British Libel Law

The following was written by Erin Kapp, a UW-Madison MA student:

In the US, we're used to the idea that truth is the ultimate defense against libel. If someone wants to sue me for libel, it's up to them to prove that what I said was not true. If it was--even if they disagree--they're out of luck.

Simon Singh, a British science writer, is being sued for libel because he said that the British Chiropractor Association "happily promotes bogus treatments." The promotion he referred to included claims that chiropractic treatment can help with ear infections and asthma.

Singh recently co-authored a book analyzing the scientific evidence for various flavors of alternative medicine, including chiropractic treatment. The remainder of the article was largely information about the results of studies on the effectiveness of chiropractic manipulation and some instances in which chiropractic manipulation has seriously harmed people.

The BCA sued Singh for libel. The judge ruled that the phrase in question implied that the BCA was being dishonest. Britain's libel law puts the burden of proof on the defendent--meaning he or she has to prove that what they said was not libel. Given these conditions, it's perhaps not surprising that Singh lost.

Singh has been granted permission to appeal, but needless to say, the outcome isn't a given.

As an aspiring science writer, this case illustrates a worrying situation. Writers and scientists should be able to comment openly and honestly on scientific claims and evidence without having to be concerned that someone with the opposite view is going to sue them in Britain.

If open conversation about scientific issues is suppressed because libel law is applied so freely, as it is in Britain, that's bad news for journalists and for scientists. I—and any other writer or scientist—should be able to honestly critically evaluate science and people's treatment of science without the specter of being sued in Britain.

Jay Leno Show: Blunder or Brilliant?

This post was written by a writer publishing under the name MediaMaven:

Cultural arbiters from across the media world have been weighing in on the new Jay Leno Show of late. While Leno premiered only one month ago, critics from The New Yorker to the The New York Times have been quick to highlight the failings of Leno's new format. In a truly scathing review, The New Yorker's Nancy Franklin decries the program for poor quality, and chides NBC Universal for making one of the worst programming decisions possible--sacrificing the popular Tonight Show host for the quirkier Conan. Over at the Times, the Media Decoder blog reminds us that ratings for both programs are already in decline, as are local news broadcasts dependent upon a strong lead-in.

And yet, the woes of NBCU in the ratings are nothing new. While Jay may not keep those initial 18 million pairs of eyeballs tuned in every night, who is to say that a standard 10 p.m. drama would not have hemorrhaged viewers even faster? Due to the low cost of producing the new program, Jay's show may very easily turn a profit for the company.

Perhaps most importantly, the show has proven to be DVR-resistant, an early NBCU justification for the format. A recent article in the Hollywood trade Variety points out that as DVR use becomes more widespread, TV dramas are the most replayed. The Jay Leno Show, on the other hand, sees very little playback--which means good news for advertisers eager to have their commercials seen, not skipped.

All of which leads me to ask--was the creation of the Jay Leno Show a blunder or brilliant? I think only a full season of ratings and reviews will tell for sure.

USA Today--No Longer America's Newspaper?

This is from a writer publishing under the handle MediaMaven:

New numbers from the Audit Bureau of Circulations reveal that The Wall Street Journal has overtaken the list as the leader in the newspaper world. USA Today has fallen to second place, down 17 percent in just the last six months.

Two important industry trends account for this shift in the publishing landscape. First, Marriott hotels have changed their practice of automatically delivering USA Today to guests' rooms. Now, travelers can choose among three papers, the Journal included. According to Editor & Publisher, hotel sales of the Journal have benefited 20 percent from the policy shift.

Perhaps most reflective of today's changing media landscape, these Audit Bureau numbers also allow for the counting of paid online subscribers. While usatoday.com can be read for free, wsj.com requires a subscription to access the majority of content.

Will the success of the Journal now prompt other publications to charge for online access in an effort to boost their own subscriptions? With the newspaper business in dire straits, this may be the first step in a newly evolving business model. Of the top 25 newspapers in the nation, The Wall Street Journal was the only one to post an improvement. I have a feeling that media industries will soon look to Rupert Murdoch's model to take their own bottom lines back into the black--sooner rather than later.

Reporting on the Taliban

From a UW-Madison student, Beth Mueller:

Want to write an engaging book? Study in-depth reporting!

After reading Ahmed Rashid's Taliban: Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia , I've come to the conclusion that anyone writing a book on current events or recent history (or however we categorize that), should study the reporting techniques Rashid uses.

