Some may say I might not be the only one. At least, so far, no one can excuse them of overt censorship, yet...
Further to an earlier post... Blogging - a new era
6. At 09:01 am on 19 Apr 2008, PeterBarron wrote: Oh come on Junkkmale (4), give it a chance. It's only been going for a day.
Oh... I am sorry that you appear frustrated at my lack of enthusiasm and support... well, for the additional 'improvements' to the blogging experience made in addition/complement to the infamous error codes. Now sorted, if I may repeat my congrats on that at least.
How much of a chance do you need? The same the BBC gave BA and the T5 planners for things that had a fair old while and a healthy wadge of wonga to get right, and yet...
It's just that when asked/invited to give an opinion I naturally assumed that one is going to be expected... even if aspects might be unfavourable. Maybe specifying a minimum time window to allow for settling in would have been helpful? Oh, but then there's that 'comments closed' situation. Hence an upper limit too. So a window of posting opportunity maybe? Dilemmas abound.
Might I be allowed to ask what IS the rationale for closing a comment thread? Looking back a few it seems not to be based on a simple time period.
I also like to know if I can about who I am chatting with, so I clicked the link to check and find out more on your name. Sadly, just this, as far as I could locate: Blog Network Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers. User Profile Listed below are comments made by between and across all BBC Blogs. « NewerOlder »
My pointing out that live links was an unfortunate deletion was a feedback suggestion by the way, though if it was causing problems maybe there was good reason for deleting this option. I am sure that might have been noticed and discussed when this was planned...right? It just all seems to have been coming as a bit of a surprise to you.
And there do now seem a lot fewer folk than there used to be, along with the off-page redirections to further sources I appreciated.
Anyway, I am glad to see this thread is still allowed to remain active. But I'll have to remember the latest bit of nuSpeek to add to all the others of our age: '...as I understand it the new features are there in order to manage the huge workload robustly, not to stifle debate.'
Rather Clintonian. 'As you understand it'? Don't you KNOW? It is your programme's site blog is it not?
I concede that I may be in a minority, though I take some comfort in the experiences and opinions shared by some others.... in a total of 16 comments (so far - 1 from me and 4 from you guys, so at least we're now in double digits) on fundamental changes to the blog thread page of one of the last serious news programmes of the broadcaster to a nation of 60 million.
In my line, advertising, a critique from a customer who cares enough to write is the most valuable thing you can get, and should be cherished. And embraced. But I'm afraid by deed and tone you and and your organisation often make me feel that is not high on the agenda where you work, managing huge workloads, um, 'robustly'.
That's for whom... again?
ADDENDUM 1
Talk about Newsnight: Comment guidelines
Talk about Newsnight is a blog which aims to bring the programme team closer to its audience by providing an insight into our production process and offering a platform for review, analysis and debate of the subjects we are covering.
When joining in debates and responding to blog entries we are happy for you to criticise the programme and to ask serious questions about our coverage. Where we can we will respond.
...etc...
ADDENDUM 2
Can't fault him for not replying, and in fact quite graciously (though perhaps with tongue in cheek:):
I wasn't intending to be rude or defensive - of course I embrace and cherish your comments, and I'm pleased at the very least that 2-way communication is working better than before.
The "give it a chance" referred to your comment that user numbers were smaller than before - it will take a while to get the numbers up, but I hope that the ease of commenting will help.
I agree entirely on the live links, which I hope will be available soon.
The reason for my Clintonian defence is that the blog fix has been done across the BBC by a team not under Newsnight's direct control.
So we are finding our way with it too.
I remain concerned that so many aspects of this revamp involved deletions of things that, to me, encouraged open debate. I still have no answer as the the rationale behind having a 'comments closed' shutter. And also that the editorial aspects of the blog fix seem to have been carried out with little or no input from the Newsnight editor.
Peter (19) - thank you for your considered reply.
And with the welcome addition of Cloe-F at least we're up to a 22-way conversation now:)
I am sure this may well steadily rise as existing posters get to grips with the new system (I ended up with a 'name' I'd forgotten about thanks to some registration/cookie combo when I signed on to the BBC site ages ago), and possibly new friends now the infamous 502 is consigned to history.
However, Cloe_F's tech feedback might prove enough to dissuade many in this 'data-available' concerned age. Another aspect one might have hoped had been raised at pre-planning stage?
But I am sure that now it is shared it will be addressed. You do indeed have access to some very well informed folk, with valuable experiences to share, especially in some pertinent areas of expertise. Which is what I would be sorry to lose.
It is a shame that your team had no, or little input on the mechanisms for feedback on the work you do. As journalists and editors I am sure you are usually more than interested in every aspect of how news and opinion is gleaned and disseminated. And blanket impositions, even with good intentions, can often end up pleasing none of the people, none of the time.
Moderation is a tricky path. It's not just what gets said, but whether something is allowed in ... or out... and why. Or for how long. As those involved elsewhere with such as 'Have Your Say' for instance might have found. I don't bother with these efforts because, beyond anonymous venting in the wind, there is little incentive or reward for investing the thought and time. And the result is all too often a highlighted 'soundbite' chosen to suit.
Clearly, this thread is looking quite healthy for open debate in this regard so far and, with luck, will improve even more.
But what did prompt my original concerns back last week (16/17 April) was the 'comment closed' time out, the rationale for which (if it is to stay as an option) still remains unclear. I've noticed it elsewhere, in such as Guardian CiF, and can't see a good reason for it, considering the internet/web's ability to allow information to expand with the interest and demand it stimulates.
