Adrian MacLeod
Hello. I'm a journalist, web designer and content specialist. I can help you create stunning websites, blogs, social media channels and even (dare I say it) print products. Check out my online presence below. Click the contact button above to get in touch.
- WriteThinking
- Grow your own website
- AdeMacLeod on Twitter
- Ade's LinkedIn
- Adeosphere
- Horse pics on Flickr
- Ade's Storify stories
- Contact
Posts
July 18, 12:48 PM
In light of the News of the World scandal, it is not press regulation that needs to change. It is a culture that exists within some news organisations discouraging journalists from behaving ethically.
The story is not over yet, but here are some observations:
What needs to change:
The story is not over yet, but here are some observations:
- The press in the UK is regulated. Possibly more regulated than in any other Western country. There are laws on libel, laws on privacy and yes... laws on phone hacking.
- The failure in the News of the World scandal was not a failure of press self-regulation. It had almost nothing to do with self-regulation.
- It has long been the case that governments, the courts and the police have been reluctant to investigate the press because they do not want to interfer with press freedom. This is a GOOD thing. If you think about the countries where government investgations of the press are common, you don't want to live in any of them.
- Shoddy journalism has been a fact of life in the UK for (at least) my lifetime. Sensational stories sell.
- All the young people going into journalism I have come across (and I've taught a few) have a pretty good natural sense of ethics. None of them would have thought for an instant it was a good idea to hack into Milly Dowler's voicemail.
- Organisational culture has a lot to do with distorting journalists' ethics. High stress, pressure to be first with a story, pressure to get a byline: these things get out of hand in many news organisations.
- Press management by politicians has become too sophisticated. This has led to a Stockholm syndrome that works both ways. The victims and the guards have become too close.
What needs to change:
- News organisations whose culture encourages unethical behaviour should be sanctioned -- current employment law probably already allows for this.
- Journalists who blow the whistle on their employer should be better protected.
- Dealings between journalists and those in any position of power should be more transparent.
- You should reward ethical journalists by reading their publications.
July 04, 06:56 AM
July 04, 06:20 AM
It's hard to believe Ed Miliband's PR handlers wanted the interview to turn out like this. He was so determined to get his carefully crafted sound bite on TV that he repeated the same answer over and over, no matter what question was put to him. Fine until the uncut video goes viral. But political interviewing is a game where both sides know the rules. Similar interviews happen all the time. Mr Miliband's problem was that he played with no finesse.
April 26, 12:04 PM
Andrew Marr has told the Daily Mail he is embarrassed about the injunction he took out to stop the paper writing about his private life.
I did not come into journalism to go about gagging journalists, he said.
Everyone is entitled to a private life and injunctions allow invasions of privacy to be stopped before they happen. This is the argument in favour of injunctions. But there is also a strong argument against:
I did not come into journalism to go about gagging journalists, he said.
Everyone is entitled to a private life and injunctions allow invasions of privacy to be stopped before they happen. This is the argument in favour of injunctions. But there is also a strong argument against:
- Censorship is a feature of oppressive governments. The right to say whatever you like without fear of official sanction is vital to freedom
- Free speech is so important to freedom, we put up with all sorts of things being published that we don’t like: porn, the Mail, BNP leaflets
- We may not like the News of the World writing tittle-tattle about us, but it guarantees that more serious stories are free of interference
- Injunctions mean if you say what you like you could become a criminal. This is as close as the UK gets to behaving like an oppressive regime
- Superinjunctions are particularly insidious because they stop public discussion about the rights and wrongs of limiting free speech
- In a democracy, the judges work for us. Justice must be seen to be done to maintain confidence in the judicial system
- It is difficult to argue the public interest in a story about a married footballer having an affair. But there is a wider public interest
- There is a public interest in openness. Protect your privacy, for sure, but not at the expense of free speech
- Without injunctions, a few individuals would suffer invasions of privacy but they could still seek redress after publication
- With injunctions, we are protecting individuals at the expense of the greater good... at the expense of free speech
- The Human Rights Act introduces a privacy law into the UK but it does not give individuals the right to secret injunctions
- In fact, the Human Rights Act has a section (12) on injunctions specifically giving priority to free speech.
April 24, 11:14 AM
April 21, 05:07 PM
David Cameron says that privacy law should be made by Parliament rather than judges. The PM was responding to a series of injunctions restricting what newspapers and others can publish about certain famous people's private lives.
Parliament has looked at creating a privacy law several times over the last few decades. Each time, it has been argued that the press intrusion has become too much. But each time the argument that free speech must take priority has won the day, and the UK never had a privacy law, until...
In 1998, the European Convention on Human Rights was codified into UK law as the Human Rights Act. It includes a clause on privacy but it was generally understood to refer to intrusions by government into people's private lives rather that giving people an absolute right to privacy (media lawyer Mark Stephens points to the work done in preparation for the ECHR which clearly refers to the right to privacy in terms of government interference).
In 2004, Princess Caroline of Monaco took the German government to the European Court of Human Rights. She wanted to stop the paparazzi who had been photographing her and her family to such an extent it had become highly intrusive. Her argument was that because the German government had not prevented the intrusion, it was effectively interfering with private life and so was contravening the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court agreed and UK courts have to take European Court rulings into account. This effectively introduced a privacy law that went beyond protecting citizens from their governments. Arguably the European Court judges were just doing their job interpreting how the law applies in a particular case. Arguably they distorted the law so that it now applies in a way that was never intended by the governments who drafted the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the UK, the situation is complicated by the fact that we have no explicit privacy law. The mechanism lawyers are using is to ask courts to apply a law called Breach of Confidence in light of the HRA (as modified by the Princess Caroline ruling). For example, Max Mosely's privacy action against the News of the World was technically a Breach of Confidence case.
Like a great deal of English law, Breach of Confidence is enshrined in common law. This is, by definition, law created by judges rather than parliament. Recent court rulings have effectively extended Breach of Confidence from a law about confidential paperwork to a law on privacy. For journalists, the main defence to Breach of Confidence has always been public interest and modern privacy cases often also hinge on whether there was a public interest in publication.
To an extent, David Cameron is right that the privacy law has been made by judges. That is a normal part of the evolution of English law. But speaking on Channel 4 News, John Whittingdale MP, chairman of the parliamentary committee on Culture, Media and Sport suggested that judges' rulings did not take sufficient account of section 12 of the Human Rights Act.
If someone finds out that confidential or private information is about to be published, they can ask a court for an injunction -- a legal device that prevents publication (ignoring an injunction is a contempt of court: a crime with potentially serious consequences). A judge at an injunction hearing will not go through all the evidence because there is an urgency in preventing private information being published. To overturn an injunction, a newspaper has to proceed with a full Breach of Confidence case. This can take several months and because news is perishable, many injunctions are never challenged. Section 12 of the Human Rights Act is intended to counteract this imbalance, preventing people from using injunctions to limit free speech.
Judges are only supposed to allow injunctions where the claimant would be very likely to win if a full Breach of Confidence trial was heard. If there is a good public interest defence, an injunction should not therefore be imposed. In many privacy cases the question will be what counts as public interest and, again, this is up to judicial interpretation.
The government recently published a draft bill reforming the libel law. This will include a public interest defence but, in this law, the government has specifically avoided defining public interest, leaving it instead to ... you guess it ... judges in individual cases.
Personally, I am in favour of the government reviewing the effect that a privacy law that sneaked up on us is having on free speech. But judges are always going to be central to the evolution of the law and we should trust them to do it.
For working journalists, it looks like privacy is a fact of life. The important thing will be understanding the public interest in the stories we are writing so that we are in a position to defend them.
| Does court protection of celeb privacy go too far? |
- Fred Goodwin gets superinjunction to stop him being called a banker -- Guardian
- Premiership footballer who cheated with Imogen Thomas is told his secret is safe as court tightens injunction -- Mirror
- Married TV star wins worldwide gagging order from judge -- Telegraph
Parliament has looked at creating a privacy law several times over the last few decades. Each time, it has been argued that the press intrusion has become too much. But each time the argument that free speech must take priority has won the day, and the UK never had a privacy law, until...
In brief
- Historically, the UK parliament has avoided a privacy law in the interests of a free and open press
- But the Human Rights Act gives people the right to a private life.
- It is the job of judges to interpret the law -- this has always been so.
- Because privacy is bound into the European Convention on Human Rights, David Cameron may find it difficult to change the law
- Section 12 of the HRA gives priority to free speech in injunction cases -- one MP suggests that judges are not applying this correctly
- Privacy of individuals is balanced against public interest in publishing. Judges decide whether individual stories are in the public interest
- Government has been reluctant to define public interest in other laws
In 1998, the European Convention on Human Rights was codified into UK law as the Human Rights Act. It includes a clause on privacy but it was generally understood to refer to intrusions by government into people's private lives rather that giving people an absolute right to privacy (media lawyer Mark Stephens points to the work done in preparation for the ECHR which clearly refers to the right to privacy in terms of government interference).
In 2004, Princess Caroline of Monaco took the German government to the European Court of Human Rights. She wanted to stop the paparazzi who had been photographing her and her family to such an extent it had become highly intrusive. Her argument was that because the German government had not prevented the intrusion, it was effectively interfering with private life and so was contravening the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court agreed and UK courts have to take European Court rulings into account. This effectively introduced a privacy law that went beyond protecting citizens from their governments. Arguably the European Court judges were just doing their job interpreting how the law applies in a particular case. Arguably they distorted the law so that it now applies in a way that was never intended by the governments who drafted the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the UK, the situation is complicated by the fact that we have no explicit privacy law. The mechanism lawyers are using is to ask courts to apply a law called Breach of Confidence in light of the HRA (as modified by the Princess Caroline ruling). For example, Max Mosely's privacy action against the News of the World was technically a Breach of Confidence case.
