But others – that bloggers’ opinions are less valid than journalists’, simply because they’re not journalists – are less so. Of course, there’s the snobbery factor: that because journalists are paid for their writing, it must be worth paying for, therefore it must be better (this I’d dispute – I’ve had some shockingly put-together emails from journalists, whereas some friends’ blogs are screamingly well-written).

Of course, much of the criticism comes from the established media, which isn’t a surprise: all forms of social media are bringing about a sea change in the way we consume our news. Whatever your philosophical opinions on freedom of speech and the democracy of information, print journalists welcoming the advent of blogs and citizen journalists is a bit like cab horses welcoming the motor car.

Yet, when there is content that the established media likes, they apparently aren’t quite so quick to criticise… A couple of cases spring quickly to mind.

The first is that of Flickr user and photographer Peter Zabulis. Peter recently discovered that a photo of his – quite clearly a beautiful photo – had been used by the Independent newspaper without his permission. The ensuing exchange between Peter and an editor at the paper is available to see on Peter’s Flickr site – showing the Independent’s rather adamant stance that they had not breached Peter’s copyright. It took over a week for the Independent to apologise for the incident, and issue Peter with payment for the use of his photo.

And a case from this weekend shows that it’s not just photographers who should be wary about their content ending up in unexpected places.

Irish blogger and air traffic controller Melanie Schregardus has been the topic of much internet chatter this week, after the Irish Mail on Sunday printed a story based largely on a post she’d written on her blog.

In her own words, “The Mail never told me they were writing a piece about my blog. The journalist who wrote it never sent me an email asking me questions about my blog… [A]n article has appeared in a Sunday Newspaper that… gives me opinions that I do not have, and uses words I have never said. It does so to attack my profession, impugn my employers, and portray me as a victim of my friends.”

At best it’s naïve to believe that you can release words into the cyber-ether and expect them to stay private. But, as a blogger myself, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that even if material is in the public domain it should be credited to its creator. And just lifting copy wholesale is nothing more than lazy journalism. In a response, the Mail has argued that it tried to contact Melanie to inform her. However, a quick rootle round the net, and it does appear that the journalist didn’t try very hard to do so.

With the pace of change in the social media sphere overtaking so much else that underpins the ways we’ve been used to doing things, it’s inevitable that the lines between privacy, ownership and copyright should blur – and it’s something that the law will have to work to keep up with.

But in the meantime, bloggers should be aware that their words, whilst their own, may not stay that way; and journalists should consider whether they’d be so quick to lift someone else’s copy if it had previously appeared on the pages of a paper, rather than on the pages of a blog.

Bookmark It

It’s something that irks scientists and mathematicians everywhere, who feel that such formulae – appearing with some frequency in the press – undermine their profession. It’s probably a fair-ish gripe, although I think no one is going to confuse an equation for the perfect chip with a serious report on new the applications of stem cell therapy somehow.

Judging by the sheer number that make it into the papers, it seems to be true that journalists enjoy a ‘perfect formula’ story. And the British public – by and large fairly sophisticated consumers of media – will be aware that the formula for the perfect gravy, when released by a well-known gravy brand, is more likely to have started life in the offices of the PR agency than the bowels of the R&D department. Journalists have a job: to write stories that sell papers. Thus, it can probably be deduced that people like to read about the perfect formula for dunking biscuits, however much some scientists may complain.

However, with more and more articles and sites springing up venting their spleen about spurious science, it appears that PRs may have to think a little more carefully in future before relying on the formula fallback – especially if they don’t want to be nominated for the next year’s inaugural, yet-to-be-named award for the “dodgiest equation”.

But that’s no bad thing. Anything that raises the creative bar is surely a good thing for everyone – for clients who get fresh ideas for their brand; for journalists who get fresh stories for their readers; and for PRs who’re forced just slightly out of their comfort zone (who knows, we might even have fun in the process).

There are different, subtler (and, might we say, award-winning) ways of introducing a little pop. science into a story.

My favourite example from this week was from Forbes, the business magazine, releasing its annual list of overpaid stars. In essence, it’s a formula story: the list is put together by offsetting the financial performance of a film against the salary paid to its main actor (I’m afraid the mathematical expression of that is just a little beyond me…). Its has all the hallmarks of a PR story that some love to hate: an equation, a whole host of celebrities… but it’s not dressed up explicitly as a ‘formula for the least perfect Hollywood star’, instead talking about the ‘film star economy’. And yet, it’s been well-received in a whole variety of media, with few of the grumblings you’d hear about a comedy channel commissioning an equation for the perfect sitcom.

Of course, that might just be that it confirms widely-held suspicions that Will Ferrell is vastly overpaid for what he does – and again journalists will print what we want to read: that we’re right.