Highlights:

1. Detail after detail about the personal histories of major Taliban figures. When a regime is this secretive and often difficult to understand, this kind of information is just vital for understanding. An example: Rashid talks about the common background many Taliban recruits shared as orphans in gender-segregated refugee camps, being taught an extreme Islamic fundamentalism. No wonder then, that they oppressed women as rulers.

2. Narrative storytelling. Be still my heart, this is a book about history that actually engages readers. Setting scenes and giving lots of physical descriptions really draws interest to the mounds of facts Rashid dug up.

Drawback:

1. Somebody please get this guy some subheads. In-depth reporting requires serious structuring as it stands as long-form journalism, not to mention something as long-form as a book. Rashid's work is interesting and engaging, but still hard to read because it has little structural organization, which is needed even within the loosely grouped chapters.

In all, the reporting techniques Rashid used made the story of the Taliban pop in a personal way. This book, published right before Sept. 11 and U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, certainly provides valuable information in a fantastic genre.

The Ticker Debate

By Abby Sears, UW-Madison

In an age where the attention spans of readers and viewers are relatively short, journalists are constantly searching for new ways to rope them in and maintain their interest. This New York Times article discusses a new way for cable networks to keep viewers tuned in – by keeping their tickers running during commercial breaks. For networks, they’re able to deliver the essential information viewers want to see at all times. For advertisers, however, the constant ticker could mean paying for a smaller advertising space that isn’t exclusively focused on their product or service. Does the ticker distract viewers from the advertising messages in front of them, or does it provide them with immediate access to information?

According to the article, the constant ticker might not be as bad for advertisers as one might think. For one, it keeps viewers from changing the channel during commercial breaks, which means the viewer is more likely to watch at least some of the commercial as opposed to watching something else. Having a constant ticker would force both the advertising and news industries to change somewhat. Advertisers would need to redesign their campaigns to allot for the ticker space while still drawing the viewer’s attention, and the television news industry would need to alter the use of the ticker to keep the viewer tuned in while still giving them vital information. All in all, I think the Ticker Debate reflects a popular ongoing trend in today’s media world – how can we grasp the public’s attention, maintain it and still provide them with the most up-to-date information before the competition?

By a journalism student at UW-Madison:

As industry experts continue the debate over which direction journalism will head in the future, it is good to see some news organizations being pro active and at least trying to create new approaches to make newspapers more financially viable. An AP article about the LA Times highlights how the newspaper has retooled itself. The LA Times' new model is actually one that our J401 class discussed within the last week.
The LA Times decided that it was reorganizing its newsroom into a round-the-clock operation, transforming its web edition into its breaking news center while offering expanded, analytical coverage in its print addition. According to the AP article, the print version would focus on editorials, features, investigative reporting and trend stories, while the web will offer multimedia options and up-to-the-minute information.
I personally think this is a great model for all newspapers to follow. Most newspapers simply publish the exact same information in print and online, while actually offering more multimedia and interactive material online. Why wouldn't a reader then choose to simply read online then? They get more information, and they are not missing anything they would find in print.
In order for newspapers to remain viable, they must be open to these new approaches, and they must let go of the archaic ways of the old days. It is sad to see traditional print journalism change, but print must change if it ever wants to survive. My last blog entry focused on print media finding its niche. In my opinion, this is it.
The Internet's obvious advantage is that it is instantaneous. People look to the Internet for quick snippets of information. Newspaper will never be able to compete with that. Between TV, radio, and the Internet, they have breaking news covered.
In-depth analysis, investigative pieces, and follow-ups are a perfect fit for print though. People don't want to sit and stare at a computer screen for a long time to read long stories, they want that in their hands, like a book. Newspapers were originally built to be in-depth anyway. It is time to go back to print's roots, analyze its strengths in comparison to other forms of media, and like the article says. "Break it on the web, expand on it in print."

A web of connectedness

From UW-Madison student Emily Bisek:

Check out this New York Times' series One in Eight Million. This multimedia compilation of stories from interesting and unique people throughout the city is interesting in a variety of ways, but perhaps the most intriguing element is the fact that the newsroom is pursuing such a series to begin with. This human interest series serves a very different purpose than the other sections- focusing on the human elements of everyday life, its challenges and life's little accomplishments. The use of multimedia to achieve this perspective works wonderfully, allowing viewers to hear the Jim Romano's voice, Ed Grajales' sighs and Elizabeth Cousins' laughter. The comments on every story are also very uplifting, hopeful and, to a certain extent, as inspiring as the stories themselves. For example, many readers wished Freda Degannes many blessings, wishes and prayers after viewing her miracle. The humanness of One in Eight Million permeates not only the series itself, but the attached reader comments, making for a little web of connectedness rarely seen in newspapers across the country.