Michael Norrish: Deputy Editor Digital Sport, Telegraph
I interviewed Telegraph employee, Michael Norrish, about regulations within his field of online sports journalism …..
QWhat is your job title?
ADeputy Editor, Digital Sport, The Telegraph.
QWhat regulation is in place at the Telegraph to ensure standards are adhered to?
AThe primary responsibility for all editorial content always lies with the journalist. All copy should be subbed and then revised, but in reality online content is often self-published due to the demands of producing a ‘live’ product. It is the job of a section editor to ensure stringent standards are upheld within his/her section, and it is also ultimately their responsibility to ensure legally sensitive material is not published without approval from the lawyers.
QAre there different rules for your online and print outputs?
AIn theory, no. In reality, more care and attention goes into print production than online publishing. This shows no signs of changing.
QWhat regulation is your blog subjected to?
ABlogs are subject to the same regulations as all content. There is no legal difference between something posted on newspaper website and something published in the print edition.
QAre blog comments screened prior to publication? If so, how and by who? What internal and external monitoring systems are used?
AComments are post-moderated, which means anyone can write something nasty, however, if it is too offensive (swearing) then it will be taken down by the moderator. We have a small team of external moderators whose job it is to police comments, and prevent spam. As sports blogs editor, I will read most of the comments posted on sports blog.
QHow has citizen journalism impacted on sports news-gathering?
ASocial media has, over the last 12 months, had quite an impact on sports journalism, as many high profile athletes have used Twitter to break news stories, rant, moan etc, so all sports desks (and celeb, technology etc) should now be monitoring the Twitter feeds of people they’re interested in.
As if by magic, the Chinese authorities must have known it was my blogging day.
After an interview failed to come through, I thought I’d be left red in the face. But if you were a betting woman, you’d place a yuan or two on China coming up with the regulation goods.
And so, it’s official:
“China’s regulation on the Internet industry is in line with the laws and should be free from unjustifiable interferences.”
A spokesperson told Xinhua (the official press agency of the government) in an exclusive interview, that China is regulating the Internet legally to build a more reliable, helpful information network that is beneficial to economic and social development.
Such regulation, the spokesperson said, are based on laws and regulations such as the Constitution, the Law on the Protection of Minors, and the Decision on Internet Safety pass by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee.
So, all in all, very much in keeping with my previous blog. Don’t get me wrong, I am fully in support of the regulation of pornographic materials, violence and of course the prevention of terrorism. Particularly at a time when the threat level in the UK has been increased to ‘severe’. But what I am not in favour of, is censorship and repression at the detriment of it’s own people.
Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, caused a bit of storm in a recent speech as she called on the Chinese to conduct a “thorough investigation of the cyber intrusions” that hit Google and other Western companies in recent weeks. Not only has she been accused of stirring up already tense Chinese-US relations but also of meddling in China’s affairs.
One big question is whether ordinary Chinese will, to any large degree, accept China’s arguments. Although urban, middle-class Chinese often support government policies on sovereignty issues such as Tibet or Taiwan, they generally disagree when it comes to media censorship. That feeling is especially pronounced among Chinese who refer to themselves as netizens.
This netizen, a professional citizen journalist no less, has an interesting take on the effectiveness of social media and it’s potential benefits for the future of China.
According to the Foreign Ministry’s website, The Chinese internet “is open”. Is that like the bank at 1 pm on a Saturday? We really believe it should be, but it never is.
I love that blogging is now considered to be an essential tool for journalism. It’s informal and it provides a wider level of participation in fact anyone who has access to the internet can be involved. Meaning this kind of media isn’t just confined to the professional. The blog discusses everything not just the things we hear or read in the main stream media. On top of that, it provides an extensive platform for learning new things.
However, the biggest issue is that a large proportion of blogs are non-factual, defamatory, provocative and offensive. With that in mind it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between what is true and what is false. Another issue that should be taken into account, is that a blog can be written in minutes, published in seconds, and not checked properly. There have been many occasions where somebody has posted something in the heat of the moment defaming somebody.
