Posts Tagged ‘guardian’

«Open Journalism» – eine Definition von Alan Rusbridger

Alan Rusbridger, Chefredaktor des Guardian, betont seit Jahren, wie wichtig der Netzwerk-Gedanke für Journalismus im Internet-Zeitalter ist. An der Konferenz «Paidcontent live» war das nicht anders, wie im nachfolgenden Quote zu lesen ist:

“‘Open’ is a kind of catchword. It is journalism that wants a response. It is journalism that is itself responsive. It is journalism that doesn’t just sit on the web as though it has no connection with the web, that acknowledges that the web is the most extraordinary revolution in publishing where lots of people will be publishing extremely worthwhile and informative information. And so you can produce better things by not ignoring it or building a barrier between yourself and that but incorporating it and linking to it. It’s journalism where you can be a platform for people who know more about things than you are. It is journalism that is inclusive and wants other people to help you build the stories and challenge the stories. That’s what I mean by open journalism, think you can do a better job of describing the world by doing all that.”

via 'The Guardian': We're Not Planning on a Paywall.

Aber nicht nur Rusbridgers Gedanken sind sehenswert, die Konferenz glänzte durch eine Menge weiterer hochkarätiger Panel-Teilnehmer, darunter Vertreter von BuzzFeed, Zite oder Vox Media. Hier findet sich eine lange Liste entsprechender Videos.

Alan Rusbridger zu Ehren George Orwells

Was für ein grossartiger, leidenschaftlicher Vortrag von Alan Rusbridger, dem Chefredaktor des Guardian. Technologie spielt für einmal praktisch keine Rolle, es geht vielmehr um den Murdoch-Skandal und was er über die Funktion und das Funktionieren der vierten Gewalt aussagt. Auch wenn einiges davon spezifisch für England ist: Ein absolut zwingender Text für jeden Journalisten. Zwei Zitate:

“But the truth, as all honest journalists know, is that newspapers are full of errors. Not just errors, but crude over-simplifications, mistakes of emphasis, contestable interpretations and things which should simply have been phrased differently. It seems silly to pretend otherwise. Journalism is an imperfect art – what Carl Bernstein likes to call the “best obtainable version of the truth”. And yet many newspapers do persist in pretending they are largely infallible.”


“And then there was Nick Davies. There were several people in the summer who compared what he did with the phone-hacking story to what is still the text book case of how a newspaper can unearth and defend a story of overwhelming public interest – Watergate. Indeed the comparison was made by Woodward and Bernstein themselves.
Nick Davies was threatened, lied to and ignored, but he did what good journalists do: tracked people down; won their confidence; verified what they told him; checked it with others; and, over time, painstakingly built up irrefutable evidence of what had gone on inside the News of the World.
The eventual truth was revealed to the public, not by the police or parliament or the courts or any regulator. It was revealed by a reporter.
So, as we enter this period of reflection and investigation of the worst of what journalism can do, let’s also keep in mind the best of what journalism can do.”

via Guardian.

Das Problem Hyperlocal neu gedacht:


Ich bin schon seit geraumer Zeit fasziniert von der Arbeit von Matt McAllister, dem Head of Digital Strategy beim britischen Medieninnovator Guardian. Nun hat er ein neues Projekt vorgestellt, dass er nur mal so nebenbei aus dem Ärmel geschüttelt hat:

Mit dieser offenen, skalierbaren Plattform geht er das Problem Hyperlocal an. Inspiriert von Services wie Ushahidi, oder Foursquare bringt das Thema Community News auf ein neues Level. Kurz zusammengefasst ermöglicht die Site ihren Nutzern einerseits die Welt um sie herum sehr einfach abzubilden und andererseits auf diese Informationen ortsgebunden zuzugreifen. Das Ganze wird verknüpft mit simplen, aber gut durchdachten Game Mechanics, die produktive Teilnahme fördern sollen. Die Finanzierung des Ganzen soll über kontextsensitive Kleinanzeigen geschehen. So weit, so bekannt.

Den entscheidenden Innovationsschritt macht aber auf einer philosophischen Ebene: McAlister ist ein entschiedener Verfechter von offenen, vernetzten Plattformen und das zieht sich hier durch jeden Aspekt.

Angefangen bei der enormen Skalierbarkeit des Modells über die Tatsache, dass aller Content auf der Site als Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike lizensiert ist bis hin zur Offenlegung des Quellcodes scheint immer wieder durch, dass der leitende Gedanke immer war: Wie können wir die Plattform so gestalten, dass alle, die in irgendeiner Weise daran teilnehmen, profitieren können. Vernetztes Denken in Reinkultur. Ich bin gespannt, ob und wie sich die Site in diesem dicht besiedelten Segment durchsetzen kann.



Julian Assange: ‘How do you attack an organisation? You attack its leadership’


Der Observer hat ein aktuelles Gespräch mit Assange veröffentlicht, in dem er noch einmal (nach seinem Manifest aus dem Jahr 2006) beschreibt, was die wichtigste Motivation hinter WikiLeaks ist. A Man with a plan:

Another criticism often levelled at WikiLeaks is that bursting the banks of information in this way will only lead to the construction of new flood defences by powerful institutions; in other words to more, not less, secrecy.

“The reaction by large corporations and government power,” says Assange, “to a substantial increase in disclosure to the public was thought about in depth in 2006, when we launched WikiLeaks.” The idea that powerful institutions would “go off record” in such a way is fanciful, he argues; discovering their behaviour will always be possible by obtaining internal records. “For instance, when I obtained the manual for standard operating procedure at Guantánamo Bay, I was surprised to see that it included not only many inhumane practices, but it instructed guards to falsify records to the Red Cross. [Because] there is no way for the centre of an organisation to reliably have its peripheral elements reliably carry out its orders… there is a clear, authorised paper trail. Any form of large-scale abuse must be systemised.” And the acquisition of that paper trail, he argues, is the way to expose the abuse.

In this situation, organisations have two choices, says Assange. One is to “engage in plans that the public will support if they are revealed”, meaning that they will have nothing to fear from transparency. The other is to “spend additional resources to keep those plans secret”. The second, more common, course entails a toll on the economic logic of the organisation, which Assange calls a “secrecy tax”. Also, “when an organisation acts in a more clandestine manner”, he says, “its own internal efficiency decreases, because information cannot flow quickly through the organisation. This is another form of secrecy tax.” For organisations to be efficient, they should be transparent, he insists.

I put it to him that all this is heading in the right direction from the point of view of persuading organisations of the virtues of transparency. “It’s not optimism”, he says, suddenly animated, “it’s part of the plan!”