The Media Blog

Regulation: Ignore the hype and remember the reasons

Monday's Sun enlisted Winston Churchill for its final push against press regulation. But if The Sun really wanted to invoke Churchill it should have paused to consider what the actions of the "few" have meant for the "many".

For all the finger-pointing, there is no doubt we are where we are today - discussing the introduction of press regulation via Royal Charter - because a few chose to abuse the freedom of the press that so many held dear.

The Daily Mail has reminded us that people died defending the right to freedom of expression. But that merely serves to highlight how shamefully that right has been abused by some since.

After all, people didn't lay down their lives so newspapers could get better candid shots of pre-teen girls, or so papers could accuse innocent people of murder or stalk grieving families and invade the private lives of people whose only crime is doing something the public might be interested in, rather than something which is in the public interest.

Something clearly had to change. The newspaper industry had proven itself incapable of self regulation.

One of the most compelling arguments for more effective press regulation came during the Leveson Inquiry from an unlikely source.

Hugh Whittow, editor of the Daily Express told the Inquiry that his paper had withdrawn from the PCC because the watchdog had failed to protect The Express from its own worst excesses.

Whittow said:

"I don't think [press regulator the PCC] was serving our best interests at the time because of the McCanns – that was a big story for us and I felt that they should have intervened. Everyone had too much leeway, there was nobody intervening at all as a result."

Whittow was effectively admitting that his newspaper simply could not master its unhealthy obsession with the McCanns. His admission was backed up by the words of Gerry McCann who said in February this year:

"The slurs went on for months despite our best efforts... And they continued for the simple reason that there was no-one and nothing with the power to stop them."

Whether you like it or not, that is why today we are discussing the institution of press regulation via Royal Charter. It is not because politicians longed to control the press, whatever the press may argue, but because the public was so appalled by what was revealed at the Leveson Inquiry that the government could no longer be seen not to act.

Now we have to wait and see how the newspapers will respond, beyond the obligatory scare stories about the death of free speech or articles comparing the UK to the Soviet Union, which would have us believe that effective press regulation may as well be a one way ticket to the gulag.

Such hyperbole - including the predictable mentions of George Orwell (see today's front page of The Sun, right) and comparisons to Zimbabwe and Iran - has merely cheapened the arguments against effective press regulation. Ultimately nobody put forward a credible argument which was as compelling as the arguments for trying to prevent a repeat of the way the McCanns and the likes of Christopher Jeffries were treated.

However, this doesn't mean anything is fixed or resolved.

We must now wait to see whether the new regulatory framework can actually be implemented and run effectively. We wait to see fully who is included and who opts to include themselves. A number of newspapers remain guarded about the likelihood of signing up - then what? These are all questions we need proper answers to.

In the meantime though we have to see past the obvious complaints from the press and remember why this became necessary. If this move helps restore some trust in the reputation of the press - and we should all hope it does - then they have more to gain than anybody.

The Telegraph's 'six degrees of Hugh Grant'

The Telegraph's Mandrake column has a piece of gossip it thinks is worth sharing today:

"The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's holiday in Mustique has attracted much attention... Mandrake is, however, much more interested in Mark Cecil, the hedge fund tycoon, who... hosted the Middleton family ...on the Caribbean island in [January 2012]"

At this point it is only fair to say that if you are expecting something newsworthy you might want to look away now...

"The tycoon's wife, Katie Cecil, is a close friend of Hugh Grant, the foppish actor."

And that's all we're told. 

Really.

Leaving me to wonder if this is perhaps a new kind of puzzle. Perhaps The Telegraph will from now on publish an apparently irrelevant fact each week related to something which happened over a year ago, giving us only the crumb of a celebrity name to work with and we then have to work out why it might possibly be interesting.

Let's call it 'Six Degrees of Hugh Grant'.

I'll give this first one a go:

1) Hugh Grant is a privacy campaigner against press intrusion; 2) Somebody Hugh Grant knows owns a holiday villa where the Middletons stayed in 2012; 3) Kate Middleton has been the focus of much press intrusion; 4) the UK media are generally all for a bit of intrusion and as such are a bit down on Hugh Grant at the moment; 5) The Telegraph is letting Hugh Grant know that it's been researching his friends via an otherwise inexplicable mention of his name... 

But that's where I run out of steam. I really don't think I've cracked this at all.

