How private is your data online?

I have reminded my students on numerous occasions that placing personal information about yourself online can result in that data being seen by those whose prying eyes you might like to keep focused elsewhere.

There is a simple rule: if you don't feel comfortable with the idea of people seeing information about you, then don't publish it online. 

With that in mind I would like to share the following article. Although it's about a person posting images of themselves on Facebook holding guns from their collection, this is in America, so the guns are owned legally and no crime is being committed. Nonetheless, it's transpired that the individual's employers used something called Administrators Access to gain access to the user's profile.  

This allows a range of interested parties to apply for access to your profile. You can read the full online article here. Think about it. What have you posted that you wouldn't want a university admissions tutor to see or read? 

Be choosy. Be careful. As the saying goes, 'Knowledge is Power.' And the power of personal data that's been misconstrued or taken out of context might cost you dear at some point in the future.

Better late than never

I must apologise for the lack of entries over the last month. 

A combination of an autumnal cold, followed by a mountain bike fall, which left me with a broken rib, have stopped me posting.

However, that hasn't stopped me tagging numerous events, about which I'll write now, nor of course has it stopped the world of the media doing what it does best - educating, informing, and re-presenting the world around us.

I'll start with the whole Russell Brand / Jonathon Ross debacle. Today Brand has been interviewed by the Observer newspaper and in it he reveals how he meant no malice in insulting the actor Andrew Sachs and his grand-daughter; the 25 year old producer had thought Sachs had given his permission for transmission; and since it was a pre-recorded show Brand and Ross felt they could be more free with their tongues, safe in the knowledge that someone else would edit the content.

For my money's worth, based on my own experiences in the media, based on what I see and hear working now with young people, this is what I think ought to have happened:

1. Resignation of both presenters, or sacking if they refused to jump. Brand has at least been honourable. Ross has yet to reveal his position, as he is suspended for threee months. He might return but personally I think he should quit, go into a media exile, reflect on what influence the media has on its audience, ponder whether his actions are appropriate for a man in his late 40s, and then re-build his reputation. Let's be honest, at £16,000 a day he can afford the time to review his life.
2. A swift response from the BBC. Why it took them days for senior brass to offer a half-hearted response is beyond me.

The broadcast apology that was made on Radio 2 yesterday seemed too little too late. The damage is done, and the insults have been hurled. Several weeks after the event and the BBC continues to be silent on who authorised what, and how far up the chain of command the approval to broadcast went. The BBC should stop hiding its failures, come clean, and make sweeping changes. 

The hard earnt reputation of the BBC, which is maintained by the many decent employees it possesses, is being eroded by the self-interest of the over-paid few. That, at least, is how it seems from the outside. 

Where to next for advertising?

Today I was speaking to one of my classes about compassion fatigue in charity advertising, and how the visual grammar and connotations we have come to draw from some types of media content become devalued through over exposure.

I was delighted therefore to stumble across the following Guardian article about how new media technology is changing the ways advertisers target consumers, and use technology to create new platforms for communication. It's an excellent overview of how institutions are reacting and innovating in the face of fragmented audiences and changing media consumption habits. 

Click here to read the Guardian article about new media advertising

The end of regional broadcasting. Is it all bad?

One of the things that makes the digital revolution in all parts of the media so interesting to watch is the way that business models and ideologies, dating back half a century or more, are changing to adapt new market forces.

Today's announcement by the media regulator OFCOM, that the rules regarding ITV's obligation to offer regional TV news bulletins are being relaxed, has predictably been greeted with fear and disdain in many quarters. Critics are arguing that a vital part of the community spirit that encompassed ITV, itself originally made up of many regional broadcasters, is under threat. The reality is that many regional TV news bulletins are dull, irrelevant and of little use to viewers. Being located near to London I receive the joys of London Today and London Tonight. While the evening bulletins do attempt to cover a range of stories, it's quite clear that the funding to make insightful reporting simply isn't there. Content veers from a seeming bias towards celebs in the capital, before crashing back to scare stories about London crime and too much traffic. The daytime bulletins serve no real purpose at all, being too brief and lacking in depth. That said, the output of BBC South East's news team is woefully embarrassing. In the mornings one could be forgiven for thinking nothing had happened at all. Yet, a quick listen to a radio station, even the music orientated Capital FM, reveals greater breadth and depth. It is a disgrace.

