A new home for Doing All Write!

Doing All Write will shortly be moving to Wordpress.

The domain www.doingallwrite.com will eventually be redirected to the new site, but in the meantime you can grab a sneak preview by CLICKING HERE.

Happy reading!

Twitter habits of the kingmakers

Twitter has been huge at this election. From campaign arm to breaking news source, and more recently a post-election forum for debate, the microblogging service has thrived during Election 2010.

But how often do the cross-benchers in the House of Representatives tweet? I decided to find the the four independents and Greens MP on Twitter to see how they’ve embraced the service.

The Greens Adam Bandt is definitely the biggest Twitterer of the bunch. His following has grown by an average of 46 people per day and now stands at 3,525. He follows 1,112 people, among them ABC journalist Annabel Crabb and independent online news source Crikey. He also tweets fairly regularly, with 25 Tweets in the last week. Bandt seems to be “with it” in Twitter terms, his tweets a mixture of informational, conversational and light-hearted humour. In one he even says “Welcome to Twitter’s ‘Fake Adam Bandt’. My only request: please be funny!” (Note: I searched and could not find the fake one).

Rob Oakeshott definitely knows his way around Twitter, but one would guess he’s spent so much time being wooed by Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott that this has left him with no time in the day in which to tweet. He’s picked up an average of 145 new followers per day this week to currently sit at 1,267. He follows 949 people, including yours truly as of 10:44 this morning. His last tweet however was on August 18. It looks like at the start of the election campaign in late July he was quite the tweeter, but by the second week of August had largely lost interest. A tweet from 28 July says “Thanks for the oranges Tony!”. I assume he does not mean Abbott.

Bob Katter gave up on his Twitter account before it began. His solitary tweet from 28 May says “Getting on Twiter to connect with the real Australians – country Australians” but ol’ Bob has been quiet since. This may explain why only two people per day are joining his following – which currently stands at 729 people. In return he follows an interesting if short list of just 17 people which includes Tony Abbott, Godwin Grech, Laurie Oakes and Bill Gates.

Tony Windsor, Andrew Wilkie and WA Nationals MP Tony Crook are not on Twitter.

Social Media circumvents electoral advertising freeze

The 12am Thursday morning electoral advertising blackout has been a part of Australia's electoral process at least ever since I was a voter. Indeed the Australian Electoral Commission website states:

Under Schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, which is administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), election advertising in the electronic media is subject to a 'blackout' from midnight on the Wednesday before polling day to the end of polling on the Saturday. This three-day blackout effectively provides a “cooling off” period in the lead up to polling day, during which political parties, candidates and others are no longer able to purchase time on television and radio to broadcast political advertising.

This blackout is now challenged, however, due to the rise of Social Media. Services like Twitter and YouTube are allowing the political parties to continue campaigning right up until election day.

Just two hours ago, the Liberal Party's official Twitter feed tweeted "Watch our new online video "Do you really know Julia Gillard?"." The link goes to this YouTube clip.

It's not on TV, so it doesn't break the blackout, but it may as well be - it's a television advertisement in every sense.

Labor's Twitter feed, meanwhile spruiks blog posts by the hour.

What are the repercussions? Clearly the media blackout laws were conceived in a time when Television, Radio and Print were the only media people had access to. With the development of the internet and more recently, Web 2.0, this has all changed. The uptake of Twitter and its embracing by politicians, and the popularity of social networking sites like Facebook and YouTube have rendered the laws obsolete.

With Australia going to the polls tomorrow, it is obviously too late to change the laws for this election, but "Moving forward", if the media blackout is to continue achieving the same goals it set out to do back in 1992 it will need to be revised with a view to including social media under what it terms "electronic media".

Has WikiLeaks gone too far?

Online whistleblower WikiLeaks has made quite a splash of late.

By making available various pieces of information that governments, corporations and mainstream media don't want us to know, it's been busy rewriting the rules on information sharing.

It has attracted fierce critics from the right, supporters from the left and caused lively debate in both the traditional and social media, while its eccentric founder Julian Assange has become quite the mystery man.

It's even made its way onto Stephen Conroy's list of sites to be banned under the proposed controversial internet filter.

But by releasing documents related to the war in Afghanistan that contain names and locations of informers, has WikiLeaks gone too far?

In this article from The Australian, Assange denies having blood on his hands after the Taliban started tracking down and killing some of those named. Instead, he lays the blame at the feet of the US military, saying it was widely known on the ground who the sources were and the US military failed to protect their safety.

"We are a source protection organisation that specialises in protecting sources and have a perfect record from our activities," he said, continuing "In our four-year publishing history, no one has ever come to physical harm that we are aware of."

But how can he be sure that there are incidents that he is not aware of? And even if it was known in Afghanistan who US sources might be, WikiLeaks did the Taliban a wonderful service by collating them all in one, easy to find, place. Can he really say there is zero blood on his hands?

What is WikiLeaks really all about?