Who knows, maybe The Telegraph just wanted to give its readers a treat by finding a tenuous reason to run with a big photo of Hugh Grant because they think he's yummy. And it is the weekend:

Filed rather ambitiously under Royal News...

 

The Sun: Shocking but not surprising

The Sun sparked an angry response today following its decision to exploit the tragic death of Reeva Steenkamp in order to titillate its readers with a front-page picture of the model posing in a bikini.

The Sun was surely anticipating the angry response and subsequent Twitter storm. It knows its brand of journalism is offensive to many. 

Former News Of The World features editor Jules Stenson wrote on Twitter earlier this week:

"If you want to be [a] successful Sun [editor], do the opposite of what people want you to do on Twitter."

His tweet neatly sums up The Sun's willingness - its need - to offend.

Today's front page was no spur of the moment, hasty mistake by an editor thinking on his feet how best to handle a breaking news story while the printers were holding on the phone. This was The Sun's considered response to a global news story that broke in the early hours of the morning. It was a front page that was more than 12 hours in the planning.

The Sun decided a photo of Steenkamp undoing her bikini top was the best it could do.

The best it should do.

The best its readers should expect of The Sun.

We might be shocked. We might be disgusted. But none of us should be surprised.

The Sun owes its success over the years to stoking the prejudices and feeding the carnal appetites of readers who like their tabloids to be nasty and tacky. The moral ambiguities which result along the way appear to trouble neither the newspaper nor its hardcore of readers. 

But a paper like that cannot be run successfully without offending far more people than it attracts.

As Toby Young noted, writing on this issue on The Telegraph website: "This is absolutely par-for-the-course tabloid journalism."

He's right.

What's more, emboldened by the stuttering demise of Lord Justice Leveson's attempts to rein in tabloid malpractice and responding to uncertain times for the newspaper industry, it's the kind of tabloid journalism we're likely to see much more of, not less.

The Sun's headline circulation figures still look healthy but year-on-year the paper's readership is shrinking considerably. The paper has lost around a million readers over the past five years. The Sun on Sunday has lost the same number in less than a year since it launched.

The demise of the News Of The World, coupled with this decline in print sales, will serve as a daily reminder to all that The Sun's future will now always be uncertain. As such, it seems intent on doing all it can to keep its core readership happy for as long as it can. But if it decides to continue courting only those people who think a dead woman is fair game for front page titillation then bikini photos of crime victims will not be the worst thing The Sun feeds its readers in the coming weeks, months and years. Campaigners hoping for the abolition of Page 3 should probably take note.

The Mail runs photos of actress's unborn child

The Daily Mail's distasteful pursuit of celebrity children has hit a new low with the publication of photographs of the unborn child of Evan Rachel Wood. The US actress, who says she didn't even see the paparazzi taking long lens photos of her as she left a hospital holding her ultrasound scan, expressed her disgust on Twitter: 

The Mail has since deleted the article. 

Pregnant bikini pics? 'Not on our watch' say media

The Mirror and its sister paper The People have reported that "a pregnant Kate Middleton [is] facing fresh paparazzi agony...after being pictured in a skimpy bikini".

"The photos...are said to clearly show her baby bump. The new pictures show Kate, 31, walking in the surf with her husband Prince William."

"The Sunday People has chosen not to view the pictures and, like the rest of the British media, will not publish them."

Well done the British media for sparing a pregnant woman such "agony".

Say what you like about the British media, but you can always trust them to respect the privacy of a pregnant woman photographed in her bikini by the paparazzi while holidaying in the Caribbean...

The slow death of journalism...

The Mail Online is alerting us to a new fashion craze this weekend - people having ears. We are told ears are:

"The bizarre body part the A-listers are flashing on the red carpet"

That's right. Ears are a "bizarre body part", being "flashed" and flaunted on red carpets and catwalks around the world. The Mail explains:

"As a nation of stargazers, we're used to watching celebrities on the red carpet competing for the title of best bottom, cleavage, arms, legs and abs.

It's almost as if the Mail is revelling in how banal it has become and how low its readers' expectations have been set by years of this kind of "bottom, cleavage and abs" dumbing down.

"Now it seems a whole new category has emerged in the 'flashing the flesh' contest: ears.

"A-listers from Nicole Kidman to Cheryl Cole have been showing off their auditory assets..."

So they've got ears?

And there was me labouring under the misapprehension that people have always had ears. 

