Well, not really.
The complaint against Jan Moir and the Daily Mail wasn't upheld which I can't imagine is a surprise from a self-regulating body such as the PCC. In essence, papers can say what the fuck they want, and everybody else will just have to take it.
This would be OK if papers had any sense of moral centre or were utterly neutral but, of course, they're not. "Freedom of speech" has always been a banner to hide behind, rather than a truth to defend, for newspapers (should they, in fact, be allowed to be called newspapers?). Sell, sell, sell is the root drive; "no news is bad news" is only true for papers. There is no useful right to reply or complain; no meaningful apology or punishment when even a blatant untruth is published. And ironically, with journalists hating more and more the social networking communitites that call them out, no work beyond googling sat on one's arse and spouting opinion over it.
I would reckon these days that journalists are viewed with the same degree of respect as MPs. Which is sad, in both cases, for the valuable ones.
Excellent proper comment here
Thursday 18 February 2010
Wednesday 17 February 2010
Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss
What happened to Google? For years everyone hated Microsoft either because of jealousy, poor products or bullying tactics. When Google came along, it was a breath of fresh air - clean webpage and simple search functionality, just when every other page was becoming a cluttered "portal".
I'm starting to think that those first 5 or 6 years of Google were the Golden Age of the Internet: it was expanding at pace but it was still exciting and new. Granted, there was an awful lot you couldn't do and some of the design was eye-watering but it still seemed, to me, driven by excitement. It was harder to search out obscure data but rewarding when you found it.
Now there is considerably more business input and a snobbery or elitism (those who know and those who don't); there's capability for more design but just as much glare; practically any search leads you to Wikipedia but rarely do people double-check data; everyone's on a social network so the networks start to reflect life with all its petty bigotries and vile commentary.
And through all that, Google has grown to usurp Microsoft as Emperor. But is it Animal Farm? Have Google, finally reaching a money-making model, given up on doing no evil? With Google Buzz's lack of user-centric thought and the blatant stitching up of writers by Google Books recently, I have to wonder.
This is no longer a benign ruler.
I'm starting to think that those first 5 or 6 years of Google were the Golden Age of the Internet: it was expanding at pace but it was still exciting and new. Granted, there was an awful lot you couldn't do and some of the design was eye-watering but it still seemed, to me, driven by excitement. It was harder to search out obscure data but rewarding when you found it.
Now there is considerably more business input and a snobbery or elitism (those who know and those who don't); there's capability for more design but just as much glare; practically any search leads you to Wikipedia but rarely do people double-check data; everyone's on a social network so the networks start to reflect life with all its petty bigotries and vile commentary.
And through all that, Google has grown to usurp Microsoft as Emperor. But is it Animal Farm? Have Google, finally reaching a money-making model, given up on doing no evil? With Google Buzz's lack of user-centric thought and the blatant stitching up of writers by Google Books recently, I have to wonder.
This is no longer a benign ruler.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
