Tim Johns

Blast away web ads (for fun)

2011-01-17T00:42:00.003Z

Best thing ever? No, don't be stupid.

It's pretty fun though.

Today I was told about this lovely bit of JavaScript which lets you zap-shoot-fly-blast your way around your internet browser.

It's brilliant.

Visit your favourite website (or any website) then visit this web address (ie. copy and paste the below as you would a website address and hit enter):

javascript:var s = document.createElement('script');s.type='text/javascript';document.body.appendChild(s);s.src='http://erkie.github.com/asteroids.min.js';void(0);

And away you go. Arrow keys to move about, space to shoot, Esc to quit. And don't worry, you're not blasting away important stuff, just refresh the page (F5 in most browsers) to get back all that stuff you destroyed. And yes it's safe, it's just fun web-stuffs.

YouTube's audio transcriber needs some work...

2010-12-20T19:57:00.008Z

If you're on a YouTube video, in the bar at the bottom is 'CC'. If you click it you can turn on closed captions - but you can also choose audio transcribing.

If you choose that, YouTube will try and recognise the words being spoken and put them into speech. Try it. It's hilarious.

I just tried it with this video I made about horses - and here are my favourite bits that got lost in translation:

What should have been 'come back' came out as 'Vietcong pat'. Well done for trying, but I won't be recommending it for any hard-of-hearing friends just yet...

WHAT WAS SAID (YES): Where are you going?

WHAT THE SUBTITLES SAID (NO): Are you going to Taiwan?

YES: You used to dream of having...

NO: Used to dream of housing...

YES: ...ANYTHING...

NO: ...PIMPIN'...

YES: I've always thought I'd like to do a Rubik's Cube

NO: But quite often to will be executed

YES: Why would you play with a Rubik's Cube?

NO: Want to go over the movie excuse protests?

YES:More than what we seem.

NO: More than...greasy.

And so on. Pick a video you like...turn it on...it's funny.

Here are the horses (you'd have to open it in Youtube to turn on 'cc'):

Green screen tips

2010-11-16T11:16:00.002Z

Yeah, ok, it's just "look at me I'm by the seaside but I'm NOT REALLY!".

But there's something satisfying about being able to green screen myself to pretty good effect, just in my bedroom.

Fortunately someone decided that my bedroom walls should be green...

If you're ever in the mood to go green (or blue - those two colours work best) screen yourself - here are a couple of tips I learned from making this:

- Take the time getting the green screen right. If you have something mostly green, with patches of other colour...it just won't work as well.

- The lighting is really important. You want the green screen to be lit, so I just put a couple of lamps behind me and just out of shot. Then you want to be lit - but without casting a big shadow behind you. So I just upped the ambient light in my room with the main ceiling light.

- Don't wear the same colour clothes as the screen! I wore a green jumper, which made it more difficult. Oops.

- Getting the screen and shot right is the most important bit - the rest you can edit later. As for the actual editing - there are plenty of Youtube tutorials! I used Chroma Key. And no, you can't do it in 'Windows Movie Maker'.

Lincolnshire Roadtrip

2010-11-08T13:45:00.006Z

Sunday afternoon = impromptu roadtrip. We chased down a cloud factory, and saw some cows. And documented it.

It was the first time I'd really just fully relied on the on-board sound of digital camera I have - and further to my earlier post where I mention thinking about sound quality - and I think it did a pretty good job. GOOD JOB.

Google Buzz Lawsuit

2010-11-02T23:32:00.003Z

This is a slightly extraordinary email from Google regarding it's mess-up after launching it's 'Buzz' service.

Read the full email to Buzz users below:

UPDATE (March 2011) - Google has now changed their privacy rules as a result

---

Google rarely contacts Gmail users via email, but we are making an exception to let you know that we've reached a settlement in a lawsuit regarding Google Buzz (http://buzz.google.com), a service we launched within Gmail in February of this year.

Shortly after its launch, we heard from a number of people who were concerned about privacy. In addition, we were sued by a group of Buzz users and recently reached a settlement in this case.

