March 19, 2009

In these sorts of discussions it’s often very easy to forget the most important people : THE AUDIENCE. We can get bogged down in navel-gazing and forget that without our listeners, our viewers, our online visitors, we’d be out of a job. So Chris and I went to Falmouth town to find how are the audience reacting to the changes in multi-platform delivery?


Multi-platform Journalists – Regulation and ethics

February 23, 2009


CHRIS: As we’ve discussed during the blog, journalists are expected to multi task in the way the obtain and produce content for different types of media. But does this mean that ethical standards are being affected by the increased for demand of content and the ability to learn about technological advances?

Both BBC Somerset’s Journalist and the CNN Reporter have commented on the lack of time they have. The issue of checking sources and even proof reading your own work are things that may be placed to the side if journalist’s responsibilities increase. This could cast a dark cloud over the profession, if several cases do get highlighted.

Although there has been few current examples, we are at the beginning of this new world in which we will (hopefully) be working in – a media world, that previous journalists have not worked in. I think ethics and regulations should still be of up most importance when writing content for whatever media – otherwise our reliability and reputation is at risk, as a profession.


An interesting comment made by John Lilley today after Live @5 regarding the future of content for different audiences. The BBC and other broadcasters should be aware of different treatments for the variety of audiences. For example an internet treatment would be substantially different to a local feature of BBC Radio. This is should be kept in mind, when re-working a feature/story for different media platform.

“The audience will miss out on BBC, ITV, C4 on-demand merge”

February 4, 2009


Chris: These were the words from the Broadcasters, BBC, ITV and Channel 4 regarding the news that a combined, on-demand video service will not go ahead. The Competition Commission said the audience would benefit if they were competitors rather than allies. Their argument is that the three big players would limit on demand video competition from other companies, although they believe it’s an opportunity that has been missed to develop the future of broadcasting.

I think the banning of such a merge, is a good thing as it may reduce competition between the stations. At a time when new content is in short supply and on-demand is becoming a more important factor in peoples lives, people can still obtain the same content – just on different websites. Whether this will be an issue that’ll be raised in the future is likely.