Why I’m not jumping on the WikiLeaks bandwagon
Last month I wanted to write a news feature about Jewish soldiers in Australia’s military. Naturally I wanted to interview some of those soldiers to add colour to the piece. I didn’t want to know military secrets or tactical information. I merely wanted to speak to them about their feelings as Australian soldiers and why they were inspired to enlist. Even though I was not seeking information that could be considered sensitive, I still had to follow proper procedure with the ADF.
As a journalist I was happy to do so. This involved contacting the public affairs department of the Defence Force to gain permission. I was required to tell them what kind of piece I was writing and the kinds of questions I planned to ask. Again, no problem. I accept that as a journalist there are procedures to follow and responsibilities to uphold.
All of a sudden however, with WikiLeaks journalistic professionalism seems to have gone out the window overnight. And scarily too, the very people who are training the next generation of journalists seem to be lining up behind it, as are many well-known journalists that this generation aspires to.
Procedures such as the one I had to follow with the ADF appear to be meaningless, now that anything and everything seems ripe for the public domain.
I’m not blanket anti-WikiLeaks. I agree some things should be known to the public. After all one of the pillars of democracy is transparency and a free press. But there are some things, such as national security matters, that are confidential for a reason. I don’t want to know them.
Furthermore the idea of a free press is meant to help, and not hinder, our society. Publishing leaks that harms relationships between nations or puts people in danger is in my view most definitely a hindrance.
The WikiLeaks fan club seems to hail Julian Assange as a hero. This is another thing I disagree with. Assange is ego-driven and clearly sympathetic to a particular viewpoint. Even if some of his leaks are useful, his motivation in releasing them has not been honourable. He has a clear agenda, as outlined in this article that tells of former colleagues who grew disillusioned with his direction.
It is not up to me to decide if WikiLeaks has broken any laws or not. It is not up to me to decide whether the Swedish rape charges against Assange are legitimate or not. And it’s not up to me to tell anyone what they should think.
But it’s not up to Assange and WikiLeaks to tell people what they should think, either.
Confidentiality a privilege for professional journalists
You don’t need me to tell you that a free press is essential to the functioning of our democracy. To this end, the Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2010 sponsored by Andrew Wilkie MP is certainly worthy of vigorous debate by parliament.
However, Adam Bandt’s suggestion that the scope of the bill be widened to include bloggers and in particular, citizen journalists is a bad idea.
Greens MP Adam Bandt
Professional journalists work to a code; I’m not saying every individual journalist displays 100 percent ethical behaviour according to this code, but for the most part we accept that we have a function to inform the public, to do so as objectively as possible and to facilitate informed debate in the wider community.
There are times when journalists happen across important information, and up till now there has been no protection for journalists who want to keep their sources a secret in the publicising of this information. In some circumstances such protection would certainly be useful.
But extending any such protection to citizen journalists would be akin to anarchy. One only needs to google just a few different blogs to see that there are zero checks and balances on the blogosphere as it is.
Wild opinions are presented as fact, media is used willy-nilly in breach of copyright and defamation is rife. My apologies go out to those bloggers and citizen journalists who do ensure their work conforms to legal and ethical standards, but for the most part the blogosphere does not.
To add to that chaos the freedom to say anything or accuse anyone with legal protection against accountability is a dangerous road indeed. Professional journalists learn as part of their training the responsibilities that go along with their position of influence. Bloggers do not.
We should be tightening the laws around blogging and citizen journalism, not relaxing them.
“The Social Network” arrives in Australia
It’s been the talk of the internet since the project was announced, and now the “Facebook movie”, a.k.a. “The Social Network” has finally been released in Australian cinemas.
I have to say when I first heard the film was being made I was skeptical. Yeah, like most people I use Facebook. But did I want to watch a movie about its creation? The big question was whether a two-hour film on the topic could be engaging. After all, I use my toothbrush every day but I wouldn’t go to a movie about the early days of Oral B.
The big thing this film has going for it and one of the things that ultimately swayed me was David Fincher in the director’s chair. And while I’ve heard mixed reports from other cinema goers on whether they liked it, I found “The Social Network” to be engaging, hip, thought-provoking and thoroughly satisfying.