“If the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding”- President Barack Obama
It is widely assumed that if the Main stream media didn’t follow a stringent set of rules and laws, the material you might find in them will be similar to that found in many blogs. The main stream media is governed by many rules, and breaching any of the terms set out can result in legal action, compensation payouts and fines (to name a few). Statements in blogs may face legal and social consequences once published there are no rules or guidance in place for bloggers to note beforehand.
There is regulation. Not in the same sence that there is regulation in the main stream press, but in the sense that if something is published breaching defamatory laws, action can be taken. Did you know over $17 million has been won in defamatory and libelous cases in the United States alone, in relation to blogging….but it doesn’t matter how much money you claim, once something is on the internet it is more than likely to stay embedded there permanently and you as the author and the publisher of the blog will always be responsible for this.
Messages can be pushed directly to the public through blogging. Some institutions regard the tool as ‘getting around the filter’ of the main press. It is not necessarily a bad thing, it allows people to open up their minds to other ideas. The responsibility of regulation falls to the publisher. It’s hard to discuss blog regulation without talking about internet governance which is a relatively impossible task. A number of governments around the world have suggested the idea of submitting all blog posts through an agency to check and regulate its content, but with millions of posts daily, and blogs appearing on a very regular basis, the task would be almost as impossible of regulating the whole of the internet.
The YouTube video below is a discussion about blogging on an Indian television show. It outlines the main concerns of blogging, and what should be done to regulate it.
Last week the New York Timesannounced that from 2011 it would be charging its readers for full access to its website. According to reports, it would appear that many UK papers will follow suit. So where does that leave us?
On Radio 4’s Today programme Professor Tim Luckhurstexpressed his optimism for the future of journalism. He believes people are accustomed to the idea that you need professional journalism, and that in the new era of the Internet, social media networks are beginning to drive people towards professional journalism. He added that the culture will have to change if people want edited, professional journalism. (Follow the link above to hear the whole interview.)
I would beg to differ.
There are, as he says, plenty of people who want professional journalism. If you want to know the news and know it’s correct, you’ll go to a respected source such as the BBC, as discussed in Tasha’s last post. Therefore those people will be willing to pay for it.
Optimism
These, however, are people who are already interested in news. Who already read The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph… But going back to Giles’ previous post. Who is the future audience? Children, teenagers. I can’t imagine many of them will be paying for a subscription to The Times any time soon.
If online newspapers do become subscription only, I think there could be problems for professional journalism. People could grow up getting their information from other, less reliable sources, and that will become the norm. According to this article, 18 to 24 year olds are already heading elsewhere. By the looks of it the need for professional journalism is on the decline.
Reliable
At the moment if you search for a news story, apart from television-related sites, and the likes of Reuters, the majority of top results will be linked to a newspaper, be it local, national or international. Take all but a few away, and you’ll start hitting blogs, Facebook and other sites.
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, so long as the information’s accurate. So is there any way we can ensure that the news people are accessing is correct? Another question for another day.
With this blog I wanted to ask the question, how is the media audience changing? I wanted to ask this because I think it’s most relevant to one of the biggest legal issues occurring on the internet; copywrite. This area involves the most court time and monetary payouts, but why?
People are watching more videos on the internet than ever before. If you reread that last sentence it will be truer still. Re-read again and it will be even more true. This is because someone somewhere has started watching videos on the internet where they had not previously. An older person is getting to grips with “streaming” or a child is watching his first clip on youtube. People are becoming increasingly used to watching videos and clips and movies and sketches and music videos and instructional videos and the weather and the news and their friends and their families’ holidays and adverts… on the internet. With people getting so used to this way of consuming moving images people are searching for wider varieties of shows on-line, legal or not. With so many people uploading so many of their own videos and so many films and television shows being hosted, the line between them is becoming increasingly blurred. What’s the difference? The companies who produced it or bought it would argue copywrite. It legally belongs to them and they should in some way be remunerated for their efforts.
What are they doing about this growing number of people who are watching their shows on the internet for free without any real care for its legality or not? They have decided to offer a variety of ways to watch their things legally. You have BBC’s iPlayer, 4OD, ITV Player to name but a few. These are free to view but the shows are only hosted for a certain amount of time. Does that make any difference to how you watch it? Well yes. Most people will watch their favourite show on those websites unless the show have been taken off and then they watch them on youtube again… illegally. It doesn’t really make a difference how you allow people to watch your videos, they will be watched independently of your efforts. It is far too easy to find a show or film for free for people to really bother whether or not it is legal. Torrents and streaming sites are in huge abundance and, not forgetting, file sharing sites, where if someone has something you can download it from them, no matter what that something is. A search for “Fraiser” the American comedy show will bring up options allowing you to download every episode ever made. It is as easy as that.