I'm not opposed to whistle blowing. There is always more than meets the eye to every issue that the media won't tell you. Media outlets will always have their biases and their agendas. It's quite refreshing to have a cat amongst the pigeons, or dare I say, a "shit stirrer".

But what is WikiLeaks' real purpose? Are they about releasing privileged information in its raw form, and leaving it up to the consumer to make up his/her mind? Or do they have their own agenda?

In this video (four and a half minutes long and well worth watching), Assange explains that due to a lot of the source documents WikiLeaks gets being exceptionally long and difficult to understand, they are interpreted – and Assange admits this interpretation goes beyond a mere summary – to make them understandable and consumable for the general public.

The problem is that the minute anyone interprets anything its meaning gets altered. There is no journalist on Earth who can take thousands of pages of complicated source material and transform it into one page of plain English without affecting, and indeed influencing how its meaning will be perceived.

To his credit, Assange explains that the original material is always released alongside the interpretation. But he’s already said the source data is too long and complicated for most people to understand. So what are the chances of them going back to it to check that what they’ve just read/viewed is an accurate interpretation?

Assange adds that the material is edited for impact. Given that impact is an extremely subjective thing, this further complicates matters given that the perceived meaning of the material will then be firmly in the hands of the editor.

Assange also freely admits that WikiLeaks is indeed an activist organisation, with a goal. Yes, that stated goal is an honourable one – justice – but the mere existence of a goal at all means the organisation can’t be objective.

The bottom line

WikiLeaks has done an enthusiastic job of keeping governments, organisations and the mainstream media in check, but who will keep it in check?

What do you think? Please leave a comment and join the discussion.

You know you're addicted to Foursquare when...

Time for a bit of humour! For those who use location-based social networking service Foursquare (or if you know someone who does), there's a few sure signs that a 12-step program might be in your or that person's future.

Without further ado, you know you're addicted to Foursquare when:

1. You make extra stops on the way home just to check in
2. You check in to your house when you get home at night AND when you get up the next day
3. Every one of your friend’s houses is on Foursquare... even though not all your friends are
4. You check Foursquare to see where your friends are instead of just calling them
5. You get excited when you meet someone new who’s on Foursquare. Genuinely.
6. You check in at every train station on the way home for the points
7. You check Foursquare for restaurant suggestions before you check the SMH Good Food Guide/Zagat
8. You go through locations reading tips when you’re bored.
9. You go through locations adding tips when you’re bored.
10. You start collecting badges that you’d rather not be awarded (e.g. a MALE friend of mine who scored the “Housewife” badge!)
11. You turn on international data roaming and pay a fortune so you can check in on vacation
12. You time your check ins so that you don’t do more than three in 15 minutes
13. When you read that you knew what it meant
14. You get upset when there’s no 3G reception and you can’t check in
15. You get upset when Foursquare says you’re too far and withholds points
16. You get really excited when you become mayor of a venue
17. You do a victory dance when you become mayor of a venue
18. You get upset when you’re ousted as mayor of a venue
19. You make it a point to win back that mayorship
20. You start Twitter stalking the guy who stole that mayorship

New Domain for Doing All Write!

Different address - same great blog!

Doing All Write can now be found at www.doingallwrite.com.

I'll continue to share my thoughts on journalism, social media and how the two collide. Please comment freely and often.

Journalism is undergoing a metamorphosis - no one can deny that anymore. Traditional news mediums are no longer the be all and end all. The news has become a conversation.

Join my conversation today!

"Wow, I've got a story here!"

Today's entry is purely a journalism-related one. As you may know I started a contract at a new paper last week. Well, on Tuesday I was reminded of one of the things I love about journalism.

Being a journalist, you're always going to get a mixed bag of stories to work on. Some will be really interesting, some will be less so. Some will be sad (I had such a story this week). Some will involve merely re-writing a media release, while others will involve trying to find an angle in some fairly dry source material.

On Tuesday I was handed what seemed like a fairly dry report to read through and find an angle on for my paper's readership. And I very nearly missed something that was staring straight at me.

After spending much of the day getting regulation comment from the appropriate spokespeople, I decided to read a section of the report I had skimmed over. I had skimmed over it because it concerned the research methodology and I was only interested in the findings.

In short, I had decided what I was looking for. Now if you don't have a lot of time, deciding what you're looking for can help you to turn out a fairly decent news story quickly. But it can also sometimes mean you miss out on something far more important.

Well, I'm glad I decided to read through the methodology section. For in it I found my real story.

At the start of this ramble I said I was reminded about one of the things I love about what I do. In short, that thing is the rush you get when you realise you really have something. Something more than just dry commentary or an everyday interview.

Rather, an important piece of information that your readership don't know; one that they should know; and that they will now know because you will tell it to them.

It's those little moments of satisfaction that make it all worthwhile.

The moral of the story? Don't decide what you want to find. Open your mind. Think outside the square. And remember, the best stories are often to be found where a lot of people won't go looking for them.