MSM now knocking social media, trend could continue as print circulation falls.

This post more like notes, much to come back to.

What I notice is that the newspapers and now broadcast are putting more energy into disputing what turns up on social media. Could be a trend as the newspapers lose actual inluence while broadcast continues to allow them to set the news agenda.

( examples from Assad and bombing , could be other aspects of spins around Corbyn, seems to be the centre of this, see post by Owen Jones )

Jonathan Freedland writes about true and false as in facts that support the case for bombing Syria. So here it is in print that Roger Waters has made remarks about the sources of recent claims. So I guess his Twitter account is genuine. Check your own take on what is said.

Meanwhile Times has had front page on "Assad apologists" in UK universities,  see tweet . BBC World Service has BBC Trending with a similar story. They seem to share Freedland's concern that social media competes with proper journalism. Guardian in print "mysterious pro-Assad tweeter has almost as many followers as BBC Middle East Editor". You can listen here, thing is I think how total it is. Complete attack job.

I do wonder if the BBC is supposed to have different standards as the World Service. They are paid by the FCO to influence Iran. Maybe this has something to do with it.

Meanwhile continuing story with Boris on Marr show. Twice now not really asked the question obvious to anyone who can find DW on YouTube. This is not really helping the official UK case.

Staying with Freedland eventually you get the claim that Emily Thornberry has "echoed" a Russian claim. Previously I noticed that her TV appearance last w/e was not reported in Guardian so I include it here as a bit of balance. My guess is that she has significant support, somehow not reflected in a media world getting smaller. More on this when there are some clues.

limited Corbyn reporting in context of Boris "loose language"

Quick post as need space longer than a tweet. Links to other tweets re BBC Today coverage this morning re Boris, Corbyn and Salisbury. My interest, paricularly since weekend, in how the BBC news works with newspapers. There seems to be a strong bias against Corbyn. I have found an interview with Diane Abbott from yesterday and based on rweets I seem to have missed an item on Today since I stopped listening.

But anyway, now got my Guardian in print. Pages 6 and 7. Analysis of Boris "loose language". If you read carefully there is a paragraph quoting Corbyn balanced by a Boris claim that Corbyn had "chosen to side with Russia's spin machine".

Is the official leader of the opposition supposed to comment on the competence of ministers?
What is a newspaper to report?

What I find is that Corbyn seems to do well at PMQ on the occasions when nothing is reported in newspapers. Check on YouTube. Cannot say I do this every time. Just my take.

So possibly Corbyn has a point at this time.

How strong is the editor guideline not to report Corbyn unless it appears negative? Could explain how Brexit happened. Continues in another blog but not today, something else to do. Some Labour views were reported during referendum as lite versions of Cameron, but who did they convince?

Free Speech Online Guardian / OhmyNews timetravel

The Guardian is strongly into opinion and reporting on Facebook and other social media.

My problem is that they rarely show their own legitimate interest in revenue from advertising or explain what they plan as online.

There are issues with the tech giants but somehow social media continues, with much less hatred and vitriol than you might guess from just reading the newspapers.

Recently TV seems to have joined in. BBC concerned art scale of budgets based in USA. Last night BBC Trending very concerned about hate music on YouTube. They have a point but I feel like going back to discussions around the time citizen journalism first appeared.

Future posts for when that was. Meanwhile yet again Guardian Unlimited Talk, why trashed without warning? why never in any history? talk about airbrush the photo? continues previously but still worth a mention.

I will be going back to what I can find.

Meanwhile no YouTube RED in UK. Production in USA much easier. Ads still very annoying. Subs a better option. see previous posts. UK has better chance in future as part of global media. Jane Austin movies have mostly been done.

Not sure what happened to OhmyNews. English version closed. Japan version closed though it had resources. Continues on YouTube but not in English. Clues please. Blog as podcast? sound welcome as I am thinking about radio.

Background on future story , UK press confidence levels from public

Lots of stuff treading water at the moment. My guess is this is a stable situation for a while. Too may pressures for much to change quickly. The newspaper journalists ar too concerned with press liberty to accept government regulation. So even if the right newspapers are dodgy the Guardian etc will not mix it. ( Also some TV seems to worry about web so more aligned with newspapers than previously)

Meanwhile print circulation still declines, less funding for reporting, my guess there will be a claimed story without much basis. Regulation may come from a Conservative Gov. or maybe not so much. Most comment will come from social media.

Recently Channel 4 worked closely with Daily Mail to reveal Fascist past of Mosley family. Seems timed to block any adverse comment on stopping #Levesen2. Today Roy Greenslade in Guardian so much anti Mosley that he has almost no space for recent Byline stories on Sunday Times. there is a bit of explanation though on how Leveson came about. Something to come back to.

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

Byline story on Sunday Times and Labour during Blair gov. this could be an issue if something else came up. Mandelson and others wanted to stay close to Cameron in referendum. Opposed Corbyn leadership till recent general election. Stay close to newspapers if possible. Is there some situation in which they would back Corbyn and mix it?

