“Man bites dog” was the test for news in my journalism classes at university. But the amorphous definition of what constitutes “news related material” in the wake of the new press regulations is one of issues that’s giving bloggers and sites a fright.
The decision to extend the new press regulator’s remit to include websites and blogs throws up a multitude of issues. The Culture Secretary Maria Miller was reported in the Guardian as saying the rules would only apply to publications that met three tests: “whether the publication is publishing news-related material in the course of a business, whether their material is written by a range of authors – this would exclude a one-man band or a single blogger – and whether that material is subject to editorial control”.
Yet it’s easy to imagine a successful blog that regularly uses guest posters and that campaigns or comments on current affairs suddenly finding itself fitting the bill.
The powers that be have flat-out said that the rules are not designed to cover “small outfits” (assumedly that means us little bloggers). But the questions it throws up seem to indicate that the folks that drafted it are sitting squarely in old media land, where everything is predictable and there are only a few big entities at the top with clearly delineated roles and methods of distribution.
So…what’s news? When is a blogger deemed to have editorial control over her site for the sake of the test? Does “range of authors” mean a certain number, contributing over a certain amount of time or is it…looser? “Thousands of sites could fall under the ‘dreadfully broad’ definition of who is a publisher in the new regime,” the Metro reports.
We have to agree with Carla Buzasi, the editor-in-chief of The Huffington Post, who said, “I can’t imagine any politician has had this discussion because they have rushed this through so quickly.”
The editor of the political blog (with multiple authors) Liberal Conspiracy didn’t seem to find cause for concern – pointing out that bloggers are already responsible for libel that appears on their sites and suggesting that the body implementing the rules will make a distinction between the Guardian.co.uk and voluntary blogs like his. That assumption relies on rational and common sense behavior from an oversight body at some unspecified time in the future.
Do we really want to bet on that?
About Jennifer Howze
Jennifer Howze is the Creative Director and co-founder of BritMums. She blogs about family travel at Jenography.net, tweets at @JHowze and Instagrams at @JHowze. Previously, she wrote the Alpha Mummy blog at The Times and as a journalist has contributed to The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Wall Street Journal, Travel & Leisure, Budget Travel, CNN.com, Allure, SELF and Premiere, among others. She won The Maggie Award from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America for a health article in Seventeen magazine.
Amanda Kennedy
Tuesday 19th of March 2013
I must admit I was rather shocked to see the headline about "bloggers" on the front page of the Metro this morning.
Being a "one man band" who doesn't post anything "newsworthy" (or not often anyway!) I feel somewhat reassured that my sites won't be impacted by the changes. But as you mentioned, these have been put together by those of the old-school who (in all likelihood) have no idea what it means to be a blogger in this day and age.
Of course, I would hold myself responsible if I were to publish anything libelous or otherwise break the rules, but it seems at the moment these "rules" are so loose they could easily be abused.
Jennifer Howze
Wednesday 20th of March 2013
Exactly! The tests are ill-defined and one wonders how this relates to not just blogging but increasingly other forms of social media -- YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, G+, etc.