Not convinced? 10 things to change your mind about Twitter

February 17th, 2009 by Dave 21 comments »

gorillaYesterday I went up to Birmingham to visit Paul Bradshaw and his online journalism class.

Knowing Paul’s area of expertise — social media, web 2.0 and how it all rolls up into one tasty journalism package — I was curious to see how he taught his craft.

Not that I doubted his abilities as a tutor or anything — more that sometimes I feel a lot of social media is unteachable. In the same way that if someone keeps insisting you watch a film, or listen to an album, you somehow start to get fed up of being told how to spend your leisure time.

You have to ignite a bit of interest.

Before I would come up with lots of philosophical ways of telling people why Twitter is the canine’s crackers (“You can connect with conversations and communities all over the world” …blergh), I’m beginning to think that maybe gimmick-y ideas are in fact better to at least get people started. If nothing else, a nice gimmick will remove the chore element of converting someone.

Twitter isn’t a gimmick, but gimmicks keep someone entertained. Allowing them to discover the real power of Twitter… engaging with like-minded— you get the picture. So here we go:

10 things to change your mind about Twitter

1. You’ll know about stuff before everyone else does. There’s nothing quite like breaking news, is there? BreakingNewsOn is so quick it makes you wonder if they’re not watching our every move. Scary.

2. You can use it to find out what people think… about anything. Are you a PR? Search for your clients products and see how they’re getting on. If you represent Nike, it may be motivating to know that people generally like your brand. If people hate your product, maybe you can’t afford to ignore them.

3. You can find people who like what you do. Got a hobby? Find others that have that hobby too. That not good enough for you? Find people with your hobby…  near where you live.

4. You can use it to get help. Technical problem? Tweet it. You’ll be surprised at how quickly you’ll get an answer.

5. It can transform your career. Think of five places you’d like to work. And then think of the people who have the power to make that happen. Wouldn’t you love to get them in a room to hear what you have to say? Well hurry up — follow them and get talking. It works.

6. You can campaign for good. Yes, it’s a bit cheesy, but Twitter is fast becoming the most effective word-of-mouth tool in the world. With one simple ‘re-tweet’ (that’s someone copying your message), your ideas could be exposed to thousands. How about @twitchhiker, going around the world using Twitter contacts and very little else. Or TwitterTitters, using Twitter to create a funny book for Comic Relief?

7. You can talk directly to people in power. You know what’s annoying? Wheelie bins. Bloody, rubbish, smelly wheelie bins. If I lived in West Bromwich I’d be able to have right old whinge about it to Tom Watson, the local MP. He’d probably reply too — all without the need for tiresome official channels that are generally a pain. Not all MPs are on Twitter, but the number is growing steadily. Get stuck in.

8. You can read stuff you’d never normally have found. This is a tricky one to explain, but you know how you’re chatting with your friends, and they say something like “Oh, I saw this on YouTube the other day” or “Did you see that screamer scored by Aberdeen at the weekend?”… well, with just a little URL they can share their delight with you. Don’t underestimate how useful this is. Especially when someone sends you a website that allows you to place a rasher of bacon over a webpage.

9. You can use it to save heaps of time. “I haven’t got time to Twitter!” you say? “Madness!” say I. Harness your Twitter friends to help you out. “Where can I find a wi-fi pub around here?”… you’ll get an answer. “I need a restuarant for Friday night in Oxford”… you’ll get a personal recommendation in minutes — rather than having to spend ages looking online for a decent place and then not really knowing until you get there. Timewaster? No chance!

10. MC Hammer is on there. Can’t touch this.

So there we have it. And while you may think I stuck ol’ MC Hammer in there for a laugh, it’s actually quite an important point. Sometimes it’s that little piece of novelty that will tip someone over the edge — curiousity is enough to start the Twitter-ball rolling.

This is by no means a top ten of uses for Twitter. No way. It’s instead a list of things you can shove in the direction of anyone that says: “Twitter? Pathetic. Why would I want to know what Jonathan Ross is having for lunch?”

Share this post:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

NUJ follow up: I’m still not convinced

February 12th, 2009 by Dave 11 comments »

I’ve been doing some thinking about this whole NUJ thing. My post the other night reads very ranty — indeed, I guess it is very ranty — but I’m pleased to see that many readers of this blog agree with what I’m getting at.

And, from the defence, I received some rather predictable responses against my argument.