Nicole Kidman in 2001: She definitely had ears, even then.

In fact, I've definitely seen pictures of both Kidman and Cole with ears going back many years, whatever the Mail tells us.

"Ears have been emerging (quite literally) on catwalks in London and New York..."

"Emerging"? "Quite literally"? Does the Mail really mean women have been sprouting ears mid fashion show?

Perhaps I have been wrong to take my ears for granted all these years. Maybe I was just lucky to be born very fashion forward.

No doubt in the world of fashion and celebrity journalism, words and ideas are kept intentionally simple, the stories generally lightweight.

But there's lightweight and there's jaw-droppingly banal which now appears to be the benchmark for such celebrity filler.

The Evening Standard hit a new low in this race to the bottom on Friday with a story that could only have been of interest to two people at the very most and they both knew about it already because it was about them:

Somebody actually wrote this and put their name to it.

These are dark days indeed.

The Daily Mail turns the creepiness up a notch

The Daily Mail's questionable interest in young girls has been well documented but even by its own uncomfortably low standards the Mail Online has turned the creepiness up a notch today with a story about Heidi Klum's eight-year-old daughter, who the Mail thinks is a "leggy beauty":

She's eight-years-old.

In the article itself the Mail Online has four pictures of the eight-year-old girl being picked up from a gymnastics class, wearing gym shorts: 

"It looks like Heidi Klum's daughter might be hoping to become a model just like her mother... Heidi's eldest Leni clearly stole the show with her workout attire..."

What "show" is this? She's being picked up from gymnastics in her gym kit?

The Mail's caption writer adds beneath one shot:

"All eyes on me: The eight-year-old showed off her best model walk through the parking lot..."

And when the Mail says "all eyes" were on the eight-year-old girl, what they mean is "a photographer waited outside a kid's gym class to take these photos, knowing we buy pictures of very young girls".

The very young girl in question is doing nothing more attention-seeking than walking out of a gym class in her gym kit, into the no-doubt uninvited glare of a paparazzi's camera yet the Mail's "all eyes on me" premise suggests a child wearing a gym kit to a gym class is somehow shameless attention-seeking by an eight-year-old girl. Similarly, the Mail's suggestion that an eight-year-old girl was doing her best "modelling walk" and also "putting on her best modelling face" are part of the same weak justification.

The Daily Mail does an increasingly implausible job of holding itself up as some kind of moral arbiter yet its online editors seem to see no reason why an eight-year-old girl should be allowed to go to and from a gym class without comments being passed on her body.

Update:
The Mail has been roundly criticised online and by its own readers for this article. The best-rated comments posted on its story all make a similar point:

The Mail has responded by removing the phrase "leggy beauty" from the promotion of the story in its right hand column:

The Mail has also removed two of the pictures of the child from its story. However the article still makes for very uneasy reading.

Harry turns his guns on newspapers

All of the newspapers today have run versions of the same Prince Harry interview, despite one area covered in detail being the intrusive way he believes the UK press still behave towards him and his family.

As a result some have had to pick their quotes very carefully.

There is clearly no love lost. The animosity was obvious from the moment the Prince explained to ITV why he was doing interviews this week:

"I never wanted you guys to be out here but there was an agreement made to invite you out on the deal that the media didn't speculate before my deployment. That's the only reason you lot are out here."

Welcome to Afghanistan!

The Sun's decision to run a naked photo of the Prince cavorting in Las Vegas was clearly still a particularly sore point.

The Prince said:

"I probably let myself down, I let my family down, I let other people down. But at the end of the day I was in a private area and there should have been a certain amount of privacy that one should expect... the way I was treated [by newspapers], I don't think is acceptable."

The Sun has used parts of this quote but edited it carefully to include a further detail about the party guests in Las Vegas which makes it look as though the Prince's ire was aimed at the people who took the photo, rather than the newspaper which put it on the front page:

"Harry ...said he wished that what happened in Vegas had stayed in Vegas.

"Strangers he invited to his Sin City VIP suite last August told how no attempt was made to confiscate their cameraphones.

"But Harry insisted: "I was in a private area and there should be a certain amount of privacy that one should expect."

Readers of almost all papers will have missed out on the Prince discussing the upset and anger newspapers can stir in him:

"If there's a story and something's been written about me, I want to know what's being said. But all it does is just upset me and anger me that people can get away with writing the stuff they do. Not just about me... My father always says, 'Don't read it'. Everyone says, 'Don't read it, because it's always rubbish'."