The future of internet use lies with the children who are spending their lives on it. Do they see it as their right to watch anything on the web? I think they do. They are far less concerned with the right or wrongs involved, if they want to watch something they will watch it. It is the older audience that ascribe to the rights and wrongs of viewing legally. Changing the mindset or habits of the younger generation of internet users may be a major factor.
So where does that lead us?
An interesting question. It would be impossible to stop people uploading films if they want to. There are far too many self taught computer wizards to create an un-copyable version of a programme. In fact by allowing your show to be up on the internet you are almost allowing it to be copied with greater ease. Instead of separating the internet from the broadcast it seems that the direction is to combine the two. The computer is becoming more powerful and more important than ever. Books are being downloaded and read on computers, it is possible to watch live TV on the internet, the computer has taken the place of the stereo and has engulfed the photo album. With ever more focus on the whirring box of electricity it seems that companies will have huge hurdles to jump if they want to keep their precious property.
The internet has almost been left for too long on its own. It has picked up bad habits, has been shaped by its users and has grown hirsute and wild. Now people are trying to teach it manners, cut its hair and make it slender, fit and efficient and it is responding very badly. It may well be too set in its ways to anything about it.
The problem may not be to change the internet but to change people mindset when they use it.
The BBC is a national icon. For many it is the paradigm of authority when it comes to news and current affairs; an organisation that can be relied on to be independent and unbiased, giving the audience the full story.
This creates a problem.
They are so highly regarded as an institution; that when the internet came along they had to be extremely careful to utilise it well – without damaging their reputation. This meant they had to create their own set of guidelines.
This shows the BBC have a very clear and calculated strategy of how to deal with their media output on the internet. Arguably, it has had to take extra pre-cautions because it is a public service – but I would also argue that this is not only a legal obligation but an ethical one too.
They had to be careful that the freedom of the internet did not undermine their authority across other media platforms…
“The BBC is committed to delivering the highest editorial and ethical standards in the provision of its content and services on all platforms both in the UK and around the world.”
– The BBC’s Editorial Values.
In my opinion, considering that the BBC have applied the same rules to their internet output that they would comply with under Ofcom this has meant they have provided a solid and respected all-round service.
They had no legal obligation to abide by the same convention – but they did.
Now, this was either incredibly insightful or an ethical judgement based on previous conduct.
Either way, the BBC is a great example of how the internet CAN be regulated on an individual basis. It just depends on an individual’s prerogative…
Following on from my post the other day… I touched on the ethical implications of the freedom we “enjoy” on the internet. Laws, such as contempt of court, may apply to reporting wherever an article’s published, but once illegal material gets on to the internet it can spread, and fast, regardless of whether the original publication is removed.
This week saw the start of the retrial of the death of Khyra Ishaq. A seven-year-old girl who died of starvation. Her mother and step-father are being tried for murder.
What’s interesting about this case, with regards to what we’re discussing, is the following statement as reported in The Guardian online:
“Before the prosecution opened the case, Mr Justice Roderick Evans, the trial judge, instructed the new jury not to search on the internet to find out details of the previous trial.”
Now if I was a juror the first thing I’d be tempted to do is look on the internet. Whether I would or not is a different matter… I’m not on the jury, but I have had a look on the internet.
Taste and decency
There are obviously numerous court reports from the original trial and, as the law allows a reporter to publish what they’ve heard in court, evidence is accessible. But then archived newspapers are also available, so if you were really keen to get your hands on details of the previous trial you could.
Evidence, as reported, aside. What would happen if a member of the previous jury decided to wage war against the defendants? Should they be so inclined, they could publish anything they wanted on a blog or on Twitter, and the rules of taste and decency won’t apply.
It’s great that we have the opportunity to express ourselves in the way we see fit. But if our freedom on the internet starts to interfere with the course of justice (and, in some cases, our physical freedom), then maybe the alarm bells should be starting to ring.