I’ll start with this point, from Joanna Geary (formerly Birmingham Post, now The Times):

I have much sympathy with your argument, although £13 a month for legal protection may be worth it and it is for that reason I am still an NUJ member.

Of everything I received (and blimey, there was a LOT) this was perhaps the most useful. £13 a month, as Joanna says, is very good to get legal protection.I can’t argue with that.

But it’s comments like this from ‘Chris’ (no link given) that remind me why I wrote that post:

But you wait till you’re staring down the barrel of redundancy – through no fault of your own, just because it happens that your team is being shut down.

Wait till you’re being forced to accept alternative work in a place you don’t want to live or in an area you have no interest in.

Wait till you’re summoned to meetings for a “quick chat” and end up facing four senior managers using classic intimidation tactics.

Then you’ll wish you had a union rep by your side to help fight your corner.

It’s always good to have a union behind you if you’re facing redundancy. Now, I underqualify myself here, as not only have I never faced redundancy, but I work for a corporation that is arguably more ’stable’. In other words, licence fees are still coming in. While not immune, we are safer.

But my issue is that while the NUJ are fighting a corner, it’s all rather pointless. Take this recent example of an NUJ ‘fight’:

The NUJ has strongly condemned the decision of Independent Newspapers to enforce three redundancies at The Kerryman newspaper in Tralee.

Séamus said: “This proposal represents a direct attack on the editorial heart of one of the oldest and most significant newspapers in Ireland. The inevitable consequence would be a poorer newspaper, which would not adequately reflect the community life of Kerry.”

At a meeting with the union yesterday, management announced its intention to make three journalists redundant. The NUJ chapel held an emergency meeting at which management was urged to rescind the decision, which staff say will have a detrimental effect on The Kerryman and Corkman titles.

My issue with this goes back to my ‘SAVE THE JOURNALISTS!” argument. The NUJ is pouring its efforts into protesting job cuts, when really they should be coming together — as a union — to offer more productive aid to their members. Advice on training, re-skilling and re-deployment.

Ed Hart’s comment:

As an objective observer on this one, I have had good and bad experiences of unions. If I had to sum up what I would want a union to do and be, it is to work on behalf of its members. The problem is that some unions lose touch with what this means, and see themselves as lobbyists, or big movers and shakers; when in fact their remit remains low key, but essential to those who really should matter – their members. Do they occasionally forget who the customer is, and what their customer wants?

Helps me counter this argument from ‘thatstheway’ (uh huh, uh huh, I like it!):

Someone so self-consciously hip like you could have some input into its digital media strategy if you weren’t so busy doing precisely what you accuse the NUJ of doing all the time, which is complaining, and making digital media sound like some big deal that’s going to require your special skills alone.

I feel I could contribute with the NUJ no more actively than I could to ASLEF, the train drivers union. Why? I feel I don’t have a connection with their outlook in any shape of form.

I’m all for protecting the strength of print. By doing so, we uphold the values that have made our profession truly great. But I’m also aware that, like the industry, a union has to change and adapt. Sometimes there are battles that cannot be won by standing outside a building with a placard.

I think it’s time for the NUJ to take a step back and reflect.

It needs to swallow a bit of pride and admit that just because journalism is online, doesn’t make it bad. In fact, it can make it very, very good.

It needs to stop posting videos like this, which show not only a devestating lack of understanding about online media, but also an aggressive “We’re trained and you WILL employ us” attitude that we just can’t afford to have anymore.

Maybe what we need to do is knock our collective heads together and search for ideas of how the NUJ can modernise and become the forward-thinking union we all need it to be.

Because here’s the thing: I want to join the NUJ. One commenter on my last post accused me of having no sense of solidarity which, and I hope my friends would vouch for this, couldn’t be further from the truth. If the NUJ can bring itself up to speed, I would love to get stuck in and get my hands dirty.

I believe in the future of journalism. I believe that journalists will be as important in 50 years than they have ever been. I’m preparing myself, and training myself, for a world without newsprint. It’s time the NUJ got ready too.

Share this post:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

Join the NUJ? Why?

February 10th, 2009 by Dave 29 comments »

A colleague suggested to me today that I renew my NUJ membership. I’ve let mine lapse since my student days — the £10 or so I spent for a tacky piece of laminated plastic could have been better spent on, well, anything.

