Unrequired Reading {11.12.08 to 12.12.08}

December 12, 2008

These are some of the things that have caught my atten­tion lately. It’s a more eclectic mix than just the news busi­ness, but then so’s life:

  • BBC con­tent shar­ing: it’s a start, but is there more to come? | The Guard­ian — [I]n a web ori­ented world, what about access to the BBC’s pro­gramme data­base in open APIs with all that lovely metadata exposed to the world? This would cer­tainly make our tech­no­logy dir­ector and many oth­ers like him extremely happy. It would also have the fur­ther bene­fit of mak­ing avail­able the BBC archive to every­body who can then work on it gratis to present it in a more bene­fi­cial way.

    Ditto your news foot­age. It should really be on an open server where people who want to take the news and dis­trib­ute it through any chan­nel neces­sary can. Of course it would carry BBC brand­ing and it can come with any con­di­tions you like attached, around re-use, or sale, or cut­ting, or even advert­ising. But it would be enrich­ing for the users and pub­lish­ers to have such a mar­vel­lous resource available.

  • Google News won’t list neigh­bor­hood news site | Lost Remote — “[T]his is the new model of com­munity journ­al­ism: neigh­bor­hood report­ers work­ing out of their homes, provid­ing a layer of journ­al­ism over a vibrant com­munity (some­thing, I might add, does not always require “mul­tiple writers and edit­ors.”) This is the future of low-cost, high-relevancy, community-powered local cov­er­age. But oddly, Google News enforces the old defin­i­tion of a news organ­iz­a­tion. It’s dis­crim­in­at­ory, narrow-minded and exclusive.”
  • Press free­dom increas­ingly under threat in France — The Irish Times — Tue, Dec 09, 2008PRESIDENT NICOLAS Sarkozy’s gov­ern­ment temp­ted fate by host­ing a two-day con­fer­ence entitled Free­dom of Expres­sion: Corner­stone of Demo­cracy to mark its EU pres­id­ency and the 60th anniversary of the Uni­ver­sal Declar­a­tion of Human Rights.

    Sack­ings, searches of news­pa­per offices, the deten­tion of sev­eral journ­al­ists, legis­la­tion that inhib­its press free­dom and the con­cen­tra­tion of media in the hands of Mr Sarkozy’s friends are blight­ing press free­dom here. Some 50 French journ­al­ists declined invit­a­tions to the conference.

  • A tale of two pub­lish­ers | News after News­pa­pers — [I]n 1954, U. S. news­pa­pers garnered 32.94 per­cent of all advert­ising rev­enue, while broad­cast tele­vi­sion got 9.93 per­cent. Total advert­ising that year was 2.14 per­cent of GDP. By 2007, news­pa­pers’ share had “dwindled” to 15.07 per­cent of alll ad rev­enue, while broad­cast and cable TV got a com­bined 25.34 per­cent. Total advert­ising in 2007 was 2.03% of GDP—in other words, the size of the pie stayed about the same, but TV gained most of what news­pa­pers lost. And then there’s this thing called the inter­net which has grown from noth­ing in 1996 to 3.77 per­cent in 2007. (Sources and graphs at my prior post on these trends.) The reason for this is simple: Broad­cast TV, cable and inter­net today com­mand a far greater share of con­sumers’ time than news­pa­pers do.
  • The Import­ance of News­pa­pers | Stu­dents Ess­says — Why not to get your essay online: “The news­pa­per, today, plays a vital role in human affairs. Its import­ance has not been dimin­ished by the appear­ance of the radio or the tele­vi­sion. Men no longer have travel to get inform­a­tion. The news­pa­per has become the main source of inform­a­tion. The news­pa­per has become the main source of inform­a­tion about local and for­eign affairs.”
  • ECHR over­turns tele­vi­sion polit­ical advert­ising ban… | Ofcom­watch — “A friend just aler­ted me to the case of TV Vest AS v. Norway.

    The ECHR basic­ally finds that Norway’s ban on polit­ical advert­ising on tele­vi­sion falls afoul of Art­icle 10 of the Con­ven­tion.  I per­son­ally think it is a big case — and may in part over-rule the UK case Animal Defend­ers Inter­na­tional.  It’s dif­fi­cult for me to say because I am not a European law­yer, but I read TV Vest as essen­tially say­ing that the rationale for ban­ning polit­ical expres­sion on tele­vi­sion is just not convincing.”

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: