| Liverpool receive two new offers Liverpool's board say two new bids have been made to buy the club, BBC Sport understands. news.bbc.co.uk |
What is the future of the fourth estate? | Alan Rusbridger Kicking off Cif's new series of long-form blogs, your thoughts, please, on the three-way split in today's news mediaNatalie Hanman, the editor of Comment is free, is launching a new series of long-form blogs in which a writer is given space to explore a subject in depth over a longer period, drawing on the expertise of readers and using multimedia to explore particular themes. She asked me to kick it off.Here goes …I am in the early stages of thinking about a lecture I am giving in six weeks' time and suggested to Natalie that I would use this blog to float one or two themes I want to touch on. Any response will, I hope, feed into (or, indeed, challenge) the shape of the lecture.In a sentence I want to look at the way the fourth estate has split in three and explore whether this new division – which I, personally, rather like – is sustainable in the teeth of the dramatic economic and technological changes we're experiencing.What's the three-way split?There is the press, mostly still privately owned and lightly regulated, which was all we had until the dawn of broadcasting. Then there are public service broadcasters – publicly owned and, in return, pretty stringently regulated in terms of content, balance, impartiality and so on. Finally, there is the new public sphere opened up by digital technologies. (I need a catchier term for this. "Social media" I find a bit deadening.) Without getting into the debates about net neutrality, one might say that no one (yet?) "owns" or regulates this new third division of the fourth estate.These, as I begin to think about the lecture, are my initial questions.There are too many of them, so I'd be interested in what others think the really crucial issues are.1. The pressThe issues here seem to me mainly about convergence, plurality and regulation.In the past, it was a given that public policy ought to ensure that no one individual or company ought to have a dominant share of one medium, let alone two. That held in the national press: no proprietor could be allowed too many papers and would never be allowed simultaneously to own a TV station. This was also true locally: it was thought undesirable for the local newspaper also to own the local radio or TV station.Is that all for the birds now?Two immediate pressure points will sharpen this question in the UK:a) As the economics of the local press become more challenging, there will be a persuasive argument that the future of local news may lie in converged multimedia operations. Owners will make the case that consolidation is necessary. Is that inevitable? Or even desirable? Or should something like the "old rules" still apply, even in the face of the economic and technological forces that are eroding the local press at an alarming rate.b) If News Corp succeeds in buying 100% of Sky, Rupert Murdoch will end up owning nearly 40% of the national press as well as a TV company that is twice the size of the BBC in terms of funding/revenue. It was previously never imaginable that any one individual would have that kind of dominance over the media landscape. Is this inevitable? Are those who worry about such things fretting unnecessarily? What difference does the extra 60% of ownership make now – or, conceivably, in the future?Murdoch told a House of Lords inquiry that concerns about ownership levels of the media are "10 years out of date". Is he right? Or is Claire Enders, the respected media analyst, right in her argument that the Murdoch bid for full control of Sky should be blocked on grounds of plurality?What's the level of market dominance that should trigger plurality concerns? No one's protested very much over Richard Desmond's takeover of Channel Five. Is that because the Express and Five are relative minnows? What if the Guardian or Independent were to merge with Channel 4 News? Or Associated or Trinity Mirror with ITV News? Ie, is it the sheer size and dominance of the converged company that causes alarm? Or are we talking about a principle of separation of ownership between print and broadcast media?2. The BBCA few thoughts, which are unrelated to questions about how the BBC is currently run and whether its stars and/or management are overpaid etc.The first is that the subsidy model of serious general journalism is – with one or two exceptions – the only one that actually works at the moment.Looking forward into the eye of the digital storm, it's certainly the only one that has any kind of predictability about it. So should we be tinkering with it?The main grounds for cutting the BBC down in size or scope (it's generally argued, even by BBC supporters) would be if its market impact was provably damaging to others in the news business. Is it? If so, in which areas of operation? Did the BBC's decision not to deepen its regional coverage allow a flourishing of local news from existing players – or, to be fair, is it realistically in prospect?Or will the opposite prove to be true: that, actually, the BBC could have provided a local service, which the market is currently unable to sustain?There's no public service broadcaster comparable to the BBC in the US, yet American papers appear to be in as much trouble as UK or European ones.Irritating though the BBC can be as a competitor, I'm not convinced that we should heap excessive blame on its head, or imagine that financial salvation for others would necessarily follow from taking a chainsaw to the Beeb's cost base. Is that right, or are there examples of the negative impact the BBC has on other journalistic endeavours?Finally, the BBC represents a broader idea of "public space" that is currently not very fashionable politically. But there seems to be a gulf between public perceptions of the BBC (measured in terms of trust and relatively low levels of agitation over overall value) and the remorseless hammering it gets from its fourth estate cousin, the press.What's going on here? Is the relentless criticism simply the hostility of rivals? Is it that the BBC has become too large/lost its way? Or is it that the idea of public space itself under threat?Is there a value in the tension between the regulated/impartial broadcasting model represented by the BBC and the unregulated/partial-as-you-like press?Is "opinionated TV" inevitable/desirable in this country? How does the public space of the BBC survive convergence – especially in terms of its funding?3. The digital sphere, aka social media (what's a better name?)I am thinking of its relationship to the general news environment, as it is being stretched and redefined.I can think of lots of positive examples where all kinds of valuable and exciting "journalistic" things are happening a) on their own in this space, and b) in combination with conventional journalism. More are always welcome, but I am broadly convinced that this is a new and powerful force in society and in the emerging news ecosystem.I'd really welcome thoughts/counter-examples on two doubts persistently raised by others.The first, and most current, is Malcolm Gladwell's argument that social networks such as Twitter are "weak" communities, which are unlikely to be very effective in terms of stimulating real or lasting political change.The second is the charge that social networks are effective distribution mechanisms and networks, but they contribute little by way of original information. That (so the argument goes) is still overwhelmingly done by conventional news operations. The digital sceptics also argue that social media is an animal with a tiny attention span – ie, it is well-suited to amplifying the new, but not much good at the dogged business of complexity or gradual, patient concentration on an issue. Is that right? What are the best counter-examples?Finally …My overarching thought, if that's not putting it too grandly, is that the current balance/tension between the three different manifestations of the old notion of the fourth estate works quite well. It allows for three entirely different ideas of what journalism is, and it's better (with the advent of digital) than what went before, when there was a duopoly between press and TV. But the economic forces that are intrinsic to the digital sphere threaten to weaken the other two spheres – to the point of destroying the idea of plurality they have embodied.Can regulation of itself help protect this delicate balance – at least until we can understand better where the digital revolution is going? Or are the forces at work here so overwhelming that governments have to step aside and let the digital whirlwind blow through the existing media world and see what's left standing at the end? I've heard Conservative ministers express the latter view.Who's right?There are numerous big questions wrapped up in all that – far too many for one lecture. Some people might want to respond on the overall theme of the balance between the three forms of media. Or you might want to tackle one of the three subsections – in which case, it might help if you labelled it at the head of your response.I look forward to seeing where these thoughts lead …Newspapers & magazinesPublic service broadcastingTelevision industrySocial mediaDigital mediaAlan Rusbridgerguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Academies winning support of middle-class parents, say researchers Rebranded schools said to have high standards of behaviour and improved exam results in 'word-of-mouth' reportsThousands of middle-class parents who shunned academies are now sending their children to the schools, university researchers claim this week. Between 2002 and 2010, the Labour government closed just over 200 failing schools and replaced them with academies – independent state schools managed by charities and companies. The schools were often given a new name, multimillion pound refurbishments and new headteachers.But until only a year ago, many comfortably-off parents continued to view academies with disdain and perceived them to be the same low-performing schools they replaced, academics at Durham University argue in their book Academies and Educational Reform.Now they are embracing academies because "word of mouth has spread that they have high standards of behaviour and have vastly improved their academic results", the academics claim.The authors of the book interviewed 26 academy-related professionals including headteachers, school sponsors, teachers and Lord Adonis, a former schools minister, who was seen as the architect of the academies.They also analysed reports on academies by consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Audit Office. David Galloway, one of the book's authors and an emeritus professor at Durham University's school of education, said: " Predecessor schools of the traditional academies were mostly under-subscribed and shunned by middle-class parents."Now they have nearly two applications per place, so this has enabled them to admit as many children from disadvantaged homes as their predecessor schools, but also to admit pupils from more middle-class backgrounds."He said that while the number of pupils on free school meals had stayed the same or gone up slightly in academies, they made up a smaller proportion of all pupils because academies are expanding and attracting a more varied intake. Galloway said middle-class parents were starting to send their children to academies because many had seen that pupil behaviour had improved in the schools and they were impressed by new buildings and improved standards of achievement.He said that pupils of all backgrounds and all abilities would benefit from the "more balanced intake. Research shows that disadvantaged children do worst in schools in which they are in a large majority," he said. "Meanwhile, middle-class children perform as well in an academy as they would have done in another comprehensive." Phil Hearne, executive director of the Northumberland Church of England academy, said he had seen a recent increase in interest from middle-class parents. Many parents had adopted a "wait and see" attitude towards academies until recently, he said. "Now they think 'this is working' and it follows that there is a good social mix in the schools."The result is that "everyone's attitude begins to shift," he said. "Parents are more likely to demand that the school does things differently and better and that has an impact on all parents."But Alasdair Smith, national secretary of the Anti-Academies Alliance, said academies were being "missold" by government as better than other schools. "The