(Image courtesy of Adam Billyeald)
Yahoo revealed the other day that Britney Spears is the most searched-for…thing on the internet in Britain. Big Brother, The X Factor, Oasis (bit random) and High School Musical 3 made up the rest of the top five. That is so depressing.
Still, there’s no big surprise here, really. For a start, the Britney Spears saga is one of many developing chapters, and to keep track of what she’s doing – the latest single, the latest haircut, the latest incident of child abuse – you have to check the news nearly every day.
The other reason it’s not a surprise is because she’s very reader-friendly. Apart from the fact she’s a one-name brand (seriously, name another famous Britney), if she’s on your webpage you are going to tell people. “You want a piece of me”? Yes, we do, apparently. Everyone does. She’s a brand. She sells magazines – her next career move, perhaps – so if you want your webpage to be read, you’re going to get her involved somehow.
Shameless.
This is not an open invite to start false tagging, or whatever it’s called, which is done far too much on YouTube and the like. This is when some idiot wants their crap to be seen by everyone (actually, that blog’s quite good) and so tags their video ‘BRITNEY SPEARS HEATH LEDGER GORDON RAMSAY AFFAIR SLUT WHORE CREDIT CRUNCH TERRORISM PORN GLOBAL WARMING DEATH’. Sorry, that’s an Independent headline. My mistake. Clearly you should only mention Britney if she’s relevant and not just at random, but you’d be a fool not to do it.
There’s another, probably more important reason why she’s so searched-for. Britney Spears has many qualities: she’s talented (perhaps), attractive (arguably) and a good mother (uh….), but one thing that’s forgotten is that she’s very SEO-friendly.
Media Guardian seems pretty appalled that the American Presidential election is only sixth on the list of searched-for items and that the global financial crisis isn’t there at all, but think about it – how do you search for these things? ‘Financial crisis’? ‘Credit crunch’? ‘Recession’? ‘Nuke Iceland’? There’s no one umbrella term to help people to find what they want; with Britney Spears, on the other hand, you only have to search for her name and wait for the internet to do its thing.
And that’s why it’s no great surprise that Britney Spears is the most searched-for thing on the internet – because she’s a person. Apparently.
Thursday, 4 December 2008
This Is An SEO-friendly Headline (or How Britney Spears Can Save Your Blog)
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
Absence and absence-ability
Due to epic flu, I wasn't in the online journalism lecture last week so am pretty unable to write much today.
But one brief point. Being absent doesn't have to mean I don't know what's going on, because even while I'm in bed blowing my brains out through my nose (through use of a tissue, you understand, not a shotgun), I can refresh my Twitter to see what people are saying about the lecture from their mobile phones. Sorry, 'devices'. Sure, it didn't happen last week, but it could do - and it does mean that sickness is no longer a barrier to getting information from a lecture/meeting/conference. OK, so you could argue it wasn't much of a barrier before either, because you can e-mail from a phone as well, but that won't reach people as quickly as Twitter.
Lie in bed and get notes from people healthy enough to make the lecture. Hell, I might never get up.
Also, being able to access Twitter on your mobile now means it's socially acceptable to be tapping away on your phone during a meeting, even though you're actually playing Snake II.
Anyway, because a blog needs to have some sort of video/audio/link/anything to be of interest, here's a video I found proving further that Twitter is on the rise. Look! It must be useful! It's on CSI!
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
Blogging
Skimming around the net looking for something to read, I found this, an exclusive reveal of three interview clips from the forthcoming Dark Knight DVD (I'm a massive Batman geek), which in turn led me to this - a discussion of sorts of the world's most boring film titles. Two very different film blogs: one revealing news (of sorts) and the other voicing opinion.
But interestingly, both home in on the importance of a blog post starting a conversation. With a piece on boring film titles clearly that's going to happen (though closing it with "What are your favourite boring titles?" is so transparent in seeking feedback that it borders on desperate), but the blog showing Dark Knight clips happily wavers off-topic into other areas in order to broaden the scope for debate. And again, it asks questions at the end: "Who[m?] do you think deserves recognition next February? And will they actually get it?" Both blogs provide interest and start a conversation, so fulfil the criteria a good blog should.
However, the one on film titles is crap. It proves a rule on which I was unsure: that the hierarchy of an interesting blog runs, from most to least interesting, like this:
- A link
- A photo
- A video
- Any of the above, with context
- Discussion
- Opinion
Yes, this continues to worry me given the nature of my regular blog, but at least there are links there, I suppose. For this blog on film titles, though, there is no real saving grace. It's just rubbish.
Thursday, 6 November 2008
"Twitter? Twitter to whom?", said the owl
Part One (Thursday, November 6, 2008):
Part Two (Wednesday, January 7, 2009):
That was the whole thing, actually, but as it turns out, every blog needs to have some sort of link/video/audio/anything to be of interest to readers. Apparently online journalism has rules.
This does help me, though, because updating now enables me to include The Guardian's feature on Twitter, written only yesterday (handily making this blog timely both now and when it was originally written, after the American election).
The most interesting part for me, again, is editor-in-chief of econsultancy Chris Lake musing on how appropriate Twittering on the Gaza conflict is. "You have to wonder whether Twitter, with its 140 character limit, is the right forum," says Lake. "I just think it's crass to abbreviate in that manner, writing in text-speak like some 15-year-old going out on a Friday night. It seems a little bit crass given the graveness [gravity?] of the situation." Not to mention the inability to elaborate due to the word limit, eh Chris? Damn straight. Useful for updates Twitter can be; a genuine news source it ain't.
But Twitter is important, and if you're still yet to be convinced, think about its use in crime-solving. Look! It must be useful! It's on CSI!