With this 'new', robust system, and the clearly re-energised moderating team it has empowered, I am sure leaving things open to accommodate the odd subsequent follow-up commentary is technically and administratively possible if the will is there.
24/04
It's the little things.
Some days have passed. I already have a sense that a few things might be addressed. But others might be quietly ignored. Like links to poster's URLs.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I noticed that the advisory on the nature of moderation (pre/post - oddly not a field that one change applies throughout) was a tad erratic and informed them.
It has now been changed.
You're welcome, BBC. Oddly no acknowledgement, so to subsequent posters I might appear to be to be incorrect in my advice. Just rude, or spiteful taboot? Thank heavens for the cache. Like I say, it's the little things, and they do mount up.
Showing posts with label EDITORIAL CONTROL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EDITORIAL CONTROL. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
It must have been something in my drinking water
A wee while ago I made suggestion/posed a question to BBC Newswatch about the handling of a piece of reporting/editorial that had a acquired a bit of notoriety in the blogosphere:
COMMENTS: I have just watched today's programme regarding the actions (or not) of Roger Harrabin. In the introduction to this piece, which revolves around the interpretation of facts and what did or did not take place as a result of an exchange of emails, the host suggests that the main protagonist '... is SAID to have replied...' at one stage. Bearing in mind it has been accepted that these emails are freely available on the internet, and I am looking now at what WAS written, is there not a danger that Newswatch is rather making the point for the critics of the BBC, who suggest there can be 'interesting' ways in which what should be objective information gets shared with its audience?
They have been gracious enough to now reply:
'It's an interesting point, but my view in writing that introduction was that we shouldn't take at face value something that appears on the internet. It was a private conversation published by one side and could have been altered. That's why the first question to Roger Harrabin was to ascertain if the published version was actually true...'
As followers of this blog will recall, I was quite keen that the facts were first established before passions were stirred. Hopefully they will grant me that. I must confess that, after the Clintonian reply from Newsnight's Peter Barron a few blogs previously, I still am slightly unclear on the actual facts, which I had sought from the protagonists:
It's a view I fully accept. Which is why, when the silage hit the windmill I participated in several blog exchanges that had long since passed the point of being concerned about verification, simply to ask if, at all, there was any confirmation that the more 'damaging' phrasing had actually been by him, in these words. I am still struggling to get to this in a form I can take as accurate, but from what you write may I take it that it was/is? Sadly in this day and age, conversations, and especially written ones fired over the ether to unknown correspondents, are seldom as private as we might wish. Maybe Ms. Abbess was a trusted source to this point? But it is good to know that the BBC at least has reporting and editorial standards still that would mean such confidences would never be breached, even without clearly stated guidelines, caveats and immediate flagging as to whether potentially controversial asides should be on or off record before being broadcast.
Now, I wonder, is what I wrote to them 'between us'. No mention made. Equally, what I got back. I hope it is therefore OK to share.
LAST WORD?:
At least one fact is now confirmed, if not from the actual horse's mouth, at least his jockey/trainer/stable owner (you know what I mean). Quick, too:
I think yes, the exchange was accurate (though perhaps not all that took place) but I thought it sensible to hear it confirmed from the horse's mouth...
COMMENTS: I have just watched today's programme regarding the actions (or not) of Roger Harrabin. In the introduction to this piece, which revolves around the interpretation of facts and what did or did not take place as a result of an exchange of emails, the host suggests that the main protagonist '... is SAID to have replied...' at one stage. Bearing in mind it has been accepted that these emails are freely available on the internet, and I am looking now at what WAS written, is there not a danger that Newswatch is rather making the point for the critics of the BBC, who suggest there can be 'interesting' ways in which what should be objective information gets shared with its audience?
They have been gracious enough to now reply:
'It's an interesting point, but my view in writing that introduction was that we shouldn't take at face value something that appears on the internet. It was a private conversation published by one side and could have been altered. That's why the first question to Roger Harrabin was to ascertain if the published version was actually true...'
As followers of this blog will recall, I was quite keen that the facts were first established before passions were stirred. Hopefully they will grant me that. I must confess that, after the Clintonian reply from Newsnight's Peter Barron a few blogs previously, I still am slightly unclear on the actual facts, which I had sought from the protagonists:
It's a view I fully accept. Which is why, when the silage hit the windmill I participated in several blog exchanges that had long since passed the point of being concerned about verification, simply to ask if, at all, there was any confirmation that the more 'damaging' phrasing had actually been by him, in these words. I am still struggling to get to this in a form I can take as accurate, but from what you write may I take it that it was/is? Sadly in this day and age, conversations, and especially written ones fired over the ether to unknown correspondents, are seldom as private as we might wish. Maybe Ms. Abbess was a trusted source to this point? But it is good to know that the BBC at least has reporting and editorial standards still that would mean such confidences would never be breached, even without clearly stated guidelines, caveats and immediate flagging as to whether potentially controversial asides should be on or off record before being broadcast.
Now, I wonder, is what I wrote to them 'between us'. No mention made. Equally, what I got back. I hope it is therefore OK to share.
LAST WORD?:
At least one fact is now confirmed, if not from the actual horse's mouth, at least his jockey/trainer/stable owner (you know what I mean). Quick, too:
I think yes, the exchange was accurate (though perhaps not all that took place) but I thought it sensible to hear it confirmed from the horse's mouth...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)