Martin Moore

This post was first published at PBS MediaShift Idea Lab on Thursday 30th June 2011

The smell of public activism wafted across this year’s Knight Civic Media conference at MIT.

Mohammed Nanabhay from Al Jazeera English (AJE) spoke about how Al Jazeera covered the Egyptian revolution. Political consultant Chris Faulkner spoke about Tea Party activism; Yesenia Sanchez, an organizer for the P.A.S.O./Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, talked about the “Undocumented, Unafraid and Unapologetic” campaign; NPR’s Andy Carvin spoke about curating and verifying tweets from Egypt, Libya, Syria and elsewhere in the Arab Spring; and Baratunde Thurston, digital director of The Onion, gave a tremendous riff about his own — and his mother’s — activism.

If discussions were not actually about Tahrir Square, Tunisia or the Gay Girl in Damascus, they were infused by the same spirit.

Given this activist spirit, it was highly fitting that, at the start of the conference last week, Chris Csikszentmihalyi announced that Ethan Zuckerman would be succeeding him as director of MIT’s Center for Civic Media (where the conference was held). Zuckerman has been a central figure nurturing, filtering and aggregating civic media over the last decade at Harvard’s Berkman Center and particularly through Global Voices Online that he set up with Rebecca McKinnon in 2005.

Civic media is hard to define, Zuckerman told the audience. It combines at least three elements:

• Organizing in a virtual and physical space simultaneously
• Self-documentation using participatory media
• Use of broadcast media as an amplifier

Digital tools for civic purposes

In Tunisia, for example, people recorded themselves protesting and then published their recordings on Facebook. In Egypt, Facebook helped people organize political meetings and support groups. Zuckerman referred to other examples across the world where people were using digital tools for civic purposes. In Russia, people have been tracking wildfires using Ushahidi at Russian-Fires.ru. (Ushahidi is a Knight News Challenge winner.) In the United States, at LandmanReportcard.com, farmers and landowners have been keeping records of visits from “Landmen,” negotiators for oil and gas companies, to expose disinformation and make sure they get a fair deal.

In Egypt, the public and the media learned from one another, AJE’s Nanabhay told the conference attendees. People recorded themselves protesting and published it online. Al Jazeera amplified those recordings. As a consequence, people recorded themselves more. It was a self-perpetuating cycle of public media that grew and grew.

People are now all too conscious of the power of self-produced media, Nanabhay said. In the past, people committed dramatic “spectacles of dissent” in the belief that this was the only way of grabbing the attention of mainstream media. Now they stand with “a rock in one hand and a cell phone in the other,” recording, publishing and promoting themselves and their causes, he said.

In the United States, the grown-up children of illegal immigrants have been taking videos of themselves “coming out” as having no documentation. The more people who take videos of themselves and publish them on the Net, the more empowered they feel, and the more others join them. See, for example, this YouTube video of an Undocumented, Unafraid and Unapologetic rally in March.

NPR’s Carvin spoke about how many of his connections and sources in Syria, who had started tweeting anonymously, were now using their real names and pictures. They had crossed a line, they said, and there was no going back. If they were to die, then they wanted others to know who they were.

The conference captured the flavor of how people are now using digital tools to empower themselves and give volume to their dissent — though this is by no means all about public anger and protest. Cronicas de Heroes Juarez, a project that came out of the Center for Future Civic Media, gathers and projects good news stories from the town of Juarez, Mexico. It was set up to balance the many bad news stories coming from the town that were creating an impression of a place in hopeless decline.

Public empowerment

A number of this year’s Knight News Challenge prizes reflected this feeling of public empowerment, of people taking control of their own representation and information.

The biggest prize winner was The Public Laboratory, a project that initially appeared less digital and more paper, scissors, stone. The project uses string, balloons, kites and cameras to take aerial photographs of landscapes. These photographs are then threaded together digitally to provide detailed information about land use, pollution, and the progress of environmental initiatives. The project found its calling after the Gulf oil spill when satellite photographs simply were not detailed enough to see the spread of oil or its impact on the environment.

