links for 2009-05-18

"I certainly share his [Henry Porter's] fatigue but mine is with arbitrary UK regulation allowing some newspapers to get away with outrageously irresponsible journalism, while our broadcasters are limited by strict notions of balance and fairness. It’s ok right now — no-one’s got into much trouble yet and good journalism continues to rise to the top. But when the regulators finally pay attention, will they be able to control social media like they do with everything else? If not, then why do we find this hybrid regulatory system the most relevant one at all? If it’s not applicable to 140 characters, then why is appropriate for a one minute broadcast segment, or a ten word headline?"

"Maybe the source was confident that the material was so strong that there was never any doubt of its public interest. Maybe they were desperate, and had bills to pay. Or maybe, like in the movies, they just wanted to cut and run. They're sitting somewhere far, far away on a beach, drink in hand, admiring the sunset. Good luck to them."

Some interesting stuff in the comments, particularly about the BBC's decision to link to what is described as "Phorm's smear site". However, the argument is a little undermined by the tone of the comments...

Great piece of work from Meg, removing all the defunct start-ups from the famous Web 2.0 poster which I was only just using myself the other day

Includes a post summarising my presentation at the London International Social Media Summit

"A recent story did the rounds of UK papers and news bulletins as The Telegraph and The Sun claimed to have found the UK's oldest Twitter user. But as Techcrunch revealed, 104-year-old Ivy Bean happened to send her first ever tweet at the same time as the newspapers were writing their stories about her."

"Heidi Stephens's take on Norway's winning Eurovision entry becomes a minor international incident"

"A child with a birthmark? Horrifying. But a dismembered head and manacles dripping blood? What could be a nicer post-kindergarten treat? Why, children would be upset by the Manics album - sure, it's a birthmark, but it looks like blood. That's really unhealthy for the nippers. Now, an actual head, with what's clearly blood, that's fine. It's not so confusing, is it? You know where you are with proper bloody heads."

Not sure why you'd want to - I mean you'll only live to see the country flooded with immigrants, be taxed to the hilt, the weather will be rubbish and none of it will bring back Diana...