The Media Blog

BBC cuts wheat from chaff, keeps chaff

Today's BBC strategy announcement seems to have achieved an impressive result - pleasing pretty much no one and cheesing off just about everybody. And it's a missed opportunity.

In fact most people probably agree with the original logic behind the review - although the BBC is a fantastic institution and a national treasure, it's large and unwieldy, often wastes money copying the worst output of the private sector, and needs a greater focus on producing truly innovative programming.

The problem is that Mark Thompson's review has gone about answering these criticisms in a baffling way.

It's important to note the BBC is not proposing to reduce the amount it spends overall. Instead, it's decided simply to cut the budget of some services to re-invest in original content. Still, if the BBC isn't going to reduce its size, this is a good alternative plan that should keep staff and licence fee payers happy, and assuage the Tories.

Celebrity dancing competitions

But instead of scrapping or curtailing the obvious services that seem to overlap with what the private sector is already doing - like BBC Three, Radio 1, or celebrity-based dancing competitions - it's focused on services such as 6Music and the Asian Network that are precisely the kind of things the private sector can't or won't offer and that most suitably meet its own public service test. And, most oddly of all, it contains no mention of doing anything about its controversial (by which we mean utterly wrongheaded) purchase of Lonely Planet - the single thing that would most please the BBC's critics and symbolise the Corporation getting back on the right track.

More to the point, the report's numbers are so vague that it's not entirely clear where all these savings for greater programme investment are going to come from.

If Mark Thompson really wanted to keep the Tories at bay, enhance support amongst the public and maintain the BBC's strength and independence, a more detailed budget breakdown would have been useful.

Surely Thompson wasn't floating vague plans with the intention of forcing the BBC Trust to make the final decisions?

Darth Vader on a Hot Tin Roof - Theatre Theory for Radio 1?

Never let it be said that The Media Blog doesn't cast its cultural net (or aspersions) widely.

In the first and potentially last outing for our 'Most Incongruous Guest of the Week' award, check out James Earl Jones on Radio 1's Scott Mills show.

Nothing wrong with that, you'd think. And you'd be right – if we were talking about Earl Jones as Darth Vader, as Mills' text correspondents called for. Cue comedy impressions delivered by a patient King Jaffe Joffer, onetime ruler of Zamunda.

But Earl Jones' brief clearly wasn't to relive past glories or chew the fat. He was on the show to promote his role as Big Daddy in Tennessee Williams' Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, currently in the middle of a London run.

Earl Jones battles admirably to get his latest project into the chat, offering a precis for those who "haven't seen the film with Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman" - which I'd guess is pretty useful for Mills' listeners, whose previous film picks include Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus.

"It's the story of a Southern family," says Earl Jones, alongside a quick discourse on race in a West-end theatre audience and the ability of a play to reinvent itself for new generations. "Tennessee often wrote about the South, and disfunctional people..." Scott's response?

"Do you ever look up from the stage and see someone dressed as a stormtrooper?"

It's broadcast 101 to know your audience – and Mills clearly does. But surely it's more comfortable all round to let your interviewee in on the secret too?

Twitter might possibly launch something at some point or not, says Telegraph

Taking the award for biggest jump on the longest bandwagon with the least effort is The Telegraph, reporting that Twitter might launch some 'new features' soon. Or not.

The entire story is extrapolated from a single tweet from a Twitter developer, now removed, which said:

Popular and often scandalous tech blog TechCrunch picked it up on Saturday, starting the rumour that there might be some interesting stuff on the way.

By Monday (or in Twitter time, 104 million tweets later) The Telegraph had got around to the story. And like the boffins at TechCrunch, it cleverly picked up on the use of open API standards and baked-in geolocation as critical elements of Twitter's future.

New emperors, same clothes

Much of the debate about paid-for content assumes a fundamental principle that all information on the web should be free to access. So anyone arguing it should be paid for is portrayed as an enemy of freedom. But when the people who produce content argue they should be paid for it, they are not attempting to restrict people's freedoms. They are trying to make a living.

It's this basic point that is often at the root of the spats about 'citizen journalism'. If journalism is what you do for a living, it's not entirely surprising that the notion of people who make their living from doing something else, supplying for free what you get paid for, may not go down well. Of course, the thing about journalism – despite the protestations of many journalists – is that it is not an exclusive profession, and there never has been anything to stop any citizen producing journalism.