Zeega, another of this year’s big winners, will help people video their own stories and edit them together on its open-source HTML5 platform. NextDrop gets even more practical still. It will provide a service that will tell communities on the ground in Hubli, Karnataka, India when water is available. The Tiziano project emerged from work done in Kurdistan and is intended to give communities the equipment, tools and training to illustrate their own lives.

These projects are highly pragmatic, focused on the public, not media professionals, and apply existing technologies to real-world problems. They don’t start with the technology and then figure out what you might do with it.

In this world, in which the public organizes and records themselves, the role of the news media changes. Mainstream media shifts from recording media content itself to gathering existing material, verifying it, contextualizing it, and amplifying it. Other Knight News prizes recognized and were directed at this shift: iWitness and SwiftRiver, and — for data – Overview and Panda.

The Knight News Challenge has evolved a lot since its inauguration in 2006. But its strength lies in the consistency of its aims, and in the growing relevance of those aims: helping to inform and engage communities. Long may it continue.

This post was first published on the Media Standards Trust website on Friday 28th January 2011.

In trying to work out how far phone hacking spread at the News of the World people have, understandably, focused on the Mulcaire papers and the court records.

But there would appear to be another set of records that have rarely been mentioned but ought to shed more light on the case. Those are the records of the ‘very thorough investigation’ by the London solicitors Burton Copeland.

Burton Copeland are referred to a number of times by the legal manager of News Group Newspapers Tom Crone, News of the World editor Colin Myler, managing editor of the News of the World Stuart Kuttner, and by Andy Coulson, in their evidence to the Commons Select Committee in 2009.

It was Andy Coulson who asked the solicitors to come in and gave them free rein to look at financial records and emails, and talk to staff:

“I brought in Burton Copeland, an independent firm of solicitors to carry out an investigation”, Coulson told Tom Watson MP. “We opened up the files as much as we could. There was nothing that they asked for that they were not given” (Q.1719).

The solicitors were given the freedom, Colin Myler said, “to absolutely oversee the investigation to cooperate with the police, to be a bridgehead, to give whatever facility the police required. It was completely hands-off, if you like, for transparency from the company’s point of view. It was a nine month investigation” (Q.1384).

During these nine months they were, according to Tom Crone, actually at News International or in contact with staff, on a daily basis:

“Burton Copeland were in the office virtually every day or in contact with the office every day”, Crone said to Paul Farrelly MP. “My understanding of their remit was that they were brought in to go over everything and find out what had gone on, to liaise with the police” (Q.1395).

The firm “looked at all of the financial records; and there was subsequently an email check done which went to 2,500 emails” (Q.1397).

This included reviewing the payments made by the News of the World to Glen Mulcaire. Mulcaire’s payments were, Stuart Kuttner said “all accounted for in the documentation” and “that is the material that either directly on their own account to the investigating police team, or through Burton Copeland, the solicitor who was looking into these things at News International, was all disclosed” (Q.1663).

By the time they had finished the law firm had amassed a considerable stack of evidence. “Burton Copeland came in”, Crone said, “they were given absolutely free-range to ask whatever they wanted to ask. They did risk accounts and they have got four lever-arch files of payment records, everything to do with Mulcaire” (Q.1396).

These lever-arch files, and the other information about emails and financial accounts would, therefore, now seem quite relevant and useful to the new police investigation.

Yet they are not in the public domain. They are not recorded in the evidence given to the Select Committee. They are not available online and, when I called Burton Copeland and asked them about the investigation I was told the firm was ‘not in a position to discuss anything’, not even if any of the files related to their investigation were in the public domain.

Perhaps, as part of its new strategy for being more open, News International could hand the files to the police to help with its new investigation.

Jeremy Hunt has persisted with his local TV idea despite the copious slings and arrows flung at it. Why has he kept with it? Is it because he believes it will promote local democracy and the Big Society? If so, he is – unfortunately – horribly misguided.

Jeremy’s Big Idea

The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport this week launched his big idea for local TV. He proposed to launch a new national channel – effectively Channel 6 (or should we just call it ‘Six’) – within which there will be ‘opt-outs’ for local TV. In other words, local companies (or charities, or community groups) will be able to pitch for an hour or more on Channel 6, in which to broadcast locally relevant TV content.

