Ada Lovelace Day

About The Authors

Suw Charman-Anderson

Suw Charman-Anderson

Suw Charman-Anderson is a social software consultant and writer who specialises in the use of blogs and wikis behind the firewall. With a background in journalism, publishing and web design, Suw is now one of the UK’s best known bloggers, frequently speaking at conferences and seminars.

Her personal blog is Chocolate and Vodka, and yes, she’s married to Kevin.

Email Suw

Kevin Anderson

Kevin Anderson

Kevin Anderson is a freelance journalist and digital strategist with more than a decade of experience with the BBC and the Guardian. He has been a digital journalist since 1996 with experience in radio, television, print and the web. As a journalist, he uses blogs, social networks, Web 2.0 tools and mobile technology to break news, to engage with audiences and tell the story behind the headlines in multiple media and on multiple platforms.

From 2009-2010, he was the digital research editor at The Guardian where he focused on evaluating and adapting digital innovations to support The Guardian’s world-class journalism. He joined The Guardian in September 2006 as their first blogs editor after 8 years with the BBC working across the web, television and radio. He joined the BBC in 1998 to become their first online journalist outside of the UK, working as the Washington correspondent for BBCNews.com.

And, yes, he’s married to Suw.

E-mail Kevin.

Member of the Media 2.0 Workgroup
Dark Blogs Case Study

Case Study 01 - A European Pharmaceutical Group

Find out how a large pharma company uses dark blogs (behind the firewall) to gather and disseminate competitive intelligence material.


free page hit counter



hit counter script


All content © Kevin Anderson and/or Suw Charman

Interview series:
at the FASTforward blog. Amongst them: John Hagel, David Weinberger, JP Rangaswami, Don Tapscott, and many more!

Corante Blog

Tuesday, August 28th, 2007

Trying to fit a square ‘news peg’ into a round hole

Posted by Kevin Anderson

Today, l received a call from a BBC producer - I’ll leave out which BBC outlet - who wanted to discuss a story on the next generation internet. It was loosely based on an Associated Press story that Japan was going to fund research for new network technology to “replace the Internet to tackle growing quality and security problems”. The producer said that the US Congress had so far not funded such research, and that Japan was the first government to fund the research for what she initially called ‘Internet 2′.

I said, no it isn’t. The Internet 2 project in the United States has been up and running since the mid-90s. She countered that Japan was the first government to fund such a project. No, it isn’t. The NSF in the US and CERN in Europe have been funding similar work for years. And last I looked, the NSF was a US government agency so to say that the US Congress hadn’t allocated specific funding might be true, but to say that no such government funding exists in the US is false.

The AP article itself - at least the one that I found on the International Herald Tribune site - was really poorly written with some basic factual errors, but all it would have taken was a quick Google on ‘internet 2′ or ‘next generation internet’ to uncover a number of such projects, either proposed or already in place. CERN built the first intercontinental 10-Gigabet ethernet WAN in 2005. And really, some would say that the next generation internet is already being deployed in the form of IPv6. The Chinese CERN has been touting their IPv6 project since 2004. And the project that Japan is talking about sounds eerily familiar to the Global Environment for Networking Investigations initiative announced in 2005 and again funded by the NSF.

After a while, the producer admitted that she didn’t know about all of these things and didn’t know much about the story, but just wanted to have a discussion about what the next generation internet might look like for consumers.

This happens in tech news all the time: A story comes up which is not news to anyone in the industry, but is news to a producer with no background in tech. That’s fair enough. It’s a specialist subject and it can take time for stories to acquire interest to the non-tech literate, but what really put me off taking part is that the producer had done so little preparation apart from reading a really brief AP story.

The problem is that this isn’t isolated to technology coverage. I know that as a journalist, we’re mostly generalists and are called on to report on a wide range of topics. But a quick internet search and some basic research can give most journalists what they need, and it would have most likely made this producer aware that there was ‘no there, there’. It was a flimsy ‘news peg’ based on a lot of inaccurate information.

In the end, I declined to take part in the dicussion. It made me really uncomfortable that although her facts were wrong, that she still wanted to run with the segment. I know she’s got 24 hours to fill, but this is a point of ethics. No journalist should be setting up a piece based on a flimsy premise or, worse, false information.

These kind of false discussions happen quite often. As a matter of fact, I am tired of the media being a controversy-creation industry. Suw and I have written about it in terms of technology or science coverage, but this also happens in social and current affairs journalism. But hey, why let the facts stand in the way of a good story?

Email a copy of 'Trying to fit a square 'news peg' into a round hole' to a friend

EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.





E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

5 Responses to “Trying to fit a square ‘news peg’ into a round hole”

  1. Serrin Says:

    This is the exact reason why it enrages me to see people deify “good journalism”, such as in Keen’s”Cult of the Amateur”.

  2. martin brice Says:

    thank you for being firm in sticking with the basic principles and ethics of accurate, honest, well-researched journalism. making more people aware/better informed about the changes and challenges related to IPv6/next generation internet is hard enough. publishing an article/story with a lot of inaccuracies & myths just makes it even more confusing to make other people appreciate how standards on the internet are changing, hopefully, for the better.

  3. Phil Says:

    Depressing story.

    “I am tired of the media being a controversy-creation industry.”

    That’s a really interesting point, Kevin. But tell me, how does that make you *feel*? If the people who turned the media into a controversy-creation industry were here right now, what would you like to say to them?

    (Sorry.)

    Spouse and I were talking about this the other day. [Prime] Ministerial statements are the worst - the minister makes a show of defying the press, the press make a show of challenging the minister, and everyone goes home feeling they’ve seen a bit of drama (which becomes as important, in subsequent news coverage, as whatever the statement actually was).

  4. Ben Metcalfe Says:

    “Today, l received a call from a BBC producer - I’ll leave out which BBC outlet …”

    “…I know she’s got 24 hours to fill”

    Nice

  5. James Bridle Says:

    Yup, BBC News 24 producers do really great research. One rang me at my last job trying to secure an interview with one of my authors - Jerome K Jerome, a reasonably famous man who died in 1924. (http://tinyurl.com/3y93cx)

    Once again, googling a couple of terms from the story in question was the obvious culprit, and, as in your case, googling a couple more would have prevented my irritation and the BBC’s loss of face (in our eyes anyway…).