"I'm surprised how many in the UK actually read it.

"Everyone's guilty for buying the newspapers, I guess, but hopefully nobody actually believes what they read. I certainly don't."

One example the Prince gave of media intrusion was the pressure and press speculation which he says forced the early announcement of William and Kate's pregnancy.

"I think it's very unfair that they were forced to publicise it when they were. But that's just the media for you."

The majority of papers seem to have missed that quote too. And a crack about phone hacking at News International didn't make the cut for many editors. 

It's probably safe to say he's not a fan. It will be interesting to see how the media now responds. 

Newspaper apology of the week

Quite some correction here from The People...

(hat tip @TabloidWatch)

Social media and the rolling news vacuum

When a helicopter crashed in a densely populated part of London around 8am today, next to one of the busiest trainlines in Europe and a large bus station, the news was always going to be broken, within seconds, by members of the public on Twitter, armed with camera phones.

Twitter user Craig Jenner was one of the first to put a picture on Twitter which was shared far and wide:

What happened next is indicative of the way the media are increasingly playing catch-up on such stories, moving from reporting to aggregating (or curating, if you must) - images, eye-witness accounts and videos. Journalists were asking to use the picture with a credit and were trying to get Jenner on the phone:

 

Hat tip: Adam Hall

 

The problem for newsdesks with a story breaking far and wide on social media the very second something happens is it creates an even longer news vacuum for the media to fill with comment and speculation before facts come in.

The race to get on air and the desire to give the impression the story is developing all the time is more aggressive than ever. 

Cue "aviation experts" and eye-witnesses being asked to speculate on what they saw.

In this climate of rapid newsgathering, conflicting accounts and mistaken reports abound and spread very quickly. One eye-witness interviewed on camera praised the emergency services for being on the scene in under a minute. Another said it was 15 minutes.

A lot is taken on faith when putting people on camera who claim to have witnessed an event.

Inevitably, some media outlets were also quick to start asking about terrorism. Naturally, they were just keen to rule it out but it's unclear who was trying to rule it in. Certainly reporting that 'Police believe it is not an act of terrorism' carries a higher degree of sensationalism than saying 'Police believe it was an accident'.

And even after terrorism was ruled out a BBC journalist on the scene was still keen to ask an eye witness if they thought it might have been a terrorist attack:

BBC journalist: "Did you think it was a terrorist attack...?"
Eye-witness: "No."

He wasn't the only talking head not playing ball this morning. Asked to speculate on what may have happened, an aviation expert told the BBC:

"There's far too much speculation at the moment..."

The Express's 'Frozen Planet' moment

The Daily Express is well known for its wild weather predictions. But the paper was caught out over the weekend using an old photograph on its front page, apparently to support claims the UK was in the grips of far heavier snowfall than it really way (see: Haven't ice seen you somewhere before?).

The paper used an old photo of a snow plough clearing blizzards in Cumbria but claimed the picture was taken on Friday. A quick Google image search confirmed the photo had been used in 2012 by both the Express and the Daily Mail.

It's unclear whether this was just a cock-up. The Express does have previous for putting the wrong picture on its front page. But given the Express's lust for dramatic weather headlines it's all too easy to believe it was over-eagerness to stand up claims of 'snowmageddon'. 

False impression

In the past, the Express has been quick to highlight instances of other media outlets misleading their audiences, whether by accident, oversight or design.

In 2011 the paper suggested the BBC had misled "millions of viewers" with images in documentary series Frozen Planet which had actually been filmed in a zoo.

The Express quoted John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee who said it was:

"...hugely disappointing that viewers were misled. My view has always been that all broadcasters should not seek to give viewers a false impression."

Quite right. And the same should be true of newspapers. The BBC faced questioning from MPs over its fake images. It will be interesting to see if the Express even manages a clarification in its own newspaper in the coming days. 

Not really shot in the Arctic (Frozen Planet, left). Not really the M6 yesterday (The Express, right).

See also:
The 'snowpocalypse' is coming
Remember this...
BINGO! What makes a Daily Express front page?
The facts and figures behind Express weather claims
Met Office puts the boot in to the Express
Weather forecasting Express

Who just got 'owned'...?

The Guardian and The Observer have unveiled a marketing video, claiming - with tongue firmly in cheek we should assume - "the weekend just got owned" by the sister papers:

 

It's really very good. Great production values, nice bit of humour and a cameo by Hugh Grant.