The settlement acknowledges that we quickly changed the service to address users' concerns. In addition, Google has committed $8.5 million to an independent fund, most of which will support organizations promoting privacy education and policy on the web. We will also do more to educate people about privacy controls specific to Buzz. The more people know about privacy online, the better their online experience will be.

Just to be clear, this is not a settlement in which people who use Gmail can file to receive compensation. Everyone in the U.S. who uses Gmail is included in the settlement, unless you personally decide to opt out before December 6, 2010. The Court will consider final approval of the agreement on January 31, 2011. This email is a summary of the settlement, and more detailed information and instructions approved by the court, including instructions about how to opt out, object, or comment, are available at http://www.BuzzClassAction.com.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
This mandatory announcement was sent to all Gmail users in the United States as part of a legal settlement and was authorized by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Google Inc. | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, CA 94043

Buying a video camera on a budget

2010-11-02T21:08:00.011Z

I used to be in this video club thing when I was at school. We'd borrow this knackered old camcorder and film some stupid stuff, then try and edit it together with a voiceover using two VHS machines. It was good for what we had - but ultimately pretty awful.

Making stupid (and serious) videos is something I've always wanted to do – but something which has always been out of reach because of cost. 'These days', I think that's changed a lot.

I finally decided on a DSLR (ie. a digital camera not a camcorder) to make videos – I've only used it for a couple of silly ones so far. Here's the latest one I made, with some things to consider if you're thinking of buying a camera below it:

*to see the video in full quality - you need to set the video resolution to 1080

Low resolution/low budget can be ok

The vast majority of people still have computer monitors which have a low enough resolution that video from a modern cheap digital camera, or a smartphone, can look pretty good. Even on big, widescreen HD monitors, it can look absolutely fine, depending on what your video's purpose is.

It totally depends on the audience for your video. If you're just wanting to practice, film for fun, do a video blog and so on – the current smartphones and £100-ish digital cameras are really good. There are other options like the Flip Cam – HD video in a really portable gizmo with a flip-out USB port.

Think about how people will view your content. If you're doing a personal video blog on Youtube – it's unlikely people will ever maximise the window – and if they do, does it matter that the image isn't crystal clear on their HD monitor? No, probably not. But then, if you're doing a vlog because you want to work in the media and are hoping a future employer will spot it one day...perhaps you want it to be the best quality it could reasonably be.

High resolution doesn't mean high quality

Don't get suckered into thinking something will give you a perfect 'movie'-quality image just because it's marketed as 'HD'. It's increasingly a strap-line camera companies are keen to put on their products – but 'full HD' isn't the be all and end all.

Full HD just means it can capture a certain number of pixels. If each pixel in your video is incredible quality because you have a really great camera, then it'll look amazing. If you have an awful camera, the fact is can capture 1080 pixels of rubbish won't make the final picture look much cop.

So High Definition doesn't matter?

Well – again, it depends on your audience. But if you're specifically aiming to produce quality video – perhaps you're a journalism student, short-film maker or a freelance video producer – then you might want to think about HD.

The future market is all about HD. Having an HD digital camera means the content you make is already a little bit 'future-proofed'. All new TVs, the online video-world of Youtube and Vimeo – it's increasingly about HD. As internet speeds increase, so will the importance of online video quality. As people buy larger, higher-res computer monitors, older, non-HD film will begin to look worse.

What am I using?

I shot the above video with a Lumix FZ100. If you're running around a lot and wanting quick, unplanned point-and-shoot moments left right and centre then a DSLR probably isn't going to be as easy as a conventional camcorder, but if you want something more affordable, controllable and in many cases versatile, a DSLR can give you full HD video (and a fantastic stills camera!).

Think about what you need it for. If you want to film yourself jumping out of a plane, an expensive but complicated and fiddly camera isn't going to be much help.