At the time, I was promised not only huge benefits of being a card holder — entrance to events, and so on; never happened — but also representation. A union that would stand up for my rights as a student journalist.

But, after getting this promotional bullshit fed to me at during an early lecture at university, I haven’t seen nor heard a NUJ rep since.

And not for want of trying, either.

Last year I did a placement at a well-known media company. I was, for want of a better phrase, taken the piss out of. They wanted me to do a job that was not only away from the area I wanted to work, but was away from the company’s BUILDING. Instead, I was logging in a ten minute drive away. No thanks — I’m not paying £25 a day (they don’t pay expenses, naturally) to offer free labour.

(That said, once the matter was resolved, it turned into a very valuable placement which has lead to me making many good friends and career contacts.)

At the time, I emailed the NUJ for advice. As a student member, I asked, what rights do I have as part of this Union?

No reply. My £10 didn’t even earn me an email offering advice. No phone call, nothing. They couldn’t even be bothered to link me to a relevant part of their website for help. Which is a shame — because they do have a guide for this sort of thing (PDF). But try following their tips and insist on being paid a minimum wage for your placement — you’ll have a big red boot mark on your arse before you’d even sat down.

More recently — in my quest for NUJ help — after seeing several adverts for unpaid internships at websites that were making plenty of money, I emailed the NUJ to ask them if there’s anything they/I/we could do about it.

No reply.

Let me ask you this: Is the NUJ really standing up for journalists?

The answer for me is a very firm and direct no.

The NUJ is a cowardly union, hiding away in offices in which they wish were still furnished with typewriters and a smoking room. Their magazine, ‘Journalist’, is symbolic of their attitude to the changing media world. Only very recently has it become available online. As a downloadable PDF, that is. A pain to download, a pain to read — and completely anti-Google. Journalists looking for its words of ‘wisdom’ wouldn’t find them too easily.

Now when I say hiding — I don’t mean they’re not out there campaigning. They are. Very hard, in fact, with chapels springing up and making a lot of noise in places like the FT and in unison against the Birmingham media hub.

What I actually mean by hiding  is that they are cowering from the future. Here’s the NUJ, plowing money and effort into saying “STOP THE CUTBACKS!”… and then dealing with the blow with yet more anger and disbelief when it happens anyway.

If I were a member of the NUJ, I’d demand it help me as a struggling journalist. Where can I re-skill? How can the NUJ help me choose courses to enhance my online skills?

Simply: It can’t. Look at the diary — what do you see? Gloom — print this, rate cuts that. I’m not saying we don’t need meetings to discuss our rights in the workplace, but like the newspapers making the cuts, we are FIGHTING A LOSING BATTLE.

If the NUJ is really out there to act as a service for all working journalists, it needs to wake up. It needs to get over its fascination with tradition. It needs to pull its head from the sand, stand up and come up with a plan to really help those in need.

Right now, the only noise I hear from the NUJ is complaining.

“Save the journalists!” they’ll scream.

“But how we will survive? We can’t afford them,” say the newspapers.

“Well, er… we don’t know. Just SAVE THE JOURNALISTS, ok?”

Useless.

Share this post:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

The War on Error: Download Regret the Error’s checklist

February 8th, 2009 by Dave 1 comment »

Ugh, checklists. Last time I had a checklist for work it contained the instructions to up-sell customers at a well known computer shop in the UK.

But it did have its uses — I could look at it if I ever wondered what steps were needed in order to banish myself to Hell for serial dishonesty.

But here’s a checklist that could actually come in very useful. If you’re like me, you might scoff a little at the thought of having a help-guide for your articles, but taking a look at that list I don’t think there are many journalists among us that haven’t cocked up at least one of the items.

Share this post:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

Exclusive: ITV in *another* cock-up

February 5th, 2009 by Dave No comments »

;-)

Share this post:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

ITV Sport … FAIL

February 4th, 2009 by Dave 3 comments »

I’ve never seen anything quite like it.

There we were, watching the football, and it’s heading to penalties. It’s nil-nil, a bit scrappy, Everton just edging it… and two minutes before the end of extra time, an ITV ident sweeps across the screen.

WHAT?! ADVERTS?! The game is still going on. The whole pub gasps for a bit. And, as if written by the gods, ITV sort out their technical cock-up and return to the game.

It’s 1-0 to Everton. Almost 120 minutes of pretty poor football and ITV miss the one bit of excitement in the whole game.