Like a great deal of English law, Breach of Confidence is enshrined in common law. This is, by definition, law created by judges rather than parliament. Recent court rulings have effectively extended Breach of Confidence from a law about confidential paperwork to a law on privacy. For journalists, the main defence to Breach of Confidence has always been public interest and modern privacy cases often also hinge on whether there was a public interest in publication.
To an extent, David Cameron is right that the privacy law has been made by judges. That is a normal part of the evolution of English law. But speaking on Channel 4 News, John Whittingdale MP, chairman of the parliamentary committee on Culture, Media and Sport suggested that judges' rulings did not take sufficient account of section 12 of the Human Rights Act.
If someone finds out that confidential or private information is about to be published, they can ask a court for an injunction -- a legal device that prevents publication (ignoring an injunction is a contempt of court: a crime with potentially serious consequences). A judge at an injunction hearing will not go through all the evidence because there is an urgency in preventing private information being published. To overturn an injunction, a newspaper has to proceed with a full Breach of Confidence case. This can take several months and because news is perishable, many injunctions are never challenged. Section 12 of the Human Rights Act is intended to counteract this imbalance, preventing people from using injunctions to limit free speech.
Judges are only supposed to allow injunctions where the claimant would be very likely to win if a full Breach of Confidence trial was heard. If there is a good public interest defence, an injunction should not therefore be imposed. In many privacy cases the question will be what counts as public interest and, again, this is up to judicial interpretation.
The government recently published a draft bill reforming the libel law. This will include a public interest defence but, in this law, the government has specifically avoided defining public interest, leaving it instead to ... you guess it ... judges in individual cases.
Personally, I am in favour of the government reviewing the effect that a privacy law that sneaked up on us is having on free speech. But judges are always going to be central to the evolution of the law and we should trust them to do it.
For working journalists, it looks like privacy is a fact of life. The important thing will be understanding the public interest in the stories we are writing so that we are in a position to defend them.
March 15, 05:25 PM
Libel reforms proposed by the government today should make life easier for responsible journalists and harder for frivolous claimants.
Don't get too excited: the truth defence, although updated, leaves the burden of proof with the journalist. But a new requirement for a claimant to show they have suffered substantial harm as a result of what you have published should make a big difference to journalists' day-to-day work.
Note that this draft bill is just the first stage of a consultation process. Any element may change following this process and as the bill proceeds through parliament. However, there seems to be considerable political impetus behind a move to improve our rights to free speech. Justice Minister, Lord McNally told the Daily Telegraph that the changes could be law by next year, if they government is prepared to allocate sufficient parliamentary time.
1. Having to show 'substantial harm' should stop people bringing trivial libel claims. In practice it makes it less likely you will be caught out by an unexpected suit. In the early years of a new libel law, there will be a succession of cases where courts are asked to interpret the meaning of 'substantial harm' in specific stories. To begin with, we will be operating in a distinctly grey area. But uncertainty over the meaning of 'substantial harm' may also make potential claimants think twice. See Legal Week's take.
2. The truth defence will replace the old justification defence. You will still need to prove the truth of your writing. But if you are challenged over several parts of your story and you are not able to prove they are all true, the defence will not automatically fail. If you can show the main part of your story is true and the other parts only have a minor impact on the claimant's reputation, you should still have a defence.
3. The new defence of responsible publication on matter of public interest exists already in common law (the Reynolds defence) but there are some changes in wording that may be significant. You have a defence if your story is on a matter of public interest and you can show you behaved responsibly. If you report a dispute between the claimant and another person, and you do so fairly, accurately and impartially, you will be treated as having acted responsibly. This would seem to give journalists much more latitude than they have at present. What counts as a dispute will be another grey area in the first few years until the courts rule in specific cases.
4. The existing privilege defence has been extended to many more situations including the reporting of scientific and academic conferences (press conferences are already covered by the privilege defence).
5. The one year time limit on people suing you for libel is currently worthless because web stories are deemed to be republished every time someone downloads them, and each republication counts as a new story. The draft bill changes that to allow a claimant to sue you for a story only once, and only for one year from first publication. This only applies to republishing your own stories in the same form. Rewriting a story (or incorporating a defamatory statement from an old story in a new one) or repeating an allegation made in another publication will still count as a new story and so could be subject to its own libel claim.
6. Other changes include doing away with juries in most cases. Claimants from outside the EU will need to show that the English courts are the best place to hear their claim. There are various changes to the pre-trial process designed to eliminate trivial or vexatious claims more quickly.
7. The government claims that a new defence called honest opinion which replaces fair comment will improve free speech. I am not convinced that it will make a big difference to journalists because there is still a requirement for you to show the facts on which you base opinions are correct. The current proposals do not excuse honest mistakes made in opinion pieces.
What people say about libel reform:
The right to speak freely and debate issues without fear of censure is a vital cornerstone of a democratic society. Ken Clarke, Justice Secretary via BBC
I am particularly delighted that the bill includes a "public interest" defence to strengthen the position of people who raise concerns about malpractice or dangerous products. Roy Greenslade, Guardian
The Government’s welcome proposals could help stem frivolous or abusive threats of libel and prevent powerful interests coming to Britain to shut down criticism and debate. Isabella Sankey, Director of Policy for Liberty
Libel law has more than its fair share of critics and what draws them out is the issue of cost, and I'm afraid this bill has higher costs written all over it. Nigel Tait of Carter-Ruck via Legal Week
The bill if enacted is going to result in considerable pre-trial litigation as the court is asked to consider whether the harm caused by the publication has been substantial, whether a subsequent publication is materially different to an earlier version. Anna Doble, legal director, Wiggin via Legal Week
The government’s draft defamation bill is a big step forward towards ending the practice of libel tourism which has led our Courts to silence free speech around the world. But without action to reduce the cost of a libel trial, reform will protect the free speech of some, but costs will silence others. John Kampfner, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship
The bill will update the law so that, finally, it will reflect the realities of the internet. Nick Clegg in the Guardian
Clinging to antiquated models, sky high costs and the deployment of super-injunctions have been a feature of reputational litigation for too long -- and shame this country’s professed commitment to free speech. Caroline Kean from Wiggin, who represented journalist Tom Bower in his successful libel battle with Richard Desmond, via Press Gazette.
Don't get too excited: the truth defence, although updated, leaves the burden of proof with the journalist. But a new requirement for a claimant to show they have suffered substantial harm as a result of what you have published should make a big difference to journalists' day-to-day work.
Note that this draft bill is just the first stage of a consultation process. Any element may change following this process and as the bill proceeds through parliament. However, there seems to be considerable political impetus behind a move to improve our rights to free speech. Justice Minister, Lord McNally told the Daily Telegraph that the changes could be law by next year, if they government is prepared to allocate sufficient parliamentary time.
1. Having to show 'substantial harm' should stop people bringing trivial libel claims. In practice it makes it less likely you will be caught out by an unexpected suit. In the early years of a new libel law, there will be a succession of cases where courts are asked to interpret the meaning of 'substantial harm' in specific stories. To begin with, we will be operating in a distinctly grey area. But uncertainty over the meaning of 'substantial harm' may also make potential claimants think twice. See Legal Week's take.
2. The truth defence will replace the old justification defence. You will still need to prove the truth of your writing. But if you are challenged over several parts of your story and you are not able to prove they are all true, the defence will not automatically fail. If you can show the main part of your story is true and the other parts only have a minor impact on the claimant's reputation, you should still have a defence.
3. The new defence of responsible publication on matter of public interest exists already in common law (the Reynolds defence) but there are some changes in wording that may be significant. You have a defence if your story is on a matter of public interest and you can show you behaved responsibly. If you report a dispute between the claimant and another person, and you do so fairly, accurately and impartially, you will be treated as having acted responsibly. This would seem to give journalists much more latitude than they have at present. What counts as a dispute will be another grey area in the first few years until the courts rule in specific cases.
4. The existing privilege defence has been extended to many more situations including the reporting of scientific and academic conferences (press conferences are already covered by the privilege defence).
5. The one year time limit on people suing you for libel is currently worthless because web stories are deemed to be republished every time someone downloads them, and each republication counts as a new story. The draft bill changes that to allow a claimant to sue you for a story only once, and only for one year from first publication. This only applies to republishing your own stories in the same form. Rewriting a story (or incorporating a defamatory statement from an old story in a new one) or repeating an allegation made in another publication will still count as a new story and so could be subject to its own libel claim.
6. Other changes include doing away with juries in most cases. Claimants from outside the EU will need to show that the English courts are the best place to hear their claim. There are various changes to the pre-trial process designed to eliminate trivial or vexatious claims more quickly.
7. The government claims that a new defence called honest opinion which replaces fair comment will improve free speech. I am not convinced that it will make a big difference to journalists because there is still a requirement for you to show the facts on which you base opinions are correct. The current proposals do not excuse honest mistakes made in opinion pieces.
What people say about libel reform:
The right to speak freely and debate issues without fear of censure is a vital cornerstone of a democratic society. Ken Clarke, Justice Secretary via BBC
I am particularly delighted that the bill includes a "public interest" defence to strengthen the position of people who raise concerns about malpractice or dangerous products. Roy Greenslade, Guardian
The Government’s welcome proposals could help stem frivolous or abusive threats of libel and prevent powerful interests coming to Britain to shut down criticism and debate. Isabella Sankey, Director of Policy for Liberty
Libel law has more than its fair share of critics and what draws them out is the issue of cost, and I'm afraid this bill has higher costs written all over it. Nigel Tait of Carter-Ruck via Legal Week
The bill if enacted is going to result in considerable pre-trial litigation as the court is asked to consider whether the harm caused by the publication has been substantial, whether a subsequent publication is materially different to an earlier version. Anna Doble, legal director, Wiggin via Legal Week
The government’s draft defamation bill is a big step forward towards ending the practice of libel tourism which has led our Courts to silence free speech around the world. But without action to reduce the cost of a libel trial, reform will protect the free speech of some, but costs will silence others. John Kampfner, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship
The bill will update the law so that, finally, it will reflect the realities of the internet. Nick Clegg in the Guardian
Clinging to antiquated models, sky high costs and the deployment of super-injunctions have been a feature of reputational litigation for too long -- and shame this country’s professed commitment to free speech. Caroline Kean from Wiggin, who represented journalist Tom Bower in his successful libel battle with Richard Desmond, via Press Gazette.
February 24, 05:17 PM
Restrictions on clowns in important areas of the world have reopened the debate about citizen clowning.
But the truth is there is little difference between a professional clown and an ordinary person. Anyone can put on makeup and a giant pair of shoes. They aren't judged on how much they look like a clown. They are supposed to make people laugh. If they make people laugh, then they are a clown. It doesn't matter whether they define themselves as a professional or a citizen clown.
There is a certain defensiveness among professional clowns. And with good reason. Citizen clowns often have a better act because they have expertise in something else or a better knowledge of the local area. Professional clowning practitioners talk about quality and analysis of the comedy product. But actually, pro-clowns sometimes cut corners because of financial or time pressures. Anyway, it doesn't really matter.
Because there is no professional and citizen clowning. If you make people laugh, you're a clown. If you don't, you're just an idiot in a stupid outfit...
Sorry, did I say clown. I meant journalist.
Seriously now....
As pro journalists struggle to get access to the biggest story of the moment, ordinary Libyans are using social media to get their message out.
| Journalist | Citizen journalist |
But the truth is there is little difference between a professional clown and an ordinary person. Anyone can put on makeup and a giant pair of shoes. They aren't judged on how much they look like a clown. They are supposed to make people laugh. If they make people laugh, then they are a clown. It doesn't matter whether they define themselves as a professional or a citizen clown.
There is a certain defensiveness among professional clowns. And with good reason. Citizen clowns often have a better act because they have expertise in something else or a better knowledge of the local area. Professional clowning practitioners talk about quality and analysis of the comedy product. But actually, pro-clowns sometimes cut corners because of financial or time pressures. Anyway, it doesn't really matter.
Because there is no professional and citizen clowning. If you make people laugh, you're a clown. If you don't, you're just an idiot in a stupid outfit...
Sorry, did I say clown. I meant journalist.
Seriously now....
As pro journalists struggle to get access to the biggest story of the moment, ordinary Libyans are using social media to get their message out.
February 03, 01:15 PM
3 February 2011: in the maelstrom of the Egyptian revolution, journalists are becoming a target. As the New York Times' Nicolas Kristof Tweets: '[The Egyptian government] is trying to round up journalists. I worry about what it is they're planning that they don't want us to see.'
Mubarak seems to believe that if he wants to suppress the rebellion he also needs to suppress the flow of information. But, for now at least, the journalists are inspired to bravery by the Egyptian pro-democracy protestors and this important story is still getting out.
Mubarak seems to believe that if he wants to suppress the rebellion he also needs to suppress the flow of information. But, for now at least, the journalists are inspired to bravery by the Egyptian pro-democracy protestors and this important story is still getting out.
January 23, 06:05 PM
A poor attention span means web readers think "so what?" unless you explain to them why they should care, right at the start.
Dear reporter: it is your job to report. That means you tell us not only what is happening and who it's happening to but also why it's happening.
Google co-founder Larry Page is to become chief executive of the US internet search giant in April. BBC
The writer of this BBC intro felt they could waste a few words to tell us that Google is a US internet search giant (in case anyone in the world wasn't sure) but not why it is changing its chief executive. I am reading this while I'm watching TV and eating an M&S extremely chocolatey mini-bite, so you don't have my full attention. The result is, I'm thinking "a Google guy is going to be in charge of Google -- so what?"
Larry Page, Google's co-founder, is taking over the reins at the search engine giant from long-time chief Eric Schmidt. Guardian
This reporter gives me a tad more info (but also wastes space telling me the blindingly obvious) and the why is still missing. I am still thinking "so what?"
The next writer gives me a sort of why but it is so vague it really doesn't grab my attention either.
Google has announced it will replace its chief executive Eric Schmidt with one of its original founders, Larry Page, marking a new era in the company’s history. Sky
Now we come to a reporter who knows I am thinking "so what?" but rather than telling me why I should care, hypes things up. You don't have much of my attention but I'm not stupid.
Google Inc. surprised the technology world by naming co-founder Larry Page to replace longtime Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, the biggest management shake-up since the Internet search giant was an obscure California start-up. Wall St Journal
Finally, I discover a reporter who hypes it up and misses out some important information, but whom I forgive because they tell me why I should care. So I read on.
Google made the biggest management shake-up in a decade on Thursday, handing the reins of the company to one of its co-founders in an effort to rediscover its start-up roots. NYT
Dear reporter: it is your job to report. That means you tell us not only what is happening and who it's happening to but also why it's happening.
Google co-founder Larry Page is to become chief executive of the US internet search giant in April. BBC
The writer of this BBC intro felt they could waste a few words to tell us that Google is a US internet search giant (in case anyone in the world wasn't sure) but not why it is changing its chief executive. I am reading this while I'm watching TV and eating an M&S extremely chocolatey mini-bite, so you don't have my full attention. The result is, I'm thinking "a Google guy is going to be in charge of Google -- so what?"
Larry Page, Google's co-founder, is taking over the reins at the search engine giant from long-time chief Eric Schmidt. Guardian
This reporter gives me a tad more info (but also wastes space telling me the blindingly obvious) and the why is still missing. I am still thinking "so what?"
The next writer gives me a sort of why but it is so vague it really doesn't grab my attention either.
Google has announced it will replace its chief executive Eric Schmidt with one of its original founders, Larry Page, marking a new era in the company’s history. Sky
Now we come to a reporter who knows I am thinking "so what?" but rather than telling me why I should care, hypes things up. You don't have much of my attention but I'm not stupid.
Google Inc. surprised the technology world by naming co-founder Larry Page to replace longtime Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, the biggest management shake-up since the Internet search giant was an obscure California start-up. Wall St Journal
Finally, I discover a reporter who hypes it up and misses out some important information, but whom I forgive because they tell me why I should care. So I read on.
Google made the biggest management shake-up in a decade on Thursday, handing the reins of the company to one of its co-founders in an effort to rediscover its start-up roots. NYT
January 20, 03:04 PM
Journalists: the web has never been more important to your effectiveness and your career. You need to understand every tool and every opportunity. If you want to see journalists who do everything just about right, try Googling "Alison Gow" or "Sarah Ditum"
There are advantages to buying a domain in your own name. It means that when someone does a Google search for you, your own blog comes top. It also looks professional. Most blog software allows you to upgrade to your own domain name. You can buy a domain through Blogger for $12. You can also use one of the many domain name providers whose help section will tell you how to attach your new domain to your blog. Here are the two that I use:
Twitter is an excellent way to do two things at once:
Sometimes, in building a Twitter following, we end up following too many people ourselves. Easily solved. Create Twitter lists for the most useful people to you in different subject areas and then ignore the rest. You can make lists private if you don't want to offend the people you're ignoring.
While you're brushing up your online image
You may want to consider a second Facebook account so that when you make industry and PR contacts they don't see the same *you* that your real friends see. You should also set yourself up on LinkedIn.
There are a number of services that allow you build a contacts page on the web. This can be useful if you don't fancy blogging. My favourite is flavors.me
Twitter
LinkedIn
Learn how to do more advanced Google searches
Use RSS feeds from your regular online sources (news, blogs and PR) and feed them into an RSS reader. I use Google Reader and the bookmarks toolbar in Firefox.
If you are repeatedly searching on the same subject(s) Google Alerts will email you (or you can set up an RSS feed) if anything new pops up.
A good journalist will take pictures, video and audio wherever and whenever they can. A smart phone is becoming pretty much essential. I'm an Apple fanboy, I'm afraid, so all my recommendations are for the iPhone:
PicPosterous (to upload pics to my Posterous blog and auto-forward them to Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and sometimes my Blogger blog)
| Sources, tools and your presence online all need to be managed |
- Blogger is free and easy to use. Because so many people use Blogger, your blog can look a bit samey if you pick one of the standard templates. However, Blogger makes is easy to redesign (when you start or later) and there are a host of templates available if you Google blogger template.
- WordPress is widely used and the standard templates look good. There are two flavours of WordPress. Wordpress.com (like blogger) hosts your blog but comes with some limitations. WordPress.org is more flexible but you need to find somewhere to host the site.
- Tumblr is popular because it imposes less structure than other blogs.
- Posterous is an excellent for photoblogs and has the best integration with social media.
Your own domain
Why you should give a Twitter a chance
Twitter is an excellent way to do two things at once:
- Build a super-loyal audience for you as a journalist and for your specialist subject
- It provides a sometimes excellent source of material
Sometimes, in building a Twitter following, we end up following too many people ourselves. Easily solved. Create Twitter lists for the most useful people to you in different subject areas and then ignore the rest. You can make lists private if you don't want to offend the people you're ignoring.
While you're brushing up your online image
You may want to consider a second Facebook account so that when you make industry and PR contacts they don't see the same *you* that your real friends see. You should also set yourself up on LinkedIn.