Bookmark It

An exotic berry which has been prescribed as a cure in Chinese medicine since 600AD has landed in the UK for the first time as a fruit juice.

Organic Yang-Mei Juice from Yumberry is the first fruit juice in the UK to be made exclusively from the yang-mei berry.

The fruit has grown in China for over 5,000 years and its use in Chinese medicine was first documented as far back as the Tang Dynasty in 600 AD.

Since that time it has been used as a cure for a huge variety of common complaints including:

Headaches
Stomach complaints
Urinary infections
Heat stroke
‘Muddle-head’ condition – something we’re all affected by from time to time!

The organic juice, which is made from 100% juice, has been accredited by the Soil Association and contains a huge range of micro-nutrients including anthocyanins.

These plant extracts are thought to combat cancer-causing free radicals, as well as boost the immune system, and have the potential to guard against some neurological diseases, diabetes and bacterial infections.

The ellagitannins and quercetin found in the fruit have been the subject of recent studies into the reduction of blood pressure and cardiac conditions.

As well as its high micro-nutrient content, the juice has a delicious flavour reminiscent of other berries such as strawberry, cherry and raspberry, with a refreshingly dry burst of cranberry.

Organic Yang-Mei juice from Yumberry is available from health-food shops nationwide.

Bookmark It

The image of Britain’s children, unable to sleep on Christmas Eve due to excitement and anticipation, could soon be obsolete.

A new study shows that magical feeling looks set to become a thing of the past as over half (54%) of parents will ask their children exactly what they want for Christmas.

19% even admit that they’ll be taking their children with them when shopping for their child’s Christmas gift.

The findings, released today as part of the “TK Maxx Christmas Shopping Report”, show that when it comes to gift-giving, people aren’t taking their chances with Christmas surprises any more, preferring to prioritise getting the gift right above all else.

And it’s not just the children who are missing out on the magic of Christmas surprises.

Heading any disappointment off at the pass, a quarter (24%) of Britons say that they plan to tell their partner exactly what it is they want for Christmas. 4% will even go so far as to buy the gifts themselves in order to make absolutely certain they receive the right present.

Commenting on the findings, Gabrielle Teare the UK’s leading personal shopping consultant, and advisor to the Confessions of a Shopaholic film, says:

“There really is no feeling like the one you get from finding the perfect gift for someone you love. However, the findings show that people would rather take the element of surprise out of their Christmas Day than have a recipient ending up with a gift they don’t really want.”

Teare continues:

“The unknown is increasingly being removed from all aspects of our lives, with the internet taking away any element of surprise.

“We now have the ability to know whatever’s coming, from the layout of our hotel room on the other side of the world, to the news of a friend’s engagement, announced via social networks.

“If people’s discomfort with surprise continues, we could be in a situation in ten years where giving gifts at Christmas is about finding exactly the right, requested present, with there being no surprises at all hidden under the tree.”

Given our apparent dislike for giving or receiving the wrong presents, it is perhaps inevitable that so many vouchers are given at Christmas, allowing people to choose their own presents.

However, the “TK Maxx Christmas Shopping Report” reveals that Brits are missing out on a staggering half a billion pounds’ worth of Christmas presents (£492,775,920).

A whopping 13,537,800 presents are effectively going un-received, as people fail to redeem gift vouchers they are given at Christmas.

30% of people said that they had vouchers from previous years that they’d never redeemed. On average, each voucher was worth £36.40.

Being on the receiving end of a bad present is still a real fear for some people, though. The “TK Maxx Christmas Shopping Report” found that 14% of people are so concerned that their nearest and dearest will make a poor choice that they have gone so far as to practise a suitably delighted expression in the mirror ahead of the big day.

And the practice is clearly paying off. Whilst one in five people (18%) weren’t happy with anything they received last year, a huge 42% of people are expecting to be disappointed this year.

According to the study, some of the worst presents received in previous years range from roll-on deodorants to already-opened boxes of chocolates.

Teare continues:

“The results show that gift-giving can be fraught and we’d far rather put up with bad presents year on year than offend our friends and family. 

“However, a huge 82% of us don’t write wish lists so it would suggest that this is something we should start doing to get around the problem of bad presents. “

But there’s some cheer this Christmas, with a third (32%) of people saying that they plan to spend more on presents this year than they did last year.

This year’s average spend on Christmas gifts is expected to be £241.10.

When it comes to recipients, two thirds of women (66%) say that it’s most important that their children are happy with their presents.

But for men, mum is still the most important woman in their life. Half of men (49%) say that it’s more important that their mum loves her Christmas present, rather than their wives / girlfriends or children.

