Notdailymail_uk saga: Associated Newspapers step in

January 12th, 2009 by Dave 1 comment »

Mystery one has been solved.

Associated Newspapers Limited have, according to the fake Daily Mail blogger, got Twitter by the short and curlies and demanded they rename the ‘dailymail_uk’ account. So they did.

He writes:

All of a sudden and with no warning I was locked out of Twitter.

I checked through my email archives. One minute I was receiving email to @dailymail_uk like this…

A scant 45 minutes later, I was receiving emails to @notdailmail_ukI checked, double checked and – for the hell of it – triple checked all my inboxes, labels, spam folders and deleted items. There was no sign of twitter sending me any notification as to when or wherefore they had disabled my account.

Ouch. He pressed Twitter for a reply and got this explanation:

Hello,

We did send out the following notification yesterday. Did you check your spam folder?

We received a letter from the Associated Newspapers Limited, part of Daily Mail & General

Trust Plc, legal adviser. regarding Trademark violation and impersonation.

http://twitter.zendesk.com/tickets/5377 :

Hi

We’ve received a complaint from a fellow Twitterer . It has come to our attention that your Twitter account:

http://twitter.com/dailymail_uk

is in violation of our basic Terms of Service, specifically article 4 which mentions impersonation:

4. You must not abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other Twitter users.

In this case “impersonation” is the issue. Impersonation is against our terms of service unless it’s parody. The standard for defining parody is, “Would a reasonable person be aware that it’s a joke.”

To settle this issue we’ve removed the profile image and changed the user name to “notdailymail_uk” in the full name and username fields in order to eliminate confusion. You can change your real and user names to something else if you’d like:

1. Visit Twitter.com/settings
2. Edit the Full Name and Username fields
3. Click “Save”

Please honor Twitter’s Terms of Service accordingly. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

Thanks,

Twitter Support

(The bold is added for emphasis.)

So the question is: Would a reasonable person be aware that it’s a joke?

Tricky. One commenter pointed out that of the massive Daily Mail readership, there aren’t too many reasonable people to pick from. And, chances are, they’re not on Twitter either.

He expresses concern that Twitter cannot be trusted when they have the power to just tell you to clear off. But I wouldn’t be alarmed. Most businesses in the world operate with a ‘Management reserves the right to not serve/sell’ etc get-out in place — and this doesn’t seem to be any different.

But it begs the question: How do you measure satire?

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

(Updated) Two mysteries behind the fake Daily Mail tweeter

January 10th, 2009 by Dave No comments »

The fake Daily Mail Twitter account has been causing a few laughs lately. Status messages like: “Tomorrow’s front page “COULD CURRY GIVE YOU CANCER?” Also inside: Free Chicken Tikka for EVERY reader,” have made me chuckle greatly. In fact, I think I enjoy reading this Twitter feed more than I do reading the paper — but that’s another matter.

Anyway, until very very recently, the fake Daily Mail account had the username of @dailymail_uk. Now it sports @Notdailymail_uk. So what gives? Did the Daily Mail come down heavy on this impersonator? Were the fake account’s opinions (“@tom_watson You put pics of your kids online? Are you mad? Don’t you know the internets are full of perverts? Do all Labour MPs hate kids?“) too similar to that of the actual paper?

I find it hard to believe. After all, the Daily Mail doesn’t hold Twitter in very high regard. So why do they care? (Note to students: Try to avoid starting your articles with the words ‘How boring’…). If Twitter is used by sad, time-endowed losers, then surely they don’t need to bother forcing the tweeter to change his name?

So that’s mystery one: Have the Daily Mail stepped in?

Mystery two is: Who is he?

I say ‘he’, because there have been plenty of tweets alluding to male-dom. Most noticeably: Thinking about having a quick “Power Wank” before heading in to the office. It’s excellent for relaxation AND helps flavour the porridge.”

I’ve not heard (m)any women use the phrase ‘Power Wank’ lately.

And I think he’s an insider at the paper. The tweet: “Fuck! We’ve got an injunction saying we can’t say anything about the Scientology involvement with Travolta’s son. May print any way,” was backed up by a (non-Twittering) Mail colleague who confirmed: “It is true about the Travolta thing, I was working there today and the story got pulled for just that reason!”

Of course, this doesn’t mean he works at the Daily Mail — he could, in theory, work anywhere within the UK media. Or even, I suppose, be an avid follower of media news. But he seems a little too close to the newspaper to not have some involvement. He also seems to post using mobile Twitter site Slandr a lot more than than any computer-based Twitter tools. Much sneakier in a work situation ;-)

Update: @Notdailymail_uk has just posted this:

[Meta: twitter renamed me to @notdailymail_uk & changed my password. They didn't contact me or offer any redress. How safe is your account?]