Online business cards
There are a number of services that allow you build a contacts page on the web. This can be useful if you don't fancy blogging. My favourite is flavors.me
Enhancing your online journalism
- Use Youtube or Vimeo to upload and embed video. It makes your life easier and gives you a second presence on the web. Again, you may want to create separate accounts to keep your private and professional web identities separate.
- Use AudioBoo, iPadio or Podomatic for uploading and embedding audio files. Audio can enhance the credibility of your story.
- Try CoverItLive for live blogging events.
- Try Qik for live streaming video from your phone
- Create and embed stories using social media with Storify
- Upload and embed presentations with SlideShare
- Upload and embed documents with Scribd or Google Docs
- You can also use Google Docs for creating reader forms (for surveys for example)
- There are many other sites for creating polls and surveys including PollDaddy
- If you want to create picture slide shows, they come as standard with many photo-sharing websites. I use Flickr
Online sources
Learn how to do more advanced Google searches
Use RSS feeds from your regular online sources (news, blogs and PR) and feed them into an RSS reader. I use Google Reader and the bookmarks toolbar in Firefox.
If you are repeatedly searching on the same subject(s) Google Alerts will email you (or you can set up an RSS feed) if anything new pops up.
iPhone Apps
A good journalist will take pictures, video and audio wherever and whenever they can. A smart phone is becoming pretty much essential. I'm an Apple fanboy, I'm afraid, so all my recommendations are for the iPhone:
PicPosterous (to upload pics to my Posterous blog and auto-forward them to Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and sometimes my Blogger blog)
- Audioboo
- Dictionary
- Skype
- Wikipedia
- Photoshop Express (for quick photo editing)
- Reeder (syncs with Google Reader)
- BlogPress (for updating blogs on the go)
- Instagram (mobile photo social network)
January 21, 05:26 AM
January 21, 05:23 AM
January 21, 05:30 AM
January 20, 03:48 PM
People are buzzing about blogging again. With a raft of awards, it is finally being taken seriously as a way of communicating. Meanwhile, Andrew Marr says ...
A story created with Storify:
A story created with Storify:
January 20, 03:49 PM
September 30, 02:38 PM
Simple sentences are the secret of clear writing
Michael Caine played Alfred the Butler in the movies Alfie and Get Carter, the BBC told the world today. I don't believe they meant to tell the world this, but they did.
Here is what appeared on the BBC News Entertainment pages:
So the original BBC piece would make more sense if it was recast as follows:
If it now seems a little clunky, why not get around the problem by creating a bullet list of related facts.
Michael Caine played Alfred the Butler in the movies Alfie and Get Carter, the BBC told the world today. I don't believe they meant to tell the world this, but they did.
| Complicated sentences can leave the reader confused |
Here is what appeared on the BBC News Entertainment pages:
The actor said he would resume writing "when I finish Batman, if I make Batman" - a reference to a proposed follow-up to Nolan's earlier blockbusters Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.
The Alfie and Get Carter star - whose new memoir refers to his childhood in the Elephant and Castle area of south London - played Alfred the butler in both movies.
The cause of the confusion is an overly complicated sentence. But what caused he overly complicated sentence? It cannot have been that the writer was in a rush, because it is much easier to write simple sentences. Possibly the writer felt that the light tone of their piece would be ruined by a succession of boring detail and so they tried to get it over with as quickly as possible.
A sentence should contain only a single idea:
- Michael Caine is best known for Alfie and Get Carter.
- Michael Caine grew up in the Elephant and Castle and that is why is book is called The Elephant to Hollywood
- Michael Caine played the butler, Alfred, in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight
So the original BBC piece would make more sense if it was recast as follows:
The actor said he would resume writing "when I finish Batman, if I make Batman" - a reference to a proposed follow-up to Nolan's earlier blockbusters Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. He played Alfred the butler in both movies.
Caine is most famous for his starring roles in Alfie and Get Carter.
The title of his memoir refers to the Elephant and Castle, the area in south London where he grew up.
The inside track on Michael Caine:
- Played Alfred the butler in Christopher Nolan's Batman movies
- His most famous lead roles were in Alfie and Get Carter
- He grew up in the Elephant and Castle in south London hence the title of his autobiography The Elephant to Hollywood
August 31, 06:45 PM
What's the point of internal comms
View more presentations from writethinking.
August 09, 09:25 AM
From a recent course for working journalists: Statistics for Journalists
View more presentations from writethinking.
August 04, 04:08 PM
News editors undervalue the urgency of developing stories
It's Saturday 24 July 2010 and a minor news item catches my eye. North Korea has threatened nuclear war. Remember the date: it could be the beginning of the end of the planet. Of course, it may not be. North Korea threatens nuclear war quite a lot.
This is the dilemma for news editors around the world. It is probably more than the posturing of a tinpot dictator: the US and South Korea have begun a military exercise that pours ships and planes into North Korea's field of view. They are doing this specifically in response to North Korea's hostile actions (including the sinking of a South Korean ship).
But it could be something and nothing. How are to we to put a value on this news? How are we to decide its prominence?
The serious UK news websites valued it as story number three. Pretty important, but not as important as:
I had a little chuckle that possible nuclear war was being treated so lightly but then I looked more closely. None of these more important stories had any urgency attached. My life would not be much different if I had found out these things a week later. Nuclear war -- even a casual cry-wolf threat of one -- is something I need to know about now, I would suggest. There are consequences to leaving that one for another day.
Then I looked at the New York Times, expecting it to have done better. But no. The end of the world ranked lower than a story about an ex-president's daughter's wedding.
Maybe I am being old fashioned, but I would have done things differently. It is a sad trait of modern journalism that we are so driven by the imperative to entertain, we put things our readers are interested in above things they urgently need to know.
I would value urgency more highly, even if I am having to interest my reader in things they do not naturally care about. It's a duty thing. Duty is not a word you hear much in journalism these days. But if the planet is blown up and no-one knew because they were too enthralled by Chelsea Clinton's wedding arrangements, I would be a bit embarrassed to be a news editor.
| UK news websites valued the threat of nuclear war below less urgent stories that were closer to home |
This is the dilemma for news editors around the world. It is probably more than the posturing of a tinpot dictator: the US and South Korea have begun a military exercise that pours ships and planes into North Korea's field of view. They are doing this specifically in response to North Korea's hostile actions (including the sinking of a South Korean ship).
But it could be something and nothing. How are to we to put a value on this news? How are we to decide its prominence?
The serious UK news websites valued it as story number three. Pretty important, but not as important as:
- a review into the way child-murderer John Venables was supervised after his release
- a US senator urging Scottish ministers to come to a hearing on the release of the Lockerbie bomber
- a claim that safety procedures in the run-up to the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster had been ignored
- the exposure of secret government plans to scrap the schools admission code
I had a little chuckle that possible nuclear war was being treated so lightly but then I looked more closely. None of these more important stories had any urgency attached. My life would not be much different if I had found out these things a week later. Nuclear war -- even a casual cry-wolf threat of one -- is something I need to know about now, I would suggest. There are consequences to leaving that one for another day.
| Easy to miss the threat of nuclear war in the NYT site |
Then I looked at the New York Times, expecting it to have done better. But no. The end of the world ranked lower than a story about an ex-president's daughter's wedding.
Maybe I am being old fashioned, but I would have done things differently. It is a sad trait of modern journalism that we are so driven by the imperative to entertain, we put things our readers are interested in above things they urgently need to know.
I would value urgency more highly, even if I am having to interest my reader in things they do not naturally care about. It's a duty thing. Duty is not a word you hear much in journalism these days. But if the planet is blown up and no-one knew because they were too enthralled by Chelsea Clinton's wedding arrangements, I would be a bit embarrassed to be a news editor.
July 25, 01:51 PM
Web design is coming of age. Although it has received much criticism, the redesign of the BBC News website shows a detailed understanding of how people actually use news on the web. The whingers probably just need to get used to the new look and then they well start to discover how clever it is.
The useability of the BBC News website is the subject of a post on my new blog: Grow Your Own Website.
August 04, 04:10 PM
This page tells web writers to explain to their readers the benefit of reading on. By including context, writers can do their jobs better and so become extremely rich.
I used to tell people that web design was more like setting up a museum than publishing a magazine. Clear simple navigation was vital so that you could find your way around the exhibits.
Today, it's different. A website is still a bit like a museum but one where, rather than coming through the front door, people arrive and depart at random points via particle-matter transporter. Search has changed the way we communicate for ever. Web developers have to contend with people beaming in and out of their content at a whim.
The matter-transport-museum analogy is a strange way of looking at things but it sort of works. Your audience arrives dazed and confused, their molecules having reassembled only nanoseconds before and they look around blinking, trying to figure out where in the world they are. They may have arrived in a back bedroom in Cincinnati where a Jim Pigeon wants to show them his collection of late twentieth century spoons. They may have arrived at the plush offices of an intergallactic technology consortium which wants to dazzle them with binary gadgets. They may have arrived literally at a museum (well virtually literally).
This means two things:
It also means that good websites are no longer designed from the top down -- they are grown from the ground up. Each page one creates has to answer the following questions:
I have been asked to review a number of websites for people recently. Easily the commonest problem is lack of context. As a visitor, the creators expect me to put in too much effort working out what they are about. Individual pages don't explain themselves and so the effect is that the whole site becomes a confusing place to be.
| It is not obvious who some websites are intended for or how anyone would benefit from visiting. Try the FSA for example. |
I used to tell people that web design was more like setting up a museum than publishing a magazine. Clear simple navigation was vital so that you could find your way around the exhibits.
Today, it's different. A website is still a bit like a museum but one where, rather than coming through the front door, people arrive and depart at random points via particle-matter transporter. Search has changed the way we communicate for ever. Web developers have to contend with people beaming in and out of their content at a whim.