“You’re going to go through life believing that girls don’t like you because you’re a nerd, and I want you to know from the bottom of my heart that that’s not true. It’ll be because you’re an asshole.” – Erica Albright, Mark Zuckerberg’s ex-girlfriend
It is largely a dialogue-driven film, with the dialogue snappy, intense and real. The movie is nicely bookended with two fantastic pieces of linked dialogue. Quick camera work, angles and scene changes add to the urgency of the narrative while the music of Trent Reznor (of Nine Inch Nails fame) gives the piece a dimension of youth and rebellion.
I was surprised at how much humour the film contained – several lines had the entire cinema erupting with laughter. But there’s also drama aplenty, a healthy serving of intensity, betrayal and longing. Jesse Eisenberg in a fantastic portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg (and while I’m at it, Justin Timberlake is excellent as Napster’s Sean Parker) spends the whole film searching for something, and while he ends up with an empire and a whole pile of money, one gets the sense that he still hasn’t found that something when the credits roll.
“You’re not an asshole, Mark. You’re just trying really hard to be.” – Marylin Delpy, Law office intern
The real Mark Zuckerberg
As for the amount of truth in the film? It’s hard to know. Several things are fact. Zuckerberg was sued by Eduardo Saverin after reducing his stake in the company. He was also sued by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss who claimed he had stolen the idea for Facebook from them. And according to what I’ve read, Sean Parker did suggest dropping “the” from the site’s name.
As with any biographical piece when the subject isn’t involved in the production, naturally the makers had to take artistic license to fill the gaps around what they knew. Does it paint Zuckerberg in a bad light? Perhaps. He is certainly not portrayed as a hero, but nor in my view is he a classic villain. He is certainly flawed, and while not a protagonist in a classic sense, it is his film.
As with any cinema it is to be enjoyed for what it is, and if it inspires debate among audiences that’s great. No doubt they’ll continue discussing it for a while yet. … On Facebook.
MySpace fights for survival
Before Facebook took over the world, there was this little social media site called MySpace. It was uber-cool, attracting those who were hip, connected and expressive. It was arguably the first large-scale social network.
Trendy bands and celebrities all had a MySpace page, through which Gen Y was able to get that little bit closer to their idols. Above all though, it provided the first real way for people to connect with each other online, launching social media into the connected world’s consciousness.
Then Facebook came along, followed by Twitter and a host of other social networking tools and kick-started MySpace’s decline.
One area where it remained strong however, was in the music and entertainment arena, where it still provided a platform for artists to engage with fans in a dynamic environment. Then in July this year, Mashable reported that even this aspect of MySpace was losing ground.
MySpace’s reaction to this has been a complete rebrand and relaunch. Changes include a new logo, a focus on entertainment only, and the facility to share on Facebook and Twitter, the very sites that caused its decline.
The new site will hit Australian shores next month, with a mobile site and apps to follow for iPhone and Android thereafter. In the meantime, MySpace has released this video as a teaser:
Features of the new MySpace will include content hubs which combine programmed editorial with trending articles that feature news, videos and photos, a personalised content stream based on user preferences and providing recommendations and, seemingly inspired by Foursquare, badges that reward user activity.
Time will tell if these changes will save the once flourishing site. Positioning MySpace as a complement to rather than a competitor of Facebook is certainly a good start, and may well result in former users giving it a second look. However, don’t expect to see MySpace back on top any time soon.
And certainly don’t hold your breath for any movies to be made about its founders.
Two interesting Mashable stories
Today on Mashable there are two stories that anyone interested in journalism should read. I’ve harped on relentlessly in this blog about the implications of technology and the social media revolution on journalism. These two stories cover both bases.
Story 1: Washington Post tells journalists not to engage on Twitter
Maintaining a perception of journalistic objectivity has been one of the key problems for news organisations on Twitter. You may recall this blog discussing Reuters bringing in new rules for its twitterers back in March. Now the Washington Post is the latest company to put its foot down.
