jacobs said.

There could be more critique at a future event. the claims for social media, however augmented, are so extensive and so accepting of advertising in the mix that a thorough check would be in order.

Observer is ok

The revised Observer seems ok as a read. Peter Preston still has reservations about the BBC and bloggers but what to expect? This will just continue as the print version gets smaller.

I think this bit by Blake Morrison may be about bloggers as well as a review of Reality Hunger: A Manifesto by David Shields

Every artistic movement is a bid to get closer to reality, he argues, and it's in lyric essays, prose poems and collage novels (as well as performance art, stand-up comedy, documentary film, hip-hop, rap and graffiti) that such impetus is to be found today. Key components include randomness, spontaneity, emotional urgency, literalism, rawness and self-reflexivity. A loosely defined genre, then: in fact, a genre committed to genre-busting. But a genre opposed to current fiction.

I may well include some fiction as well as links etc. Stories for OhmyNews will continue to be based on fact.

Observer and web policy

There must be more going on than we are told. Guardian sell off Manchester local paper and others. The new launch of the Observer seems to be just smaller. The Media and Business section looks like ending up as part of news. I find little explanation of this in the Media pages. Peter Preston mentions that the CEO talks of "digital disruption" but that is the full quote about what may be a strategy. Long ago on a Saturday there was a blog page in which people from the Guardian explained what they were doing. Why not bring this back? People who read the Guardain and Observer could contribute to something new. On Monday John Mulholland wrote about a "digital revolution" without explaining what the new approach had to do with it.

I still think citizen journalism is worth detailed study. So far the Observer has been even more dismissive of bloggers etc. than the Guardian. Will this change?

There are reports of declining use of MySpace. My guess is that Rupert Murdoch's constant claims for paid content are not helping. He appears not to like the stuff that is offered for free. Something similar may happen with newspaper titles that do not have a clear web presence or interactivity. Meanwhile presumably the money from the regional operation will be spent on something.