Does this mean, then, that the Daily Mail got in direct contact with Twitter demanding the change?

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

MEN goes mojo and wins

January 9th, 2009 by Dave No comments »

Three reasons why this is great.

1) It’s an embedded player — many more people will watch it as a result.

2) It’s unedited and raw — no need to waste time in post-production. Get this out there!

3) It was shot with an N95 — meaning it was probably sent back to the newsroom instantly.

Watch:

Now, if we leave aside the fact the video is a little boring, the newsgathering here has proven to be very effective. The reporter — Nicola Dowling — has clearly rushed to the scene, whipped out here n95, and shot a quick clip. Not much thought has gone into it — because there was no need.

Imagine if Ronaldo had have still been there. She would have had an exclusive video interview. The WORLD would have watched. Sadly, I guess she was a little too late, but she’s probably got at least an hour on the local TV crew, if not more.

The point is, Nicola’s use of mobile journalism (oh, okay then, I’ll call it mojo. Sheesh) demonstrates how easy it is. How many old timers (sorry guys) say “I’m not going to go around filming too” ? Too many. But this is so easy, it would be silly not to.

After all, most reporters hold dictaphones under the face of their interviewee. Why not hold a cameraphone? Easy peasy — jobs a good’un.

That’s not to say that all newspaper video should be as rough and ready as the Ronaldo clip, though. Here the MEN get the higher quality equipment out to do some more traditional TV-style reporting. And what a damn good job they’ve made of it too.

[via Journalism.co.uk and the Manchester Evening News]

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

Huff Post: How Google can help journalism

January 8th, 2009 by Dave 1 comment »

Here’s some more Google-themed newspaper bailout ideas from Dan Froomkin writing for the brilliant Huffington Post.

I guess calling it a bailout may be a little harsh. It’s an investment. An investment in good journalism. Dan offers seven great ideas, including:

“‘Adopt’ a handful of newspapers, and help them build technologically-sophisticated Web sites, with an emphasis on micro-local and business-to-consumer relationships. For instance, local papers need ways to database local advertising, local content, and information on local readers — then serve up ads based on psycho-graphic and geographic information. Newspapers can’t seem to figure this out by themselves. Then make the technology available to others.”

Adopting just a handful could make this sound unfair. But if this was to happen in the UK, Google could perhaps adopt some groups. My friend works for the Scunthorpe Telegraph, part of the Grimsby and Scunthorpe Media Group, which is in turn owned by Northcliffe. Now, funding a design/functionality/advertising overhaul of the Grimsby and Scunthorpe Media Group would be a mere blip on the Google budget. Heck — doing the whole of Northcliffe wouldn’t cost Google that much, especially since most of the technology has already been created.

For Google, they get the added benefit of Google ads — of which they’d share revenue — on a load of UK regional sites. The regionals would enjoy being optimised for Google, leading to more readers. And, the brilliance of Google Adwords will mean advertisers would love it: Think how useful — on a story about, say, icy roads — an advert for the local garage selling good de-icer would be? If owned a small business, I’d be all over that.

Here’s another of his suggestions:

“Create an open-source journalism wire service, hiring excellent laid-off reporters to do great narrative and investigative work that’s free for the picking.”

I like this. But this would be a massive challenge. Should this be a success, it’ll lead to a helluva lot of jobs lost at the likes of the PA, AP and Reuters. This would roll over to many people — a huge amount of photographers make their money from pictures sold to the wires, and then sold on again — for cash.

And here lies the problem: Dan is looking at journalism from the point of view of the organisations. His open-source newswire idea forgets the journalists that make the world go round — the freelancers, the independents.

With the exception of Al Jazeera, no MSM organisation has a presence in Gaza. And, now Israel has issued a media lock down, no-one can get in. The reason why we’re getting footage is independent journalists, risking their lives by reporting.

Assuming Google wouldn’t pay for the content, and assuming by ‘free for the picking’ Dan means free to use, then who exactly is paying the independents? No-one, by the looks of it.

It’s a good start though. I’m starting to believe that Google is perhaps the only company that can save journalism.

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

Was Cristiano Ronaldo uninsured? (The danger of auto-subtitles)

January 8th, 2009 by Dave 3 comments »

No, he wasn’t. But if you were watching Sky Sports News you may have been mistaken for thinking the wonder-kid was in an awful lot of trouble

For most viewers, it wasn’t a problem — the anchor didn’t get it wrong. But if you were watching somewhere that was making use of the automatically generated subtitles that Sky employs, you would get a confusing account of what happened.