What more could you want?

Cake, you say?

Well the Guardian and Observer even sent out cakes to appreciative ad agencies and the like celebrating their ownership of the weekend:

The weekend is now "owned" by The Guardian and The Observer. Apparently.

But it hasn't taken long for online troublemakers to have some fun with this campaign. One pedant sent the Media Blog the below chart which appears to be questioning what - or who - is really getting 'owned' come the weekend:

 

Details, details...

Top 20 Media Blog posts of 2012

1. They didn't...?: The Liverpool Echo manages one of the worst page layouts we've seen in a very long time.

2. Daybreak viewers: Confused by time... A popular post has become a running joke as Daybreak viewers are consistently confused about ITV+1.

3. Lineker puts the boot in to Daily Star: A retweet from Lineker himself probably helped propel this one to number 3.

4. Sweden v England: The tabloid spat: Sweden's Aftonbladet newspaper took on the British tabloids at their own game during Euro 2012. 

5. An open letter to the BBC: The Media Blog response to critics of the BBC's Jubilee coverage. 

6. Team GB success confuses Express: The Dutch equestrian team gained more publicity than their bronze medals probably deserved.

7. BBC caption fail... An impressive geography fail too for good measure. 

8. Halo: Is it UNSC you're looking for... Another fail for the BBC graphics department...

9. The Sun's awkward Lego giveaway: A very poorly timed toy promotion from The Sun.

10. April Fools: Who got taken in?: The Daily Mail fell for the Mirror's spring prank.

11. A real dead ringer for 'Loaf... The Evening Standard picture desk give everybody a laugh, confusing Barry from Eastenders with rock singer Meatloaf.

12.  Confused yet...? The most convoluted headline of the year. 

13. Horsegate: Rich in innuendo: A story which just kept on giving through 2012.

14. Daily Mail falls for Jordan's sponsored tweets: Katie Price made a fool of the Daily Mail ...read into that what you will.

15. The facts and figures behind Express weather claims: Proof that The Express is more interested in the weather than it is in the truth.

16. Sky News gives Cameron a new nickname: It didn't really stick, but that's not for Sky's want of trying.

17. That's a wrap: Times can hail its front pages a success: The Times Olympics front pages were a triumph of design and increased circulation.

18. Such modesty from the Daily Mail...: The (not so) secret of the Daily Mail's online success.

19. Oops they did it again... ITV News: No stranger to Twitter gaffes.

20. Move over Grauniad: Here comes The Tellygraph: The typo crown of 2012 has undoubtedly been won by the Telegraph.

2012: The Year in front pages

2012 has been an eventful year in news and media and one captured brilliantly by some inspiring, provocative and hard-hitting front-pages. 

The most visually stunning front pages of the year were produced by The Times during the Olympics with a series of wraparound front and back pages, the first of which was this shot on the very first morning of the Games. 

Once the Games began all eyes were on Team GB and once the gold medals started flowing, Bradley Wiggins provided The Times with an image worthy of its golden masthead:

The highlight of the Olympics for many was 'Super Saturday' when Mo Farah, Greg Rutherford and the face of the London games, Jessica Ennis struck gold in the Olympic stadium. The Independent on Sunday perfectly captured the iconic nature of Ennis's triumph: 

Mo Farah also won gold on Super Saturday and when he completed his incredible double of the 5,000m and 10,000m the Sunday Times rose to the occasion, aided as in all these cases by stunning photography:

The Olympic Games were followed by the most successful Paralympic Games ever which started with a jaw-dropping opening ceremony and delivered some of the most inspiring performances of an unrivalled sporting year. Across the board the newspapers all gave the Paralympics pride of place on their front pages:

One of the most poignant front pages of the year was produced by The Mirror following the publication of the Hillsborough Report on 12 September. The report confirmed a major police cover-up had attempted to falsely blame the victims for the stadium disaster and The Sun newspaper had played a major part in spreading malicious lies. The Mirror on 13 September referenced The Sun's infamous and entirely false 'The Truth' headline for its own front page:

It has not been a good year for public inquiries or the strained relationships between the media, the police and the government. At the heart of that love-hate-triangle was the Leveson Report which finally published its recommendations, only for David Cameron to reject them before he had even had time to read them. The Independent made clear its thoughts on the ultimate futility of Leveson's efforts:

The need for the Leveson Inquiry was cited often and vociferously during some of the year's more controversial media stories, including when The Sun decided to publish naked pictures of Prince Harry cavorting behind closed doors in a Las Vegas hotel suite. The publication of the actual photos followed a front page recreation of Harry's naked cavorting by The Sun using a reporter and an intern.