Incredibly popular on the DSLR front is the Canon EOS 550D - I nearly went for that. I went for the FZ100 for the following reasons (and I'm not saying it was the right choice or a better camera...just some things to think about when looking!):

- the on-board sound is better

- it's simpler to use

- it's got a pull-out/swivel screen on the back. This has proved indispensable for shooting low shots, or shooting myself from a tripod

- it comes with a built-in super-zoom lens (cheaper and easier, but less flexible)

As I say – I'm not trying to sell the camera – just highlighting things you might want to think about.

Certainly if you have the cash – you'll get better quality picture from the Canon – a big advocate (and he knows what he's talking about far more than I do) is Adam Westbrook – see his latest thoughts on the 550D.

Sound sound sound

Whatever you do, don't forget about sound. Again – if you're going cheap and cheerful, for fun videos, it doesn't matter so much.

But if you're paying more for better video quality, that's going to be put to waste if you don't have good sound to accompany it. For better quality sound, you'll either want to to plug in an external microphone or record the sound separately and sync it with the video later on. If you're plugging a mic into the camera – check it comes with an external mic socket! And - don't forget to budget for all of this.

Sexy Video Editing

2010-09-14T22:45:00.005+01:00

I don't know what you were doing last night.

But I can tell you what I was doing. Being sexy. With my new camera. I had a play with it around the house. It does full HD video, which I think comes out ok.

Sexy-time.

Google Instant: first thoughts

2010-09-08T18:32:00.009+01:00

I've just been trying out Google Instant. It's amazing.

What strikes me most is how its launch this afternoon marks the start of a new way we search the internet. And there hasn't been one of them for a while. That's really significant.

What is it? Google Instant, quite simply, displays search results as you type. The more you type, the more accurate those results become. With Google guessing what you're about to type, this often means you don't have to type much at all to be given the result you want.

For, example - before, if I had wanted to look up the film 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo', I would have probably typed 'girl dragon tattoo' in a search engine and hit enter. Now, as soon as I've typed 'the girl'...the top result has already come up with the IMDB link I was after, right there on the screen. It partly works based on what's popular; if I type 'w' - results come straight up for weather forecasting sites.

We've come to expect so much from the internet and from Google - when you first use it, it seems like a pretty natural, normal, simple step. But the engineering behind it must be staggering, and it's arrival, I believe, signifies the next big step in searching the internet.

I only did a few searches with it. Then I went and did a 'conventional' search and already this feels antiquated. I believe that once people give it a go, there won't be any turning back, and with Google promising Instant for mobile devices later this year, it won't be long before everyone is using it.

Other search engines will have no choice but to try and follow suit, but with fewer resources from the get-go than the Google-giant, you wonder if this will push Google even further out in front.

Yes there will be the debates on privacy, the personal data Google need to make this work and the way in which the company is taking over our lives. That aside, I think this afternoon will mark an important change in the way we use the web.

Try it here: Google Instant

Middle Class White Boy

2010-08-23T01:45:00.004+01:00

It's about time I got better at editing video.

So here's a song I made a few months ago. This morning, we filmed a bit of footage to make a video for it, and this evening I taught myself some basic video editing. I think it worked out ok!

Yes, I felt like an idiot recording the footage for it and yes, it was fun to make.

Hoax Emails

2010-08-18T14:27:00.010+01:00

In the news today is a warning about a new scam involving a fictitious ‘dislike’ button on Facebook.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10987725

It’s still amazing how easily people can miss the warning signs in scam emails, clicking their way into potential malicious virus-traps or spam-bots which in turn spam all the victim’s contacts.

If you’re reading this because you got here by clicking a link in an email – I might be talking about you!

I mocked up a spam email, including plenty of warning signs that you shouldn’t click the link in the email. I thought it would be interesting to see if anyone actually did click on it… There weren't many people in the newsroom, but within a few minutes more than a dozen had clicked on it, no question. About three colleagues did ask me if it was genuine.

Below is the email, and beneath that, I explain some of the warning signs, and tips on how to spot them.

Subject: LOL - heres one for you!

