91Èȱ¬

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

As I write the blog post by Nick Reynolds on the 91Èȱ¬ Internet Blog, pointing at this one, fails to show on the RSS feed for that blog. Also it is missing from the Twitter feed of that blog. The oversight rather shows that "the crucial role social media plays" is being ignored.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I am still very concerned by the way the 91Èȱ¬ references information it finds on Twitter.

For example, if a celebrity reveals something on Twitter (say the name of their baby) and the 91Èȱ¬ knows the account to be genuine, is there any need to mention that the information was posted on Twitter? Why not just say that the celebrity said that, instead of mentioning the Twitter name (which is usually in breach of the 91Èȱ¬'s editorial guidelines on undue prominence).

Likewise, if a comment is sent to the 91Èȱ¬ and it is read on air or posted as part of "live" coverage, why are we told that it came from Twitter? Why does the communication medium have to even be mentioned? Why not simply say that the person sent a message?

Again, the constant references to Twitter as part of live news coverage on the website are dubious, and I would say step over the mark of what is permissible under the 91Èȱ¬'s own guidelines.

'the crucial role social media plays in breaking down barriers to engagement'

How, with some considerable evidence to suggest the exact reverse in certain quarters, is that working out?

Google kicked off with 'don't be evil'. Odd that, like others, and here, a more positive note was not favoured.

They seem to be struggling too, and that's only after a very brief time in the media infirmament.

Explains much. Excuses little.

Why does the communication medium have to even be mentioned? Why not simply say that the person sent a message?

Good point. What I would really like to know is if the constant references to these sites, Twitter and Facebook, in any way breaches the 91Èȱ¬'s editorial guidelines on giving undue precedence to a particular product.

Especially since both sites quite clearly use advertising.

2. At 14:29 14th Jul 2011, Sandstrom wrote:
As I write the blog post by Nick Reynolds on the 91Èȱ¬ Internet Blog

/blogs/bbcinternet/2011/07/social_media_guidance_for_bbc.html

Just...

Read more

Be very quick.

and comment

And very lucky.

Social Media, Twitter, Facebook - of absolutely no interest to me.

I like blogs. Particularly blogs by Peston, Flanders and Robinson. You know, where the journalist (or whatever they want to be called) puts up some news for debate and then gets comments from others. By comments, I mean opinions, with foresight, probably new suggestions, but something that really gets people interested and debating.

Unfortunately, yesterday, Giles closed the only blog left where you could place a comment of more than an extremist's dream of 400 characters (including spaces). This is called dumbing down. It also stinks of restriction of free and measured expression.

Part 2 - Still, with the new blog formats all more or less now converted to the cumbersome and inadequately thought out (from a technological point of view - I'm ex IT) format, I leave the 91Èȱ¬ site off my visit to the internet from here on.

I suggest, though, that Giles could have had the common decency (and expected professionalism) to have said something more on the blog (we all know which one I'm talking about) to say - sorry I didn't come back with answers to your complaints but you don't count anymore - we only want Twitterers (or whatever they're meant to be called now).

To the 91Èȱ¬ Directors - I don't know how much you paid for the transformation of the old blogs but, take it from me, you paid too much for an inferior product. I also suggest you take a look at what the Guardian does with comments. Far superior, easy to use and, guess what? Has a maximum of 5000! Goodbye for ever!

Chris, I think the integration of twitter and social media into reporting is essential. As a photographer and journalist myself, it's often a great way to break news and the coverage is tremendous. Whilst I appreciate that many hold the views of Giselle above wrt the use of social media, the public in general have embraced the technology and like it or not, news corporations have to address their needs and provide info in the context required by their readers.

On the point about the blog changes however, I do agree fully with Giselle - the new format is awful for the news reporter blogs. It does not allow for any sort of flow in terms of commentary - which used to be where one could get significant insight based on the opinions of readers and other journalists alike. The new blog format really makes the interaction very one-way in my opinion and is a step backward for 91Èȱ¬.