In a memo to staff, managing editor Raju Narisetti said:
“Once we enter a debate personally through social media, this would be equivalent to allowing a reader to write a letter to the editor–and then publishing a rebuttal by the reporter. It’s something we don’t do.”
Mashable’s Vadim Lavrusik in his analysis rightly argues that the Washington Post doesn’t get social media. In an era where journalism is becoming increasingly about engaging with readers and encouraging a debate, Narisetti has put a clear roadblock between his organisation and the future. Yes, the Post needs to monitor and regulate how Twitter is used, but to put a blanket ban on this kind of interaction is not the solution.
Story 2: Is the iPad really the saviour of the newspaper industry?
The newspaper industry's saviour?
Now here’s an interesting one. Technology is widely credited with causing the decline in the newspaper industry, but here is a suggestion it will also be its saviour.
The article explores the popularity of the iPad and subsequent rise of apps for consuming newspapers. It suggests that the tablet revolution may be helping publishers tap into new digital markets. With this uptake new revenue models are being created that may just make publishing viable again.
It does point out that there is a way to go – newspapers are still not designing apps that take full advantage of the iPad’s capabilities. These comments about the Sydney Morning Herald iPad app seem to bolster this view.
I think it’s great that newspaper publishers may have found a way to stay viable (as it helps my chances of making a living!) but I think there is no doubt that if they expect consumers to pay, publishers will have to produce a product that’s worth the money.
A blog post entirely from my iPhone
Last week I wrote about how the rise of mobile apps is changing the way we access the Internet. But what about how we create content for it? That too is changing, and to demonstrate how, this entire post comes from the WordPress app on my iPhone.
A variety of apps exist for creating web content via mobile platforms. Mobile technology allows us to shoot photos and have them online in seconds. And as I mentioned in my last post, content on the Twittersphere is increasingly being generated from tablets and smartphones.
WordPress has an app. Tumblr has an app. Smartphones have the ability to record video and post directly to YouTube. A number of generic blogging apps are also available which talk to the various platforms.
There are limitations however. The app I’m typing this on doesn’t have a function to add links. The picture I uploaded can only appear at the bottom of the post. I can still however add tags.
Due to the limitations discussed, an interface such as this one won’t become my sole tool for writing to WordPress. But it is very useful if I’m out and about and an idea comes to me which I need to get into words while it’s still fresh. I can always log in via the web later to beautify and add links.
For journalists the ability to get content up instantaneously cannot be underestimated. Media outlets vying to be the first with an exclusive now work in a new wireless battleground. Reporters will need to adapt accordingly.
And if there’s one thing that’s beyond doubt, it’s that with the speed of technological advancement, methods of creating content like this will definitely improve and limitations will be swept away.
Is the World Wide Web dead?
It seems that we had barely begun to declare the print media’s demise, now all of a sudden there are some that say the World Wide Web is treading the same path.
In a Wired.com report entitled “The Web is Dead. Long live the Internet“, authors Chris Anderson and Michael Wolff argue that the uptake of mobile apps means that fewer people are using their web browsers. Increasingly, they are checking their emails, getting their news, using social media and being entertained entirely through specialised applications. In short, they are using the internet but not the web.
But does this spell doom? No one can doubt that the smartphone/tablet revolution hasn’t had an effect. But is it a bit premature to declare the web dead? After all, corporate workers spend their days in front of computer screens where the web is a click away. Travellers continue to frequent internet cafes. And there’s still plenty of people out there who can’t use web apps from their old-school mobile handsets.
To try and answer this question, I decided to go out and ask a few people how they access the internet. Here’s what they said:
People are one half of the equation. Organisations who rely on their web presence aren’t going to give up without a fight either. Twitter has recently overhauled its web portal to combat the growing use of third-party clients. As Peter Cashmore wrote for CNN, the intent of the redesign was “to make Twitter.com a compelling Web destination”. Meanwhile, Facebook’s constant redesigning of its web portal suggests Zuckerberg and Co still place much importance on it.
All this leads me to think that it’s a little premature to be reading the World Wide Web its last rites. After all, chances are you’re reading this right now on a web browser.
Then again – having said that, as I sit in front of my computer writing this – I did just check my email on my mobile.
A news experiment:
Theoretically, could someone shun all other media and rely solely on Twitter for news? To find out I’ve decided to tell the story of Australia’s 2010 Federal Election in under 20 tweets.
To make it more fun, I’ve introduced three rules:
- I must include tweets from people – not just news sites
- I must include tweets from the politicians who are on Twitter where possible
- I cannot use the same tweeter twice.
Here goes:
sunriseon7
Election set for Sat Aug 21 12:05 PM Jul 17th
TonyAbbottMHR
This election is about giving a great people a better government. The Coalition will end the waste, stop the taxes and stop the boats. 6:35 PM Jul 17th
JonAppleyard
According to Wayne Swan, Labor can’t stop the leaks. If you can’t govern yourself, how can you govern the country? 10:49 AM Jul 29th
emmygrrl
So PM says she’s going to cut the PR and be the “real Julia”. Let me guess, a PR hack advised her to say that? 10:25 AM Aug 2nd
JuliaGillard
Switched on the NBN in Tasmania today. It will deliver faster internet to Australians & create jobs but @TonyAbbottMHR wants to axe it. JG 12:21 PM Aug 12th
abcnews
A new opinion poll gives Labor an election-winning lead – but it’s close 5:57 AM Aug 18th
GetUp
GetUp members and vollies are EVERYWHERE today as #ausvotes! 10:22 AM Aug 21st
TimOnTwtr
Poms split their vote across 3 parties to get hung parlt. Ha! we can do it with 2 parties and a few indies! 12:17 AM Aug 22nd
4zzznews
ALP, Libs to negotiate with Independents to win office after Saturday’s election 8:37 AM Aug 23rd
AdamBandt
Together with Bob Brown & Christine Milne, just signed agt with the PM to support a Gillard govt. Real movement on climate. More to come. 11:50 AM Sep 1st
MelbourneBuzz
3 independents don’t agree with each other but have put forward a “7 point wishlist” how will this be stable? 7:40 PM Aug 25th
naomiwoodley
Both Katter and Windsor have now criticised Abbott for refusing to put Coalition policies in to Treasury for costing. 10:41 PM Aug 25th
geeksrulz
A confidential Treasury analysis has revealed an $800 million hole in the Coalition budget costings 12:11 AM Aug 10th
fourhares
IND Wilkie reflects his constituency & backs Labor. 3 Amigos should reflect theirs & support LNP! 8:04 PM Aug 28th
SBSNews
Bob Katter throws his support behind the Coalition, but indicates it’s not unconditional support 2:10 PM Sep 7th
mattymcg
Tony Windsor chose to support Labor because of the issues of broadband and climate change. Onya Tony!! 3:09 PM Sep 7th
peter_tonoli
Do we have to wait another 17 days for Oakeshott to finish talking? 3:29 PM Sep 7th
mfarnsworth
OFFICIAL: Oakeshott and Windsor back Gillard. Labor survives election 76-74. Coalition defeated. 3:31 PM Sep 7th
Done – in 18 tweets!
English 2.0
The other day I was flipping through the Daily Telegraph when I came across the headline “Chaos as Amazon
dries up”.
My first thought was “Wow, is Amazon.com in some kind of financial trouble?” Reading on, my folly was exposed as I realised the article was about that other great Amazon, the river in South America. That I immediately thought along tech lines got me thinking about the extent to which the internet, Web 2.0 and social media have influenced our language.
Terms that didn’t exist or were little-known just a few short years ago are now part of our day-to-day dialogue. Phrases like “I googled it”, “read my blog”, “send a tweet” and “I’ll IM you later” are now common.
Instant messaging too has spawned a language all its own. This clip explains some of the lingo that the tech generation have embraced as second nature (You’ll have to click through to YouTube as the video has had embed disabled):
But it’s not just the messaging folk that have all the fun. Here are some other terms associated with Web 2.0 and social media doing the rounds:
Thanks to the Web 2.0 Glossary!
Avatar: The visual (oftentimes cartoonish) representation of a person in a virtual world or virtual chat room.