Right, so I want to talk about the regulation of online news in China, in 400 words or so. Hmmmmmm …. I’d Google it, but it may prove a bit tricky right now.
Perhaps the best place to start is with the People’s Republic of China’s Constitution. (Don’t worry, we won’t stay long.)
Article 35 states that citizens enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
This however conflicts rather dramatically with Reporters without Borders who rank China at number 168 out of 173, in the press freedom index.
Despite China having the world’s fastest growing economy, its media is still tightly controlled by the country’s leadership. Described as the“world’s largest prison for journalists, bloggers and cyber-dissidents”, and with long jail sentences for those attempting to defy the state, this is definitely not a country you want to be caught breaking the rules in.
The Great Firewall of China, as it’s known, is obligatory, not optional, as the authorities had reportedly promised. Designed supposedly to protect children from pornographicsites and increase parental control, critics have complained that it could also stop Chinese internet users searching for politically sensitive information.
The BBCs Chinese language website, Youtube, Twitter and Facebook are just some of the more popular sites currently inaccessible throughout China. A protest group in support of Xinjiang Independence, was the catalyst for the Chinese Government’s ‘dislike’ of Facebook.
Chinese censors periodically and inexplicablyblockand unblockforeign news sites that inquisitive surfers may try to access. There is a special task force of some 30,000 “cybercops” who patrol the World Wide Web, block select foreign news sites, and terminate domestic sites with politically sensitive information.
More repression than regulation, I’d say.
The Umbrella Effect
In researching this subject, it has been made clear to me that China are keen to ‘keep up appearances’, even if those appearances are far from subtle. This clip demonstrates the difficultly facing one journalist attempting to report on the 20th Tienament Square anniversary.
Internet sites were also forced to close down; for maintenance, obviously.
Health Warning
There are so many examples of ‘regulation’ within Chinese online news and it is most definitely not just the anniversaries of these horrific events that are censored. News of the Urumqi Riots, the Sichuan earthquake and the Bejing Olympics suffocated in the hands of the hierarchy, violence ensuing for those journalists not following the State’s orders.
But the SARS outbreak in 2002 was particularly worrying, as officials were accused of censoring information about the spread of the life-threatening disease. The authoritarian Government’s insistence of complete media control, not only put its own citizens at risk but also, essentially contributed to deaths worldwide.
Google It? Google Out.
More recently, on 14th January, internet giantGoogle has said it may end its operations in China following a “sophisticated and targeted” cyber attack. It said it was no longer willing to censor its Chinese search engine – google.cn. This could result in closing the site, and its Chinese offices.
Reporters Without Borders reiterated its support for the Global Online Freedom Act following this revelation and praised the Google executives in standing up to the Chinese authorities.
Just scratching the surface of this vast beast has unearthed atrocious security, health and human rights issues. A country which has had the world’s most sophisticated system of online censorship and surveillance for years, is going to take a whole lot of taming.
The Internet is commonly defined by its lack of regulation, by way of limitless boundaries. The fast-flowing pace of media and news swamps the Internet, mostly unregulated and in high concentration. This has raised issues for legislators and censorship task forces, who argue the importance of the freedom of expression and address questions of intellectual property rights.
It’s almost impossible to regulate a person’s opinion. We are free to express what we want, when we want to, provided that it does not infringe upon the universal rules of law, and codes of conduct set out globally the UN declaration of Human Rights Springs to mind! However the Internet is a different kettle of fish. Whilst there have been notable instances of media regulation on the Internet, it is still rare on a large scale- with the consensus being, a perceived reluctance to constrain the Internets freewheeling nature.
‘The enterprise of new media has developed beyond its chosen purpose’. With websites such as twitter, Facebook, Bebo, MySpace (to name a few) providing more than they had perhaps initially anticipated. These sites have inadvertently created the citizen journalist. With the requirement of an email address and some form of name, citizen journalists are free to roam and publish information as they please on the endless networks of the Internet. This particular form of new media has provided the large news corporations with an entirely new branch of reporting, occurring on a larger and quicker scale. And of course, with the Internet so widely available, media through social networking is limitless and HARD to regulate.
