The Scottish Sun is claiming it will name the mum and step-dad of Baby P at midnight (BST) tonight) as a reporting ban on identifying the pair expires at 11:59pm.

The article goes on to describe how their names were made available online:

“Vigilantes managed to get around the identity ban in the early weeks of their conviction by naming them on websites (…) But Scotland Yard’s e-crime unit worked with internet service providers to remove most of the content from cyberspace.”

The conditions of the reporting ban aside it’s an interesting series of events – banned, leaked, removed, reported in the ‘traditional’ press – a cycle under increasing pressure from the online world.

Full story at this link…Similar Posts:

• ‘The Battle of Bandwidth’: Online publishers at risk from ISP pricing changes
• Independent.co.uk: Online ‘made a mockery of High Court’ in Baby P case
• Reuters: Google wants to ‘fast lane’ its news, reports WSJ
• Testing times for Mail Online’s comment system
• Observer: An internet licence fee could aid newspapers

Another dose of Fry this morning, in an earlier post we reproduced yesterday’s comments to the BBC about journalists and expenses.

Courtesy of Malcolm Coles, here is the full transcript [below video] of Stephen Fry’s presentation at Digital Britain on April 17. Fry’s appearance caused a little stir that day, not least for the way he was introduced onto the stage by the BBC’s Nick Higham:

“Stephen is, one of the organisers told me beforehand, the representative at this conference of the ordinary person, frankly: if that’s what someone thinks the ordinary person is like, then someone needs to take them aside and fill them in…”

Some of Fry’s comments relate to technology more broadly, but some interesting points on media, and keeping the web ‘organic’:

“You talk about the BBC doing a digital switchover, as if that’s the same thing as the world-wide web.”

“We’re moving from a world, in which no-one knew or saw the point of, online world, into something [where] everybody has reserved to themselves some special insight into how it’s to affect us.”

Stephen Fry:

It’s very puzzling. A few years ago, people talked about ‘Web 2.0′ (and user-generated content) as being somehow a new development for the world-wide web and how it enabled individuals to contribute (to send up, if you like), to upload not just to download content.

And of course YouTube, and many of the social network sites and so on, have been prominent examples of net citizens, if you like, making their mark, providing their content, improving their existence.

This whole world of skills is something that is completely alien to me.

• ‘I literally don’t understand’

I don’t understand what a digital skill is. I literally don’t understand.

I am not been funny or smart, I don’t know what we’re talking about.

Do you mean how to operate a mouse, how to access a website?

It’s not a digital skill – it’s how to drive a car that you are talking about.

We live in a world which is entirely dominated by the car. I don’t remember a debate in which people earnestly sat together, talking about how you had to teach people to use traffic.

[Laughter]

• ‘It’s so peculiar’

It’s so peculiar to me that we’re sitting around saying people should learn to do this, we must tell people how to do that…

I went in the early 90s to the Director General of the BBC – tried to persuade him that the BBC should have a website.

He had no idea what one was. He didn’t know what the internet was. No-one at the BBC knew then. It had only just come into being.

I am not blaming him or trying to present myself as some prophet. All I’m saying is – go back a little further to the 1930s.

The boys’ bumper book of science, when the DC motor was invented, which was an extraordinary breakthrough in engineering, there’s a cut away picture of a home of the future in the 1960s, in which all kinds of items in the home are driven by electric motors.

The article in the 30s says how we must all become electric motor literate. Because electric motors will operate our society.

As it happens, electric motors DO operate our society. They operate every DVD, they operate everything that moves virtually in your kitchen, house, but you don’t have to know how they work. They are entirely transparent.

• ‘You merely have to know what it is you want them to do’

You merely have to know what it is you want them to do. You want to put washing in it, you want to make toast, you want to spin a CD. Fine.

But, yes, there will be nerds who can actually take apart an engine and motor for you. People who can build a website for you if you want one built – who know what a CMS is, who know what Java is, what hot Java is. They know all the coding and nerdy things.

That’s not what you’re talking about.

• ‘What are you actually talking about?’

You are talking about slaves, you’re talking about the fact that essentially we are slaves.

I love this technology but you go to an office now, people who used to have secretaries are their own secretary. They are operating things that an accountant used to operate, spreadsheets.