The matter-transport-museum analogy is a strange way of looking at things but it sort of works. Your audience arrives dazed and confused, their molecules having reassembled only nanoseconds before and they look around blinking, trying to figure out where in the world they are. They may have arrived in a back bedroom in Cincinnati where a Jim Pigeon wants to show them his collection of late twentieth century spoons. They may have arrived at the plush offices of an intergallactic technology consortium which wants to dazzle them with binary gadgets. They may have arrived literally at a museum (well virtually literally).
This means two things:
- Every bejewelled trinket box we put on display must speak for itself. We can no longer assume people are following the audio tour. Almost no-one is any more. Most visit for that one arcane exhibit and then leave immediately.
- If our visitor arrives and is baffled about where they are in the universe, they don't spend long trying to work it out. Why would they? The matter-transporter can take them to infinitely more places at the click of a button than they will ever have time to visit. The world of Google is too exciting to pause long in a dull backwater.
It also means that good websites are no longer designed from the top down -- they are grown from the ground up. Each page one creates has to answer the following questions:
- Who do I want to be reading this?
- If they read it, what do they get out of it? How do they benefit? Why should they bother?
- What am I trying to achieve? What do I want my reader to do differently as a result of the thing I have created?
- How can I let my reader know quickly that this is for them and that they will find it valuable? By quickly, I mean the time it takes their molecules to reassemble (15 nanoseconds maybe).
I have been asked to review a number of websites for people recently. Easily the commonest problem is lack of context. As a visitor, the creators expect me to put in too much effort working out what they are about. Individual pages don't explain themselves and so the effect is that the whole site becomes a confusing place to be.
August 04, 04:11 PM
It has become fashionable for writers to have a voice but I am not convinced this is a good thing.* Writers are, by nature, peculiar people and you get more than enough of their eccentricities in the selection of material and posing of questions. We don't need their impressions or interpretations or, heaven forbid, feelings. We want those things from the people actually fighting the war or running the country or inventing the optical network devices.
I wrote this rant in an email response to my friend Roy who had forwarded a competent article by someone else and asked what I thought of their style. The piece was a hastily cobbled together hack, generated from a lot of half remembered earlier interviews. Light on sources; heavy on chat. All too common and, in my view, a mutated form of churnalism driven by modern journalism’s demands on time and cost. It is part of humanity’s futile attempt to fill the infinite void of the internet. Two trillion pages and counting. Most of it junk. As you can tell, I hated it.
I am a hypocrite. Many of my favourite writers have a definite voice, and they are the better for it. Much of my own writing has a voice and too few sources. Obviously, I think I have something to add.
But my preference remains a feature which is mostly quotes from authoritative sources with the lightest possible touch from the writer to steer them into making a point.
BBC 2’s Culture Show last week included a review by novelist Geoff Dyer of recent war books. His point was that we seem to be coming to terms with the truths of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through factual writing rather than fiction.** He picked out Sebastian Junger’s War for particular praise. Junger writes about the experiences of American soldiers with whom he was embedded. One of the things Dyer liked was that Junger himself was absent from the narrative. The voices were all those of the soldiers. Dyer seemed to believe this was something astonishing and new. I was thinking: this is just good journalism.
The internet has dragged writing style a long way in just a few years. Personal experience writing has become ubiquitous thanks to blogs and cheap journalism. The scary thing is that it has become a default to the extent that some have forgotten the multiple-source quote piece is even an option.
I suppose some people would take the view that they want to know a little about the writer so they can make their own judgment about the angle they take and the spin they may be applying. They have quickly got used to finding their own multiple sources on any subject. They are making ruthless and sudden decisions about any one piece of writing so they can move on to the next. It helps this kind of reader to be told what the writer thinks because it speeds up the formation of their own views.
But accepting that some form of voice or personalisation is useful (and I am not sure I do) does not remove the need for multiple authoritative sources. The thing is that credibility is at least as big a problem in modern communication as the need for the reader to deal with a huge volume of information.
An approach I like is the BBC's where they sometimes put an opinion box in a news story. This helps readers form a view about the meaning or impact of the news without devaluing the factual part of the story. It seems to me to get the best of both worlds without devaluing the underlying journalism.
We need to think more carefully about where journalism is going because it has never been more important for factual writing to be good. Really good.
Matthew Lynn writing in Business Week predicts the failure of the pay wall recently erected around The Times and Sunday Times.
It’s too late to start charging for newspapers online now. The content isn’t good enough, he says. Even British highbrow newspapers have placed too little emphasis on substance, and too much on entertaining and exciting their readers.
And yet, if the content is not sufficiently good that people will pay, where lies the future for journalists?
* Note that this piece has been written in the first person using a ‘voice’. The irony is not lost on me. Nor should it be on you.
** By the time you read this, the Culture Show’s Dyer review may have disappeared from the BBC iPlayer. Its tenor is reflected in this Sydney Morning Herald piece on an earlier talk by Dyer.
I wrote this rant in an email response to my friend Roy who had forwarded a competent article by someone else and asked what I thought of their style. The piece was a hastily cobbled together hack, generated from a lot of half remembered earlier interviews. Light on sources; heavy on chat. All too common and, in my view, a mutated form of churnalism driven by modern journalism’s demands on time and cost. It is part of humanity’s futile attempt to fill the infinite void of the internet. Two trillion pages and counting. Most of it junk. As you can tell, I hated it.
I am a hypocrite. Many of my favourite writers have a definite voice, and they are the better for it. Much of my own writing has a voice and too few sources. Obviously, I think I have something to add.
But my preference remains a feature which is mostly quotes from authoritative sources with the lightest possible touch from the writer to steer them into making a point.
theVOICE
BBC 2’s Culture Show last week included a review by novelist Geoff Dyer of recent war books. His point was that we seem to be coming to terms with the truths of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through factual writing rather than fiction.** He picked out Sebastian Junger’s War for particular praise. Junger writes about the experiences of American soldiers with whom he was embedded. One of the things Dyer liked was that Junger himself was absent from the narrative. The voices were all those of the soldiers. Dyer seemed to believe this was something astonishing and new. I was thinking: this is just good journalism.
The internet has dragged writing style a long way in just a few years. Personal experience writing has become ubiquitous thanks to blogs and cheap journalism. The scary thing is that it has become a default to the extent that some have forgotten the multiple-source quote piece is even an option.
I suppose some people would take the view that they want to know a little about the writer so they can make their own judgment about the angle they take and the spin they may be applying. They have quickly got used to finding their own multiple sources on any subject. They are making ruthless and sudden decisions about any one piece of writing so they can move on to the next. It helps this kind of reader to be told what the writer thinks because it speeds up the formation of their own views.
But accepting that some form of voice or personalisation is useful (and I am not sure I do) does not remove the need for multiple authoritative sources. The thing is that credibility is at least as big a problem in modern communication as the need for the reader to deal with a huge volume of information.
A media guru speaks:
I think writing style is important in journalism but secondary to the collection of authoritative facts. For me, a style which makes the source of those facts transparent to the reader is a boon in this info-overload age. Any advantage that writing with your own voice might provide can mostly be better achieved with clearly delineated opinion panels, dummy's guides, and so on.
I think writing style is important in journalism but secondary to the collection of authoritative facts. For me, a style which makes the source of those facts transparent to the reader is a boon in this info-overload age. Any advantage that writing with your own voice might provide can mostly be better achieved with clearly delineated opinion panels, dummy's guides, and so on.
An approach I like is the BBC's where they sometimes put an opinion box in a news story. This helps readers form a view about the meaning or impact of the news without devaluing the factual part of the story. It seems to me to get the best of both worlds without devaluing the underlying journalism.
We need to think more carefully about where journalism is going because it has never been more important for factual writing to be good. Really good.
Matthew Lynn writing in Business Week predicts the failure of the pay wall recently erected around The Times and Sunday Times.
It’s too late to start charging for newspapers online now. The content isn’t good enough, he says. Even British highbrow newspapers have placed too little emphasis on substance, and too much on entertaining and exciting their readers.
And yet, if the content is not sufficiently good that people will pay, where lies the future for journalists?
* Note that this piece has been written in the first person using a ‘voice’. The irony is not lost on me. Nor should it be on you.
** By the time you read this, the Culture Show’s Dyer review may have disappeared from the BBC iPlayer. Its tenor is reflected in this Sydney Morning Herald piece on an earlier talk by Dyer.
August 04, 04:11 PM
A list of resources useful for web writers and editors who are getting more involved with the technical side of web site development. The list is by no means exhaustive. If you have any site or service you wish to add please let me know by adding a comment.
Design
Demonstration of the power of CSS: CSS Zen Garden
Design and emotion: Don Normal at TED Talks (video)
Taking your talent to the web -- entire book on web design from Jeffrey Zeldman in PDF format
40 examples of minimalism in web design
21 amazing CSS techniques you should know
The web explained at Wikipedia
Web 2.0
HTML
ECMAScript (JavaScript)
Core fonts
The semantic web
Web application frameworks
Application programming interface
Technology
HTML Tutorial from W3Schools
HTML5 and what it offers
Whois.net domain name look up
A list of content management systems (CMS): Wikipedia
Help in selecting a content management system at CMS Review
The Flash Explained blog contains tutorials on Flash animation for websites
Search engine optimisation
Google Webmaster Central
SEO tools from WebConfs
Design for Google: fun demo of SEO techniques
Google Adwords key word tool
Google Trends allows you to compare the number of people searching on different terms
Small business guide to SEO
SEO for websites that rely on Flash
Google's Matt Cutts' Blog
SEO page assessment tool
Inside Google’s Brain: How PageRank And Indexing Work
Redirect check tool
How Google works -- slide show
SEO strategies for Facebook pages
Web analytics
Google Analytics
What all the terms mean: definitions
Wikipedia explains web analytics
Analytics toolbox from Mashable: 50+ ways to track website traffic
Google Analytics: 24 features that make it best of breed.