Blog: Short for “weblog”, it is a series of articles usually written in a slightly informal tone. You’re reading one right now.
Blogosphere: This refers to all blogs across the Internet regardless of whether they are an individual blog or part of a blog network.
Enterprise 2.0: The process of taking Web 2.0 tools and ideas and introducing them to the workplace.
Mashup: A recent trend, it is the ‘opening up’ of websites whereby they allow other websites access to their information, allowing information from multiple websites to be combined for creative effect.
Podcast: The distribution of audio and video “shows” across the Internet, such as a video blog or an Internet radio show.
Tweet: An individual message or status update on social networking service Twitter.
Viral: The digital version of grassroots, ‘viral’ refers the process of an article, video or podcast becoming popular by being passed from person to person or rising to the top of popularity lists on social media websites.
Webcast: An audio/visual broadcast that takes place over the web. How is this different from podcast?
Having trouble keeping up? You might have something in common with this guy.
"Wow, I’ve got a story here!"
Today’s entry is purely a journalism-related one. As you may know I started a contract at a new paper last week. Well, on Tuesday I was reminded of one of the things I love about journalism.
Being a journalist, you’re always going to get a mixed bag of stories to work on. Some will be really interesting, some will be less so. Some will be sad (I had such a story this week). Some will involve merely re-writing a media release, while others will involve trying to find an angle in some fairly dry source material.
On Tuesday I was handed what seemed like a fairly dry report to read through and find an angle on for my paper’s readership. And I very nearly missed something that was staring straight at me.
After spending much of the day getting regulation comment from the appropriate spokespeople, I decided to read a section of the report I had skimmed over. I had skimmed over it because it concerned the research methodology and I was only interested in the findings.
In short, I had decided what I was looking for. Now if you don’t have a lot of time, deciding what you’re looking for can help you to turn out a fairly decent news story quickly. But it can also sometimes mean you miss out on something far more important.
Well, I’m glad I decided to read through the methodology section. For in it I found my real story.
At the start of this ramble I said I was reminded about one of the things I love about what I do. In short, that thing is the rush you get when you realise you really have something. Something more than just dry commentary or an everyday interview.
Rather, an important piece of information that your readership don’t know; one that they should know; and that they will now know because you will tell it to them.
It’s those little moments of satisfaction that make it all worthwhile.
The moral of the story? Don’t decide what you want to find. Open your mind. Think outside the square. And remember, the best stories are often to be found where a lot of people won’t go looking for them.
Social Media Day! (#smday)
@Euan addresses the crowd
A throng of tweeters, facebookers and bloggers gathered in Sydney last Wednesday to celebrate the first international “Social Media Day”.
The brainchild of online social media bible Mashable, over 600 meetings were held worldwide with Sydney’s time zone making the gathering at the Ivy Ballroom one of the first.
Participants sipped bubbly as they mingled and exchanged ideas and contact details.
Internationally acclaimed blogger and public speaker Euan Semple (Twitter: @Euan) was the keynote speaker.
Euan was one of the first to introduce social media tools into a large organisation when he worked for the BBC ten years ago and has since worked with Nokia, the World Bank and NATO.
He told the gathering the biggest challenge was trying to “demystify” social media.
“What we’re talking about is globally distributed near-instant person-to-person conversations,” he said.
“[It’s] nothing geeky, nothing about business, [it’s] just about people being able to connect.”
Giving an example of the power of social media, Euan described how his presence as speaker had come about from a Twitter conversation with Sydney event organiser Laurel Papworth.
Prior to the event I spoke to Laurel (Twitter: @SilkCharm), who was last year heralded by Marketing Magazine as being the “Head of Industry” for social media for Australia.
She told me the event represented the birth of a new industry.
“From shaky legs a few years ago [social media] is clearly making its mark on the world in a way that very few people foresaw,” she said.
“We’re heading towards the top of a curve at the moment where in about 10 years … it will be so much a part of our life.”
Laurel said the purpose of the event was to bring people together.
“With social networking online there’s an interest in meeting offline,” she said.
“There was a study done a few years ago by the World Internet Project … they showed that 20.3 per cent of people who meet online want to meet offline.
