video cv

Journalism: the transitional innovations of print to online media.

It’s hard to deny that the biggest blow to the print industry has been the invention of the internet, with readers choosing to access up to the minute news that’s accessible on the toilet via tablets and mobiles for free, rather than traipsing down to the local shop to pick up yesterday’s news. The real shock is not that this is happening, rather, that printed journalism hasn’t died out entirely yet. Admittedly, there’s a bizarre pleasure to be had in a hard copy in your hands, but for anyone to argue that free, instantaneous news, features and multimedia via the greatest invention since sliced bread is in some way inferior to cutting down trees, smashing them into ultra-thin pieces and carefully laying ink on it is the equivalent of this hypothetical conversation:

1: “Hey, we’re off to Australia, want to hop in the teleporter with us?”

2: “No thanks, I’ll walk”

Arguably, there are still those, often the older members of society who aren’t familiar with modern means of acquiring news, who prefer having the traditional means of a physical product in their hands and can trust the publications who are having evidence continually stacked against them via phone hacking scandals etc..  Yet, this is a dying breed and within the next few decades will surely be extinct.

Therefore, the next innovation for magazine journalism is surely the progression onto the internet, which most magazines are already doing. The problems for most however, is that they are still trying to charge the reader for the privilege of reading their slant on stories and features that are continually covered by thousands of other free online publications. In the age of uber state capitalism, it is obvious that the main objective for any online publication should be to attract advertisers to fund the relatively minute costs of publication by comparison with print. This can be done in many ways, banner advertising, testimonial advertising (by which I mean those annoying faux articles proclaiming the superiority of a particular product), or getting those tedious z-list celebrities who are always plugging some horrendous proof of their lack of talent in any field.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the profiteering mentality that corporate publishers want to hear, but in a world where literally anyone, including dogs, can publish any kind of piece they wish, it is the only way to gain power. Using their print reputations to bring in the big names that people want to hear about or from, building a regular amount of traffic and using said traffic to attract advertisers.

On the bright side though, never has it been easier to advertise your publication, with social media helping every video that raised even the slightest grin being thrown into the public consciousness. This means that every publication needs to reproduce their product on every form of socially relevant application.

A great example of such a business model is Vice, formerly just a magazine that now finds homes for all of its articles, good or bad, on Facebook feeds across the globe. Vice uses both love and hate to generate views. The typical argument that occurs on the comment section of most of their articles goes something like this:

·         R--- J---- VICE UK is utterly woeful. To think their US counterparts are reporting from Ukraine, South Sudan and CAR and all we seem to get is this drivel getting churned out week on week.

Like · Reply · 27 · 7 hours ago

S--- W---- You really need to stop repping this piece of shit article every weekend

Like · Reply · 21 · 8 hours ago

A-- R-------- I think I'm starting to join the ranks of the haters. I know there's a tone to Vice that you have to roll with, but even ironic ignorance sounds like ignorance when it's so utterly convincing. And I'm pretty sure it's no longer ironic.

Like · Reply · 5 · 5 hours ago

S------- J---- D-------- Do you lot put this post on every week? I'm sick of seeing it. I don't need you lot to tell me how to have a shit weekend.

I - am - the - shit - weekend - fucking - master.

So? (would you kindly) fuck off making this and give us some pointers on how to make a shit weekend? better

As can be seen here, some of these people genuinely feel that many of the articles, even weekly regulars, are “shit”, “utterly woeful” and “fuck off”. Yet they don’t seem to recognise that they are the ones reading it every week and supplying the viewing figures necessary to keep it going. Gone are the days when quality was what brought in the money, as proven in the music industry by Simon Cowell’s ironically VICE-like grip on the Christmas No 1 spot through X Factor. Nowadays, the public seem to enjoy an opportunity to berate and create willing hate-figures to vent their inner anguish upon almost more so than the traditional, well written, intelligent and not “fuck off” pieces of literature. It’s this recognition of the fact that all publicity is good publicity, which I believe was pioneered by the artist formerly known as Jordan, that has been adopted as a philosophy by most magazines, print or otherwise, whether it be in their showbiz sections or in a publication centred entirely around celebrity based voyeurism.

This method of churning out as many pieces out as their budget will allow, fishing for what is either good enough to develop a following or bad enough to develop a devoted angry mob and repeating the best/worst of the bunch has helped Vice to become one of the most successful online publications out there, bringing in huge investment from the likes of NewsCorp and huge advertising fees for testimonials and banner advertising.

This ‘nothing is too dumb for the public’ sensationalism is a direct descendant of the Daily Mail, who in the same way, have used their ridiculous and misleading headlines to become a very successful online reinvention with such incredible revelations as:

“Kim Kardashian spends FIVE HOURS at the office with Kourtney as they finish up work ahead of her wedding”

“Having a ball! Beyonce enjoys a basketball game with Jay Z as they snack on lollipops and pop corn”

And

“Crunch time: Alex Gerrard does her daily 'little gym sesh' before heading to the hairdressers to get new hair extensions”

Needless to say, in order to show the journalism of the Mail Online in this light, I too have become part of their viewership and will help fund the continuation of such media. Through the technologically determined innovations on tablets and smartphones, online media can do away with many of the restrictions of print, no longer is a tight word count for an article because of print space an issue; and the liberty of multimedia is beyond even that of print, radio and television combined (and you can access it, for free, on the toilet!). The progression and survival of established media, as they are drawn into the black hole of the internet, depends entirely upon their ability to adapt to the requirements of a reader with an ever decreasing attention span. For now, the exploiting of internet ‘trolls’’ bad nature and desire to abuse poor stories is funding advertising, but soon there will be something else to throw the profitability of journalism right out the window again and the question is; how low can the media sink into the mire of celebrity tat and trivialities before integrity becomes fashionable again? Or transition into a form of media that people will be willing to pay for/ cannot be found at every blog, forum or Facebook page. In the land of the internet, everyone is a star, so surely the only way for big media giants to survive is to pool resources to cover genuine news stories across the world in ways that only those with big budgets can, before the budget dries up.