Do the words uninjured and uninsured sound similar to you? They’re not a million miles apart. So when the Sky Sports News anchor said:

“Manchester United star Cristiano Ronaldo was in a high speed Ferrari crash earlier today. He was uninjured.”

The subtitles heard it as:

“Manchester United star Cristiano Ronaldo was in a high speed Ferrari crash earlier today. He was uninsured.”

Quite a different story, I’m sure you’ll agree.

Why was I watching with subtitles? Well… I was in the gym, working on my Cristiano Ronaldo body. But I could have been in plenty of places — doctor surgeries, waiting rooms… countless pubs — pretty much every Wetherspoons shows Sky Sports News on one screen, and BBC News 24 on the other. Both with subtitles.

And we can’t forget the deaf community either, of course.

So it’s fair to say quite a sizable amount of viewers. While it’s certain Ronaldo wouldn’t give Sky any aggro over a mistake like this — I doubt he noticed… — there may come a time when a sensitive news report could turn a bit ugly when fed through the subtitle machine.

Legally speaking, who’s responsible?

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

Google’s Eric Schmidt on saving newspapers

January 8th, 2009 by Dave No comments »

Adrian Monck pointed me in the direction of this interesting interview with Google CEO Eric Schmidt. In it, he offers some matter-of-fact wisdom about the future of newspapers, and the role Google has in their survival.

Google can’t make the cost of newsprint go down. We also can’t materially change the way consumers behave, and consumers are in fact moving their lives online. We have been able to send clicks to their Web sites, which they can monetize. So that provides some revenue. The problem is that doesn’t provide enough revenue to offset the loss of the other revenue.

It’s logic like that which makes me wonder why so many French papers are annoyed at Google for linking to them on Google News. Google gives them traffic. For free. Why complain?

This is an interesting thought, too:

One scenario says newspapers become part of larger companies. [The Washington Post, for example, is part of a company that makes a considerable portion of its money in the education business]. They’re clearly not going to fold because their value is too large.

I like this idea. Newspapers should be like games consoles. Microsoft makes a loss on the Xbox 360. But it makes a killing by selling games. If newspaper owners are desperate to keep their console — the print edition — alive, perhaps they should working on some better games. What are those games? I don’t know. Sorry.

Schmidt concludes:

[It] presents a real tragedy in the sense that journalism is a central part of democracy. And if it can’t be funded because of these business problems, then that’s a real loss in terms of voices and diversity. And I don’t think bloggers make up the difference. The historic model of investigative journalists in any industry is something that is very fundamental. So the question is, what can you do about this? And a fair statement is, we’re still looking for the right answer.

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

Flat Earth News: Now out on paperback

January 8th, 2009 by Dave No comments »

Spotted that the brilliant Flat Earth News is now finally out on paperback. If you haven’t read it, DO. When I was studying, I read heaps of journalism books. This was by far the most important.

If you get it from WHSmith, it’s part of their buy one get one half price deal. (My ‘half price’ was the so-far awesome Yes Man by Danny Wallace, in case you were wondering.)

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

Joe the Plumber to become war correspondent

January 7th, 2009 by Dave No comments »

Remember Joe the Plumber? The chap who became an overnight celebrity after meeting President-Elect Barack Obama in the street and questioning his tax policies. Yeah… him.

Well he’s going to Israel. To be a war reporter.

You know what irks me. For every gimmick-reporter out there, a real one could be saved. No, scratch that, about 20 could be saved. Humph.

If you can bear it, here’s a clip about his career change:

[via From the Frontline blog]

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

Extensive Panorama archive online

January 7th, 2009 by Dave 2 comments »

The new Panorama homepage launched yesterday — well worth taking a look.

It’s a collection of blogs, audio/video content and trailers for upcoming programmes.

But before you think it’s just another typical BBC programme minisite, check out the episode archive, allowing you to watch all their output from the past 365 days.

For journalists, a highlight from last year’s programming: John Sweeney’s (above) doc about press freedom, or lack thereof, in China. (Oddly, though, John’s doc about Scientology seems to have disappeared. Reason, anyone?)

Please note: Some of the episodes will carry the message “Sorry, this episode is not available online”. Scroll down a bit and you’ll get a delightfully old-skool Windows Media Player link instead.

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

A glitch like this could prove troublesome!

January 7th, 2009 by Dave 2 comments »

screenshot021

Um…

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