Rupert, James and Rebekah at the Culture, Media and Sport select committee

The transcripts of the appearances by Rupert and James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks before the Culture, Media and Sport select committee are now available online.

I took the text of the two sessions from the Guardian, and stuck the straight into Wordle. Then, because I didn't like the results, I took the words "James", "Rupert", "Murdoch" and "Mr" out of the Murdoch's session and the words "Rebekah" and "Brooks" from that transcript and tried again.

Here then for your enjoyment are yesterday's sessions as word clouds. The bigger the word, the more often it appears in the transcript.

Rupert and James Murdoch - click to go to a larger version.


Rebekah Brooks - click to go to a larger version.

Press regulation: what's to fear?

One of the likely casualties of recent events in the media is the Press Complaints Commission.

As a regulator it's been, well, pants. The Express group of papers - which really do need regulating - have been allowed to drop out, and many breaches of the PCC code go with relatively little comeback on the publisher. Self-regulation hasn't worked for the national press.

Broadcasters are of course regulated by Ofcom, which has statutory powers. And news broadcasters seem to manage alright under its jurisdiction. One of the star news services of the past few days has been Sky News: from it's fantastic hour at six o'clock on Thursday evening to Adam Boulton tonight describing the future of his own channel as "in the balance" as spotted by Richard Jones

Odd to see Adam Boulton on Sky News saying that the future of his own channel is "in the balance" after today's developments.less than a minute ago via HootSuite Favorite Retweet ReplyRichard Jones
rlwjones

Unlike the News International controlled press they've given space to this story, and haven't been afraid to interview people who've been critical of Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. They've been across the story, covering it with balance and vigour. And all of this under the control of a regulator.

Journalists need some freedoms to do their job, but the loss of self-regulation doesn't mean the sky will fall in.

Apple computers: are they good value?

MacBook battery
Originally uploaded by westy48

I've just replaced the battery in my MacBook. Not with an official Apple battery, which costs £101, but with this one from Play.com which was £36.90

The Apple battery clearly costs a lot more, but if it holds a charge for longer and endures more charge cycles would that make it better value for money?

That's the balance we're striking when we talk about value; it's not just what an item costs, but how well it does the job you need it to do.

Which brings me back to my MacBook. There are loads of articles all over the web where people have found similarly specced Windows and Mac OS running computers and seen what the price difference is. I'm not going to do that.

What I will say is that my MacBook is over four years old (it came in may 2007 after a blackcurrant related incident I don't like to talk about), it sees daily use and runs the latest version of OS X with ease. Software on OS X is, with noteable exceptions, really good and this is one of the main reasons why I still prefer Macs. But I reckon the cost of running the MacBook has been fairly cheap.

Hardware wise I've added 1GB of RAM from Crucial.com/UK/ which cost me £28 and upgraded the hard drive from 80 to 320GB which cost £73, but I've kept the old drive in a USB enclosure and use it daily for work. (I should probably start backing that up).

As for software upgrades go I've paid for upgrades to OS 10.5 and 10.6, which is going to be a bit more than £100 (I know I'll be tempted with Lion, but my MacBook will be one of the lowest spec machines capable of running it and I don't want to take a big performance hit).

So, sound off and let me know what you think about the value of spending more.

Five things that parent bloggers do better than me

It's a well known fact that parent bloggers are giving the internet a bad name. Well, it is since yesterday.

But some of them are also very good at what they do. Here are five things you can learn from the cream of the parent bloggers.

1. They post regularly. Writing often helps you find a voice, allowing you to settle into a "house style." The expectation of regular new content also helps to build an audience for your blog.
2. They're focussed. By regularly blogging around a theme or topic they make sure their readers know what to expect from them and make sure they regularly meet this expectation.
3. They read and comment on other blogs covering similar topics to build awareness that they're there and help feed traffic to their own blogs by leaving links.
4. They join the debate beyond the blog. By following readers on Twitter and other social networks they are part of their readers' online lives even when they're not blogging. This can lead to tip offs and ideas for future blogs. It also makes the blogger closer to becoming one of their reader's friends. This is good because we trust our friends. If I read your blog and think of you as my friend I'm much more likely to give credence to what you say.
5. They use social media to help spread the word. They tweet and tweet again about the day's article and link to it on Facebook. They'll also spread the word about fellow bloggers' work. This can be a genuine endorsement of posts they've enjoyed or feel strongly about, but it also increases the likelihood that their own work will be retweeted and promoted by others.

How else have parent bloggers shown the way for the rest of us online?

Parent bloggers - giving the internet a bad name?