Olga -

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

'12. At 08:55 16th Jul 2011, Olga Rikova : news corporations have to address their needs and provide info in the context required by their readers.'

If I may suggest... 'as well'. Not instead of, or certainly not to the exclusion of all else.

For a £4Bpa media monopoly to be using 'cuts' as a reason to source news and generate future stories mainly via its twitter groups seems... short-sighted.

Especially while in process of crushing all competition.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

From what I have seen, the bbc seems more keen on restricting comments from the public. It has done exactly the opposite of what it was supposed to do "Enhance the public interaction", and has step by step restricted license payer input so as to (it seems to me), constrict input from the public. (rather the opposite I would say to "interaction" with citizens who actually FUND auntie Beeb).
Try opening the Organisation to freedom of speech 91Èȱ¬. THAT means publishing blogs unedited. After all grown ups can handle more than one point of view at a time!! Also, drop your insistence on being part of the NHS! Viewers are able to do without PC thanks,and can cope with the truth, even though PC control seems ever more essential to 91Èȱ¬ management these days.

Censorship not appreciated in 2012...honest!!

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

I have to echo FishFingers at #6; I'm also becoming increasingly concerned with the prominence to which the 91Èȱ¬ seems to be giving Twitter and Facebook - which are, after all, commercially-funded, profit-making companies. And foreign ones, at that - so not even licence fee payers.

As Mr Fingers says; surely there are rules which strictly govern advertising on the 91Èȱ¬ - and surely your continued mention of Twitter on what seems like every other damn story, these days, is in violation of those rules...?

If you're going to keep passing them millions of free hits, at least start charging them for it, and get some of our licence fee back!

Either way; would be helpful if the 91Èȱ¬ management were to comply with their own guidelines, before issuing such to their journalists.

It's an interesting subject.
Chris, what are the most common issues the 91Èȱ¬ has surrounding its use of social media?

Sorry - cant find anywhere else to leave this message...

Could someone please improve the visibility and navigation to Democracy Live on the 91Èȱ¬ website? It's practically invisible and yet it's one of the most important things you do in my opinion. Why hide it away?

A question about bbc 'live' coverage of events on the news web site, ie yesterdays questioning of the Murdochs.
You are invited to make comments via facebook, twitter and by texting. You may also 'add your comment' which leads to you being asked for your name, location, e-mail and telephone number.
I am not on facebook or twitter, i dislike paying again towards the beeb's coffers by texting, but i do have a bbc 'identity' and seem to be disqualified from commenting unless i enter my details all over again. Any thoughts?

Had to read this three times before I understood that 'genre' isn't a verb:

"Finally, we remind people that programme or genre content - like @91Èȱ¬Breaking and 91Èȱ¬ News on Facebook - should normally be checked by a second person before it goes out."

Maby they could check for clarity as well (what is genre content and how can I buy some?).

Question:

Given the special added value of interactivity in social media, one notices many 91Èȱ¬ blogs do have this facility.

Why then do so many 'shut down' within matters of hours, often with only a few score comments, especially when the topic still seems topical?

For instance, the Nick Robinson political blog often kicks in post 9am and closes pre 5pm.

This rather suggests that the 'service' is only targeted at those who have daytime access, time and/or permission to partcipate.

As this seems restricted to a few hundred folk, how is this properly serving the millions of UK licence fee payers?

Who moderates 91Èȱ¬ Social media, when it's not hosted at a 91Èȱ¬ domain?

The 91Èȱ¬ surely aren't recklessly allowing inappropriate content to appear on 91Èȱ¬ branded third party Social Media sites? That smacks of mismanagement, if it's being allowed to go unmoderated.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I feel that it is good to have a standard social media guidance as far as organizations go. An organization needs to stand together as a united front though hopefully the rules are transparent and are restricted to companies' policies so as not to muzzle the freedom of expression or speech.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.