Puffbox

Thanks to the Telegraph’s Marcus Warren for pointing out a story on the Online Journalism Review: ‘If you don’t have a breaking news blog ready to go on your website, you should.’ I agree entirely – although I think I disagree on what a ‘breaking news blog’ actually is.

The underlying idea is one I’ve discussed with one major UK ‘news breaker’ already. And in truth, it’s a no-brainer. News homepages and stories are produced on the basis of prioritisation: the most important story or fact comes first. But once you’ve read it, you’re more interested in updates – and it’s immediacy rather than importance which dictates your degree of interest.

But the examples quoted – such as the LA Times ‘breaking news blog’ – just aren’t what I had in mind. Most of the entries read like extracts or sidebars from a fuller (and typically stuffy) newspaper story. The definition of ‘breaking’ appears to cover developments over several months.

A ‘breaking news blog’, in my book, should look and feel more like Twitter. Activate it when a huge story breaks – maybe only a couple of times a year, maybe a couple of times a month. Short snaps of maybe only a couple of lines, written in an informal tone. Pretend you’re MSN-ing a friend. Be prepared to be vague – read between the lines if necessary, and don’t be shy about getting it wrong. Stream of consciousness, if you like, and proud of it. I haven’t yet seen any news organisation doing this systematically… but if they have any business in breaking news, then they should be.

(I’ve also got an early idea for a ‘news jockey’ role, writing a running commentary on the day’s news blog-style. The USA Today thing is probably the closest comparison, but I’m thinking of something slightly different. It calls for a certain style of writing, and a certain style of writer, but I think it could be a winner.)

Where is the Telegraph going with its Making News blog? Hard to tell at the minute. They’re asking the right question, but based on these admittedly early signs, I’m not sure they’re answering it the way I would myself.

Tucked away in BBC News director Helen Boaden’s speech to today’s big Future Of News conference: a return to the concept of personalised news. It’s been a while, hasn’t it? 🙂

Truly personalised news, down to ultra-local level, takes huge resources. If you’re going to offer news about my town, even my suburb, you need an organisation with someone in my town or suburb to report on it. With its local radio network, the BBC is the only organisation that comes close to this depth of coverage on a national scale. Curiously, the only possible rival is the audience itself..?

Great to see Pete Clifton at the BBC recognising the single biggest problem with video footage on news websites.

What irritates the hell out of people is if they click a story which says ‘Britain buys 100 new tanks for the war in Afghanistan’ they then click on the video and it’s just a bloke standing in Whitehall saying ‘they’re going to buy 100 new tanks for the war in Afghanistan’. The viewer could say ‘you’ve wasted my time’.

The same comments add some research weight to Sky’s decision to put embedded Flash video players inside article pages, rather than relying on popups or external players. Pete says it took traffic levels to video content from 2% to 40%. All very well, but the content has to be worth the bother.

I can see two approaches to online video. The first, and more obvious one, is where moving pictures give extra impact: a big explosion perhaps, or a dramatic rescue. But more exciting to me is the ‘gimme all you’ve got’ approach. The full interview, from ‘go’ to ‘cut’. The entire speech. The full ceremony. Not just your chosen ten seconds worth of edited highlights.

When I click on a video link, I’m telling you that I really care about a subject. It’s a more considered – and arguably more valuable – click than just reading a text story, or looking at a picture gallery. It says ‘detail, please’. So why not give it to them? It’s not as if the broadcasters haven’t got the full thing recorded.

Sky have just launched their new online quiz application, with a couple of interesting twists. It’s a fairly rudimentary Flash-based application, inviting you to type your answer into a text input box, rather than choosing from several predefined options. Of course, that means you’d better be exact in your spelling – and make sure you’re exactly in sync with the expected answer. Trying it this morning, I was marked wrong for a question where the answer I gave was entirely accurate, but presumably didn’t match the pre-defined response. (An improvement might be the ability to store multiple ‘correct’ answers against the same question, to cover for scenarios like this.)

It’s interesting because it’s only open from 9am to 4pm daily, with a leaderboard published at 4.15 – guaranteeing an extra site visit later in the day, I suppose. And because each question has a ‘clue’ link to the relevant story on the site. So guess what: if you don’t know the answer immediately, you need only to click the ‘clue’ and start reading. Meanwhile, of course, Sky tots up another page impression.

I’m in two minds about this. The time restriction is a smart move, and doesn’t offend me. But I’ve got  a bit of a problem with the sneaky boosting of page impression numbers by directing people to clue articles. The quiz is against the clock: so by definition, people aren’t actually reading the clue articles… and they certainly aren’t staying around long enough to click on any ads.

We know that people like to take the BBC as a role model. But it’s still quite startling to see the extent to which the new Iranian government-backed English-language TV news network, Press TV has shamelessly copied it. Same basic layout. Same font. Same dotted lines in the left-hand menu. Same ticker at the top. Remarkably similar iconography. On the bright side, I suppose, it stretches a bit to fill a 1024×768 screen, where the Beeb is still sticking to its 800×600 optimisation. More on the channel in this Guardian article. Sadly it doesn’t yet come up in the Sky EPG.