Same house with a new roof

This is a slight adaptation of an idea Hunt has been talking about for months now. Previously it was simply for a network of about 80 local TV services. Now the Local Media Action Plan sees these services as part of a national network. This way – the government hopes – the national channel can make national advertising deals and co-ordinate these with the local provider, thereby making both more financially viable.

Why has Hunt persisted with it?

Hunt is clearly a smart man. He got a first in PPE from Magdelen College, Oxford. He founded a very successful company providing information on education courses. He is also politically astute and cool under fire. Last week, during a Q&A he was doing with Ray Snoddy at the LSE, a few dozen students stormed the event chanting ‘Minister of Culture, Tory Vulture!’. They yelled at the Minister through loud hailers for about 15 minutes before leaving. Throughout the protest Hunt sat very calmly, answering questions when there was an appropriate pause.

So it is worth trying to work out why he has persisted with this rather strange idea.

Is it because of industry demand?

One could understand why a minister for media might want to help out an industry in dire difficulty, and local news certainly is in dire difficulty. Trinity Mirror’s share price has declined by 85% since 2007. Johnston Press has fared even worse.

But those within the industry have not reacted warmly to the Local Media Action Plan. Sly Bailey, CEO of Trinity Mirror, called it ‘an idea that doesn’t add up and doesn’t make sense’.

Trinity Mirror has, she said on Wednesday, already assessed the local TV idea after buying Guardian Media Group’s local papers. Based on this assessment – and particularly the experience of Channel M – they could not see how it could be profitable.

ITV, which already provides regional news services across the country, has in the past been quite clear that regional news is not profitable and that it will not continue to provide it indefinitely. Something Hunt said he is quite relaxed about.

So the Minister isn’t doing this to satisfy industry demand.

Is it because of consumer demand?

Consumers say they like the idea of local news. Regular surveys show that people value local news as an ideal (e.g. see Ofcom’s 2009 ‘Local and reginonal media’ report pp.53-54). Hunt referenced one of these surveys in his announcement this week, saying that ‘8 out of 10 people in this country consider local news important’.

But such ‘demand’ should be taken with a big pinch of salt. People have significantly different ideas of what ‘local’ means. If I live in Swansea, Cardiff news is not local. The Local Media Action Plan will, at best, cover a few dozen urban areas, leaving many people uncovered or only able to access a service that is not, in their view, local.

Demand for low budget TV is also untested. When people think of local TV news they think of the production values of BBC and ITV. This is not what DCMS is proposing. In its plan people would be making an hour of TV for about £2,000. This would look very different from what the BBC and ITV currently provide. Think Alan Partridge broadcasting from his bedroom rather than Look East.

Where we can assess demand very clearly is for paid-for local newspapers, and demand for these is spiralling ever downwards.

So the Minister isn’t doing this to satisfy any obvious local demand.

Is it because he thinks it will promote local democracy?

Since it is not for industry and it is not for the consumer then perhaps we should assume the best intentions – that the main driver behind Hunt’s persistence is a genuine commitment to local democracy and the Big Society. In his speech launching the Local Media Action Plan, Hunt said that ‘Our vision of a connected, big society is one in which we really do value the local as much as the national or international.’

He lamented – as he has done on many previous occasions – that cities like Sheffield, Bristol and Birmingham do not have local TV stations when Dublin, Galway, Lyon, Marseille, Catalonia, and Calgary do.

And he said it was ‘painful’ that the UK had “one of the most centralised media ecologies of any developed country”, arguing that much greater localism was a good thing.

If this is his aim then it is a laudable one.

That’s a shame because it won’t

Unfortunately if this is Hunt’s aim it is misplaced. The plan will not restore or replenish local democracy, and could well have the opposite effect to the one Hunt intends.

This is mainly because his plan is focused on the media – TV – and not the underlying problem.

DCMS plans for local media seem to have become fixated with TV (and specifically with digital terrestrial TV). Yet the problem that needs addressing is not TV (nor is it print). The problem is not that ITV is unlikely to continue with regional TV news after 2014. Nor is the problem that local newspapers are in terminal decline, sad though this may be.