“So I’m looking forward to it because it means there’ll be a bunch of people that I only know from their Twitter handles and their Facebook avatars and now there’s a chance for me to meet them in person.”
In the spirit of social media’s participatory nature, anyone in attendance was welcome to brave the podium and address the gathering following the keynote speech.
Yours truly took up the opportunity, commenting on the implications the rise of social media is having on traditional journalism channels.
Photos by Kurt Neurauter (Twitter: @kneu_photo)
Yours truly and @SilkCharm
Reuters introduces ‘rules’ for Twitter
You will have read in this blog last July about the implications that social media tool Twitter has on traditional news mediums. Now, one of the world’s largest news wire services, Reuters, is taking those implications very seriously:
http://mashable.com/2010/03/11/reuters-social-media-policy/
Reuters are attempting to answer a lot of questions about how social media and Twitter in particular affect news coverage. Included in their new rules is a requirement that their journalists do not break news over Twitter before doing so over the wire, as well as several rules aimed at counteracting perceptions of individual bias.
Requiring their journalists to break news over the wire first is a business decision, and a fair one. For a journalist to break a story by other means and not for who they work for would be akin to an Apple employee selling a palate of iPads before the product’s release date.
Of more interest is the requirement that Reuters employees do not post anything that may indicate personal bias on Facebook, as well as the requirement that they maintain separate business and personal Twitter accounts.
This is because social media has allowed us to know so much more about the people who provide services to us, the public. In days gone by, a byline was merely a name in news reporting (Opinion was obviously another story). Now, with access to journalists via social media we can find out their likes and dislikes, partner’s names, see pictures of their pets, you get the idea…
Clearly then, Reuters is right not to want their journalists’ views broadcast across the social mediasphere. Reporting is meant to be subjective and impartial – and whether it conforms to this regularly or not – clearly knowing a journalist’s personal stance on an issue will affect how we see their reporting of it.
One thing that does puzzle me though is Reuters frowning upon their journalists following certain sources on Twitter. As a journalist, I find Twitter an extremely useful source for story ideas. The key however is to follow sources with a wide variety of opinions, which is why (to give an example) politically I follow Liberal, Labor, Greens and Independents.
It will be interesting to see if the other major wire services including Associated Press and Agence France-Presse, or AAP in Australia take heed and look at instituting similar rules.
Facebook as a tool of democracy
Social media giant Facebook has done a mammoth job in infiltrating many aspects of our lives. Like anything there are some people who love it and some who hate it. However, a recent example has shown that for individuals wanting their voice heard by government, Facebook is a very useful tool indeed.
Prior to Web 2.0 and Facebook most people let governments know their approval or disapproval at the ballot box. There have always been those who are more active in their communities in regard to speaking out about issues that concern them. However these people faced a far harder task in getting others on board, be it trying to get people along to protests or getting signatures on a petition.
Enter Facebook. The viral power of social media has now changed the way communities talk to government.
The example: Recently Waverley Municipal Council has proposed the construction of a depot on the site of Hugh Bamford Reserve in North Bondi. The project would involve the temporary excavation of much of the park to allow for the depot to be built. Once operational the site would be a hub for trucks, leading to noise and traffic congestion.
The community in North Bondi and its surrounds don’t want the depot and they’ve voted with their keyboards. This group has been created on Facebook specifically to protest against Council’s proposal:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=360699710522
In a short time the group has gained over 2,000 members. They are actively debating the issue and making their thoughts on the project known. Waverley Mayor Sally Betts clearly understands the impact this Facebook group is having. She has joined it herself and posts regularly in its forums to update people on the council’s position. Through the group, residents are replying to her posts and the conversation continues still.
What this all means is that Facebook has moved on from being merely a tool for friends to socialise online. It is now a genuine forum for political debate, and a very effective tool for communities to come together quickly, engage and speak about issues that affect them.
In days gone by the media was necessary to inform the people of what the government was doing, so that democracy could function. Now social media has entered the mix – to inform governments about what the citizens think – so that democracy can function even more effectively.
This is, indeed, a brave new world.
Doing All Write 
