Category: Media

Journalism, radio and stuff like that

  • How to make everybody on the internet behave

    This week’s news that a Twitter abuser suddenly saw the light when it was suggested that his tweets be sent to his mum reminded me of this, a column I wrote for .net back in 2008.

    Britain may not have an empire any more, but we still rule the world of bad driving. Sure, the Italians are maniacs, the Americans are too busy eating to watch the road and the Germans seem determined to drive faster than the speed of light, but when it comes to sheer arrogant, ignorant, arsey and downright dangerous driving nobody can touch us.

    I’m guilty of it too. Give me five minutes in a city centre and I’m shouting the c-word at cyclists, the b-word at bus drivers, the p-word at pedestrians and every expletive ever invented at Audi drivers. Only the last one is really justified.

    What these various offenders have in common is that they can’t hear me or see me – and that gives me a licence to be utterly unpleasant, just like everyone else on the roads. It’s why people block box junctions, or cut you up, or drive at 200mph through primary school playgrounds. They’re not bad people; they’re just not sharing the world with the rest of us. Brits are particularly bad for it, because we’re so buttoned-up the rest of the time.

    There’s a proper scientific term for this: disinhibition. In his book Traffic, Tom Vanderbilt explains that while we’re forced to interact with others on the roads we don’t – can’t – communicate with them, so we become overgrown toddlers, interested only in ourselves and reduced to eye-popping, throat-shredding, nappy-filling fury at the slightest frustration. Interestingly, Vanderbilt reports that people in open-topped cars tend to be nicer and more patient, not because they’re happier, or because they’re getting lots of Vitamin D but because they’re less insulated than other drivers, less able to pretend that the world isn’t there.

    And of course, disinhibition is a key part of being online. Our computers are our cars, ensuring that people don’t know us, can’t see us, can’t make us immediately answerable for our actions. They remove the respect for authority that prevents us shouting “Oi! Specky!” at Stephen Hawking and they erase the empathy that stops us going mental in Morrison’s when the person in front attempts to pay with string. That can be a good thing, because it encourages people to open up and express themselves in ways they might not in the real world, but of course when someone is in a negative frame of mind (or young – the bits of our brains that handle inhibitions aren’t mature until after adolescence, which is why we do so much dumb stuff as teenagers) then it turns them into online Audi drivers.

    So is there anything we can do to make the internet, well, nicer? According to Vanderbilt, rules and safety systems just make drivers worse; it turns out that the best way to make car owners more responsible would be to mount a dagger in the steering wheel, its blade pointing directly at the driver. Perhaps we need an IT equivalent, like a remotely operated boxing glove mounted on a giant spring – or better still, a system where every abusive email, blog comment or forum post is copied to your mum.

  • Website paywalls work, except when they don’t

    Paul Carr of NSFWCorp on the problem with some paywalls:

    Porous paywalls for journalism make as much sense as a coffee shop giving free lattes to anyone who comes in just twice a week but then charging fifty dollars a cup on the third visit. That’s a hell of a loyalty scheme, and a great way to encourage people to settle for just a couple of free cups of coffee rather than drinking more and having to pay.

  • “She consulted some kind of magical bullshit machine”

    Me on Techradar, writing about real world retailers’ troubles.

    In recent months we’ve seen lots of big names go belly up, citing too-high rates, rents and parking charges, as well as Amazon’s tax avoidance and dodgy downloads. There’s no doubt that it’s tough out there, and of course every retail job loss is a tragedy for the people put out of work.

    But it’d help if some businesses’ strategy for combating the internet threat wasn’t “deliver the most miserable shopping experience imaginable”.

  • Giant mutant bats from the planet Thargle, which I’ve just invented, mean that Apple is dooooomed!

    Apple’s Phil Schiller slags off Samsung, so of course Apple is doomed. Me at Techradar:

    You see exactly the same in music (“Our album’s going to be so much better than theirs“), and in boxing (“I am really good at punching people, and he isn’t”), and in supermarkets (“We’re cheaper than them, and our food isn’t made of horse!”).

  • “Why do kids have iPads anyway?” Er, because it’s 2013

    Some parents let their kids use apps. Everybody panic! Me, at Techradar:

    My daughter’s been using gadgets since she was two. Kids’ ebooks from the likes of Oliver Jeffers and Nosy Crow are wonderful things. We’re using apps such as Mathboard to help her learn arithmetic. We have dozens of great apps for kids that enable her to do arty, crafty things without getting paint, glue or glitter on the dogs. We use Google Image Search to find pictures of things she wants to know about. She records her own voiceovers for talking books.

