And on the other hand...

...we have Politician-Blogger and Online Broadcaster Iain Dale. He views blogs as being vital tools for re-engaging the populace and holding politicians to account. But are comments on blogs really the ultimate expression of democratic openness, or is it a further exacerbation of those narcissistic tendencies? I must say that I rarely read an intelligent, reasoned and well-formed debate on a blog's comments page; it's often more reminiscent of the House of Commons waving their papers, booing and huzzahing and failing to reach any conclusion of note.

His new project 18 Doughty Street looks interesting though. This type of long-tail broadcasting - uncensored, unashamedly partial debate - is truly innovative. In fact, it makes Webcameron look like an ill-conceived, patronising piece of theatricality. Er, hang on...

Meadows, my Self and I

In the spirit of the Blogosphere, this post is entirely composed of things stolen from other sources.

I was going to write an intelligent, reasoned critique of Daniel Meadows' lecture on digital storytelling, but then I read Martin's post which said everything I was thinking in a more structured and eloquent way. If I tried to write up my own thoughts, Martin's words would end up coming from my keyboard. So instead, I will direct you to it.

On another note, the 'are blogs rubbish' debate: author and raconteur Will Self interviewed by our very own Alex Phillips. For Self, blogs are an "exacerbation of narcisstic tendencies within our culture" and responsible for the weakening of societal bonds. Have a listen.

* Don't libel the North Koreans

A few days ago I heard Gill Phillips, Head of Litigation at the Times, speak about her experiences steering the paper through the shark-infested waters of libel law. I found two things particularly frightening: firstly, the contempt with which journalists seem to be held by the legal system (I'm talking literally as well as figuratively); and secondly, the implications for online publishing.

Basically, if you make a newspaper available in any state, you are subject to the laws of that state. So in a single online article I could unwittingly libel Liberia, slander Slovakia and defame the DPRK. I am also be legally responsible for any comments my users make, so if some 16-year-old scamp posts "kim-jong il izza poo poo hed !!!!!1 ;-)" at the bottom of my article I could find myself kidnapped in the dead of night, flown to Pyongyang with a bag over my head and forced to explain my actions.

Sounds far-fetched? Maybe not. The Times is currently being sued in France and Japan; Tom Cruise threatened to sue South Park in England in order to get around America's pesky First Amendment laws; what's to stop Iran, Zimbabwe and Myanmar getting in on the action? If progressive states such as Malaysia have no problem jailing journalists, why shouldn't more conservative countries protect their cyberspace from the poisonous Judeo-Christian media?

In short: we are all soooo sued. But every cloud has a silver lining; if I am declared bankrupt I won't have to pay back my student loan.

The future according to Auntie

Local TV, user-generated content and integration across platforms; that's where BBC News is going. So says Amanda Powell, Online Editor at BBC Wales. It's refreshing to see the Corporation embracing new technologies rather than shying away from them. Still, with Wales Today's audience hurtling towards OAPdom (half of the audience are over 50), the chance to appeal to the 18-35 demographic must seem too good to miss.

Blog of the week

Sinister forces have compelled me to direct you to my favourite Blog of the week. It is the nerd-tastic Keeper of Lists website. Recent lists include the Top 35 Things Not To Say On An Airplane, Top 35 Annoying Things To Do In Your Next Business Meeting, and my personal favourite, Top 218 Star Wars Lines Improved By Replacing A Word With "Pants". Which I partially reproduce here for your pleasure.

1) I find your lack of pants disturbing.
2) You are unwise to lower your pants.
3) The Force is strong in my pants.
4) Chewie and me got into a lot of pants more heavily guarded than this.
5) Your pants, you will not need them.
6) I cannot teach him. The boy has no pants.
7) You came in those pants? You're braver than I thought.
8) Governer Tarkin. I should have expected to find you holding Vader's pants.
9) In his pants you will find a new definition of pain and suffering
10) I sense the conflict within you. Let go of your pants!

So what do you really think?

I was chatting to the former Political Editor of the Evening Standard last Friday.

Actually that's not true; I was merely seated in a lecture theatre he was talking at. However, by controlling the flow of information I was able to exaggerate my importance and pull the wool over your eyes.

I committed spin.

Charles Reiss knows a thing or two about spin. He argues that it has created a culture of mistrust, double-dealing and downright untruthfulness which has undermined the public's trust in their political system and their news media. He brought along some impressive stats showing the number of people who regard newspapers as "a fair and unbiased source of news" is... 6%. The percentage of people who trust politicians to tell the truth just 19%, but journalists score a woeful 13%.

Why is this? Because journalists have to walk the razor's edge between exclusive and accurate, informative and entertaining. Because bulldog interviewers tear apart politicians unless they spout the party line. Because we hold our public figures to such impossibly high standards of behaviour that changing your mind or insulting Jamie Oliver is an unforgivable sin.

So what does Mr Reiss propose to do about this? Simply to tell the truth. Truth breeds trust. If the media and politics was honest and transparent, then trust in these institutions would be restored.

Yeah, and when hell freezes over it'll solve the global warming crisis.

What if... Blogging isn't the future of communication?

"Re-engage the audience... citizen journalism... instigate a dialogue..." the rats are deserting the good ship HMS Newspaper, leaving a trail of platitudes in their wake. But have people abandoned newspapers because they want to be a part of a Brave New Blogging World where news is unsubstantiated, poorly written and footnoted by pages of pointless arguments? Or is it because they just don't want to read newspapers any more? In short, are Blogs just the latest buzzword siezed upon by media execs trying to mitigate plummeting circulation?

We are told that the Blogosphere is expanding at the rate of 23,000 blogs a day. Well OK, but how many of those actually survive past day three when you've expounded all your theories on Bush's foreign policy and you have to start Blogging about what you had for tea? We are told that Blogging is a vital tool for engaging the public: after all, even Conservative Leader David Cameron Blogs. Yeah, but if he jumped off a cliff while clutching a family of deprived African children, would you do it too? In fact, since when has emulating any of the behaviour of a Tory Leader been a good idea?

So what if the Blogging Revolution turned out to be a false dawn, fuelled by a hardcore group of attention-seeking enthusiasts posting commenting all over each others' Blogs but generally ignored by right-thinking society? I mean, do you know anyone who actually Blogs regularly? I do, but I'm on a top Broadcast Training course full of news junkies. It might just be that the rest of the Blogosphere is written by angst-ridden young Goths and computer nerds.

So, you might ask: if I'm so cynical about Blogs why have I just signed up for one? Why don't I just sod off back to my humdrum offline existence and leave you Level 3 Warlocks to it? It's because I don't neccesarily believe all the opinions I express. In the hyperbolic world of online journalism, neither should you.

How to begin

How to begin? Squirrels. Media and squirrels.

A man once phoned the BBC's nature unit claiming to have discovered a new species of squirrel in his local park. He claimed to have been feeding these "thin-tailed squirrels", as he called them, for weeks.

The BBC sent a film crew who the man took to the park, where they saw that these squirrels were not in fact 'new', but... rats.

Ew.

Which got me thinking. What, in fact, is the fundamental difference between a squirrel and a rat? Or a chipmunk for that matter? Cuteness? The black-eyed, razor-clawed uber-squirrels who prowl our parklands could hardly be described as cute. Essentially, squirrels are just rats with better PR.

And don't even get me started on Doves vs Pigeons.