Editor interviews.

Interview with National Editor of News & Sport for Bauer Radio News, Jim Foulger:



Interview with the Deputy Editor for Grapevine magazine, Matt Dixon:

The Road to Ruin: A confessional interview with David Lee.

This piece is an interview with David Lee on the road safety of the village Nether Haugh, in which there has been a string of accidents including David's house itself, which has been hit by speeding cars four times in the past year, causing damage to the property both inside and out, the pictures have been sourced from Mr. Lee and the Nether Haugh Community Partnership Blog (http://b6089.blogspot.co.uk/) with their permission.

The use of Google Streetview and Google Maps fits the criteria outlined in their permissions guidelines (http://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines.html) and has been properly accredited.

The importance of being balanced. - law.

In this weekend's Financial Times, the Collecting supplement contained a decent story on the likely changes to laws surrounding the ivory trade. The key focus being upon the laws surrounding the trade of antique ivory, which at present is a very lucrative market.

Besides the fact that it is an interesting story in it's own right, the main interest for me was the publication of

"reports in the British press that Price William had told primatologist Jane Goodall that he wants ivory antiques in the Royal Collection destroyed".

The potential libel suit: what with ol' Willy being claimed to have ordered the destruction of a hugely valuable collection of art, which, in light of the Royal family's request for more money from public coffers last year; or the fact that he recently completed a hunting trip with his brother Harry, should greatly reduce him in the eyes of any right thinking person/anyone who doesn't watch ITV or read the Daily Mail. The Financial Times know their stuff though, legally speaking, and so obviously that isn't the end of the quote:

"...A spokesman for the prince refused to confirm or deny a private conversation."

This fantastically boring little piece of information shows that they have attempted to allow those in question to confirm or deny these claims, protecting the Financial Times on the grounds of balance. Nice.

COMMENT: Media Law: Absolute privilege and what that means for State Street.

State Street, the U.S' second oldest financial institution, has been fined £22.9m for overcharging six clients a total of $20m "deliberately" between June 2010 and September 2011. They have also released a statement saying it had refunded the clients affected.

The publishing of this information which clearly reduces their integrity as a business and would be considered liable for libel, were it not for the absolute privilege afforded to legal venues such as courts and parliament.

Absolute privilege:

Absolute privilege is the strongest defense against defamation claims. It can be applied when defending against something said in judicial hearings, parliament and client-solicitor communications; regardless of whether the comments were said in malice, was false or was said plainly to reduce the reputation of the defamed.

Whilst on the subject of privilege, it would seem appropriate to name the other form of privilege, which isn't always as clean cut as Absolute. Qualified Privilege.

Qualified Privilege:

Defends a publication against defamation claims, providing that the statement has been written without malice, can be said to have provided balance, is accurate and was published in the public interest.

So, if an animal rights activist was found by a journalist to have exotic animal taxidermy collection, it would come under the protection of Qualified Privilege to publish a statement outing said activist as it is in the public interest that someone publicly denouncing animal abuse should be found to be a hypocrite. So long as the statement was true.

COMMENT: Media law - How insulting is too insulting?

The Story in the FT Weekend.

Today in the Financial Times' "Comment & Analysis" section I found this story following the recent activities of Scarlett Johansson. The overarching theme is certainly suggesting that Johansson's career has become one of corporate greed:

"The cool indie beauty has turned corporate - something has been lost in translation all right."

This is in relation to her recently becoming a brand ambassador for Israeli fizzy drink dispenser dispenser, SodaStream, which uses land illegitimately held by Israel in Mishor Adumim to make CO2 cylinders and carbonation bottles. Then:

"Following a pointed exchange of statements between Oxfam (for whom she was previously an ambassador) and Ms Johansson, the actress said she would remain SodaStream's ambassador but was dropping her Oxfam role."

The story attacks her character, outlining her decision to choose a fat cheque over human rights.

The legality of it all:

Hypothetically speaking, if Johansson's legal team was to attempt to sue, the prosecution could argue:

The article tends to lower Johansson in the eyes of right thinking people: What with her choosing the payroll of a company that aggravates one of the most influential conflicts of the modern world by the illegitimate placement of it's industrial estate.

Causes Johansson to be shunned or avoided by society/ exposes her to hatred: enlightening more people who may join the online crusade against her immorality.

Disparages Johansson in her business, trade and profession: Employers in future may avoid employing her due to her negative associations.

Defenses:

Under new law, a statement must be proven to have caused "serious harm" as opposed to the previous "tends to cause harm" prior to the amendment. I'm sure Johansson will manage following the exposing of her actions in the FT.

Honest opinion (formerly "fair comment"): With the story being in the comment section, the writers could argue, quite rightly, that it is their honest opinion that Johansson has gone from "indie beauty" to "corporate".

Public Interest (previously Reynolds defense): It could be said that to not publish this information might lead fans of Johansson to believe that she is a humanitarian of great dignity, and did not accept cheques from morally dubious employers.

And finally, the best defense of all, it's the truth: Johansson undeniably preferred a big ol' cheque from SodaStream to help sell their products, which are partly made on land acquired illegitimately by Israel in 1967, to being an ambassador for the charity Oxfam.

Moral of the story: Don't be a douche Scarlett!