Delusions of grandeur

Who you gonna call?

Another 'professional' who might not fully grasp why they get feted as much as they do.

Is the web's amateur hour over?

Not so much 'who you know', but 'who you work for'. Though the principle's the same, and little to do with talent, though it should be.

Because it is all about making money, which the best talent, well-harnessed, should generate.

Sadly, as layer upon layer of gatekeeper and administrator gets added, it would appear that 'other factors' come into play.

To a web-struck musical individual I tried to equate to the situation of dashing to a virtual HMV store because your CD is on the shelves. Unfortunately, other than you, the situation is still that no one else knows it's there, no matter how good, and the racks are about 1,000 miles long.

So while the money may no longer be required for creation, the 'powers that fee' now focus on controlling access and exposure.

'twas ever thus.

Just products from a brand. Hence, I wonder if the perceived 'value' is from 'old-fashioned professional journalists' or the fact that they work for 'mainstream media organisations' with a better chance of delivering an audience.

Hence it might be worth seeing if one gets invited to report because of one's reputation (if possibly hard to divorce totally from the employer) or because of the name at the top of the card or as dropped by the researcher.

'xx, talented bloke-who-writes' vs. yy from the BBC, national broadcaster with access to 60 million possible consumers. Tough, but maybe a simply grubby call. Especially when drawing up dinner invites that may lead to exposure to the largest audience.

Viral is as viral does...n't?

Spreading the word

It's an area that interests me, especially for apps with Junkk.com.

Hence the comments in the thread become even more pertinent.

I love the way the BBC and its luvvies somehow disconnect so often themselves from being the only national broadcast entity there is which, oh, I dunno, may influence who wants to 'help' them (U2, Brute?), and how good, old-fashioned promotion on the MSM is still a heck of a way of boosting up one of a trillion bits of work in the e-ther to getting noticed at all, much less judged and/or repsonded to.

Nice that Aunty (we) didn't have to pay. Shame we didn't get a cut of the massive promo value to the creators, mind.

Any stats on how many folk actually stayed with it all the way though to snag the 55k+ views?

Speaking of hooks, I am sure there was some nice, funny stuff later on, but really, life was too short. Ok, I fib. Was it a Labour of love? Or... something more conservative? I fear I err on the latter.

Worth Every Penny

Just watching BBC Breakfast News, with a slot on Prince William on Royal Navy duty somewhere exotic.

Reporter, who has, one presumes, flown there for this 'story', addresses busy heir to throne as he passes with this stunning question: 'How's it going, sir?'

HRH: 'Fine'.

Top stuff.

Aunty's new 'passions'

BBC Good Food website relaunches as social network

I remain a tad intrigued, if a little concerned as to how this all works. I am sure they would not be so crass as to use my licence money to fund the service, but certainly it has been used to build the brand.

What do those* with whom this service on these sites now competes feel about all this?

*ps: I am not that happy.

BBC - BBC Trust report says news coverage is failing the regions - maybe becuase that £3.5B is not going to where some think it is... should?

Press Gazette - Regional publishers renew criticism of BBC local web plans

Press Gazette - 'BBC colossus threatens to undermine other websites'

Suffer little children

Today I am watching two teenagers on the BBC Breakfast sofa who have been tasked to speak on behalf of 'our traumatised youth in the UK'.

Why does the BBC pander to every interest group with an axe to grind and funding (four children commissioners?) to justify, and especially become equally complicit in setting up youngsters on national TV to feed the ratings frenzy for any news at any cost, no matter how valid (or not) the substance and what the impact may be on kids being used by adults to push certain agendas.

I am sure getting on TV is thrilling, and these kids can often be admirable, but in many cases they can prove less than comprehensible and frankly either waffle or end up unconvincing representatives of the causes they have been set up to advocate.

One today was asked something like 'how awful it is being a child in the UK these days'. Faced with such a loaded question the poor kid froze and in an near politician-perfect manner fobbed off the answer on 'someone else'.

And only yesterday I was watching two Girl Guides under the same glare, as part of some 'the world and its dog is making us want to be things we shouldn't' effort by another interest group. When challenged on what they did want, the whole thing fell apart when one tried to articulate what is patently not going to happen, namely that media should only cover the good stuff that celebs do and ignore the negatives.

This is just cheap time-filling at best, made worse by using kids to make already dubious points about kids that are blatantly steering certain adult agendas, whilst serving the poor individuals being toyed with in the spotlight poorly.

Whatever the merits of these youngster's feelings, my two just thought these 'representatives' seemed inarticulate, sad and daft. Not what should be portrayed to encourage our youth on living in the UK today.

BBC - UK society 'demonising' children - If anyone is messing with our kids, I can think of a few more pressing guilty parties