The code seems pretty reasonable, though, yup, there are a few rules on there I know I've broken. But it makes me wonder how different the laws are in America when it says "Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes".

"Cautious"? I don't think any journalist in their right mind here would ID a victim of a sex crime at all unless they had expressly given their permission. Or maybe it just means that journalists should be cautious to ensure they don't do it. Must dust off my copy of McNae's...

Good point.

Incidentally, my local paper once carried the memorable headline Raped girl, 13, 'asked for it'

Les,

Given your admirable distate for guff, cant and general bullshit, why would you post the following:

"...is much more than technological innovation, it's about a return to collective ownership of the news and pre-monopoly news values, taking advantage of smarter tools to achieve this."

There's so much nonsensical hype written about the "media revolution" and the "democratising" of media. But where's the substance? I've not seen any shift in media power. Have you?

Neil

Neil

Sorry to disappoint, must be the sunstroke.

But we are a collective here now (care to join?), so don't expect consistency.

As for the substance of your point, yes there's a lot of hype. Most of it perpetuating the myth that citizens can replace journalists. But I'm not really talking about a shift in power, more a shift backwards to traditional journalism skills and ethics, made possible by more public involvement in the newsgathering process.

Which is why I like the phrase Renaissance Journalism. A re-birth rather than a revolution.

I am not predicting the death of the media barons.

You write:
" I'm not really talking about a shift in power, more a shift backwards to traditional journalism skills and ethics, made possible by more public involvement in the newsgathering process."

Widespread, consistent, high-quality journalism - the old fashioned sort of journalism that I think you are talking about - is not dependent on increased public involvement in newsgathering. Rather, it is dependent on funding.

Doing journalism properly, day in, day out, requires money. The current economics of the media do not provide that money.

To continue your metaphor, the original Renaissance was partly a consequence of wealthy patrons funding creative, intelligent and challenging work. Our existing media barons are interested in netiher Renaissance nor revolution.

I agree that certain new media technologies offer exciting opportunities for journalism. But it's wrong to assume that those technologies will necessary result in changes. People make changes, not technologies. And to make the most of these technologies, in terms of really changing the way the media operate, those people need money.

Neil

"Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media."

Seems to me like the tabloid press encourages grievances every day. Gold stars all round!

Neil

The changes are already happening. There is already far greater public participation in the newsgathering process and it's being welcomed by some of the media with open arms.

I am not an economist and I am sure you know a lot more about business than me, but here's some thoughts:

If more people feel part of the process, then more people will consume journalism. More readers means more money (online and off), and some of that money might filter back to fund better journalism.

Add to the mix some new models - like a Craigslist with a news front end - and you might just see something interesting happen.

>>If more people feel part of the process, then more people will consume journalism. More readers means more money (online and off), and some of that money might filter back to fund better journalism.

Add to the mix some new models - like a Craigslist with a news front end - and you might just see something interesting happen.
>>

No - if more people feel part of the process, more people will decline to pay for journalism. Imagine a newspaper written by everyone: would you pay money for it if you'd written it?

There will be plenty of room for journalists and journalism, but I suspect it'll get sliced more thinly. Totally independent of ethics. Which will also get sliced more thinly.

Personally, I'm glad to see someone else takes the issue of journalist ethics semi-seriously.

I had a very "lively" discussion with a PR recently, who argued that all UK journalists are inherently corrupt, can be bought off with some copywriting gig or a good press trip, and don't produce anything even close to independent editorial. She genuinely said to me: "If a story's no good, I just throw some money at it."

Really, though, who can blame her for thinking this?

I regularly see email requests sent to PRs by journos who are asking for free kit, advertising their availability for media training, looking for pre-written quotes or even features, etc etc. Then there are the journos who never pay full price for their holidays, or who insist on ringing their mobile phone company's press office every time they feel customer service isn't up to par considering their lofty status.

It's nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks this stuff matters. So thanks for talking about it.

Apart from the licence fee, people don't pay for TV news. Or radio news. And, wake up Charles, people are already declining to pay for journalism regardless of their involvement or otherwise in its processes.

At the moment, it's still handy to have something to carry around, fold up and read on the train. But you know what? I already rarely buy papers - I read other people's leftovers or freesheets or get my news from the TV, radio or web. And when I do, I get inky black fingers - how anachronistic is that?

In any case, I am not talking about the public writing the news (who said anything about newspapers?), but instead, through their greater interaction with journalists, making it more accountable, vibrant and interesting.

Phew. The stuff about journalists complaining about personal service with a 'do you know who I am' type swagger has always troubled me. It's a small point when pitted against the much bigger concerns you discuss here, isn't it but I just don't get why anyone would think they should be allowed to get away with it.