Huw Davies on Journalism

Stephen Fry talking about Twitter

2009-01-26T05:58:00.000-08:00

Cardiff fans gunning to beat the Gunners

2009-01-16T12:28:00.000-08:00

Cardiff – capital of Wales. Wales – home of rugby. The Six Nations tournament is fast approaching, the Welsh team is defending its title and a third Grand Slam in five years could even be on the cards. Welsh coaches have been picked to tour with the British Lions and Cardiff Blues are riding high in the Heineken Cup. So what’s with all these football supporters?

Thanks to last year’s amazing cup run that saw Cardiff City fans descending upon Wembley for the FA Cup final, the city is waking up once again to the call of the spherical ball. Cardiff surprised everyone last year, and if the fans are to be believed, there’s no reason why they can’t do it again.

"They're going to win it," says banking executive Chris Lock. "No one's standing in their way. This year they're going to go one better."

First, though, there’s a minor obstacle: a little-known team called Arsenal.

The Premiership giants will be travelling to Ninian Park on Sunday, January 25. It is likely to be the last big match the ground hosts – even if Cardiff win, the chances of a home draw against another of the Big Four are slim – before the club moves into its new stadium at the end of the season. This could be Ninian Park's great swansong, and in Arsenal – who knocked Cardiff out of the FA Cup three years ago – they couldn't have a more perfect opposition.

In April 1927, Cardiff beat Arsenal in the FA Cup final to take the trophy out of England and into Wales. It was St. George's Day. Beating Arsenal again in the last season at Ninian Park would be not only incredible but strangely appropriate, especially after last year's success story.

Sadly, one man will not be watching the match. David Morgan was 16 when Cardiff won at Wembley and 97 the next time Cardiff played there, in the semi-final and final last year. He watched both games from the stands, even though the 1927 final was the first match to be broadcast live on BBC radio (with an Arsenal director commentating), and became something of a talisman for Cardiff City in last year's cup run. He passed away on December 29, but his passion for the club lives on in younger fans – "the new breed", as Ninian Park steward Kella Winney calls them; "the ones that come from the FA Cup."

Today, of course, Arsenal's young guns probably have no interest in the events of 80 years ago, but with a poor league showing this season they might be wary of an embarrassing FA Cup upset.

"They'll be giving [Cardiff] credit, I think," muses lifelong fan Chris Jenkins. "If you got in the final last season then you're going to be respected."

Not all Cardiff fans give Arsenal the same credit.

"They might turn up and think it's going to be an easy game," says Peter Mulhern, a policeman from Barry. "If you watch them in the Premier League they don't give some of the Premiership teams too much respect. We've seen Arsenal lose a couple of easy games this season, which they had every right to have won, so they may turn up and not respect us."

"I think with the attitude of Arsenal they'll stick a second team out," agrees City fan and trade union official Roger Jenkins.

Next year, though, Arsenal might have to take Cardiff a lot more seriously. At the time of writing, the Bluebirds are fifth in the Championship, looking to hold on to a play-off place with the hope of Premiership football next year. Some fans are wary of tempting fate; others, less so. "It's Cardiff's year again," says Kella the steward. "We're going to do the play-offs, go to the final and we'll be back at Wembley."

For the moment, though, it's the cup match against Arsenal exciting fans and players alike, especially with 18-year-old Welsh prodigy Aaron Ramsey making a return to Ninian Park after his £5m transfer to the Gunners ("It'll be great to play against him and the fans will be happy to see him down here again," says 21-year-old Cardiff star Joe Ledley, seen below scoring the winner in the 2008 semi-final).

The fixture is helping financially too, and not just for the merchandise vendors already camped outside the ground: the match is expected to raise £600,000 in gate receipts, television rights and prize money. "It's a lot of money, isn't it?" concludes television producer and lifelong Cardiff fan Garmon Emyr, after some debate and calculation (heard in the audio clip below). "That's a few players for us," he adds.