The papers were united in their over-the-top coverage of news that Kate Middleton was pregnant. It brought to an end months of intrusive speculation by the papers (see: Press speculation, a royal baby and a link to Leveson). The Sun marked the occasion with a trademark pun:

A major story throughout 2012 was the issue of tax avoidance - from multinational companies such as Starbucks to individuals such as Jimmy Carr who The Times exposed in June:
Another far more grave story throughout the year has been the harrowing conflict and killing in Syria. The Independent on Sunday's stark front page warned readers of the gruesome images inside the paper while spelling out the horror of the Houla massacre: 
The year also saw the victory of President Barack Obama in the US election, seeing off the challenge of Mitt Romney to secure four more years in the White House. The Times marked the occasion with a return of the wraparound front page:

A tragic story at the end of the year saw the latest gun massacre in a US school. The Independent on Sunday again ran a very stark, sombre front page, telling the heartbreaking story of a heroic teacher who gave her life to protect her students: 

Media Hero and Villain of 2012 revealed

The votes have been counted and it's time to announce the annual award of the Media Blog's Media Hero and Villain of the Year.

In the Media Villain category there was a clear winner, polling more than a third of the total vote, after more than 1,900 votes.

Mackenzie and the lies he spread: This year he claimed he deserved an apology and moaned about his public vilification.

The award goes to Kelvin Mackenzie for his continued failure to accept responsibility for The Sun's lies about Hillsborough and his claims this year that he was a victim and deserved some justice after years of "personal vilification".

The publication of the Hillsborough Report in September proved beyond doubt that a police cover-up had attempted to blame fans for the tragedy.

It also proved that The Sun, under Mackenzie, had spread malicious lies about the victims under a headline claiming them to be 'The Truth'. Mackenzie's staggering response was to demand an apology - for himself - from South Yorkshire Police. In a jaw dropping piece in The Spectator, Mackenzie also claimed Liverpool fans had unfairly picked on him and complained that members of the public had called him a "liar". 

The police have quite rightly told Mackenzie he will not be getting any apology for the lies his paper told. He'll have to make do with the Media Villain of the Year Award instead.

Media Hero

In the Media Hero category it was a much more closely contested affair. For much of the voting period two of the nominees were neck-and-neck and the lead changed a number of times. However, there can be only one winner and when voting closed at midnight on 30 December, the BBC had forged a narrow lead for its outstanding round-the-clock coverage of the London 2012 Olympics across television, radio, mobile, tablet, social media and online. 

The BBC's Olympics coverage was not only a triumph for technology and multi-platform programming but it also created a feelgood factor around the country.

While that owed much to the performances of our Olympians, you only had to read the complaints in the US about broadcaster NBC to realise we were fortunate to have the BBC's unrivalled dedication to covering every bronze, silver and gold medal won by Team GB as it happened. NBC took a leaf out of the 1970s broadcasters handbook and denied fans live coverage of events in favour of highlights packages at times which better suited sponsors - even if it happened to be hours after the results were known. 

The BBC polled 23.8% of the votes, beating Private Eye into second place (21.1%). It should also be noted that the undoubted star of the BBC's presentation team, Clare Balding, took third place overall (18%) for her outstanding work at both the Olympics and the Paralympics.

Full results:

Media Villain of the Year
1st. Kelvin Mackenzie - 37.5%
2nd. The Daily Mail - 30.1%
3rd. Piers Morgan - 15%
4th. David Cameron - 11.5%
5th. BBC Newsnight - 5.9%

Media Hero of the Year
1st. BBC Sport (Olympics) - 23.8%
2nd. Private Eye - 21.1%
3rd. Clare Balding - 18%
4th. Channel 4 Paralympics - 10.2% 
5th. Team #Twitterjoketrial - 10.1%
6th. Jon Hill and The Times design team - 10%
7th. Hugh Grant - 6.8%

Who would make money from social media photos?