Guardian on Leveson continued

Now found a bit from the factual reporting, follows opinion in previous post

Hancock said that “the world has changed” since Leveson 1 and that the press is under threat from new digital forces that require “urgent” attention. Traditional publishers are struggling to make up the loss of revenue from the decline in popularity of printed press with digital income. In 2015, for every £100 newspapers lost in print revenue, newspapers only gained £3 in digital revenue. More than 200 local newspapers have closed since 2005. Google and Facebook control more than 60% of the UK digital ad market, with as much as 90% of all new online ad spend going to the two giants. Hancock said the “largely unregulated” social media world threatened high quality journalism with issues including clickbait, fake news, malicious disinformation and online abuse. “These are today’s challenges and this is where we need to focus,” he said.

Sorry, this "high quality journalism" in print and "malicious disinformation" online is just a bit lacking in nuance.

No wonder the Guardian never welcomed contributions from readers as in Guardian Unlimited Talk, now no longer mentioned. See previous posts.

Guardian sticks with other newspapers on #Leveson2

Newspapers today face an existential threat due to a combination of social, technical and economic factors. Their circulation has fallen by a third since the Leveson inquiry. In the last decade hundreds of newspapers have closed. Digital disordering of news has sucked revenues out of print. While more people than ever have access to newspaper content, it is the platforms like Facebook that have hoovered up the profits. Tech giants stood by as the information economy became contaminated by fake news and malicious foreign actors. Proceeding with Leveson 2 would raise the threat of press regulation while there is no sign of a regulatory framework for Silicon Valley firms that would make the polluter pay.

Copied from website

seems to mean, newspapers are wonderful, lots of problems, leave us alone.

is it possible that fake news comes from newspapers?

what happened in the referendum?

Main energy comes from Mail, Telegraph, Sun/Times. Links Conservatives /Brexit. Could this be an accident waiting to happen?

Reporting most likely now from outside UK.

No sign of any credible web strategy from any newspaper. Looks like continued declining print sales, older audience, less advertising, less resource for reporting. So mostly recycled opinion for whoever still accepts this sort of thing.

Former Guardian readers may be spread out a bit online.

notes re Gaby Hindliff take on Corbyn and media, help please re TV

Just retweeted a couple of comments on Gaby Hinsliff take on Corbyn. Requires a bit more space.

Seems to be just the soft end of fleet Street, maybe not as blunt as the ones that started the spy story, but heading in the same direction.

what we’ve always known: that Corbyn’s lifelong distaste for US foreign policy, together with an apparent willingness to overlook the failings of regimes that are not the US, have led to him attracting the attentions of distinctly shady characters at times.

This is some sort of balance, newspapers may have lies but they may be proof of the same sort of thing we knew anyway.

Corbyn is accused of trying to get Facebook views, then this is equated with a culture war approach. who started this?

Writing soon after Corbyn was first elected as Labour leader, Gaby Hinslif wrote that the media did not hate Corbyn, it is more "complicated".

in retrospect we could have been more curious about why those who backed him did so; we should be asking even now whether and why they still feel the same. (For every shrill social media warrior there are dozens of perfectly nice, normal people who backed Corbyn. They’re a lot more fun to ask.)

So this issue with social media has been around for a while.

My impression is that the opposition to the newspaper smear attempt has been mostly from social media. The BBC did not repeat it but I would like help on a timeline. Andrew Neil on TV about a week in ( may be wrong about this ) one tweet from Nick Robinson.

Any help on this most welcome. There should be more to come.

bit of balance

If Corbyn simply meant that, in an age when the under-40s increasingly get their news from social media, the Mail and the Sun and the Telegraph are losing what little power to sway elections they once had, then he’s right. The tectonic plates are shifting, although worryingly the far right has benefited as much as the left from the new platforms opening up.

This is the actual news angle. Surely TV and radio could comment on this? Guardian too print based to consider it.

She then continues with the culture war bit as if only social media is hate fuel, the newspaper age was entirely civil or something.

No need for evidence of Russian bots to see the links Trump and Brexit. Mostly from UK newspapers. Corbyn not reported during referendum. See other posts, Fleet Street in Europe and cyberspace blog.

Robert Peston tweeted about TV "impartiality" so Corbyn should go on ITV to answer questions. Maybe he or someone from TV could help me with some questions I have mentioned a few times.

At end of referendum lots of blame Corbyn statements, well prepared. BBC reports two heckles, tweet world reports one connected to Portland and one to Lib Dems. Seems plausible to me. No counter statement as far as I know, but no BBC apology either.

During referendum Corbyn appears on Last Gasp but Channel 4 blocks him from putting full clip on his own YouTube channel. Why? He made a persuasive case pro EU.

If anyone wants to persuade Corbyn to make a more clear cut case pro EU, why not report what he actually said during referendum?

maybe off topic.

Main point. This smear attempt failed. Social media getting stronger. TV and radio have nothing to lose longterm from reporting facts about newspapers.

Guardian sensible but hidden away, surely TV and Radio can report on newspapers?

More turns up about Corbyn and stories in Mail Telegraph Sun Express.

Stasi file check reveals nothing at all. etc.