And there are still some men who are as surprised as mum when she opens her gift. A fifth of men (21%) admit to having their wives / girlfriends choose their mother’s present.

However, the number of men relying on the advice of other women is small. Only 7% saying that they’ll be getting a female colleague to buy their wife’s or girlfriend’s Christmas present.

Teare concludes:

“A little thought can make the difference between a good gift and a great one. Great presents are those that show special thought.

“But you don’t need to spend huge amounts of money. The best presents are often the ones that people never feel they can justify buying for themselves.

“Choose something that has relevance to the recipient, and you’re well on the way to finding a truly memorable Christmas gift.”

-ends-

Research was carried out by TK Maxx amongst a representative sample of 2,060 adults aged 18+ 30th Oct – 2nd Nov 2009

Bookmark It

Some of the country’s leading food bloggers met yesterday to take part in a ground-breaking experiment that sought to bring the online world to an offline setting.

At a special lunch, co-hosted by Chapel Down English wines and Roast, a classical British restaurant in Borough Market, the writers of seven influential food blogs were tasked with selecting the dishes that will appear on a unique one-day only menu, to be offered for a special evening service on November 24th.

However, the ‘Chapel Down at Roast’ set menu will not be listed inside the restaurant. Instead, prospective diners will need to seek out the details of chef Lawrence Keogh’s three-course, four-wine menu via the blogosphere.

Such was his interest in the occasion that Roast’s owner, Iqbal Wahhab, a print journalist by training, attended the lunch in order to meet the writers responsible for changing the face of food journalism.

Frazer Thompson, MD of Chapel Down, explains:

“Social media is becoming an increasingly important part of our lives, but we wanted to see what kind of impact it has on people’s offline behaviour.

“The success of this menu will show us just how people’s habits are changing, and hopefully bring great British food and English wine to a whole new audience.”

To make a reservation at Roast, diners will need to call 0845 034 7300 and quote the unique menu code, shown on these sites:

http://www.thelondonword.com
http://www.spittoon.biz or @wine_scribbler on http://twitter.com
http://www.gourmet-chick.com/ or @msgourmetchick
http://www.intoxicatingprose.com/ or @foodguardian
http://eatlikeagirl.com/ or @eatlikeagirl
http://www.gastronomydomine.com/ or @liz_upton
http://winesleuth.wordpress.com/ or @thewinesleuth

Or, you can contact @chapeldownwines

Bookmark It

A couple of friends and I were sitting in a bar after work, having a discussion about an ethical issue that one of the group could take to a debate at his MBA class the following week. The topic of Carter Ruck’s injunction against the Guardian was riding high in the list of favourites, and Sam was moaning about the role of Twitter.

The case involved an injunction being taken out on behalf of Trafigura, the oil trading company, who have paid out compensation (without admitting culpability) to people made ill by the dumping of toxic waste on the Ivory Coast. Not only was the paper not allowed to publish the findings of a report into the case (which can be found here, for those interested), they were prevented from reporting a Parliamentary question about the measures ministers were taking to protect whistleblowers and press freedom following the injunction. This, despite the 1689 Bill of Rights, which states that ”proceedings of parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament”.

The editor of the Guardian, Messages were directed at companies whose ads appeared on the same page as the article, asking whether they wanted to be identified with such a feature; numbers for head offices, press offices and communications department began to spring up on sites, with messages urging people to call. Stephen Fry’s tweet publicising the Press Complaints Commission led to the site crashing under volume of traffic. At the time of writing, the display ads on the page had all disappeared, and there were 559 comments on the article, the overwhelming majority of which seemed horrified by its tone. (People have even begun to pick holes in her grammar: apparently dangling modifiers are just as unforgivable as the sentiment itself.)

In the space of a week, a social medium has overturned one example of the new breed of ‘super-injunctions’ and provoked a huge backlash against a columnist – to the point that Moir has just released a statement defending her article.

Both cases show the influence of Twitter. Whilst it is mostly a channel for sharing banality about the minutiae of day-to-day life, it does show that it’s also an exceptionally powerful tool that gives one voice to overwhelming public opinion. Twitter has the power to turn big companies from their courses of action; power to grind into the mud the reputations of those whose behaviour it deems unacceptable. Whether you like, approve of or use Twitter or not, at the moment, it cannot, cannot be ignored. Sorry, Sam.

Bookmark It

But even for an international news junkie, this morning’s announcement of the winner of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize came a little out of left-field. The smart money seemed to be resting on Morgan Tsvangirai. I have to confess that I hadn’t realised that Barack Obama, the eventual and surprise winner, was even in the running (in a field of over 500 nominees, I’m telling myself that it’s almost forgivable. Almost).