    It’s part of a wider mix that involves stacks of books, real-world arts and crafts, day trips to interesting places, nightly question and answer sessions and lots of conversations, and if from time to time she wants to watch Fairly Odd Parents on Netflix when I’m making the dinner then that’s fine by me.

  • “Sprinkling the Internet on a bad business model does not magically make it a good business model”

    John Scalzi on dodgy ebook business models:

    This shit’s been around, my friends. It’s been around for decades, and writers groups and others who make it their business to warn aspiring authors about scams and pitfalls have been raising flags about it all that time. The idea that that because it’s now attached to electronic publishing, that somehow makes it different (and, more to the point, better) is highly specious, to say the least.

    Sprinkling the Internet on a bad business model does not magically make it a good business model. It merely means that the people who are pursuing a bad business model are hoping you are credulous enough to believe that being electronic is space-age zoomy and awesome and there is no possible way this brilliant business plan could ever fail. Or even worse, that they believe that being electronic means all these things, which means they are credulous. Which is not a very good thing to have as the basis of one’s business model.

    Scalzi’s post is relevant to most kinds of creative job, not just books. Creative industries are often seen as glamorous, and that glamour often blinds people to the reality of what’s happening when money’s being discussed. How many times have you heard musicians moan about their terrible record deals, the contracts that they signed not just willingly, but happily?

    you can’t blame the publisher for then taking you for every single thing they can. Because, remember, that’s their job. They don’t even need to be evil to do it; they just have to be willing to take every advantage you let them have. That’s business. This is a business negotiation.

  • Writing for free and why words are worth paying for

    There’s been a big stramash about online publications asking journalists to work for free, and Paul Carr’s post is probably the only one you need to read on the topic:

    Advertising-supported sites like the Atlantic are trapped in a nightmare of their own making: reliant on delivering millions of page views to shift huge amounts of ad inventory which at best barely covers the cost of production.

    If you’re a writer considering working for free, please don’t do it: I absolutely understand the problem of getting a profile when you’re new to the industry, but if you’re contributing professional quality work to a commercial entity in the hope of getting paid work later you’re shooting yourself in the foot.

    We’ve already seen this happen in photography. Check out the photo credits on big sites and more often than not they’re Creative Commons, not photo agencies. Individually, photographers offering Creative Commons images are trying to boost their profile so they can get paid work. Collectively, they’re getting rid of the paid work.

    (Not all CC imagery is from photographers who want paid, of course, but that’s a whole other blog post).

    The wider problem here is that of course, we readers don’t really want to pay for stuff. We’ve gone from a situation of scarcity, where the only way to get what you were interested in was to buy a print publication, to extreme abundance, where you have 7,000 publications all covering the same story about Apple – and all dependent on advertising, because if it’s on the internet it must be free. As a result, ad rates are microscopic and you get sites such as The Atlantic claiming that despite having 13 million readers, there isn’t enough money in the pot to pay for the content it publishes.

    I think Thom Yorke hit on something in his recent Observer interview:

    [Google et al] have made all content, including music and newspapers, worthless, in order to make their billions. And this is what we want?

    Carr is right when he says:

    There is no universe in which it’s possible to maintain a site like the Atlantic or Forbes or HuffPost or, increasingly, Slate or Salon without falling back on linkbait blogging and cheap or free syndication.

    I don’t expect anybody to care about freelance writers, but if you’d like more choice than just MailOnline stamping on the human race forever and 27 funny pictures of cats then it might be a good idea to pay for the writing you value to ensure it sticks around. For me that’s the print mags and iPad editions and interesting new titles such as Tech. that I subscribe to; for you it might be Carr’s NSFW Corp, or Marco Arment’s The Magazine, or McSweeney’s.

    And please, don’t work for free.

  • Vertical videos are bad

    I wrote a wee piece in MacFormat about the scourge of videos shot in portrait mode, and Glen Mulcahy let me know about this superb public service announcement.

  • How many Girls Aloud references can one man get into a tech news roundup?

    The answer, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, is lots.

    MWC 2013 really reminded us of Girls Aloud, the pop phenomenon that’s reunited for one last tour: while the girls are officially equals, Cheryl Cole is a much bigger star than all the others combined.

    MWC’s Cheryl was Samsung.

    Samsung might not have turned up in a frighteningly tight corset and towering heels, but it managed to be part of the event while eclipsing it altogether…

    I love my job.