So, given that the output appears to be under-performing at best, and shameful at worst, what might we conclude? Firstly, that OFCOM's decision to allow stations to withdraw lunchtime bulletins is a sensible one. It remains to be seen whether the broadcasters will opt to move more timely content onto the web, perhaps offering mobile newscasts instead. Surely this is a better way to find an audience and engage with it? The rise of GPS in more and more mobile phones should enable relevant content to be delivered with speed and accuracy. That could be one way for local news to develop. 

The amount of regional news broadcast each week will fall from 5 hours 20 minutes a week, to 3 hours 45 minutes.

The truth is that in an increasingly personalised and online world, regional news finds it difficult to locate an audience. A week or so ago BBC Radio 4's Today programme broadcast a fascinating interview with Professor Roy Greenslade, in which he foresaw the total demise of local newspapers within two decades. 

As the linked BBC article at the bottom of this posting states, the business model used for public service broadcasting (PSB) obligations dates back 50 years.

Originally ITV was made up of many independent regional broadcasters, who were able to make programmes and sell their own advertising. However, in a multi channel environment the revenue streams from advertising are falling, viewing figures are diminishing, and the economic climate is more conservative in terms of advertising spend than ever before. 

This all coincides with increasing online activity and increased resistance from audiences to the persuasive techniques used conventionally by advertising creatives.

By 2012 the digital switchover will have taken place and every home in the country will be receiving multi-channel transmissions. It's likely we'll reach a tipping point in terms of consumer relationships with their preferred media outlets long before then. What is becoming apparent is that news is losing its relevance in the accepted formats, while the number of platforms on which audiences can receive, digest and interact with content continues to expand.

We live in interesting times, and what OFCOM's ruling illustrates is how the accepted wisdom that has influenced media production for the last 25 years and beyond, will be shaped, changed and reformed by powerful forces of the market, innovation, and user choice.

Link to BBC article

When does freedom of expression become a threat?

Over the last 24 hours I have found myself asking this question. The reason why? Yesterday morning a 22 year old Finnish man, called Matti Juhani Saari entered a college in Finland and opened fire with what is believed to be an automatic pistol. By the time he had finished, ten students had died. Saari also turned the gun on himself, inflicting a fatal gunshot wound.

Why should this be of interest to those of us who teach the Media? Because Saari had used You Tube the week before to post violent videos of himself shooting a gun. The police were alerted and intervened. However, Saari was allowed to keep his guns on a temporary licence.

The story has terrible echoes of a similar incident in Finland a year ago, when a teenage gunman shot dead nine students. He too had posted a video on You Tube, revealing the time and location of his planned attack. On that occasion, the posting went un-noticed until it was too late.

You Tube is one of the great revelations of the internet age, yet the power of the moving image, and the ease with which a global audience can be found, brings with it inherent risks. Inevitably, we can expect to see the Hypodemic Syringe theory being rolled out over the next few days. We may hear the now usual story of how the student was a loner, played violent video games, and had a passion for heavy metal lyrics that advocated death and destruction. It's an easy line to take and perhaps gives shape to the unthinkable, in a way that's easy for many audiences to understand.

The problem is, of course, that such simplification glosses over deeper problems. This young man's psyche must have been terribly troubled indeed, but can we blame the media for what occurred?

The challenge for You Tube will be to find ways of tracking content automatically and searching for clues to inappropriate material. As the events of yesterday demonstrated with terrible clarity, however, even early detection isn't enough, if the official response is not swift and robust.

There is a need for users, commentators and legal enforcement officials to consider carefully how best to proceed.

We should all have the right to express an opinion. But when the opinions expressed present a threat to the wellbeing of the poster or to others, then some form of censorship should be enacted.

From an educational perspective, it is clear that greater efforts must be made to educate our students about the inherent risks of posting content online without due regard for how it might be interpreted by others; while also teaching them to be alert to virtual threats that could cross over from the hyper-reality of the online environment and enter the land of the living.

There's a good review from CNN of the events at the following link:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/09/23/finland.school.shooting/index.html