They are operating word processors that a secretary used to operate. They are using technology, as it were, to do things.

They are sitting in front of a screen, apparently being productive. Is that your digital skill? I don’t know. Is that what you mean by digital skill?

What are you actually talking about?

[Laughter] [applause]

You talk about the BBC doing a digital switchover as if that’s the same thing as the world-wide web.

• ‘It’s just altering your television. It’s nothing else.’

It’s just altering your television. It’s nothing else.

Yes there’s a bit of interactivity, yes there are settop boxes.

Yes, I can take out my iPhone and I can use Sky+ now to record something for when I get home, remotely, yes there are all kinds of whizzy toys.

I’m still a human being, I still have exactly the same urges and passion and things that all human beings do.

• ‘I don’t need to be re-skilled into anything.’

I don’t need to be re-skilled into anything.

Will’s absolutely right. We train on the job if a new piece of technical hardware comes on. But we’re moving from a world, in which no-one knew or saw the point of, online world, into something which everybody has reserved to themselves some special insight into how it’s to affect us.

If we had this conversation in 1994, I would have said ‘God what a prophetic bunch of people’. You see how this is going to change the world. I agree with you – how exciting.

Would have made no difference. Because in the 1990s, Ian McNaughton on the BBC was doing this ‘how you operate a micro computer’. We have the micro computer club.

It was a very good and noble thing for the BBC to do, to attempt to show people how to use microcomputer, a BBC computer.

It made not a blind bit of difference.

[Laughter]

It didn’t change anything.

Nick Higham: “Can I go back to your starting point – the driving analogy? Surely that’s absolutely appropriate. We do all have to learn to drive a car and that involves a couple of lessons in which you learn useful skills, like which way the steering and the gears go. And then you learn about traffic which is a higher order of skills. Surely it’s a very useful analogy?

[Fry] Good point. It’s a useful analogy except in as much the very phrase ‘being digital’, I don’t know whether consciously or not, is a phrase of a very influential book by Nicholas Negroponte, called ‘Being Digital’, which was published and hugely successful.

He made the point very long time ago now, round the same time Tim Berners-Lee was developing the world wide web. He made the point – you have to understand it shouldn’t be called ‘digital’. It should be called an earlier word that’s ‘electronic’.

That’s because the things we send back and forth are no longer molecular, they are no longer atomic.

If [I] sent you a picture, it’s made of electrons – if I sent to it you on the computer, it literally weighs nothing.

• ‘If they bump into each other there is death’

If I send you a picture by a courier on a motorcycle, it’s made of atoms and it weighs things.

This extraordinary exchange of information is all done at an electronic level – literally electrons, rather than atoms, are taking over the way we exchange things.

Now in traffic, yes, you have to get a driving test because we’re made of atoms. Our cars are made of atoms. If they bump into each other there is death.

[Laughter]

But, fortunately, we don’t need a licence to operate the internet.

But it’s useful to know how to drive. It is as simple as that.

• ‘I am literally baffled’

I assume that’s all you’re discussing. But when you talk about up-skilling, I am literally baffled.

I am astonished that pieces of paper are being produced and clever people are sitting round talking about upskilling workforces.

To me, I just want to go away and make a Charlie Chaplin satire about it.

It seems insane.

[Laughter]

(…)

Nick Higham: Stephen I will give you the last word on condition there is no driving analogies.

[ Fry] I am going to change my analogy.

But first I want to add to Will [Hutton's] point about the monopolisation and the constriction into a small numbers of brands, and the large number of content providers having dwindled to a small number. (…) Those very same content providers in many territories – not so much Britain yet – are also the ones that control the pipeline.

What Comcast has done in America, for example, has been absolutely disgusting, in the way they have throttled certain users because they see those certain users getting their content from another place, than themselves.

If Warner Brothers, Comcast as it is, and if Virgin Media continues on being a big player in it – if not a content manufacturer, certainly a provider – this a very worrying development.

But that’s [an] aside.

• ‘An analogy argues similarity not congruency’

Let’s forget the driving. I would only remind you an analogy argues similarity not congruency.

[laughter]

Let’s suggest here (..) I believe human beings do not change very much. I don’t believe that the internet, the digital economy, what computers can do, has altered us one whit.