I know I shouldn't have done it, and actually I blame Nicki Cawood:

Brilliant article on @Tots100 http://bit.ly/k73jg5 Should PR Agencies pay Travel Expenses For Bloggers?less than a minute ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet ReplyNicki Cawood
NickiCawood

My gut reaction to the question was to snort "No!" and leave it at that, but then I made the mistake of clicking through the link and reading the article. Still working against my better judgement I left a comment.

Before I get ahead of myself, the gist of the piece is that PR companies should pay the expenses of bloggers that they invite to attend events. Then there were eight comments in agreement with the blogger. I felt it was time for some balance, so left a dissenting comment. It wasn't an attempt to be controversial, I just happen to disagree with the post and commenters so far. My comment got a couple of responses and I replied to some of them, but there is more to say about this and I don't want to appear to be a troll over at Tots100 so I'll marshall my thoughts here.

So - should bloggers expect to get travel expenses to attend marketing events paid by PR companies?

No. If you really want to go find a way to pay for it. Otherwise, don't go and write about something else. As I said in my comment, you've decided to go it alone as a parent blogger and you have to live with that choice. If you want to work for a media organisation with a budget for travel then go and do that. But it's better to make what you're doing work for you. If you attend the same product launches as everyone else your blog will be just like everyone else's. Surely an advantage of running your own blog is the freedom to write about what you want, when you want, how you want? Don't be a mouthpiece for big business; do your own thing.

But we're only hobbyists, we're not running a business here.

I know. My hobby is photography and if I want to go to London to take photos I don't expect to get train tickets sent in the post by the London tourism board. If it's your hobby, it's kind of the idea that you pay for it yourself.

PR agencies who did an occasional blogger outreach out of London would get a lot of kudos (and probably some good write-ups for their clients).

Yes, but your review of something should depend on the quality of the item, not how well you're treated by the PR company.

What I think is saddest about this is that the bloggers are letting themselves be partially driven by the agenda of the PR circus. Blogging should be about doing your own thing, writing what you want to write. A day spent making a six hour round trip to London for a thirty minute event could be spent finding local contacts. There will be people making stuff near you, there are baby groups you could visit, and local newspapers who might want columnists. Rather than be driven by the marketeers use some of that initiative you showed when you learnt to self-host WordPress, get out in your communities (real or virtual) and bring in your own stories.

In Manchester football journalism really is dead.

Oh dear. Yesterday I blogged about Sir Alex Ferguson's heavy handed response to Rob Harris' question in a press conference. I suggested that football journalism is broken because of the balance of power between the media and the clubs.

Forty-seven minutes into today's PM programme (iPlayer link) there's an illuminating interview with Peter Spencer, the Sports Editor from the Manchester Evening News. Spencer basically says he doesn't want people coming into press conferences rocking the boat and upsetting the clubs; and he puts the pressure of filling pages above his reporters' right to probe a bit.

I'm not suggesting that journalists abandon commercial realities. Of course papers need filling, but we need to be honest with our audience. In countries where governments are hostile to the media or where correspondents can only travel with a state "minder" it's not unusual for the restrictions and conditions placed on the journalist to be made clear.

It'd be great to see sports journalists being as candid as their colleagues in hostile nations about the restrictions their working under, whether self-imposed or not.

(Thanks to Andrew Glover for giving me the nod about this interview)

Press injunctions: maybe it's Fergie's fault.

In the same way that Apprentice candidates have to call Alan Sugar "Lord Sugar", you're meant to call Alex Ferguson "Sir Alex", but he does little to deserve that respect. Manchester United, and Sir Alex in particular have a relationship with the press that's based on fear and loathing. He's scared of them and he hates them. Considering that the Reds just pocketed £60 million pounds via the Premier League from TV companies you'd think that they'd be better disposed towards the media, but not so.

Fergie thought he could ban a journalist from Associated Press who asked a non-injunction-busting question about Ryan Giggs at a press conference, where journalists are supposed to ask questions.



Rob Harris simply asked this: "The most experienced Champions League player in the team's obviously Ryan Giggs, it's the fourth final for him, how important for the team is he on Saturday?"

But for Fergie it was too much and he set about planning to ban Harris from the pre-match press conference on Friday. A press conference which is managed by Uefa and that United have no control over. I had been wondering how Giggs could have been so badly advised about managing the media recently, but if his boss behaves like this you can see where his influence may lie.

Football journalism is actually broken in this country. Newsrooms are scared of being denied access to clubs. They shy away from stories that show the clubs in less than glorious colours and don't ask difficult questions because they fear becoming persona non grata at the training ground or in the press box. I'd like to see a sports desk take the risk and if they're declined further access then tell it like it is and inform their audience what's gone in. In 2011 there have to be other ways of reporting football that don't depend on attending the regular press conferences anyway. I know it won't happen, but I'd love to see it.