A draw at Ninian Park would mean a replay at Highbury and potentially more money – not to mention memories. But is a draw or even a win against Arsenal a realistic possibility? "It's the FA Cup," reminds Peter Mulhern. "There's always a chance."

It's an exciting time to be a Cardiff City supporter. Who cares about rugby anyway?

Google Maps, and the Why and Where of the new Doctor Who

2009-01-03T13:01:00.000-08:00

So, Matt Smith has defied all predictions to be named the next Doctor. If your reaction was anything other than "Who?", then you're either a shrewd telly addict, a Doctor Who insider or lying. Smith's announcement came out of nowhere.

Matt Smith's selection has raised a number of issues, not least about his age – more on that on my regular blog – but one thing I did find interesting is the geographical origins of not only him, but all the other Doctors as well. Wait, come back!

There's a pattern (he says, sounding like a B-movie scientist).

It's generally taken as read that the home of the world's most famous timelord is not just the TARDIS, but London. In fact, no one really notices how most Doctors in the past have spoken with a nice neutral southern accent, because it's so lovely and unnoticeable. But with just one exception (Christopher Ecclestone's jovial Mancunian banter), each Doctor's accent has hailed from the South of England.

That is, at least, until the '80s came along. After five of the first six actors playing the Doctor were born and raised in London – the only exception here being, incredibly, Tom Baker, who came from Liverpool but gave his character the voice of a lofty old Shakespeare impresario having elocution lessons – Sylvester McCoy dragged the Doctor up to the Scottish highlands. He was followed by Paul McGann (Liverpool), Chris Ecclestone (Salford) and David Tennant (West Lothian). The Big City was left well and truly behind.

And yet, Ecclestone and maybe McCoy aside, the southern accent prevailed. Tennant's, in particular, is a masterpiece: hearing his original Scottish brogue spoken out of character is really quite disarming.

So what does this have to do with: a) online journalism; b) Matt Smith; c) anything?

The map below charts the actors' hometowns. This is thanks to Google Maps and similar online map tools, which have once again proved their occasional worth in the journalistic sphere (journalism.co.uk has a good one about journalism job losses).

Like Twitter, Flickr and the blogosphere, online maps have grown from idle pastimes to become a tool of real use to professionals, providing they're used the right way. Maps generally are: it's pointless using them to demonstrate a supposed trend if locations are dotted around like bullets from a shaky scattergun, so they usually have some impact. Unlike timelines and many other journalistic tools, which can be used as a bit of fluff to provoke a reader response of "Ooh, interactive images", maps have to SHOW something, otherwise there's no point in them being used.

Hopefully, this one does (though you probably want to enlarge it).

View Larger Map

And to conclude my musings on Matt Smith, my point is that he sounds bloody posh. He hails from Northampton, placed nicely between north and south, suggesting a shift for the Doctor back towards the capital, but most importantly, he will almost certainly not affect an accent. How do I know this? Because the makers like 'em neutral, as David Tennant has previously explained in interviews. Indeed, Russell T. Davies has been quoted as saying he doesn't want the Doctor "touring the regions" with his accent, and though he's no longer in charge, I can't see this changing.

But yes, aren't maps pretty?

(TARDIS image courtesy of Andrew*)

This Is An SEO-friendly Headline (or How Britney Spears Can Save Your Blog)

2008-12-04T07:38:00.000-08:00

(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.

Absence and absence-ability

2008-11-19T13:29:00.000-08:00

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!

Blogging

2008-11-12T13:52:00.000-08:00

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.

"Twitter? Twitter to whom?", said the owl

2008-11-06T05:07:00.000-08:00

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!

Digital storytelling, and why I remain unconvinced

2008-10-30T03:48:00.000-07:00

Digital storytelling. Created by anyone who knows how to do it, digital storytelling can give you insights into the lives of anyone and everyone: tales about love, loss and baseball.

Or it can give you this.

Print is dead; long live print

2008-10-21T06:13:00.000-07:00

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.

A philosophical diatribe to kick things off

2008-10-08T10:31:00.000-07:00

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?