And I would say merely that we have always had these abilities, to create structures that are quite bewildering to us.

• ‘The internet is more like a city than anything else’

A good example is a city, and I would say that the internet is more like a city than anything else.

Our ability to move round it may or may not be like driving, but we’re going to forget that.

In cities, there are slums, there are palaces of wisdom, there are libraries, museums, art galleries, theatres, places of entertainment, shops, endless rows of shops.

And we pass by them, we hardly look at them. We glance at newspaper headlines, we don’t pay much attention as we wander round – just as you were describing [how] we use the internet.

Increasingly those shops are becoming the same in every different city. Because they belong to single chains.

And there are places in those cities you would not yourself want to go down – dark alleys, let alone have your children alone.

• ‘We let our children learn to use the cities and they do’

But slowly we let our children learn to use the cities and they do.

And there are those historically who never moved to cities, who prefer the countryside, those who can’t afford to move to the city, those who can’t afford to a good part in it.

All I am saying, we recognise this the way humans are, it’s the way we structure our lives, the way we always have.

Let’s not pretend its a new thing that needs a new way of looking at ourselves.

• ‘I would look back at history to try to understand the internet’

If anything, I would look back at history to try to understand the internet, not try to look forward into some strange ‘New World’ that we need to understand, we need to develop a new jargon for.

That’s not necessary.

But, above all remember that the same social issues of justice and of decency and fairness, and of a right attitude to looking at our fellow citizens, still apply.

Those points made about those cut out of whatever profit, whatever joy, whatever knowledge, whatever extra excitement and pleasure can be gained from a digital world rather than a normal city – then, yes, it is our duty, I believe as citizens, but [also] my politics if you like, to help them.

And to help them by giving them free things, because we can all contribute to help make them free.

• ‘Let’s not try and make every city like a kind of Milton Keynes’

But perhaps I will end by saying let’s for God’s sake not pull them down, and try and make every city like a kind of Milton Keynes. Let’s keep them organic.

Similar Posts:

• #newsrw: Kate Day, Telegraph.co.uk: ‘The more engaged you are with a community, the less confrontational things become’
• Mail Online publisher: ‘If you don’t listen to your users then you’re dead’
• Election 2.0: ‘The internet is not national, it’s not local, it’s everywhere’ says Google’s DJ Collins
• Zeit Online: Alan Rusbridger interview – ‘I’m an economic realist’
• #wef11: Ten lessons on news app creation from Mario Garcia

The LA Times interactive technology editor Eric Ulken is off to trot the globe, after ten years working in newspapers.

“Now I hope to effect change from the outside”, he writes.

“Earlier this month, I left my job as interactive technology editor at the Los Angeles Times to travel and learn and share stories about the great work taking place in online journalism around the world. I love the Times, my work and my colleagues, but I’ve decided it’s time to try something new: reporting.”

Read about his plans on his blog.

Come visit Journalism.co.uk in Brighton, Eric!Similar Posts:

• Ironic snapshot at the LA Times: ‘YOU Own This Place Now’
• OJR: Lessons learnt from time at the LA Times data desk
• WAN 08: Disparities between pay of web and print journalists – a problem all over the world for integrating newsrooms
• JLPF: Tweets from the Digital Editors Network and Journalism Leaders Forum
• New York Times/ProPublica’s DocumentCloud makes newspaper debut

It’s widely reported, but worth flagging up for those who haven’t seen coverage. AP reports: Rupert Murdoch has said that doomsayers ‘who are predicting the internet will kill off newspapers are ‘misguided cynics’ who fail to grasp that the online world is potentially a huge new market of information-hungry consumers.’Similar Posts:

• Wordle: Rupert Murdoch’s optimism for print future
• #JNTM: Professor Robert Picard on why newspapers deserve to die
• Stephen Glover: ‘Attack Google too, if you value privacy’
• #soe09: What are the revenue opportunities for newspapers – and what are the ‘donkeys’?
• Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper ad apology

Naming Baby P and his mother is not about giving into a hysterical Facebook campaign group; this is about confronting the reality of the online age.

I can’t link to it here, because it would be breaching reporting restrictions, but I know Baby P’s name, the baby’s mother’s name and the name of her partner.