A clearly incredulous Daily Mail has reported:

"A popular photo-sharing website owned by Facebook has told users it now owns the rights to their pictures... Instagram will not give any warning or payment before cashing in on the images posted on its site. It means pictures by children as young as 13 could be sold to advertisers."

Fans of the Daily Mail may need a minute or two to compose themselves at this point. Because the Daily Mail has regularly been accused of setting a high benchmark for scraping photos off social networks and using them without permission.

The Mail goes on to point out one of the more outrageous details:

"Instagram says users must be at least 13 years old to sign up for the service. But the new rules assume that when an underage teenager signs up, a parent or guardian is aware that their child's image, username and photos might be used in adverts."

Earlier this year the Leveson Inquiry heard how the Press Complaints Commission had apparently forced the Daily Mail to remove photos of an 11-year-old boy it had posthumously scraped from Facebook against the wishes of his parents.

Press speculation, a royal baby and a link to Leveson

As any parent or expectant parent knows, picking the moment to announce the news of a pregnancy is an emotional and very personal decision. Fortunately it is one most people get to make on their own terms.

But not Kate Middleton whose own baby news has become public property overnight, despite it being at an early stage. 

According to The Telegraph:

"The Duke and Duchess were forced to go public with the news much earlier than intended after the 30-year-old Duchess was admitted to hospital..."

They were "forced to go public". The implication being the story was about to get out, whether they liked it or not.

After all, Princess Kate rushed to hospital after months of being subjected to endless rumours, speculation and 'bumpwatch' innuendo. That wasn't going to go unnoticed or uncommented upon.

So who has been fuelling the speculation? Who was to blame for the inevitable pressure on the couple to "go public" earlier than they wanted?

The Telegraph tells us:

"Royal aides said the decision to go public "was very much driven by the Duke and Duchess", who were aware that it would be impossible to keep the news a secret in the age of Twitter."

Twitter. That's right.

In a separate article, The Telegraph tells us:

"Their decision comes amid growing concern that the internet appears beyond the reach of regulation. Lord Justice Leveson concluded it was an "ethical vacuum" which the press should seek to rise above.

"The Duchess's pregnancy has been the subject of fevered speculation on the internet ever since the couple married. The British press, by contrast, did not repeat the rumours out of respect for the couple's privacy."

Although it has been suggested the Leveson Inquiry has caused a little selective memory loss across the UK's newspapers, The Telegraph really does seem convinced. Forget anything you think you might have heard to the contrary.

So back in July 2011 when The Telegraph reported "Royal wedding cake sparks baby rumours" that wasn't fuelling "fevered speculation". And in April this year when The Telegraph told us the couple looked "broody" and "every inch the doting parents" as "they cooed over a couple's baby", they weren't suggesting William and Kate might be trying for a family of their own.

Of course The Telegraph admits it isn't alone. It claims the whole "British press" was avoiding such rumours.

So let's not dwell on the 11 November 2011 story from The Daily Star which told us:

"Prince William and his wife Kate are moving into a new royal family-sized home, fuelling  rumours she is pregnant..."

That must just have been the bloody internet again. Like the previous week, when The Daily Star told us:

"...baby rumours were sparked when Kate passed up the chance to eat peanut paste when the couple visited an aid centre in Denmark."

Can any of us really say how we'd react when given the chance to eat peanut paste at a Danish aid centre?

But not all speculation was based on theories revolving around peanut paste. The very same week, the Daily Mail, brought us this gem:

"Maybe she was just feeling a bit peckish – but the Duchess of Cambridge has fuelled rumours that she may be pregnant by repeatedly touching her stomach during a Royal visit."

Back in September, The Daily Mail spotted Kate drinking water and was inspired to comment:

"...it seems the Royal couple decided to have a dry night and forgo the champagne. But their clinking of glasses topped with water, may fuel speculation that if Kate is not already pregnant, she and William might be trying for a baby..."

And just last week the Daily Mail again told us:

"The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are no stranger to accepting gifts from ...well-wishers... but Prince William accepted a gift that is likely to spark rumours that the couple could be hearing the pitter patter of tiny royal feet...in the near future - a babygro."

The Mirror said this very same incident sparked "royal baby fever". Which must have been Twitter's fault again. However, by that point - it has since transpired - the speculation was right, albeit very early days. But that doesn't mean the "fevered speculation" has to end. Just look at the front page headline The Telegraph has run with today (...though Twitter probably made them do it, of course).

So there you have it. The British press did nothing to fuel "fevered speculation". It was all the internet's fault.

Got that Mr Leveson?

Broadband taxes: A flawed plan to save journalism

An article from The Guardian's David Leigh has made the case for forcing the public to subsidise the newspaper industry through a tax on broadband. You could be forgiven for thinking this modest proposal is a satire on media intransigence and a sense of entitlement but it seems the author may be serious. At the top of the article we are told:

"Proceeds could be distributed...to protect great journalism..."

It is unclear how David Leigh would ensure it only went towards "great journalism" but that's far from the only problem with this plan:

"A small levy on UK broadband providers – no more than £2 a month on each subscriber's bill – could be distributed to news providers... This would solve the financial problems of quality newspapers, whose readers are not disappearing, but simply migrating online."

Surely that is the content providers' dilemma. How is it anybody else's problem? Newspapers have about as much right to stick £2 on our broadband bill as HMV does to ask for a £2 cut from our electricity bill because the iPods and laptops we're charging have taken a chunk out of their business.

This initiative is never going to see the light of day but as such it is all the more surprising The Guardian ran the article. It makes them look like they have run out of all but the most absurd ideas for making money in the face of very real challenges.

Impossible

Firstly, it's impossible to believe the ISP industry would ever sign up for this. There are lots of reasons why not, from competition issues related to Rupert Murdoch's ownership of newspapers and a major broadband ISP to damaging the marketability of 'free' or very low-cost broadband offers. But the main reason would surely be the precedent it would set. This is a group of businesses which try very hard not to set precedents. If ISPs were to entertain this notion it would open them up to calls from any business who feels the web has made their life tougher: from publishers to pornographers and record producers to film stars.

In fact, movie studios and records labels might expect to jump the queue if ISPs started arranging compensation, because compared to illegal file sharing, news stories being read entirely legimately on the websites they are published on doesn't seem much of an injustice.

Rupert Murdoch

The public may also not take kindly to this initiative. Giving £2 per month to subsidise the business interests of Rupert Murdoch, Viscount Rothermere, Richard Desmond and the Barclay brothers is not going to be everybody's idea of fun. And is David Leigh really going to tell the people of Liverpool that after 23 years of boycotting The Sun, they're now required to give a few quid a year to Rupert Murdoch if they want to access their email?

What about those who don't want to read newspapers online? Or those who say they like to remain in control of which newspapers they help fund. That doesn't seem unreasonable.

Digital inclusion

Importantly, this would also be a blow to digital inclusion. While campaigners work hard to get affordable internet access for all, the media arguing in favour of raising the barrier to entry by £24 per year seems very poorly timed.

Then there are the hundreds of other media outlets who would rightly want to be a part of this scheme. Leigh suggests membership would initially be limited to newspapers but concedes there may be some leeway in the future to reflect the changes which have taken place in the media over the past two decades:

"Other original news providers could subsequently apply to the independent levy board for admission to the scheme, case-by-case. But there would have to be a reasonable size threshold for admission, perhaps set at 100,000 monthly users."

That threshold allows for quite a few popular websites. And all of a sudden £2 per month isn't going to stretch very far. Then what, increase it to £5?

If the problem at present lies with the business model and running costs of newspapers then shovelling more money into the furnace isn't going to fix that. But it does explain why they'd rather it was somebody else's money and somebody else's problem.

There are some who support this notion. Roy Greenslade (also of The Guardian) wrote:

"It's an ingenious thought and it should be given serious consideration. Could this be the magic bullet we've been seeking? I certainly think so..."

A magic bullet? It sounds more like the idea which came after checking down the back of the sofa for coins. Back to the drawing board.

TV panel shows: Jobs for the boys...

George Entwistle, the new director general of the BBC has spoken this week about the corporation needing 'more women and less bureaucracy'. 

He might like to mention this ambition to the production companies behind some of the Beeb's most popular panel shows, because today I found this blog which looks at the extent to which women are under-represented on shows such as Would I Lie To You, Have I Got News For You, Mock The Week and QI.

Below are the results for all people appearing on Mock The Week and QI. You can see the rest here:

These findings are very much in line with other, similar pieces of research.

They're breaking news...

You won't have missed the story of a multiple murder which happened in the French Alps this week. You may even have heard about it first on Twitter. Here's how the story unfolded for those following the breaking news at @SkyNewsBreak and @MailOnline...

6:20pm

6:37pm

6:43pm