Thursday, 30 October 2008
Digital storytelling, and why I remain unconvinced
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
Print is dead; long live print
The sad truth behind journalism is that while reputation and readership are important, it’s advertising that ultimately matters. And with that in mind, it’s no great surprise to see pioneers of online journalism citing rising digital advertising revenues to sound the death knell for its print-based counterpart.
But Marcel Fenez, entertainment and media guru for PriceWaterhouseCoopers Hong Kong, has challenged this supposedly inevitable death of traditional media outlets. Fenez said that global print advertising is set to grow 1.8%, and although digital advertising will continue to soar, even by 2012 it will represent only 10% of total advertising for newspapers
Obviously statistics are always fascinating, but potentially more interesting are these claims:
“Traditional media isn’t dead yet and won’t be for the next five years” [emphasis mine]
“The over-50s are helping to sustain traditional media”
So: newspapers are OK for now, thanks to people over the age of 50 buying them, but in five years they’ll be dead (the newspapers, not the over-50s).
That leads me to wonder: what’s going to happen in the next five years to win over the oldies? We can’t predict the future for technology, especially as it develops so quickly (only 10 years ago all films were on VHS), but with so many extras for online readers already, what else can possibly be invented to move the over-50s away from print and onto their computers? In short, what is the future when we’re already in it?
Hopefully the next five years’ advancement will involve online newspapers realising less is more. The reason so many middle-aged and older people don’t ‘do’ the internet is because they’re intimidated – not scared, unless you subscribe to the generalisation of anyone over 50 being an octogenarian pensioner who treats a computer like a bolting warhorse – but intimidated by the sheer number of things you can do with it.
I know these internet add-ons are designed to lead the nervous in slowly. “Hey, Grandad, look: this thing tells you which of your friends read this article, and this thing lets you tell them you’ve read it too!” Admittedly that’s quite a cynical view – there are add-ons that genuinely have use for older internet users. But the fact is that it’s simply overdone: see, for example, just how elucidating this BBC ‘word cloud’ graphic really is.
The most useful benefit for older users is that they can read a newspaper online when they’re not able to buy it. Gone are the days of finding The Telegraph sold out at noon, and having to make do with a Times. And gone are the days of having to wait until the next morning to know what is going on in the world. THAT is the strength of online journalism, and THAT is what it should be focusing on.
But hey, if you disagree, let me know and I’ll make a pie chart of everyone’s opinions, post it to my blog, you’ll get it on your RSS and I’ll see what you Twitter about it tomorrow.
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
A philosophical diatribe to kick things off
Here's a question for you: do you actually care what I think?
No, I thought not. Why should you? I am but another person, just like you. This is, of course, a well-known problem with blogging, but it's a bigger problem with journalism.
Look at journalism, and take away reporting for a moment, in any sphere: local and global news, politics, sport, the arts - all reporting of events. Take away analysis, which is just the reporting of details. And take away features, which are essentially the reporting of things people didn't know about before (if news = the new, features = the old; a rounding-up of old news compiled into one spread. Think of a feature - any feature - you have read and consider whether or not it is the reporting of things that have happened). For one minute, just strip away reporting from journalism.
What are you left with? Opinion. My one true love, and my one true burden. Why? Because opinion journalism is a career cul-de-sac.
And yet it penetrates almost every facet of journalism. Reviews - what I thought about this album/film/exhibition/etc. Travel writing - what I thought about this place or that, and more reporting behind it. Interviews - what other people think (and why do we care what they think? Because they're famous, or if not then different from us in some way). Looking at The Guardian today I noticed there's a 'Viewpoint' on the front page. That's some highly-regarded opinion writing.
Obviously there's some opinion in every facet of journalism: even in news reporting, someone has to decide what they think the reader will find interesting. The same thing is important in opinion journalism, not that you could tell by looking at the blogs of many luminaries blogging for the nationals. But in actual press, opinion journalism isn't just in the comment pages - it's everywhere. And now, thanks to Web two-point-oh, it's on the internet.
Yeah, I thought you might have been waiting for me to bring this back to online journalism in some way. With the rise of blogs, citizen journalism is becoming increasingly prevalent and increasingly powerful, and with citizen journalism comes opinion. There are few citizen journalists out there who think their improvised reporting is part of a noble calling to tell the world what is happenning without adding their views on it. Why would they? You've just taken a video - the first globally - of a bus exploding. This is a perfect opportunity to tell the world what you think. They will hear you. Maybe they will listen. Can you stay silent behind that lens, sombrely filming the events? Or do you add a reflectively murmured, "I can't believe it. What has Bush done to our world?"
It's shoddy, it's desperate, and it's the only way. You need the news as fast as possible from whomsoever will give it to you, and the same goes for blogs. Journalists have been reduced to the same level as citizen journalists, publishing blogs to get their views out as quickly as anyone else. It's all part of the same (blogo)sphere. What makes Andrew Marr's opinions more important than that of Crazyfist1991? His journalistic credentials? Quality of writing? Perhaps. But who's to say that will make his blog more widely read?
Thank you for reading this far, if indeed you have (making this sentence something of a paradox). You have done well to negotiate the navel-gazing, the cod philosophy and the seemingly neverending series of rhetorical questions in this post and emerge the other side a weary, confused traveller (blimey, that was pretentious). This has, in fact, been a very poor blog post; for better ones, visit www.weeekspotblog.com [/shameless plug].
Opinion journalism is a dying art - some would say, not an art at all. After all, what talent does an opinion journalist have? Writing his or her opinions? Literally everyone in the world has opinions, so what can the opinion journalist offer the public that they can't offer themselves?
So I have for you one final question: if news and opinion can come from anywhere, who cares what journalists have to say any more?