So does anyone with even a little bit of Google cache savvy about them: it’s on a BBC report from 2007. Google cache preserves a page even if, as the BBC has done, original articles have been removed.

As the Independent reported, Facebook groups have published the details, despite the court order not to.

My argument is not about revealing the names for justice, it is about having a law which can actually be enforced.

If it had been reported abroad, on non-UK websites, they would be not be held accountable under the UK Contempt of Court legislation. Court orders, such as the one in this case protecting the names of the defendants, are simply not feasible in the web age.

I believe that whatever ensures fair trials without prejudice, protects the innocent people involved in the case (other people connected or in the family, for example) is necessary, and if keeping the names secret does that, then that should be done: I certainly won’t be joining any Facebook group to force their disclosure.

But it should be done in such a way where they really are secret, which has not happened in this case:

Jason Owen’s name is known; the mother’s name has also been previously published and is reachable with a quick search; the baby’s photograph is in the press.

One of the Facebook groups has a description reading: ‘For sum [sic] reason the press have seen it fit not to reveal the sick people who killed this poor helpless child.’

The press has not chosen to keep quiet (they certainly would print the names if they could); they are bound by law not to. But what happens when the wider community who have not been taught about reporting restrictions and contempt of court choose to publish, using blogs and social network sites?

I imagine that most people in that community, and wider geography, knows who the family are. Last night’s BBC Panorama showed that the research team were able to access things the mother wrote on social networking sites.

Yet the names cannot be disclosed by the British press without contravening the Contempt of Court Act. This means that disclosures are made through people who aren’t necessarily so concerned about, or even think about, media ethics or face any kind of editorial process.

As I reported in September, Bob Satchwell from the Society of Editors believes the legislation is out of date and redundant, as do many others.

Orders, such as those under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, for example, allow a court to ban publication of specific information, in addition to statutory reporting restrictions. But how on earth to enforce this in an online world?

This is starkly proven in the case of Baby P.

It’s time to readdress our laws, as Satchwell has urged the Attorney General, and make trials really fair.

Postscript: I’ve just found Martin Belam’s blog post, which makes a similar point, and also focuses on the ‘sheer scale of useage of the internet’ in the UK as compared to 2000 when Victoria Climbié case was reported, for example. Similar Posts:

• Reporting restrictions: who can access them?
• Independent.co.uk: Online ‘made a mockery of High Court’ in Baby P case
• Newspaper Society: New law for family court will cause ‘regime of secrecy’
• Index: Due process, prejudice and the press in case of Chris Jefferies
• Alleged hacker’s bail hearing divides news outlets over reporting restrictions

Peter Mandelson had to be a last minute addition to the list because the magazine had already gone to press: being offline seems to be a recurring theme for the London Evening Standard’s 1000 most influential Londoners list, out this evening.

Can we get an online version? Can we heck! After time wasted going round the editorial houses through the Evening Standard switchboard, Brighton-based Journalism.co.uk is getting sent a print version.

So in the meantime (till the print copy arrives) here’s the online media and general media types we’ve spotted on the list of 50 that are featured on the website. And it looks like new media gets a fairly good representation.

The little ‘see new media’ under the names almost had us thinking we could click on links… no chance. Well, we’re not in London; we don’t really exist, clearly.

Shiny Media’s three founders are included – and quoted as being “highly influential in the UK online world”. They aren’t among the very top 50, but you can see a scanned in bit of the list on the Shiny blog.

Media/Online types from the top 50:

• Nikesh Arora, GOOGLE, EUROPEAN VP: Boss of the internet giant’s most important base outside California, bringing in close to a billion pounds a year in advertising revenue in the UK. Landed Google job after 17 interviews. (New Media, TV & Radio)

• Jonathan Ive, 41, APPLE, DESIGN GURU: The world’s most influential product designer, involved in the iPhone and iPod. He is returning to British roots, buying a £2.5 million retreat here. (New Media)

• Mark Thompson, 51, BBC, DIRECTOR-GENERAL: From deception scandals to swingeing job cuts, Thompson has had to weather many storms while rival broadcasters pitch for a slice of the corporation’s income from the licence fee (Television & Radio)

Outside of the big 50 we’ll have to rely on the Guardian’s Media Monkey for information:

“…chief exec James Murdoch, Ashley Highfield, chief exec of the Kangaroo on-demand TV project and, drum roll please, Evening Standard owner Lord Rothermere, chairman of DMGT! Who’d have thunk that thisislondon.co.uk was such a groundbreaker?