The problem we need to address is how we keep people informed about local news and events so they participate fully in democratic society. The problem is how we keep public and private bodies honest and accountable.

Focusing on TV (and on digital terrestrial TV – DTT) is highly unlikely to do this because:

• Few of those people actively engaged in trying to jumpstart local community engagement, provide local information or keep local bodies accountable are using TV to do it. TV is expensive to produce, cumbersome, and ill-suited to serving many of the information needs of the local community.
• TV is pretty poor at fulfilling the democratic functions that need addressing. Take, as an example, the poster boy for local TV – Witney TV (which has just announced it is going county wide and might bid for space on Channel 6). Witney TV is quite clear that it is about good news stories. It broadcasts the equivalent of the ‘and finally’ on the news. It does not, in other words, keep the public authorities honest and accountable – nor does it aim to.
• TV is not a route to creating a sustainable, long term solution to the decline of public interest local news. It is not inherently collaborative, it requires initial and ongoing investment, and it does not have a history of pro-am partnership, which is crucial to the future of local media services.
• Nor is TV flexible in what it defines as ‘local’. It relies heavily on technology like transmitters. As Rick Waghorn has eloquently written, if you want to provide local TV on DTT ‘then you better find an army of fellas to get up every roof-top on Birkenhead and re-align every aerial to ensure that you’re getting the right ‘local’ TV station off your ‘local’ transmitter’.

This is not to say that TV should be ignored, far from it. Rather that TV is only one of the ways in which to engage people in local issues, provide local information, and perform the role of the ‘Fourth Estate’.

What the Minister ought to do instead

If the government wants to address issues like the growing local democratic deficit, or how to keep public bodies honest and accountable, then rather than focus on imposing a top down ‘solution’ it should concentrate on nurturing bottom-up innovation, collaboration and entrepreneurship.

DCMS should think about how the government can provide a framework in which new forms of local information provision can flourish.

This could include some seed funding like the £25m taken from the BBC’s license fee, but doesn’t have to. In reality it is about nurturing new uses of media, and new types of engagement. It means encouraging non-profits, local community organisations and businesses to get more involved in information production and distribution. It means making communities aware of the (mostly free) tools that enable anyone to participate in the creation of media, and that provide a great stepping stone to community engagement.

The most depressing thing about the Local Media Action Plan is that it may, rather than encouraging new forms of local democratic media, dampen and suppress them.

But the plan has not gone through yet. There is still time to change course. But, given how many slings and arrows Hunt has already endured without shifting direction it is hard to see things changing his mind now.

Links to stuff I’ve read this week about where news may – or may not – be going:

‘Biggest document leak in history’ – The Iraq War Logs

• More bigger leaks (as previously suggested on this blog). This time The Bureau for Investigative Journalism helped Wikileaks work with more news organisations to ‘mediate’ the nearly 400,000 Iraq War Logs. In addition to hooking Assange & Co up with Channel 4′s Dispatches the Bureau for Investigate Journalism (TBIJ) also launched the Iraq War Logs website, with its own stories from the files, and links to original documents.

Google invests $5 million in news, sort of – ‘Google to give $5million to journalism non-profits‘

• Google announced it would be putting $2 million towards news innovation in the US and $3 million internationally. In the US Google has given the Knight Foundation charge of directing the money. Internationally… we don’t know yet.

Knight News Challenge 2011 launches

• Knight launched its fifth – and final? – Knight News Challenge, with different parameters than previous competitions. This time it called for entries in four specific categories: mobile, sustainability, community, and authenticity. The Media Standards Trust was very pleased to be cited as one of Knight’s previous winners along with Spot.us, Document Cloud, and Patchwork Nation.

von Ahn and Castells at the Royal Society – Web Science Conference 2010

• The future of the web – web science – talks are now available online at the Royal Society. I would highly recommend Luis von Ahn’s lecture explaining how he has used mass collective intelligence to digitise millions of books, and Manuel Castells strong defence of the web as a source of happiness

MediaBugs goes national – nieman lab

• MediaBugs, an ingenious online service for capturing mistakes in news and alerting news organisations, announced it was expanding across the US (having previously been based in San Francisco). Next stop the UK?