In 2009, twitter became an important tool for both journalists and political protesters, particularly in Iran. Throughout the highly documented Iranian Presidential election, ordinary (and angry) Iranians expressed feelings about the result through the Twitter site. It couldn’t have been a more perfect situation for the news corporations, of which, many had been banned from Iran throughout the election and its aftermath. Iranians were tweeting, blogging, facebooking not only their feelings, but also what was going on inside the country. By using social networking sites, new media was officially born, opening a window for the rest of the world to see, and of course, they did this unregulated.
The CEO of Twitter was once quoted as saying , ”What we have to do is deliver to people the best and freshest most relevant information possible. We think of Twitter as it’s not a social network, but it’s an information network. It tells people what they care about as it is happening in the world”. There were of course many instances where Twitter was used to convey an important message to the world, however the Iranian Election demonstrated the ultimate value social networking, new media and the Internet holds.
So with the positive uses of new media, is their any need for governance or regulation?
Perhaps with that in mind the following should be considered:
Media Pluralism in the 21st Century
The importance of Impartiality and balance….or unimportance of it
”My opinion is important” Internet governance fascist??
Cyberlaw- ”i’m not being censored by someone who holds the complete opposite views as me”
On the 12th October 2009 the law firm Carter-Ruck took out an injunction on The Guardian, preventing it from reporting parliamentary proceedings. In particular, a question which was to be asked “later” in the week.
The freedom to report parliamentary sessions was established by the 1688 Bill of Rights and when The Guardian published news of the injunction at 20.31 on 12th October, there was a ripple of discontent among journalists and human rights activists alike. Suspicions as to the reasons for such an order sparked immediate investigation by many. The ripple quickly developed into a full-blown tidal wave.
Human rights activist, Richard Wilson, was one of the first to uncover the truth, and published a blog only half an hour later, following it with the tweet: Any guesses what this is about? My money’s on, ahem, #TRAFIGURA!
Lethal combination
By 21.57 the notorious (and much followed), blogger Guido Fawkes had posted the story. So too did Alex Massie of The Spectator who also included the question in question. Meanwhile tweets and re-tweets were flying thick and fast and with the help of the likes of Stephen Fry, who has over a million followers, it wasn’t long before the story was in the mainstream.
Suspicious minds and the freedom and speed of the Internet proved a lethal combination for the libel law specialists Carter-Ruck. By the next morning their name, along with “Guardian” and “Trafigura” (the oil company at the heart of the story) were top “trending” topics on Twitter. The Guardian claimed a victory for free speech.
So what does this mean for the future of press freedom? We’re supposed to be discussing how media regulation can be extended to news and current affairs on the Internet – maybe it should be how the freedom of news and current affairs on the Internet can be extended to other media.
With the current lack of regulation on sites such as Twitter, you could question whether injunctions are still viable. If they aren’t, we could see some major changes emerging in reporting law. On the positive side, the lack of regulation allows freedom of speech and expression. Big companies such as Trafigura will no longer be able to hide behind lawyers, and exposure is more likely.
Witch-hunts
On the negative side, we need to consider ourselves. It’s easy to focus on big companies wrapped up in injunctions, or celebrities filing libel cases, but what about “average” folk? The Internet audience is hungry for information, regardless of how reliable or reputable the source. But if the story involves us, or someone we know, we may not be so quick to jump on the bandwagon of believing everything we read on the Internet.
At present, court cases are covered by strict reporting rules. Journalists can’t speculate on the guilt of a defendant or publish prejudicial information. But what’s to stop a member of the public attending a trial and tweeting anything they like? Technically they’d be in contempt of court, but who’s out there to police it? If it were a high profile case, sensitive information could be tweeted and hitting hundreds of thousands of screens within hours.
The danger of this kind of reporting is that it’s so fast. This can be a benefit, but suppose the information is wrong. Suppose false and damaging information reaches the masses. For whoever’s involved, the harm caused could be irreversible.
Tweets could snowball and become witch-hunts within hours. The speed of which the Trafigura story spread across not only twitter but also blogs and other Internet current affairs outlets was incredible. Referring back to Tasha’s post, stories of a racial ilk could have terrifying consequences.
tamingthebeast.wordpress.com 