Standards and metrics for ABCe audited sites
Web use
How users read on the web from Jakob Nielsen
Alertbox: Jakob Nielsen's site on useability
How readers scan web pages
Google's eyetracking studies
US Government site on useability
Useful Firefox addons
Web Developer adds site developer tools to the Firefox Browser
Firebug integrates with Firefox to put a wealth of development tools at your fingertips while you browse. You can edit, debug, and monitor CSS, HTML, and JavaScript live in any web page
Adblock Plus removes adverts from web pages
Better Privacy blocks Flash tracking cookies and other nasties
With ColorZilla eyedropper you can get a colour reading from any point in your browser, and paste it into another program
Other
A List Apart Magazine explores the design, development, and meaning of web content, with a special focus on web standards and best practices.
W3Schools provides excellent tutorials on the technlogy behind websites
The web is us/ing us -- interesting YouTube video exploring Web 2.0
The Wayback Machine keeps an archive of old versions of websites
A completely unscientific look at social sites (fun)
Tools
Wordle lets you create word clouds from any text
How to embed almost anything in your website
Net2ftp - a web based FTP client (poss for uploading pages to a server)
CushyCMS is a free system that lets you add user-editable pages to your site
Build an RSS feed you can cut and paste into your website with FeedJ2S
Blastacasta adds feeds to your website
Rotating content tool
SquareSpace: recommended website building tool
Favicon creater
Podomatic is a podcast creation and sharing service
Audioboo is a podcast creation and sharing service with an iPhone app
Posterous is a free blog that allows you to post by smart phone or email and automatically forwards to social media accounts
Coveritlive is a sophisticated live blogging tool
Aviary is a suite of online tools for image editing, illustration and audio editing
Slideshare lets you upload and share powerpoint presentations
Stats
Alexa: traffic metrics, search analytics for websites
How many people are using each of the main browsers?
Which screen resolution displays are people using?
August 04, 04:12 PM
Changes to no-win no-fee rules for libel lawyers have first been delayed by back-bench MPs and now dropped as parliament winds up business before the election.
Claimants can sue for libel without having to pay a lawyer, provided the lawyer thinks they have a good chance of winning. If they do win, the other side pays the lawyers costs and the claimant collects the damages with no financial risk. The lawyers take the risk, but they benefit from an uplift fee if they win.
Currently, libel lawyers can double their fees if they win a no-win no-fee case. This can mean defendents paying costs disproportionate to the defamation they have caused. Some libel lawyers charge £500 an hour. With the uplift fee, a defendant might be paying £1000 an hour.
Damages in a libel action are typically a few tens of thousands of pounds. Costs are often ten times that level.Costs in English libel courts are 140 times the European average a study by Oxford University found last year.
The Ministry of Justice was changing the libel law to reduce the uplift fee from 100% to 10% extra. That legislation has been set aside now and only time will tell whether the next government will restart libel cost reform.
Posts
February 17, 04:46 PM
February 12, 06:34 AM
Search engines use the fact that a human has chosen to link to your page as a way of evaluating its importance. The more people link to your site, the better it will do.
Google analyses almost the whole web. One of the things it looks for is who is linking to what. You score for the number of links to your page. Google calls this page rank (a mark out of 10). Since every page on the web has a page rank, Google can also see the value of pages linking to you. You score better if sites with a high page rank link to you.
You can check the Page Rank of your site by installing the Google Toolbar or by visiting Google PageRank Checker.
You can see who is linking to your site by typing its address into Google preceded by link:
Unfortunately, Google does not respond instantly when people add new links to your site. It make take several months before changes are reflected in your Page Rank.
Getting people to link to your site is a major element determining your position on a search engine results page. Here are my tips for persuading people to link to you:
Make a good website in the first place
Put the right words in the right places
Update frequently
Make what you have to say as interesting as possible
Create a buzz or a focus
Put stuff up that cannot be found anywhere else
Make it detailed and specific
Make it fun
Make it free
Make it controversial
Be campaigning
Put stuff up that other people cannot easily create for themselves
Google analyses almost the whole web. One of the things it looks for is who is linking to what. You score for the number of links to your page. Google calls this page rank (a mark out of 10). Since every page on the web has a page rank, Google can also see the value of pages linking to you. You score better if sites with a high page rank link to you.
You can check the Page Rank of your site by installing the Google Toolbar or by visiting Google PageRank Checker.
You can see who is linking to your site by typing its address into Google preceded by link:
Unfortunately, Google does not respond instantly when people add new links to your site. It make take several months before changes are reflected in your Page Rank.
Getting people to link to your site is a major element determining your position on a search engine results page. Here are my tips for persuading people to link to you:
Make a good website in the first place
Put the right words in the right places
Update frequently
Make what you have to say as interesting as possible
Create a buzz or a focus
Put stuff up that cannot be found anywhere else
Make it detailed and specific
Make it fun
Make it free
Make it controversial
Be campaigning
Put stuff up that other people cannot easily create for themselves
February 12, 06:19 AM
Constantly changing websites tend to do better with search engines. Best of all, reflect what is going on in the outside world right now.
If you monitor what people are searching for, it tends to come in surges driven by outside events. The day a celeb finds themselves sentenced to two years in jail is also a day that sees a lot of searching on their name.
There is an exponential decay. If you write about something relevant to your audience a week after it has happened you will get a lesser response than if you write about it the same day.
BUT... search engines don't search the internet (shock news) they search a copy of it on their own servers (the cache). The frequency with which they update their cache for each web page depends on how often it changes. If you typically only update your site once a month, then responding to a new external event may be frustrating -- you may have to wait several days before the search engines re-cache your page.
So the more frequently you update, the more often your page is re-cached,. When you react to external events, your new copy with appear in the search engine listings more quickly and you will maximise the number of people viewing that page.
Things to consider for regular updates:
| Regular updates make it easier to respond to search events |
If you monitor what people are searching for, it tends to come in surges driven by outside events. The day a celeb finds themselves sentenced to two years in jail is also a day that sees a lot of searching on their name.
There is an exponential decay. If you write about something relevant to your audience a week after it has happened you will get a lesser response than if you write about it the same day.
BUT... search engines don't search the internet (shock news) they search a copy of it on their own servers (the cache). The frequency with which they update their cache for each web page depends on how often it changes. If you typically only update your site once a month, then responding to a new external event may be frustrating -- you may have to wait several days before the search engines re-cache your page.
So the more frequently you update, the more often your page is re-cached,. When you react to external events, your new copy with appear in the search engine listings more quickly and you will maximise the number of people viewing that page.
Things to consider for regular updates:
- News
- Blogs
- News or blog digests
- Opinion on what is in the news
- Flagging new content elsewhere on the web
February 17, 05:02 PM
The place where words appear within your site determines their significance to a search engine. Words on the left are given greater weight than those on the right.
Remember that search is competitive. The heading Tackling climate change in Norway would be okay on a search for climate change because the key words appear towards the left. Except... climate change is competitive -- there are many sites writing about it. So the page will be beaten in the search engine's rankings by a site with the heading Climate change: how Norway is tackling it
In order of importance:
Keyword stuffing is a technique where you work out what search terms you want your site to get a good ranking for and then making sure they appear in those important positions. But you must take care, because the search engines are looking for natural language use and may penalise you if you overuse words or phrases.
I think it is better to do it the other way around. Work out the best language to talk to your audience and that should produce a more natural site which also gets a high ranking.
Only then should you look at certain key positions -- the heading, the picture captions and alt tags, the title text -- and check that the most significant words are appearing as close to the left side as you can manage naturally.
Remember that search is competitive. The heading Tackling climate change in Norway would be okay on a search for climate change because the key words appear towards the left. Except... climate change is competitive -- there are many sites writing about it. So the page will be beaten in the search engine's rankings by a site with the heading Climate change: how Norway is tackling it
In order of importance:
- URL (www.searchterm.com does better than www.somethingelse.com/searchterm)
- Title bar (at the top of the browser)
- Heads (particularly those coded with the <h1>
tag) - Navigation links (search engines use this to work out the context of your site)
- The tops and lefts (of the whole page, each paragraph, even the URL)
- Words associated with pictures (alt tags and words near picture, such as captions)
Keyword stuffing is a technique where you work out what search terms you want your site to get a good ranking for and then making sure they appear in those important positions. But you must take care, because the search engines are looking for natural language use and may penalise you if you overuse words or phrases.
I think it is better to do it the other way around. Work out the best language to talk to your audience and that should produce a more natural site which also gets a high ranking.
Only then should you look at certain key positions -- the heading, the picture captions and alt tags, the title text -- and check that the most significant words are appearing as close to the left side as you can manage naturally.
February 17, 04:46 PM
Make your writing scintillating because otherwise your audience will be reading something else. Web content is a buyers market: there is lots of it and most of it is free. So people are choosy. Very, very choosy. Grabbing their interest is vital.
The very same information can appear boring or interesting. It is all about how you present it. Here are some tips:
The very same information can appear boring or interesting. It is all about how you present it. Here are some tips:
- Make it about people
- Make it about people your reader can identify with, or people like your reader
- Make it a story with a past and future as well as a present
- Make it so your reader benefits from reading it
- Make it new
- Use hard facts (345m long) rather than soft facts (big)
- Pick out the surprising, the quirky, the unusual
- Make it visual (yes, use pictures, but also make the writing conjure up pictures in people's heads)
- Evoke and emotional response
| Fill your website with *hard* facts: it's what people come looking for on the web |
February 17, 04:46 PM
Look around. Learn from other people's triumphs and their mistakes. Steal the good ideas; watch out for the bad.