data in this book is impressionistic," he said. "Rather than fighting for a good local school everywhere, the government wants a system in which there are elitist schools and then the rest."The academics admit that while some academies have been "exceptionally successful; others have made little progress".An academy sponsor admitted to the authors that as demand for places had increased, his school had narrowed its catchment area. Critics of academies fear schools are deliberately narrowing their catchment areas to only include the most affluent neighbourhoods. This squeezes out the least well-off, but can improve the school's results.The coalition government has changed the type of school that can become an academy. Now schools rated outstanding by inspectors can be fast-tracked to becoming academies within months.In May, the education secretary, Michael Gove, said he expected the majority of schools to turn into academies in the near future, signalling the biggest change to England's school structure since the 1960s.Some 32 of the 20,300 secondaries and primaries in England reopened as academies this school term. A further 110 are expected to do so in the coming school year after the government passed a new law to allow every school in England to opt out of local authority control.Sarah Gill, the head of human resources at a multinational firm, used to see the behaviour of pupils at the comprehensive in her street and think "we will never send our kids there"."The school had a damaged reputation and I don't think there was much of a social mix," the mother-of-two says.Fast-forward a few years and both her children attend the school - Burlington Danes academy in west London - and are very happy there.Gill and her husband, an artist, were persuaded to look around the school by friends who assured them that it had vastly improved in recent years. "We felt a bit reluctant to visit at first, but we ended up really liking it. We wanted a school with a good academic record where they would be happy. We saw that results and behaviour were improving and the leadership and the teachers seemed very impressive," she says.Gill has noticed that the number of middle-class children in her youngest son's year is far higher than in his older brother's. Ezra, 11, started the school this autumn, while Fred is 14."The profile of the parents is changing," Gill says. "You can tell when you visit the school. It makes me more comfortable. It is helpful to have a mix so that there are parents with all different life experiences who send their children to the school."AcademiesAcademic expertsJessica Shepherdguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Children found working in field Seven children are taken into police protection after they are found working in a Worcestershire field. bbc.co.uk |
Google investigated over household data privacy breaches Watchdog has launched inquiry after company admitted copying emails and passwords while setting up Street View serviceThe UK privacy watchdog has launched an investigation into Google after it admitted copying household computer passwords and emails from unsecured wireless networks, when taking photographs for its Street View mapping service.The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) said it would investigate, in light of a report in Canada that the company had potentially violated the privacy of thousands of Canadians. Similar findings are also emerging from other countries.Google's admission came after Canada's privacy commissioner found Google had captured highly sensitive personal information with its Street View mapping cars. Seven privacy regulators in other jurisdictions have also analysed the data and revealed the full extent of what was copied, with reports due shortly from many others.Fears over the data Google had collected first surfaced in May, with the company initially saying the it was only "fragmentary".In a statement published on its official blog, the Californian-based company said it accepts that in some cases complete emails, usersnames and passwords had been inadvertently collected from unsecured wireless networks.Alan Eustace, Google's vice-president of engineering and research, said: "We want to delete this data as soon as possible, and I would like to apologise again for the fact that we collected it in the first place. We are mortified by what happened."He added it was clear from the external inspections that "while most of the data is fragmentary, in some instances entire emails and URLs [web addresses] were captured, as well as passwords".Alex Deane, director of privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch, said: "As if building up a database of photographs of millions of people's private homes wasn't enough, the news that Google has also harvested email addresses and passwords is nothing short of outrageous."Alma Whitten, Google's new director of privacy said: "We are profoundly sorry for having mistakenly collected payload data from unencrypted networks. We are now strengthening our internal privacy and security practices with more people, more training and better procedures and compliance."The ICO said it had examined "samples" of payload data submitted by Google in May, and could not find evidence of compromising personal information, but would now re-examine.An ICO spokesman said: "Earlier this year the ICO visited Google's premises to make a preliminary assessment of the payload data it inadvertently collected while developing Google Street View. While the information we saw at the time did not include meaningful personal details that could be linked to an identifiable person, we have continued to liaise with, and await the findings of, the investigations carried out by our international counterparts."They added: "Now that these findings are starting to emerge, we understand that Google has accepted that in some instances entire URLs and emails have been captured.We will be making enquires to see whether this information relates to the data inadvertently captured in the UK, before deciding on the necessary course of action, including a consideration of the need to use our enforcement powers."GoogleGoogle Street ViewMapping technologiesInternetComputingData and computer securityWi-FiPrivacyCaroline Daviesguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |