Who owns The Birmingham Post's blogs?

By Marc Reeves on May 7, 08 12:11 PM in Editor

In my speech at the Post's 150th Anniversary Gala, I rather pompously declared that what tied the 21st century title to its 19th century origins was the role of the Post as a 'place for ideas'.

What I meant was that it is the paper's job to represent and reflect upon current politicial, social and scientific thought in the Midlands, and by doing so encourage informed argument out of which comes progress. Through the Chamberlain revolution of the late 19th century, that was certainly the case, and I make no apologies for firmly believing that our move into the online world - particularly blogging - provides an opportunity to fulfil this ambition even more so.

Unrestricted by the limitations of newsprint (we can afford to print only so many pages each day), our digital presence means we can make available to more people the opportunity to share their ideas with our readers.

Indeed, we're one of the first regional titles to deliberately recruit a number of contributors from outside the ranks of our newsroom teams, to grow the breadth, depth and quality of our blogs.

But therein lies the challenge to our definition of what constitutes a 'Post blog'. Recent posts by one blogger have sparked quite a debate on our site and beyond. Paul Groves sums it up well here. Apart from the arguments of the substance of what Roshan actualy said, I think there is an interesting discussion to be had about the role of blogs within a newspaper's website (or that of any news 'organisation' for that matter.)

In the best traditions of the form, therefore, I want to pose five questions:

Is a blog a tool only for individuals rather than media brands or organisation?
What 'control' should a host brand such as the Post impose on its individual bloggers?
What are the Post's brand values in the eyes of readers?
Are traditional news brands inherently incapable of adapting to the new - two-way - nature of online journalism?
What now consititutes expertise in a given field?

Answers on a postcard . . .

Comments (5)

Older/Newer

« Would You Feel Safer Getting Mugged on Camera? | Taxing times for Steve McCabe »

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Who owns The Birmingham Post's blogs?. TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.birminghampost.net/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/4458

5 Comments

simon gray said:

1. Is a blog a tool only for individuals rather than media brands or organisation?

Personally I'd say a blog is a tool for anybody - indeed, many say that especially for media brands, their only hope of survival is to experiment with what in the digital media domain has been a mature technology for some time now!

Outside the realms of media brands, I do think other 'corporate' brands should think carefully, & more than once, about using blogging as a tool - such as the Coca Cola blog, or the Cadbury blog, or the Maplin blog could very easily seem false & backfire on them.

2. What 'control' should a host brand such as the Post impose on its individual bloggers?

Put it this way - to my mind, that post didn't reflect well on the Post; I think you still need to maintain immediacy of posting (for example, Pete's post about how we were live twittering during the election coverage might have been less relevant had it had to wait until Friday afternoon for somebody to approve it, but you do need to maintain control of your editorial values somehow; at the end of the day, your bloggers could post anywhere - it is the Post which is giving the particular exposure, & ultimately the Post which has to take the rap if a post backfires.

3. What are the Post's brand values in the eyes of readers?

For me - reliability & impartiality, the 'organ of record' for the city.

5. What now consititutes expertise in a given field?

Reading between the lines of the question - it's not the holding of expertise which has changed, it's the perception of it; in the modern interweb era anybody can present themselves as an expert much more easily than pre-web (& with tools such as WordPress, people can even more easily adopt a professional-looking persona), but equally how many bogus books were written by people claiming to be authorities with more letters after their names than in them? Expertise still has to be verified by acknowledgment by independent peers rather than just self-claimed - and in effect, although it is easier to pass oneself off as an expert now, it is equally easier for the reader to verify such claims.

May 7, 2008 1:12 PM

clifford said:

Is a blog a tool only for individuals rather than media brands or organisation? - both

What 'control' should a host brand such as the Post impose on its individual bloggers? - none as long as within the law

What are the Post's brand values in the eyes of readers? - no idea

Are traditional news brands inherently incapable of adapting to the new - two-way - nature of online journalism? - no see eg Guardian, BBC Editors blogs

What now consititutes expertise in a given field? - don't understand the point of the question. In the context of the original blog - we are all expert consumers

May 7, 2008 1:28 PM

Jon Bounds said:

Fascinating questions Marc, and great to see you using a blog to ask them.

1. Is a blog a tool only for individuals rather than media brands or organisation?

To my mind blogging conversationally, rather than simply using the same technology to release information (see Google's blogs for example), can only work when it comes from an individual. For a Newspaper it has to be seen as a 'Comment' column that people can respond to - and hopefully the readers will feel able to discuss with them (with being the bit that really turns it into a blog).

