Tag Archives: Rory Cellan-Jones

Why RIM’s CEO shouldn’t have fled Cellan-Jones BBC interview

Posted on by
Reply

The chief executive of RIM, the company behind BlackBerry, has become the latest interviewee to walk out of an interview. Mike Lazardis ended his encounter with BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones after the corporation's technology reporter asked about RIM's issues in India and the Middle East, where governments have challenged BlackBerry's encryption of messages.

The interview was set up to explain the new BlackBerry Playbook tablet, RIM's answer to the Apple iPad. But RIM's PR team must have known that Cellan-Jones would take the opportunity to raise other hot topics. At first Lazardis dealt calmly with the challenge. Had he stuck to that approach, viewers would have been reassured and left to focus on the Playbook. Instead, all the talk on Twitter and elsewhere was about the CEO who walked out. 

The golden rule of media interviews is to answer the question but bridge to your key message. Cellan-Jones appears to have given Lazardis ample chance to respond and get back to talking about the Playbook. I can't help wondering how the RIM CEO would have fared against a truly aggressive interviewer, such as Jeremy Paxman or John Humphrys…

The TV and social media election

Posted on by
Reply

It was billed as the social media election. Yet television – invented the year my father was born, 1926 – has electrified Britain's 2010 general election campaign.

Nick Clegg's performance in Britain's first leaders' debate a week ago catapulted the Liberal Democrats into pole position as the party for change. For seven days, Labour and the Conservatives have agonised how to respond. Should they attack Clegg or ignore him? Should they play the man or his party's policies?

Tonight's second televised debate was eagerly awaited. Would Nick maintain his lead? Would the two other party leaders perform better?

I thought all three leaders did well tonight. Interestingly, Irish journalist Christine Bohan said on Twitter that she'd kill for a leaders' debate of this calibre with Ireland's political leaders Cowen, Kenny and Gilmore. (Thanks to Orlaith Finnegan for a retweet of this.) Brown, Cameron and Clegg were impassioned and smart.

I blogged recently that talk of a social media election was overplayed, as BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones became a digital election reporter. I don't think Twitter will win the election, but it has complemented the role of the TV debates. And it's giving fresh power to the people and the political parties against the deeply biased old print media. The brilliant #nickcleggsfault viral Twitter campaign, mocking the Tory press's smears about the Liberal Democrat leader, rattled the Daily Telegraph, which was forced to defend its smear against Clegg earlier the same day.

Here's to next week's final debate.

Why is The Guardian addicted to swearing?

Posted on by
Reply

The BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones blogged today (Prudish about politics) about how he's been shocked by the foul language used by political bloggers and tweeters since he's been covering the general election campaign. His post was prompted by the fate of Labour candidate Stuart MacLennan, who made a string of offensive comments on Twitter. 

But my favourite paper seems just as addicted to language I'd never use in front of my mother. The Guardian's style guide is clear: the paper should not casually use words that are likely to offend, but should use them only when absolutely necessary to the facts of a piece, or to portray a character in an article; there is almost never a case when the paper needs to use a swearword outside direct quotes.

Yet the paper routinely ignores such sensible advice. On Good Friday, it published a letter from reader Patrick McNamee that included the f-word. It was part of a weak joke about the The Guardian's April Fool about Labour's election posters, and could hardly be regarded as necessary. Saturday's paper included the f-word in Charlie Brooker's television review and in an interview with Jonathan Ross and in a profile of actor Kayvan Novak. (The last two examples were at least in direct quotes.) A quick search suggests other instances in print and online. 

The Guardian's former readers' editor Siobhain Butterworth pointed out in her Open door column in 2008 that the printed paper used the f-word 843 times in 2007, compared with 33 times in 1985. Many people will hardly notice such profanity, as society generally effs and blinds far more casually than it did 25 years ago. But I find it strange that a paper so highly regarded for its stylish writing thinks swearing is necessary.

 

Why the BBC’s Rory Cellan-Jones is wasted on digital election stories

Posted on by
Reply

I'm a huge fan of the BBC's technology business reporter Rory Cellan-Jones – or @ruskin147 as he's known on Twitter. I first appreciated his expertise and enthusiasm after reading his book about the dot com boom and bust, Dot Bomb. 

But my heart sank when I heard that Rory had been given a temporary role as the BBC's digital election correspondent. Not because I don't think social media will play a role in the imminent British general election. No, my concern is that the move appears to confirm the fears of the BBC critics who think the corporation is obsessed with Twitter and – to a lesser extent – Facebook. More significantly, it suggests a preoccupation with the medium rather than the message. 

Don't get me wrong. I love social media. I've been blogging since 2005, and have embraced Twitter and Facebook with a passion. But Rory's new (temporary) beat suggests the BBC is desperate to be seen as cool and in touch. His blogpost about the budget confirms my fear. As he says, the Facebook election page has just 1,000 fans active and 12 contributors. I sense that Rory is desperate to find a new digital angle to the election, rather than judge possible stories on their newsworthiness. That's a great shame for such a talented journalist.

The political social media enthusiasts constantly point to Barack Obama's 2008 campaign as the model for future engagement of voters through social media. But America is, as they say, another world. Obama was engaging in a great debate with Democratic party rivals, followed by the actual race for the White House. The idea of change was compelling after eight years of George W Bush. Britain is very different. British political parties seem to have transferred Punch and Judy politics to Twitter and Facebook. (The Tories' Cash Gordon stunt was pitiful.) We're hardly likely to be impressed. If they're going to succeed, they must remember that social media is about transparency and authenticity, not control and yah-boo insults. Individual MPs, such as Labour's Kerry McCarthy and Eric Joyce, often rise above this in their blogs, and provide a compelling insight into the role of the MP. (Though interestingly Kerry appears to talk more to the converted on Twitter. Does 140 characters lead politicians to be more partisan?)  

My view is that the televised leaders' debates will have more of an impact on the 2010 election than the political parties' social media efforts. The real impact of Twitter and Facebook will be from voters commenting on the debates and developments in the campaign, not the parties' own efforts on social media sites. But Kerry and Eric are great role models for other candidates.

Don’t bin the instruction manual just yet

Posted on by
Reply

The BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones loves technology. It would be odd if he didn't: he's one of the Beeb's tech writers. So I wasn't surprised to see his post Read the manual? Never! on the BBC's technology blog, dot.life.

Rory's point is that products should be so simple and intuitive to use that a manual is unnecessary:

"The whole point of modern devices – from cars, to mobile phones, to wireless routers – is that they are designed for idiots like me who don't even know how to lift the bonnet, and wouldn't know how to proceed if they could. We want to take things out of the box, turn them on and see them leap into action without having to read anything."

If only! You've only got to look at the thousands of questions about tech products posted on forums and other websites to realise how unrealistic this is. I've spent much of the last week on Google finding out how to use my first Apple Mac computer – despite Apple's fame at making intuitive products and its excellent video tutorials. (Even the unexpectedly complicated task of moving emails from a PC to a Mac required far too many searches!) Modern consumer electronic products are incredibly complicated, with a plethora of menus and options. Consumers need some guidance, unlike long ago when the GPO trimphone was the last word in innovation.

The final proof that Rory is wrong is the boom in 'missing manuals' and 'dummies' guides. There wouldn't be a market for them if products were as intuitive as Rory (and I) would like.

PS: I wrote this post about the complexity of modern products and the need for manuals on Ertblog in October 2006…