A shambles. Make no doubt about it — this was a MASSIVE blunder. Not helped by “it came at a bad time for us, sorry if you missed it” comment offered by the pundit team in the studio.

I can only hope it was gremlins rather than human error. And gremlins seem the likely option — as after the match ITV viewers were treated to a minute or so of this:

itvballsup

Oh dear.

I wonder if something more shameful happened. I wonder if the producer had rigged up the adverts to go on at a certain time — i.e. at the end of the extra time. Tradition on ITV is that right smack-bang on the end of extra time they’ll cut to ads before returning for the penalty shoot out. What they didn’t allow for here, then, was stoppage time, or just general delays that happen in any sporting event.

One word: FAIL.

On a serious note, is it about time the coverage of football on ITV is put under a little scrutiny? I think so.

First off, the pundits are awful. Clive Tyldesley couldn’t analyse a cabbage, let alone a football match. Compare ITV’s offerings with Sky and you’ll see a canyon of quality difference. And to think that when Sky first got the rights they were roundly criticised by many — they’re now streets ahead of both BBC and ITV.

Neither the Beeb or ITV have anyone even close to be as good as Jeff Stelling, or Andy Gray, or Richard Keys. Even the small-time pundits like Jamie Redknapp have more to say about the game. Hell, I’d rather have Kris Camara analysing football than Mark Lawrenson. Seriously.

Second, and this bears some importance with me, are we all forgetting the ITV Digital fiasco? Their failing to properly manage their contracts, coverage and finances has led to many football clubs being placed in severe financial straits. Cambridge United went into administration soon after the ITV deal collapsed. Many clubs are still suffering from the knock-on effect of the dodgy deal.

And thirdly… well… it’s just rubbish, isn’t it? The only time ITV get it somewhat right is on Champion’s League nights — and that, I’d argue, is only because the pictures are provided for them. All ITV have to do is commentate over it.

If anyone out there watched the Histon vs Leeds match early on in this year’s F.A Cup, you’ll have seen the terrible state of the cameras. Yes, it was raining hard, but a whole half without the camera being wiped? Jesus, what tosh. And what happened to giving a camera a shield from the weather?

Amateur stuff, it really is. Get football off ITV — no-one enjoys it.

Share this post:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

When webcams go bad: Priceless abuse of BBC Nottingham

February 2nd, 2009 by Dave 4 comments »

Major props to @paul_fernley for spotting this gem:

BBC - Nottingham - In Pictures - Old Market Square webcam_1233530496085

(click to enlarge if you need to!)

In other news, Paul also mentions that today marks the relaunch of BBC Weather online. Cracking timing, lads!

Share this post:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

Quote of the Day

January 28th, 2009 by Dave No comments »

“As a student of bizarre organizations and eccentric people, the BBC feels like my natural home.” — Louis Theroux.

Share this post:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit

Reports of her death are greatly exaggerated

January 26th, 2009 by Dave No comments »

Without wanting to seem flippant over this tragic story, I couldn’t help notice something very strange on on the Daily Mail site today.

Headline: Miss World finalist who had hands and feet amputated after being hit by infection dies

Other than being a very good piece of SEO, this headline is also very matter of fact. The Miss World finalist has died.

And then here’s the first paragraph:

A two-time Miss World finalist whose feet and hands were amputated after contracting a drug-resistant infection has died.

Very straight forward there.

Like most Daily Mail stories, there are comments a plenty (probably down to that great SEO). But something about the comments on this story in particular struck me as a little bit, well, strange:

My heart goes to the beautiful girl, what a tradegy! Praying for her speedy recovery!
Leila, Gibraltar, 22/1/2009 16:11

And another:

Beauty is only in the eyes of the beholder. How she fights this and pulls through will show her true beauty, and that’s the real beautiful and strong person everyone will see; not just what’s on the outside, but the fight inside too. I bet she can do it!

And there’s loads more.

Of course, the reasonable explanation for this is that the original story told of a girl fighting for her life. The comments came in. Then, sadly, the girl lost that fight — and so the story was altered. But now the comments come across as rather haunting. I’ve stuck a picture of the comments on Flickr in the event of them being removed.

Presumably the Mail would have wanted to keep the most up-to-date information on one article page, rather than several new articles whenever a story develops. That makes sense. But surely a development as serious as the death of the subject shouldn’t just be edited?

Share this post:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Reddit