It’s fair to say that the news has met with mixed reaction around the world. Some people are thrilled (some people are just thrilled that it’s not Bono); some are not. And some people are just plain confused.

The Twittersphere was buzzing when the news broke, with quips and jibes aplenty. The majority of people seem to be of the opinion that, although they have nothing against Obama and, in most cases actually quite like the guy, crucially, he’s not done anything yet that merits the award. Gideon Rachman at the FT summed up the general feeling nicely, saying that “while it is OK to give school children prizes for “effort”…I think international statesmen should probably be held to a higher standard.”

Awarding the Obama the prize presumably seemed like an excellent idea to the Nobel Committee – they wouldn’t have done it otherwise. Their citation speaks of his “vision” for world peace. Whatever the motivation, the ultimate decision is sure to sustain debate for a good while yet.

But it’ll also sustain the debate about the Nobel Prize itself. The list of previous winners doesn’t make for controversy-free reading. From Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin in 1994 to Kissinger back in 1973, the Prize has a history of being awarded to contentious figures. It’s possibly fitting, considering the award’s founder.

And sometimes, it can be good to be controversial. Taking a strong stand on one side of a debate can start a conversation, and make people think. But it’s important that intellectual discussion doesn’t overshadow what’s at stake. And when it comes to the Nobel Peace Prize, what’s at stake is being taken seriously.

Whilst Obama’s vision might be that old Miss World favourite of ‘world peace’, his actions at the moment don’t say the same thing. The USA doesn’t appear to be leading the charge for unilateral disarmament, and the President has troops committed to a war in Afghanistan which shows no signs of conclusion. Thus, to award him such a prestigious prize calls into question the esteem of the institution itself.

Obama’s receipt of the Peace Prize isn’t controversial in the way that Kissinger’s was: he’s not got such a murky foreign policy record. But the fact that he’s not yet really done anything of substance that would merit such a record is the problem.

As such, giving him this year’s award has dealt a blow to the reputation of an institution that some have been calling into question for some time. Hopefully, this won’t do lasting damage to an award that, in itself, stands for something more laudable than most other pursuits on the planet. But the episode does serve to show that what you do and what you say need to marry up, or your actions undermine your words. People need to believe that what you say and what you do are convergent – if they don’t, you’ve dealt yourself a huge blow: it’s your reputation and ultimately your brand (or in this case, institution) that’ll suffer.

That said, this year’s decision does, to paraphrase @gabyhinscliff, make me hopeful about my chances for the 2010 Prize for Literature. I haven’t actually written a book. But I’m very supportive of books, and, um, hopeful about their future…

Bookmark It

“Labour’s lost it” was Wednesday’s headline, which generated an incredible amount of coverage, and not just about the paper’s political swing. Whether one media outlet – and, more specifically, a newspaper – has sufficient clout as to be able to change the course of politics became a central facet of the debate.

Alistair Campbell played down the incident on his blog on Wednesday, citing the extent to which the media marketplace has changed since 1997, when the Sun backed Blair. No longer do papers have such an impact, he argued, because we have a much more diverse choice of media from which to get our news and information that will go on to form our opinions.

And, as we watch papers’ readership figures falling, almost in front of our eyes, in some cases, surely he has a point? The Sun, once the proud owner of more than 10million daily readers now hovers around 8million (still not a figure to be sniffed at); the daily readership figure of the Independent is a very modest 722,000.

However, were newspapers ever able to dramatically sway the public – and their voting intentions of their readers – as much as one might be led to believe from this week’s coverage?

However much we like to believe otherwise, newspapers’ main raison d’être isn’t to inform, educate or entertain their readers: it’s to make money. They are, first and foremost, commercial entities, with owners and shareholders to please. Why else would there be the ongoing deliberations about free vs. paid-for online content? As such, newspapers are less likely to influence the opinions of their readers than they are to follow them. The Sun’s blow to Labour will only have come after the readers had already begun to drift away from the party.

That being said, it can’t be argued that the change in direction by the Sun is insignificant. Whilst the paper may not have the influence it appears at first glance, the move isn’t unimportant.

The decision has presumably come from higher up than the back bench at the Sun. If that’s the case, all the titles within the News International stable lending their support to, or withdrawing it from, any political party will have an effect. An emphatic piece of bad press is never desirable, whatever the brand, from political parties to pet food. But whilst one day of large headlines about withdrawn support may make unpleasant reading, what’s arguably more damaging is a drip-feed of gentler but consistently negative press.

It might be true that we now have myriad places from which to consume our news. But if the Sun, the Times and News of the World all spend the next eight months collaboratively picking holes in the Labour party’s election campaign, the hyperbole about this week’s headlines might eventually seem to have been prophetic.

Bookmark It