2. What 'control' should a host brand such as the Post impose on its individual bloggers?

Hmm, that's a great one — as a publisher it takes legal responsibility of course, but we are in fairly uncharted water apart from that.
My internet, egalitarian, mind says "as little as possible" - although you are bringing bloggers under the umbrella of the brand (is a brand strengthened by different voices within that's a question). Maybe it's an issue of trust - you trust the bloggers to engage and behave in a manner that befits the Post even if their opinions aren't always what "the brand" may believe.

3. What are the Post's brand values in the eyes of readers?

I'm not the best person to answer, but I would hope "quality" and "honesty" - there has always been a strong community aspect, perhaps that community is expanding via the site.

4. Are traditional news brands inherently incapable of adapting to the new - two-way - nature of online journalism?

Course not, some people may struggle more than others tho'.

5. What now consititutes expertise in a given field?

Simon has it very right above, the internet opens up peer review on all sorts of matters - for better of worse it also allows people to claim 'peer-dom'.

May 7, 2008 1:43 PM

Paul Groves said:

Marc: I guess I'd better chip in and try and pin down some of my thoughts too.

1). Both. Blogging is individual, but that doesn't mean to say a brand can't make use of what it offers too. I agree with Nick regarding non-media brands needing to think very carefully about how to make use of blogging (the Guinness blog was just daft, for example). But for media organisations, particularly a newspaper, it should enhance and complement the traditional printed format.

2).This is very tricky because the idea of editorial control, although perfectly valid for the newspaper, doesn't fit too well with blogging. Yet some quality control is surely essential as a poor blog will have a negative impact on how the newspaper is perceived. Alienating readers, either in print or online, doesn't make sense. I've blogged for other publications and they've all had someone effectively "editing" contributions - but it has been a dialogue and if they've suggested changes I've disagreed with then we've talked them through ahead of publication. I'm not sure how realistic that is for you, resources wise (although I can probably make a considered guess!).

3). To me the Post should have a strong, independent, informed voice. It doesn't have a natural rival in the Midlands and when it is at its the Post best knocks spots off other local media organisations. The Post should be setting the agenda that everyone else follows.

4). Absolutely not. Do journalists need to change their attitude - yes, without a doubt. Do bloggers and social media enthusiasts need to learn a bit more about the peculiarities of newspapers and journalists - yes, without a doubt. Some of these peculiar traits are what make good newspapers and good journalists and are not necessarily a natural fit with blogging. But they can be adapted. There are no rules, there is a fluidity to blogging that newspapers can benefit from. It is a conversation these days, no more dictating to readers. Journalists do not know best, but neither do readers. So by talking together, they might just come up with a few interesting new answers.

5). Journalists become "experts" on an issue for as long as it takes them to conduct a few interviews and file an article to newsdesk. Sometimes they carry on being experts in such issues if they end up specialising, other times they move on to become a transient expert on something else. Blogging isn't very different. Nick makes reference to the University of Transparency on his own blog and I think he has something there.

Thanks.

May 8, 2008 9:16 AM

Nick Booth said:

I've written about this on my own blog (thanks for the mention Paul) but trackback isn'y showing so I hope you dont mind my 5 pennorth re-posted here:

1 Is a blog a tool only for individuals rather than media brands or organisations: A blog is one of two things – a stream of information attached to an RSS feed – or a tool for conversation. I’ve never managed to hold very enjoyable conversations with a brand or an organisation. So I plump firmly for the individual here.

2 What ‘control’ should a host brand such as the Post impose on its individual bloggers? As much as you like – you’re the boss. The problem is that if you assert too much control then the fun part of the blogging will go away, because your writers will be looking over their shoulder and the readers will sense they’re neutered. Two questions to ask yourself: What is news? if you describe something as a news blog what would you expect to find in it? What reasons would be good enough to ask someone to stop blogging? Clearly a contemptuous attitude to libel might be one. Would racism be another? How about 3 boring posts and your out. They’re a bit of an idiot? Again, you’re the boss…

3 What are the Post’s brand values in the eyes of readers? – In my eyes – changing. I think the quality which will most endear me to the post is openess and transparency because that creates the opportunity for an intelligent debate, which this city needs and the Post is well positioned to host. Coupled with lots of photos of people holding glasses of wine and standing next to Brian Woods Scawen.

4 Are traditional news brands inherently incapable of adapting to the new – two-way – nature of online journalism? No – some journalists might be, but they shouldn’t be blamed for that. You’ve got to be quick though. Just look at the falling revenue from all those estate agents trying to save money on their advertising budgets.

5 What now constitutes expertise in a given field? Fastest finger on google? Nah – too flippant. It is the depth of thought that I admire. Why? Because the web has made it easier than ever for us all to passionately hold to half thought through or borrowed ideas. I also reckon that highly networked people are well placed to be experts because they have access not just to information but other people’s brains to help them think through ideas. Did I just describe a university?

May 9, 2008 12:35 AM