Gary Andrews

Putting to one side the majority of the unpleasantness surrounding the Baby P case, one of the interesting aspects – from a media point of view – has been the problem of the online world and any court orders relating to reporting.

Without having delved too far into the story, it’s obvious that there’s some form of court order in play here, otherwise we’d have had Baby P’s name by now, along with the names of two of the accused [1].

The crime led to an outpouring of rage on assorted sources on the internet – blogs, forums, and Facebook groups, among other places.

Because of the way the internet is – huge swathes of information all quite easy to retrieve – it’s not exactly hard to find out the names of those involved, hence the naming and shaming that followed in the aftermath of the court case.

It doesn’t take a genius the piece together the information in the press reports, crossed referenced with a bit of smart Googling. Some of the older articles with names are in assorted caches.

Much of the ire seems to be focused on the fact that that the media hasn’t named the couple who were jailed over Baby P’s death, but as Judith Townsend at Journalism.co.uk points out, naming Baby P isn’t about any notion of justice (whatever that may be), or about the Facebook campaign. It’s about confronting the reality of an online world.

Everybody who joined the Facebook group or named them online is in contempt of court. But they’re not to know the ins and outs of contempt law. Why should they? Even journalists can be a bit fuzzy on some of the laws, unless they regularly work on court reporting or in a specific field.

Most laws relating to contempt were created to ensure a fair trial; to ensure that no matter how horrific the crime, no matter how apparent the guilt, the defendant gets a fair, unprejudiced trial.

Much of the law (I’d imagine) around the Baby P case are to protect other children involved in the case, not the accused or the guilty. The law is surprisingly clear on this.

That was fine when print and broadcast were the only ways of getting your news. The judge made the order, the journalists would sometimes contest it, but if they failed then the information didn’t get printed or broadcast. Simple.

Today, it’s never been easier to join the jots, the access cache, and to publish the names (or other relevant information online). And the orders don’t apply to non-UK websites.

As the law stands, there’s been a lot of Contempt of Court committed around the Baby P case. But who should be served with any action? Facebook? Blogger? Wordpress? Google? Forum administrators? Individual bloggers? Individual posters? All of the above? None of the above?

Libel and the internet may not be perfect, but in this regard the law is streets ahead of Contempt of Court and the internet. The Baby P case has demonstrated that it’s virtually impossible to enforce Contempt laws in an online world (although I wouldn’t go as far as saying its impossible to get a fair trial).

Clearly, the laws surrounding Contempt and a fair trial need an urgent and serious overhaul. Quite what that should involve will take a far better legal brain than I, and probably about 99% of the country, have.

[1] It’s (thankfully) been a VERY long time since I’ve had to deal with child cases and courts, my immediate guess was a Section 39, although as that doesn’t apply to dead children, it might be a different court order. Section 11? I’ll have to pick up my copy of McNae’s again here as I think I need to reacquaint myself with the assorted orders to do with children and young people.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: Baby P, Contempt of Court, Facebook, law and the internet

Qwitter’s launch last week seems to have thrown the Twittersphere (God, what a horrible world) temporarily, as plenty of the site’s users suddenly find themselves in a bit of an etiquette dilemma.

Basically, Qwitter’s an application that sends you a quick email whenever anybody unfollows you, along with your last Tweet. Kind of like one of those ridiculous exit interviews companies insist on putting you through. Or the kind of social media tool that neurotic recent singletons, who pour over every minute of a a failed relationship, would love.

So far, so pointless. But if there’s on thing the internet doesn’t need, it’s a rather useless service that feeds insecurities of online friendships. God alone knows we have enough problem with that offline, and Louis Gray has a pretty good analysis of Qwitter:

“What Qwitter has done with this unnecessary “service” (and I use that term loosely) is turn a very mundane, passive act that usually reflects more on a person’s available time than a follower’s actions into an act of aggression with some seemingly dubious “reason” behind it. I can see this turning ugly, as friends who discover that friends sometimes unfollow them take it personally. This means instead of realizing that on Twitter you can go back and forth with a kind of ebb and flow as needed, those with hurt feelings from being unfollowed proceed to email demanding logic, reasons, and possibly even threatening retaliation or repercussions. Qwitter feeds insecurity and neuroses by making something simple into some kind of seeming failure or insult.

…

The thing about the internet is that it has a tendency to turn aggressive in a hurry. Twitter has, until now, avoided that Internet Troll atmosphere and been a relatively happy place to connect with people online in a very low-key and self-directed way. There are a few Twitter Trolls, but not that many, thanks largely to the anonymous unfollow and anonymous block features. Qwitter changes that, and for what?”

One of the main reason to love Twitter is the free swopping of ideas and conversation between people you wouldn’t other meet, but it doesn’t matter if the following isn’t reciprocal.

I follow plenty of people on Twitter who haven’t returned the compliment, and nor would I necessarily suspect them to. Just because I find what they have to say interesting, doesn’t mean they’re going to think the same about what I say.

And vice-versa. I have a lot of random people following me, some of whom I’ve followed back, some of who seem interesting but I’m not too concerned about following them back, and some who – like some of those I follow who don’t follow me back – I’m sure are lovely people, but there’s no interest there for me. 

To any of those people reading this, sorry it’s not personal! I’m sure I’ve probably lost a fair few Twitter followers because there’s a fair bit of football chat on my feed (which I am conscious of, and have considered setting up a separate feed for) and the sheer banality of some of my Tweets.

But it’s definitely not like Facebook, where there’s a definite awkwardness about having people add you who you’d rather not add, or debating whether you should add colleagues, or ex-girlfriends, and the like. Twitter’s a lot more laid back, and is all the better forward.

Sally at Getting Ink has also been thinking among similar lines, this time in relation to the Twitter Karma application:

“I follow people on Twitter on the basis that I find what they post interesting and relevant to me. It doesn’t necessarily follow that what I say will be equally interesting and relevant to them. So, let’s imagine I’m following someone interesting, but they’re not interested in me – do they then become LESS interesting as a consequence? Should I only be listening to people to listen to me?”

Nonetheless, it feels like Twitter’s slowly moving from the childlike to the adolescent – like the acne-ridden teenager who suddenly becomes aware of the social groups and has to decide (or try) to fit in with them or not. Whether this is a good thing or not, I’m not sure.

How Twitter works best isn’t as a popularity contest or a desire to be loved, but, as Mike Butcher says:

“It quickly became apparent that this was turning into the best use of Twitter of all. Not for long, winding conversations you might have on instant messaging, but short, to the point wise-cracks between people interspersed with a little status update here, a small observation on life there. Twitter was no longer about ’status’ or ‘what are you doing’. It was about conversation, ‘what are you thinking’, ‘what are we talking about’.

The key difference is that people who say “take this conversation over into IM” don’t get it. IM can’t do what Twitter does. You can’t instant message into “the cloud”. With Twitter you can. You can shout or whisper whatever you want to say out into the ether and anyone online can hear you. And anyone following you, even if you don;t follow them, can reply – then you may well become connected.”

And Charles Arthur notes, in his typically blunt but nonetheless spot-on style, there’s only so much Twittering you can take:

“It’s simple really. In an attention economy, there’s only so much time I can listen to what colour your curtains are. Then, I’ve got to get on and earn some money. Please, no hurt feelings though. In the meantime, I’ve resolved to try to tweet useful stuff. Though the temptation to put any old rubbish in is huge, I have to admit.”

I’ve made lots of contacts and a few good friends through Twitter already, and a lot of people in my feed often stick up very interesting links (I’m probably rather bad at doing this). It’s relaxed, interesting and fun. Kind of like an online version of Central Perk, if you will.

What it doesn’t need is people suddenly starting to take it too seriously, which is what a lot of the worry and chatter around Qwitter and Twitter Karma feels like. Have a cup of tea, relax and we can Tweet about it.

***

While I’m on the topic of Twitter, a couple more examples of how the social-networking-cum-microblogging-cum-conversation site is continuing its quest for world domination rise in popularity and usefulness.

Following on from Stephen Fry, no lesser celebrity than Britney Spears has entered the Twitterverse. Or rather a mixture of of her and, possibly, the occasional Tweet from Britney herself.

It’s very different from Stephen Fry, but is a good example of how those working with a big star or somebody slightly less gadget and web-obsessed (those are good thing by the way, before Stephen Fry gets hurt) can use a Twitter feed.

There’s some nice openness and accountability – very Web 2.0, especially this Tweet – with conversation and a team (or possibly just one woman, Lauren) updating the feed reasonably regularly. It’s a good balance for a star like Britney and is a good model for any other celebrity thinking about using Twitter.

What’s more, it gives Britney devotees, of which I’m sure there are many out there (I can’t class myself as one of them, although Toxic was a great pop record) a chance to get closer to her than any celebrity magazine could offer.

Now there’s a thought. Could Twitter kill off Heat magazine?

***

The other sign that Twitter is slowly marching on came in a phone conversation today. I was in PR mode, pitching a small item to a few local papers, and rung an old university friend and colleague who worked on one of these papers.

I’d barely begun explaining what I was ringing about before he cut in to tell me that he knew what I was ringing about and had already mentioned it to his editor, all because of a couple of Tweets I’d done earlier in the week.

Now – if either as a PR or a journalist or both – if that doesn’t get you excited about the power of social media tools like Twitter for ‘traditional’ media work, then I guess nothing will.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: Britney Spears, Britney Spears on Twitter, celebrities on Twitter, Facebook, journalism, journalism and social media, online etiquette, online relationships, Qwitter, Stephen Fry, Twitter, Twitter Karma

A recent Guardian Elevator Pitch features my colleague Ben, and his social networking site for cyclists: meandmybicycle.com.

But this post isn’t just to push his site, it’s also to pick up on one of his comments in the article:

“I do believe that social networks are the next big thing when it comes to specific interests. They are just so dynamic and take traditional outlets like magazines – often the glue for interest groups – onto the next level. The wisdom of the crowds thing really means that niche social nets have tremendous value. “

It’s a view I’d agree with as well. Now that sites like Facebook and MySpace have peaked, some areas of the media talk about them being in decline. They’re not, they’ve just plateaued as you’d expect with any kind of similar service.

But as users find the limitations of the big one-size-catches-all social networks, so they’ll turn elsewhere to networking with people with similar interests. While Facebook is great for keeping up with friends, organising parties, events and other suchlikes, one area it falls down on is the groups for like-minded users to share interests.

The groups that work well are the petition or long-standing fan groups, or the small groups either set up for, say, charity sponsorship (I’m running the marathon, please donate – that kind of thing). The rest tend to muddle around, starting off strongly before petering out, which normally works ok for petitions, but very few of them build a proper community [1]. The rest tend to be inactive personal statements.

Take my own profile: I’m a member of two Exeter City fan groups (and, until I did a mini group cull, a further three) both of which have a similar crossover in terms of membership. In addition, I’m also a ‘fan’ of Exeter City as well as Exeweb, the independent fans forum, which has a healthy social side to it. Unsurprisingly, the same faces pop up in these areas as well. I’m also on the City fans mailing list, Gnet, and subscribed to the official site. [2]

So, now I’ve got over half a dozen different Exeter City fan groups/forums on and off Facebook all of which are slightly different to the others; that is simply too many to realistically keep track off. Exeweb and Gnet are both useful outside of Facebook but they don’t allow me to post videos, blogs, or build a supporter profile, or even create a micro-group (post-match Old Timers drinkers, Birmingham Exiles, that sort of thing).

And that’s where Ben’s site, built using a simple Ning platform, comes in. Ben’s site provides all the social networking sites a niche site needs. You can just stick to the forums, or you can get really involved and video bog from Seesmic, post videos, photos, comment on blogs, or create your own group to complain about the signage in Camden, all while building up your own profile, which isn’t available on a forum, but may not be specific enough on Facebook or Myspace.

If Facebook could sort of their groups, they’d have another powerful tool in their social media behemoth. As it is, if you’re a cyclist or an Exeter City fan, you have to trawl through several groups of low to medium activity that vary in quality and don’t quite give that social media feel you were looking for. Niche networks, while unlikely to be as phenomenally successful as Facebook et al and certainly won’t overtake them, nonetheless fill a gap in the market and some even have the potential to make a bit of money. Why place a biking equipment advert on Facebook when you can target the social network that solely consist of the exact people you’re looking to target?

[1] That isn’t to say the groups can’t be a good PR tool, but you’re still reliant on getting the numbers in.

[2] Interestingly, the two Facebook groups I’ve joined that have a lively and active community are A Cup of Tea Solves Everything and I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue Appreciation Society. They’re an excellent example of how a group can work well.

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: Ben Ayers, Elevator Pitch, Facebook, Facebook groups, Meandmybicycle, MySpace, niche social networks, Ning, social networking

An excellent post, and interesting discussion, over at David North’s Digital Rant on, in light of the Byron report and plenty of stories in the media, whether or not the government should regulate social networks, and if such regulation is even possible.

My own feeling is that any regulation probably wouldn’t work, because the web moves too fast, and probably wouldn’t solve long-standing problems or fears about the number of children using social network sites.

[Although you could also argue that as these kids have been using the internet all their lives, they're probably a hell of a lot more switched on and web-literate than most of us adults.]

If any social network wants to get a bit of good PR, they should develop/announce new privacy controls, get a bit of positive press, and chances are the media will move on elsewhere if they think the issue’s being sorted, and the government may well forget about it, and find something else equally evil to turn their sites upon.

Quite what privacy controls or codes or conduct or whatever else they could put it place is a moot point. In the comments, I suggested that a privacy tour that explains exactly how privacy settings work and how you can protect yourself and your personal details might be the best interim solution.

David also muses that firstly, parents should take more responsibility, and also that if social networks started from a point of locked down info, that might be another solution. Although he also concedes it would give a greater learning curve so could discourage new users.

One thing is clear: the fact that not even those who work with or around the sites on a regular basis can see an immediate solution means those who don’t (ie Gordon and other politicians) [1] shouldn’t rush in with ill-thought through and knee-jerk regulation and legislation.

I won’t hold my breath.

[1] Perhaps they should put the person who runs 10 Downing Street’s Twitter and Flickr feeds in charge of web strategy. At least it’s somebody who a) knows how to use a Web 2.0 service and b) Seems to understand how Web 2.0 works.

Breath still not being held. 

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: Bebo, children and social networks, Facebook, Flickr, internet regulation, online parental control, online privacy, social networking, Twitter

The only surprising aspect to the PCC’s announcementthat it’s looking into how newspapers get information from person profiles on Facebook was the length of time it’s taken for such an announcement.

It’s an issue that was bound to crop up sooner or later, and is also an area that has got no less grey since previous bloggings.

If it makes users of Facebook, MySpace, Bebo et al more aware of the potential consequences of putting personal information up online, then that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If you’re still happy to share that information, then fine.

However, it’s difficult to see exactly how the PCC would police this if they did write it into a code of conduct. The suggestion seems to be the levels of privacy applied to the individual profile but that would still turn the grey area and even deeper shade of grey. Exactly what point is the privacy setting considered too private for journalists?

If the information is available online, then the journalist has as much right as anybody else to access it. There’s good stories, angles, and information to be had if you’re a reporter who can master searching on social nets and sites like Technorati.

The bigger question is probably not so much accessing it but how the information’s presented. The largest problem I have with lifting information from a social net is the accuracy of it. As I’ve said before, it’s a useful tool and can give excellent background, but I’d be dubious about using it as the only source, or even the main source, for a story.

It’ll be interesting to see where things go from here. As Roy Greenslade writes:

“I can understand why the PCC is carrying out the research, but I wonder whether any editor will sign up to any restriction on his/her paper’s right to seek out information that people have themselves uploaded.”

written by Gary Andrews \\ tags: Facebook, journalism ethics, Press Complaints Commission, Roy Greenslade