Thankfully, the ludicrous discussions that I can remember from about 10 years ago about who should be "allowed" to produce content rarely surface these days. New and accessible means of production may have increased the competition, but it's still the case that if you want to be paid for what you publish you need to produce content that's better than your competitors. Or at least, that should be the case. Because the argument that everything should be free on the web as a point of principle is being used to undermine the value of content.

Optional extra

In many of the 'new' models for the media currently being discussed, the idea of paying for content seems to be something of an optional extra. And the idea of taking responsibility for what is published even more of one. In fact, there is a lot which purports to be new which is in fact very familiar.

In many of the 'new' media models, content producers are invited to 'take a chance'. Send material to a platform, let it be published, and IF any money is made you might get a share back. Often, these new publishing platforms also include terms and conditions that require the individual content producer to take ALL responsibility for publishing. This prompted one contact of mine to ask "Why won't any of these "brave" new startups take responsibility for their own products? I have to be responsible for mine." And that's a fair point.

Of course, producing and selling content carries with it the responsibility to try to ensure that it is accurate and legal, and the individual producer should bear some responsibility. But traditionally, media publishers have been responsible for the material they publish too, and have been known to back their individual content producers when powerful interests attempt to sue them into silence. Seeking to put ALL the responsibility for publishing on the individual tips the balance of power hugely in favour of the rich and powerful. And it may not even be legal, despite the wording of these contracts.

Legal advice

I spoke to Caroline Kean at media lawyers Wiggin. She is one of the UK’s leading authorities on media law, so I asked her whether in law the person or company that owns the platform upon which material is published is still seen to have at least some responsibility for what is published, even if an individual does sign such a contract. She said: "The contract would govern the position between the author and the publisher, so the publisher could seek an indemnity from the author for any losses suffered, but it does not prevent third parties bringing a claim against the publisher, who remains primarily liable (unless they are merely a conduit with no involvement at all in the publishing process)."

So while some publishing platforms may think they are avoiding any responsibility for what they publish, the reality is there is a legal test case waiting to happen. Logic, perhaps a risky concept in law, would suggest that the very fact of being a publisher means some responsibility for what is published is borne.

Copyright

Copyright is another tricky issue. For freelance content providers, copyright is our livelihood, so we want to retain it. But a number of the social publishing sites require contributors to assign them copyright. One told a friend of mine who queried this that copyright was required so the site could sell on material and therefore make money for the site community. In fact, in this case there seemed to be a certain amount of indignation that the site wasn't being trusted to do the right thing. Trouble is, when your livelihood depends on it, trusting that a client is always going to do the right thing isn’t enough. If the intention is to do the right thing, then this should be cemented in place, not left to trust.

Vague concepts seem to be in vogue when it comes to many new media models. I asked one site which contacted me to clarify where the profits I was told I would share in would come from. The answer was, "The profit comes from traditional methods – advertising and syndication, plus we have strategies to motivate public subscribers too – although this is yet to be tested." Er, right. And when I asked about what happens if a writ arrives, I was told the company would be "incorporated in a limited liability structure, so there is no more risk of such occurrences than with any other publisher." It's not clear if this is acknowledgement that risk exists, or a belief that there are no risks with other publishers. And, of course, limited liability protects the company, but not the freelancer.

My favourite response in this area was to a colleague who was told: "While ideally I could provide libel insurance of some kind, at this point, I can't afford it and so I have to legally cover myself."

Same old same old

I suspect I will be accused of cynicism, but it seems to me that much of what presents itself as "new" is in fact the same old story. This may be because of naivety or lack of understanding rather than naked exploitation, but either way the interests of the producers are coming second to those of the owners. And it's not just the media that’s affected.

In the latest issue of Wired, Chris Anderson (he of The Long Tail fame) argues that we are witnessing the start of a "new industrial revolution". He begins "In an age of open-source, custom-fabricated, DIY product design, all you need to counter the world – and to profit – is a brilliant idea." In Anderson's new industrial revolution, ideas are crowdsourced, prototypes produced and tested with the aid of relatively inexpensive production tools, and "anyone with an idea and a little expertise can set assembly lines in China into motion with nothing more than some keystrokes on their laptop."

Or, to put it another way, use relatively inexpensive and accessible technology to create products based in large part on other people's ideas, produce them cheaply using low-waged labour, make a profit. That sounds a lot like the old industrial revolution to me. And much of what poses as new in the media field sounds like the same old story of drive down pay, minimise risk, maximise profit. I realise that arguing for the interests of producers in an economy geared to the interests of consumers risks attracting flak. But the fact is that only the interests of the owners are served by pretending the old methods are new.