Other media bods on the list were Paul Darce, Rebecca Wade, Ed Richards, Mark Thompson, Simon Cowell, Simon Fuller, Nick Ferrari, Emily Bell, Eric Huggers, Evan Davies, John Humphrys, Jay Hunt, Peter Horrocks, Alexandra Shulman and Gok Wan.”

Similar Posts:

• New media rank amongst London’s ‘most influential’
• #Tip of the day from Journalism.co.uk – tools for beginner data journalists
• Google ends Radio Ads scheme – cites same reasons as Print ads closure
• TechCrunch UK: Shiny Media’s fashion blogs go to Bright Station
• Time’s most influential list hacked

Journalism.co.uk wrote a story last week about comments RBI managing director Jim Muttram made to the PPA conference about performance related pay for journalists.

Back on his own blog Jim has posted about the hubbub surrounding the issue.

“If any pay for performance scheme were ever to be implemented in a blanket fashion that very well might be the result – which, for the record, would be a bad thing!

“However, in an online world where attention is firstly more valued and more difficult to get, and secondly increasingly measurable it surely comes as no surprise that questions about how to maximise it arise from time to time.”

I recommend a click through to read the whole post.Similar Posts:

• Alan Rusbridger on relationship with WikiLeaks: ‘things are quite difficult’
• Trials of a redundant journalist: Don’t forget the contacts
• FromtheFrontline: More Twitter conventions would have aided Mumbai coverage
• MediaMemo: Time Inc. on paywall plans and print/iPad-only content
• Traditional story structures not suitable for new ‘heavy media multitaskers’, says communications professor

Today is the 15th birthday of the World Wide Web, marked by the CERN announcement on April 30 1993 that the web would be free to all.

It’s a cue to sit back and marvel at how much has changed in a relatively small amount of time and post screen shots that may induce the same feeling as mum fetching the baby photos.

After the WWW age was born, online news and journalism was swift to follow: The Tech – an online version of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology newspaper, went live in May 1993; closely followed by the first journalism site from the University of Florida that October.

By 1994 there were already more than 20 online newspaper and journalism services. The Sunday Times and the Daily Telegraph were the first British papers to enter the online world in 1994 with the Beeb taking slightly longer to catch up, launching its news website in 1997.

1999 saw the launch of Journalism.co.uk in its first form and my haven’t we grown…

With web technology advancing daily, the slick news sites of today will surely be drawing fond smiles in another 15 years.

Happy birthday Web, here’s to many more…Similar Posts:

• Radio 4′s Today programme on Metro’s 10th birthday
• Happy Birthday BBC News website
• Looking at the Liverpool papers live blog coverage of the Rhys Jones murder trial
• Twitter at five: who has made the most of it in journalism?
• MediaGuardian: Rupert Murdoch at 80

Last week a French court found a website guilty of breach the privacy of actor Olivier Martinez because it linked to a story about him (hat tip Cybersoc).

The site, Fuzz.fr, had linked to a gossip website which was carrying a story about the actor’s relationship with Australian singer Kylie Minogue.

In landmark ruling for the French online world, the court decided that Fuzz.fr has taken ‘an editorial decision’ to link to the other site and was therefore responsible for the content.

The site, which allows users to post their own links, was taken offline shortly after the ruling.

“It’s a black day for French participatory websites, because it opens the door to all kinds of (court) procedures,” Fuzz’s creator Eric Dupin told AFP.

According to a report on Yahoo News, Dupin was ordered to pay 2,500 euros in damages and legal costs.Similar Posts:

• Newspaper tycoon Conrad Black released on $2m bail
• Landmark decision clears Google of copyright infringement in YouTube case
• HTFP: Newsquest wins court ruling in defence of user-generated content
• MediaGuardian: Clifford drops phone hacking case following £1m deal
• RCFP: Media organisations get involved in ‘hot news’ case