Before you create a website you should ask yourself what the goods one do. This is my list:
Indicators of a bad site include:
Before you create a website you should ask yourself what the goods one do. This is my list:
- You learn a lot quickly
- They are easy to use
- Offering something you cannot get elsewhere (taking advantage of the technology)
- Clear and obvious
- Succinct and immediate
- Well organised
- Visually appealling
- About the user (rather than about the site owner)
| NME's site is busy to look at but clever use of language and good organisation of the information makes it suprisingly easy to use. NME |
| This site from Shell looks lovely but is confusing and jargon-laiden Shell Global Solutions |
Indicators of a bad site include:
- Cluttered
- Confusing
- Long-winded
- Full of jargon
- Using lots of proper nouns
February 17, 05:00 PM
They started as a hobby for geeks. Then everyone had a satellite blog to help SEO. Now blogs are the core of many sites. So should every site be a blog?
Well no. But many more could be. And obviously it depends on your definition of a blog.
The blog format makes life easier.
At its simplest a blog has a diary format with the most recent post appearing at the top. This is at the heart of their success because the data model is one of the hardest things to get right about a website so why not keep it simple. And most-recent-first works well for any site that deals in information.
Amazing tools
The real driver has been the range of tools developed for blogs, notably WordPress and Blogger. The large number of users for these systems makes it worth people's while developing gadgets and templates. This means that an idea that might take a large company IT department six months to develop can often be matched by a blogger in two or three clicks of their mouse.
People friendly
Currently blogs are easier to use than even the best of other content management systems. They have been developed with ordinary people in mind and guess what ... we are all ordinary people.
Blogs can spread their wings
The diary format makes it easy to get started with a blog, but it is possible to develop from there to create almost any type of site. Take a look at Les-Fous.com Its structure seems similar to many other small business sites but in fact it runs on Blogger. The owners haven't had to compromise on how their site looks, but it is easy for them to update themselves.
A blog in wolf's clothing
The big secret of blogs is how easy they make it to change or modify your template. This means that a blog doesn't have to look like a blog. You can buy a template or have a custom one designed. The template designer in Blogger is brilliant for creating templates quickly. And you don't need to know CSS.
Well no. But many more could be. And obviously it depends on your definition of a blog.
The blog format makes life easier.
At its simplest a blog has a diary format with the most recent post appearing at the top. This is at the heart of their success because the data model is one of the hardest things to get right about a website so why not keep it simple. And most-recent-first works well for any site that deals in information.
Amazing tools
The real driver has been the range of tools developed for blogs, notably WordPress and Blogger. The large number of users for these systems makes it worth people's while developing gadgets and templates. This means that an idea that might take a large company IT department six months to develop can often be matched by a blogger in two or three clicks of their mouse.
| Looks like a business site; runs like a blog |
Currently blogs are easier to use than even the best of other content management systems. They have been developed with ordinary people in mind and guess what ... we are all ordinary people.
Blogs can spread their wings
The diary format makes it easy to get started with a blog, but it is possible to develop from there to create almost any type of site. Take a look at Les-Fous.com Its structure seems similar to many other small business sites but in fact it runs on Blogger. The owners haven't had to compromise on how their site looks, but it is easy for them to update themselves.
A blog in wolf's clothing
The big secret of blogs is how easy they make it to change or modify your template. This means that a blog doesn't have to look like a blog. You can buy a template or have a custom one designed. The template designer in Blogger is brilliant for creating templates quickly. And you don't need to know CSS.
February 17, 04:46 PM
This page tells web writers to explain to their readers the benefit of reading on. By including context, writers can do their jobs better and so become extremely rich.
I used to tell people that web design was more like setting up a museum than publishing a magazine. Clear simple navigation was vital so that you could find your way around the exhibits.
Today, it's different. A website is still a bit like a museum but one where, rather than coming through the front door, people arrive and depart at random points via particle-matter transporter. Search has changed the way we communicate for ever. Web developers have to contend with people beaming in and out of their content at a whim.
The matter-transport-museum analogy is a strange way of looking at things but it sort of works. Your audience arrives dazed and confused, their molecules having reassembled only nanoseconds before and they look around blinking, trying to figure out where in the world they are. They may have arrived in a back bedroom in Cincinnati where a Jim Pigeon wants to show them his collection of late twentieth century spoons. They may have arrived at the plush offices of an intergallactic technology consortium which wants to dazzle them with binary gadgets. They may have arrived literally at a museum (well virtually literally).
This means two things:
It also means that good websites are no longer designed from the top down -- they are grown from the ground up. Each page one creates has to answer the following questions:
I have been asked to review a number of websites for people recently. Easily the commonest problem is lack of context. As a visitor, the creators expect me to put in too much effort working out what they are about. Individual pages don't explain themselves and so the effect is that the whole site becomes a confusing place to be.
I used to tell people that web design was more like setting up a museum than publishing a magazine. Clear simple navigation was vital so that you could find your way around the exhibits.
Today, it's different. A website is still a bit like a museum but one where, rather than coming through the front door, people arrive and depart at random points via particle-matter transporter. Search has changed the way we communicate for ever. Web developers have to contend with people beaming in and out of their content at a whim.
The matter-transport-museum analogy is a strange way of looking at things but it sort of works. Your audience arrives dazed and confused, their molecules having reassembled only nanoseconds before and they look around blinking, trying to figure out where in the world they are. They may have arrived in a back bedroom in Cincinnati where a Jim Pigeon wants to show them his collection of late twentieth century spoons. They may have arrived at the plush offices of an intergallactic technology consortium which wants to dazzle them with binary gadgets. They may have arrived literally at a museum (well virtually literally).
This means two things:
- Every bejewelled trinket box we put on display must speak for itself. We can no longer assume people are following the audio tour. Almost no-one is any more. Most visit for that one arcane exhibit and then leave immediately.
- If our visitor arrives and is baffled about where they are in the universe, they don't spend long trying to work it out. Why would they? The matter-transporter can take them to infinitely more places at the click of a button than they will ever have time to visit. The world of Google is too exciting to pause long in a dull backwater.
It is not obvious who some websites are intended for or
how anyone would benefit from visiting.
Try the FSA for example.
how anyone would benefit from visiting.
Try the FSA for example.
It also means that good websites are no longer designed from the top down -- they are grown from the ground up. Each page one creates has to answer the following questions:
- Who do I want to be reading this?
- If they read it, what do they get out of it? How do they benefit? Why should they bother?
- What am I trying to achieve? What do I want my reader to do differently as a result of the thing I have created?
- How can I let my reader know quickly that this is for them and that they will find it valuable? By quickly, I mean the time it takes their molecules to reassemble (15 nanoseconds maybe).
I have been asked to review a number of websites for people recently. Easily the commonest problem is lack of context. As a visitor, the creators expect me to put in too much effort working out what they are about. Individual pages don't explain themselves and so the effect is that the whole site becomes a confusing place to be.
February 17, 04:46 PM
The BBC news web site is the ultimate in grow your own. Last week saw its fourth redesign, reflecting the way people use the content.
1. Mostly, we don't find our way around using sections. We use search. We use most popular. We use links from one story to another. The sections still help us understand what the site is about and what we might find there but they do not need to be so prominent. Moving the sections to the top gives more space to do other things too.
2. The new design uses a clever magazine grid system. This keeps the content consistent but allows editors to make the most of each story. The strip of white space in the middle is a classy piece of design. It allows for pull-quotes or links without disrupting the flow of the main piece. If a story has a great pic, it can be size to fit almost the whole screen.
3. Top stories and most popular are easier to find because these are how people are actually finding their way around the BBC site. Related stories have been demoted in the new scheme but that's fine. By the time people care about the context of a story they are already committed to reading in detail and will spend the few extra seconds it takes to find the related links.
4. Headlines for humans and machines. The BBC used to limit itself to 32 characters for headlines which works well if you are reading them in a news feed or in the most popular list. But they can be a little terse. As part of the redesign, the BBC has a new production system which allows them to have different heads on the story and in feeds. Vince Cable: Banks continue to rip customers off for the story, Cable: banks are ripping us off for the feeds.
5. Look how much is the same. It is very important not to confuse readers in a redesign. So the BBC has kept the colour scheme, the main site header graphic, the section names (more or less), the bold intros, the cross-heads at the bottom of the first screen. I could go on. These bits all work great. Why change them?
1. Mostly, we don't find our way around using sections. We use search. We use most popular. We use links from one story to another. The sections still help us understand what the site is about and what we might find there but they do not need to be so prominent. Moving the sections to the top gives more space to do other things too.
2. The new design uses a clever magazine grid system. This keeps the content consistent but allows editors to make the most of each story. The strip of white space in the middle is a classy piece of design. It allows for pull-quotes or links without disrupting the flow of the main piece. If a story has a great pic, it can be size to fit almost the whole screen.
A clever grid system keeps the site consistent while
allowing editors to make the most of each story
3. Top stories and most popular are easier to find because these are how people are actually finding their way around the BBC site. Related stories have been demoted in the new scheme but that's fine. By the time people care about the context of a story they are already committed to reading in detail and will spend the few extra seconds it takes to find the related links.
How the BBC news site used to look
4. Headlines for humans and machines. The BBC used to limit itself to 32 characters for headlines which works well if you are reading them in a news feed or in the most popular list. But they can be a little terse. As part of the redesign, the BBC has a new production system which allows them to have different heads on the story and in feeds. Vince Cable: Banks continue to rip customers off for the story, Cable: banks are ripping us off for the feeds.
5. Look how much is the same. It is very important not to confuse readers in a redesign. So the BBC has kept the colour scheme, the main site header graphic, the section names (more or less), the bold intros, the cross-heads at the bottom of the first screen. I could go on. These bits all work great. Why change them?
Links
- Erik Huggers, the Director of BBC Future Media & Technology, blogs about the redesign.
- Steve Herrmann is editor of the BBC News website blogs about the redesign.
- Paul Sissons is UX Team Lead, BBC Future Media & Technology was creative head of the redesign. UX means User Experience.
- The BBC's frequently asked questions page on the redesign.
February 17, 04:46 PM
Growing anything from seed is daunting. It takes care, attention, a little love. Sometimes your are caught talking to things that cannot talk back.
Growing a website seems particularly crazy but it is how the best websites are made.
People don't come to your website for the graphic design or the navigation, you see. They don't come because of the data architecture you've selected.
They come for the content.
And yet, in how many sites does the content seem like an afterthought? Time and money is spent on IT and on design and only then, if there is any budget left, we fill some of the holes where the text should be.
It shouldn't be this way. Hadn't you heard. Content is king. This is what the grow a website from seed project is all about. Start with the content. If it is good enough, maybe the site will grow on its own.
Once we have some good content, maybe (just maybe) we will understand what our website is about and a better design will present itself.
Because don't you think people prefer a kitchen garden full of wild flowers to a carefully managed arboretum of plastic plants?
Join the grow your own website movement today and plant a seed to see your content grow:
Good places to get your grow-your-own kit:
Updates
-
Significant: ECJ says actor can sue Sunday Mirror website for privacy in France (where law tougher) Pgaz http://t.co/P98Q515K3 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Ian Jack on the Murdoch family history. Last three pars particularly worth reading. Grd http://t.co/Fustci46 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Tgraph reports police investigating Andy Coulson over evidence he gave in Sheridan trial. http://t.co/mFGqvFq6 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Yes @DavidAllenGreen was right when he predicted lawyer Tom Crone's leaving News Intl would be significant. Grd http://t.co/iXkHJAm6 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
BBC DG Mark Thompson defends investigative journalism but believes newspapers should be held to the same stds as BBC http://t.co/8AkiUal6 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
@sarahchurchwell Well okay. I suppose retaining a reputation is more important than massive unpredictabiity. Ho hum.6 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
@sarahchurchwell A Sarah Churchwell bucket shop would be a very surprising thing. I think you should do it.6 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Libel: Solicitors from Hell website sued by Law Society. BBC http://t.co/mqwfKnU #couldseethatonecoming6 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Dear @BBCNews and others, you may wish to check this out re your fake Chinese Apple stores story. http://t.co/cHuZP2e6 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Dear @BBCNews so you're running a story from a single source who is a blogger whose name you don't even appear to know. http://t.co/3tx9hl16 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
For the first time in a week #Hackgate drops from top spot. No 3 on BBC No 7 on NYT. Still No 1 story for Guardian and Telegraph (web feeds)6 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Contempt: Mail + Sun each fined £15k for websites pic of murder defendant holding gun. Not enough says @JoshuaRozenberg http://t.co/8eVgwj66 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
SFO considering @tom_watson request to investigate News Corp under company law over hacking pay outs Tgraph http://t.co/p9Kv9qH6 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Libel and R Brooks RT @DavidAllenGreen Post Jameel and Kaschke, abuse of process law now very different than in Polanski case.6 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
@DavidAllenGreen Does "reputationial damage" admission necessarily weaken libel case? I'm thinking of Roman Polanski vs Vanity Fair6 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Fox News thinks we should put the hacking scandal behind us. After all, it did happen nearly 10 years ago (vid) http://t.co/wHD2lBk6 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Cameron may publish details of all media contacts back to when he became Tory leader. http://t.co/BVzhBzN6 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Reform of PCC is a red herring. Need to reform rules for transparency in how government and the police interact with press.6 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Problem: it is the relationship between politicians and press, police and press that needs reforming. Not so much the PCC.6 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Miliband to say "The danger is that this whirlwind blows through our country and then we go back to business as usual." http://t.co/Larn6eu6 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
The Guardian doesn't like WSJ's editorial then. http://t.co/juiQ10P BTW what kind of convoluted intro is that in the web age?
-
'Forced out' the Times' record 164pt headline http://t.co/AucGke6 /RT @jonhilldesign via @helenlewis
-
This is how an investigative reporter *should* behave (vid) http://t.co/zC58N23 (Actually. it's the Tintin trailer)7 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
I'm reminded of the words of Mr Bridger in the Italian Job: "Everyone in the world is bent." On an unrelated note: http://t.co/Bc9vSTk7 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Meanwhile, Press Gazette is speculating that Murdoch may sell the rest of his UK newspaper business http://t.co/ahe13KR7 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
NB 'blag' is a journalese word that sounds merely a bit cheeky buts actually means to deceive or con. http://t.co/wVMJqlW7 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
The contagion spreads to Sunday Times which blagged its way into Gordon Brown's bank account says Guardian http://t.co/wVMJqlW7 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Good point. We've always known it was going on, says Jon Snow, it is just that no-one wanted to take on Murdoch. http://t.co/oZETfTw7 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Only just noticed. The Sun describes Coulson as Cameron's former aide. Earlier job title buried in the text below. http://yfrog.com/khaeqxj
-
"What we are talking about is saving the freedom of the press for ordinary people," says Susan Douglas of NotW bid. http://t.co/Ncr0sIz7 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
A consortium of media + business figures is attempting to put together a rescue package and revive the News of the world http://t.co/Ncr0sIz7 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
...Ian Reeves. http://t.co/rgV5zt7 The hacking scandal will "strengthen further the invidious influence of PR". 2/27 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
The danger is the public's anger over hacking of Milly Dowler's phone blinds them to the importance of a free and robust press says... 1/27 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
PCC under pressure, but phone hacking, police payments are regulated by the *law* so self-regulation should be irrelevant.7 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
"..the Government cannot simply order the replacement of the PCC, because it is an independent organisation." http://t.co/csT0o63 5.03pm7 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
10 years ago, who would have predicted Mail, Guardian, Telegraph as UK's top 3 newspapers? Mail may have overtaken BBC http://t.co/hF26EaZ7 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Libyan opposition prints newspaper in Cairo, distributes from Benghazi, aims for objectivity and professionalism. http://t.co/iYtmgGE7 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Guardian will make significant job cuts, Rusbridger tells Media Show, but in a civilised way over two years. http://t.co/cAZ9i6g7 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Italian court finds that Google autocomplete's adding con man and fraud to man's name is libel by search engine. ZDnet http://t.co/eJpdPhh
-
Twitter may offer Facebook-style pages, as a way of making money from brands. Marketing http://t.co/uxbHxsU
-
Phone hacking: NoW chief reporter and assistant editor arrested. Tgraph http://t.co/vcQZeTQ
-
Hacking latest: Court forces Vodafone to reveal who dialled Sienna Miller's voicemail. Grd http://t.co/53aHLfl
-
Police ask for TV footage of Cuts Protest Grd http://t.co/BNIg2YR If they go to court, history say they'll probably get it.
-
Sun gets Chloe West story by... going on Facebook. Don't know where to start with ethical/standards questions. http://j.mp/ih9o3X10 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Are magazines being smarter than newspapers in the online revolution?http://t.co/o6NjEHU
-
Zite says what it does is equivalent to a search engine, big publishers' lawyers say it's copyright infringement. RRW http://j.mp/fexz8z10 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Zite, 1st iPad magazine that does something with the technology, receives cease and desist letter from big publishers RRW http://j.mp/fexz8z10 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Electric car maker to sue BBC for libel and malicious falsehood over test claims in repeats. Guardian (incl Youtube clip) http://j.mp/gxoanQ10 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Libel: Lesson for journos: 'See You in Court' on BBC1 underscores how court cases are driven by emotion (prob on iPlayer but BBC down).10 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Sign of the times: RBI sells Computer Weekly to TechTarget which takes it online-only. Pgaz http://j.mp/eSXEB910 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
No-win no-fee rules to change: winning fees will come from client's damages rather than opposition. Damages up 10% Pgaz http://j.mp/ifGWyp10 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Secret justice as wealthy financier wins anonymity in libel case. Allegations appear online shortly after injunction. Grd http://j.mp/g0jwB810 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
60 attacks, 2 deaths, 36 detentions, 6 missing in Libya alone: journalists become target for Mid East governments. DBeast http://j.mp/eR63ve10 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Poetry could win Afghan war if you buy the notion that conflict is 95% info and 5% military. PBS http://j.mp/ekadNv /via @suzanneyada10 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Why you should write a blog and what you should write about. Techcrunch http://j.mp/h6KsnD10 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Copyright: Google's influence on intellectual property. Nieman. http://j.mp/eVNCi710 months ago from web | Reply, Retweet, Favorite
-
Libel: courts should not be used for scientific disputes judge tells birdwatchers who failed in bid to sue RSBP. Tgraph http://t.co/zqOYM89
Profile
Independent Writing and Editing Professional
Writing and Editing | Guildford, United Kingdom, GB
Experience
- 2002 - PresentManaging Director / 1M LimitedWeb site design and content development
Magazine development and editorial services
Editorial and web training
Additional Information
Websites:
Interests:
Web and magazine journalism
Web design
Web content development
Social medial development
Script writing
Training
Posts
April 29, 02:38 PM
Celebrating the Royal Wedding in Surrey.
Photos
Ade's Storify stories
Click the link for more...