Surely the story is now about the newspapers?

Dan Sabbagh suggests this is about the age of social media. Labour can choose to mix it with newspapers because the video of Corbyn direct to camera is available online. this is a welcome development, Guardian print journalists being more or less reasonable on what is happening. ( probably tomorrow another horror story on how social media rots the brain)

Roy Greenslade suggests Corbyn that the statement "change is coming" is "the most explicit attack by a senior politician in modern times on the philosophical underpinning of press ownership". Seems to be the danger that Leveson 2 might happen rather than be cancelled or ignored. Oh dear.

Should Corbyn mention that press owners live abroad? Not very complicated. Channel Islands part of UK culture, what to worry about? Murdoch was Australian now lives mostly in USA. Global Britain fits in fine.

Not sure if Greenslade comments will be in print. Mostly reasonable, at least describes what newspapers are doing.

Robert Peston has tweeted about TV "impartiality" , what facts can he check out?  Most likely newspapers will stick together but eventually TV and radio may comment.

Roy Greenslade and Trinity Mirror

This post just a moan but there is a hook for something.

Tabloid Guardian still hard to navigate. The sections do not all out of each other.

Media section now a page in the main bit, towards the back.

Seems to be a different blog each week, Roy Greenslade maybe once a month.

In this one the Trinity / Express story is at the end.

Worry about the journalists who may be redundant if  say Sunday People merged with Daily Star Sunday. But what politics covers both sets of readers? and also how will the print work?

No mention here of how Guardian finances work with Trinity Mirror. Is the Guardian enough to fill the print capacity given what rate of decline for Trinity titles?

Why would Desmond get cash and the pension fund get shares in Trinity? Maybe this is a story somewhere or maybe journalists are saving it for a future enquiry.

Social media and trust

Guardian print version now reports a loss of trust in social media. Issues with fake news, child safety, extreme views.

The Edelman trust barometer, published on Monday, suggests the days when social media was championed as an enabler of citizen journalists and for its role in the Arab Spring have passed.

Just my guess, there also seem to be a lot of negative stories in the print media, still with an audience on some scale. There never was anything in the Guardian that "championed" citizen journalism. A not very funny piss take and to be fair two reports on OhmyNews in the tech section while it lasted.

But on another page Emily Bell is complaining at a lack of traffic from Facebook to the proper news publishers.

Why is there no background on the finances of the paper operations? Surely part of the situation and also an explanation of the tone of the reporting?

My guess for the UK is that Mirror / Guardian circulation will continue to decline in print. Hard news on Express required some time this year.

Continues on Fleet Street..... blog

Continued comment on Peter Wilby / Guardian / OU / Futurelearn

Some comment already in Hello Spiders, main blog or one where most things seem to fit.

This below relates to Guardian. Interview with Peter Horrocks mostly negative about digital trends and schemes. Two quotes to mention.

Horrocks, his critics can reasonably say, has form. He came to the OU from the BBC, where he had spent his entire working life, latterly as head of the World Service. In an earlier job, he turned BBC news into a multimedia operation, to the consternation of its more traditional reporters who were upset when he said that aggregating and curating content, some of it from social media, was part of their job.

Well, is it actually true, what he said? Is it ok to base a news story on a tweet? Should a proper journalist reply to comments?

UK newspapers, Horrocks said in his Durham lecture, never tried “to create a shared platform for value and quality in news content”. Universities were in danger of making the same mistake – until the OU’s “foresight” provided a “best of British universities” platform.

One more time, there was Guardian Unlimited Talk , an early platform supported by readers. Trashed without warning. Now never mentioned in Guardian Media Group history. whatif etc.

Tabloid with Trinity Mirror is consolidation in an industry, some explanation would be reasonable content for news media, multimedia or whatever. No sign of that so far. 

Now off to plan radio show, Phonic FM  12 - 2 . Presented with Jon Mahy who thinks FM is on the way out. We are trying to find a social media equivalent. Not obvious but enough happening with streaming etc to show that there is a situation. Something similar could reach newspapers or even the campus.

Naughton on purpose for Twitter / questions still for print

Even with links there is still limited space in a tweet, so here is an expanded blog post.

I have to agree that Twitter has attracted lots of broadcast mode advertising, unknown proportion of bot retweets, some abuse. But it remains part of social media and it can link to longer texts and other content. I think that opinion such as John Naughton in Observer today is part of a print journalist trend that seems to be about finding the negative in social media. See another Post in Hello Spiders, should be near the top , will check the link later.

Week after next I think, the Guardian and Observer will go tabloid. Trade issues about how fast the consolidation around Trinity Mirror can go given the Mirror decline in circulation. Express pension funds have concerns but not much reported. Still less on what is supposed to happen online.

Apparently the news value of Twitter has forced proper journalists back to following Twitter. So some communication continues with readers, even lost ones. Something will replace the print liberal opinion, not clear what though.

One more time on the facts. There was once Guardian Unlimited Talk. Early form of social media. Trashed without warning, all copy deleted. Now never mentioned in history of Guardian media Group. Anything contrary welcome.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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