The BBC's Anti-Blog Agenda?
An interesting post over at Rottweiler Puppy (easily one of the best blog taglines ever: "Take Small Bites, Often") about the linking policy of Weblog Watch on the BBC News site, which had picked up on a post from A Big Stick And A Small Carrot.
Wouldn't you know it? The BBC have discovered blogs. Well, alright, they discovered them a while ago, but since last April they've been trying to sell us on the idea that they're frightening beasts.
On April 8th, for instance, we were warned that a couple of unfortunates were sacked for blogging about their jobs. Then came an even scarier item a week later on the subject of bogus blogs. These would, apparently, suck out credit card details, bank account numbers, and gold fillings from unsuspecting surfers before dumping a virus on their PCs for good measure.
Now I've seen the BBC accused of having many an "agenda", but I've never seen it accused, as the Puppy does, of having an anti-blog agenda. The Puppy links through to a couple of generic IT scare stories that feature blogs (Work bloggers offered guidelines and Bogus blogs snare fresh victims, write-ups of surveys at least one of which seems to me to be [insert software vendor here] describing how everyone is vulnerable on the internet unless they purchase [insert name of software vendor's product here]). And occasionally BBC News runs one of Bill Thompson's columns trying to point out that despite what blogvangelists claim they are not going to completely change the world or cure cancer. However, for every one of these stories you can point to blogs being shown in a positive light on the News site - whether they are helping people with information after the tsunami, or allowing people to express themselves in oppressive regimes.
The claim also falls down when you consider that it has been a while now since the BBC News site starting aping the blog format (for trips in Brazil in 2003, for the US Election in 2004, for this years UK general election), and has been heavily pushing RSS, one of the staples of the blogosphere that the Puppy claims in his post is alive and well "despite the BBC's best efforts"
It does bring into sharp relief one issue about linking to blogs at the BBC. Rottweiler Puppy's point is that the BBC only linked to A Big Stick And A Small Carrot because of the content on the rest of the site, rather than what was contained in the individual post.
Now, obviously, poor, demented Hammy can write what he likes and link to whoever he chooses. Our point is that the BBC, having spent the last six months tiptoeing around the subject of political blogs, might have chosen to balance their support for moonbattery with, say, a pointer or two in the direction of conservative blogs.
Linking to blogs is somehow different from linking to sites belonging to organisations or businesses, as it seems to be viewed, by some at least, as an endorsement of everything in the blog rather than a reference to the one permalink. Linking to blogs is personal. Organisations and businesses don't tend to lurch violently in their corporate communications from subject to subject. An unknown blogger might. Organisations and businesses are unlikely, upon receiving a link from the BBC, to see it as a revenue generating exercise by finally adding those lucrative adverts for escort agencies in the right-hand nav they always intended to. An unknown blogger might. Organisations and businesses will tend to err on the side of legal caution with what they publish. An unknown blogger is much more likely to unwittingly publish something that breaches copyright / is libel etc. All of these are things that the BBC Online Guidelines would try to have us avoid linking to - but they currently have no specific provisions about linking to blogs.
Part of the BBC's role is to act as a Trusted Guide on the Web. When producers are creating content on a BBC site, they should consider which external websites it may be editorially justifiable to link to.
...
Producers may wish to offer links to external sites for a number of reasons, including:-
- to offer further relevant information
- for example a news report on a Government statement might include a link to the site which contains the complete statement
- to offer further background information or other key source material
- a link may require political balance in some cases. If we link to a statement by a political party, it would normally be relevant to link to other statements made by other leading parties on the same issue.
- to offer useful practical information
- for example, where to go to find out more about how to deal with a specific task or problem
- to offer further informed comment
- for example, links to a range of relevant newspaper sites which provide useful information and informed comment
Editorial justification
All links on the BBC public service site or on the editorial pages of a commercial site must be editorially justifiable. Criteria for linking to third party sites will vary to some extent depending on the reason for offering the link.
In general terms, the external site should:
- be relevant to the BBC content from which a link is envisaged
- meet the needs of a UK-based audience
- meet the expectations of the likely audience. For example, a link from a BBC site which is likely to appeal to a high proportion of children should contain content which is suitable for children. It should not contain content which is clearly unsuitable for children.
- be regularly updated and refreshed
- normally be free to access
...
The producer must check the contents of the site which is signposted before installing a link on a BBC page. The same check should be repeated regularly after the link is established.
We should not link to an outside site if it would be clearly inappropriate for the BBC to recommend a visit. We should ensure that the establishment of any link does not damage the BBC's reputation for editorial integrity and taste and decency issues must be very carefully considered
We should do nothing to 'own' or support the message, information or promotions on outside sites. Where we publish a list of links we should always add a disclaimer to the effect that "the BBC is not responsible for the contents of any other sites listed". It may be appropriate, even when there are only one or two links on a page, to add such a disclaimer if the links are to controversial material.
Context is important in deciding whether a link is appropriate and it is often useful to explain why we are offering the link. In some cases we may offer a link to a site which does not share our editorial values, but which offers a useful insight. For example we might link from a current affairs page to the site of a government run national news agency so that the user can see the precise words used in a government statement
...
Producers of BBC pages which maintain a list of non-BBC links should visit them from time to time to review and possibly refresh the mix and check that they are still working properly.
Still, the health and the vitality of the blogosphere, and the brilliant communication tool that blogs can be, was ably demonstrated by the fact that the first comment on Rottweiler Puppy's post is from Alan Connor, the BBC author of the Weblog Watchdog article criticised, refuting the allegation:
Actually, the very first blog I linked to from the BBC site was Conservative Home.
In terms of "getting BBC approval", the post did that by being recent, news-focussed, British-interest and having something original to say. I've linked to Tories who fit that bill in the past. The rest of the site wasn't really relevant.
Also, so far as I can see *everyone* moans about the Beeb. But thanks for paying attention!