Alright?

Ok this might seem to good to be true but Ive set up a fun charity page for homeless children in London. PLEASE READ you don't have to do anything and it wont cost you A SINGLE PENNY.

Ive copied my charity appeal link below, for every time a user clicks on my link the company will donate 2p to the charity. That doesn’t sound like a lot but IMAGINE if i can get enough people to click it with the power of the internet…….we could raise THOUSAND OF POUNDS!!!!

Please it only takes a moment of your times and you can help the homeless in London:

http://bit.ly/charityappeal

Please, please forwardthis mail to at least ten of your friends and together we can make sure these children sleep well at night!!

Here are the warning signs that it’s a scam email:

1) The subject. So often scam subjects just look wrong. Would the person who sent you the email write like that? I never write ‘LOL’…and I’m normally good with apostrophes. Scam subjects are also designed to hook you in – so you might be suspicious if it instantly seems too good to be true.

2) Use of capitals and punctuations. This isn’t always the case with scams – but so often they’re written very badly. You should be wary if there are too many capitals, exclamation marks, and badly spelled words all over the place. Again – does it read as you would expect it to read from whoever sent it to you? If not, and they’ve blindly forwarded you something…again, be very suspicious!

3) The link. You have a strange forwarded email with a link in it. Here’s where you stop and never, ever click that link. If in doubt, just email the person back to check it’s a genuine email. People won’t mind you being suspicious. Even if you can see the link is for what looks like a reputable well-known website, still be suspicious.

4) “Please forward this email to friends”. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an email that instructs you to forward it to as many of your friends as you can that isn’t utter rubbish (with the rare exception of friends or colleagues who might be doing genuine fundraising, etc). If you’re already suspicious…and then you get to the bit which tells you to forward it on…delete it!

5) I haven’t personally signed it off, which also suggests I haven’t written the email.

If it’s too good to be true, it is.

There are some really good scams out there – and if I’m ever in any doubt, I just copy and paste a sentence from the email, and stick that into Google with the word ‘hoax’ on the end. You’ll quickly see in the results whether other internet users have flagged it up as a hoax, and how dangerous it is.

Every little helps: A great bit of PR

2009-09-21T18:36:00.002+01:00

The Tesco press office seems to be pretty good. They've done a couple of things lately which have set them apart a bit, and made me laugh.

This week - a news story about the bloke who apprently founded the Jedi religion. He got annoyed when he was in Tesco and was asked to take down his hood, or to leave the store. He says he has to wear his Jedi-hood as part of his religion, and accused the store of victimisation and discrimination.

According to newpaper reports, he's even seeking legal advice on the matter. Most big PR machines would probably either not comment, or send a very minimal response, just to make sure they don't get involved in any debate, or accidentally tread on some religious grounds, or do actually end up being taken to court. But in a victory for corporate PR and common sense, Tesco sent the following, fantastic response:

"Jedis are very welcome to shop in our stores although we would ask them to remove their hoods.

Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and Luke Skywalker all appeared hoodless without ever going over to the Dark Side and we are only aware of the Emperor as one who never removed his hood.

If Jedi walk around our stores with their hoods on, they'll miss lots of special offers."

This Jedi certainly doesn't have his hood up right now

Another time I noticed a sense of humour from the supermarket giant was in a press release a while ago. They started stocking a new range of extra-large condoms. In the press release to announce this was a comment from some important boss, which said something along the lines of: "We believe the new product range ties in nicely with our slogan - that 'every little helps'".

You don't need a big budget for great content

2009-09-18T18:54:00.004+01:00

First of all - sorry I used the word content there.

The title of this post is inspired by a video I just watched that was clearly recorded on a minimal budget. It's a great video, and a brilliant idea.

I'm a bit late to this video - it's from 'budget day 2008', and follows the adventures of Matt and Tom as they compete to see how many live news reports they can gatecrash.

Such a simple idea, but executed so nicely and to such great effect, with a bunch of friends running their 'command centre' and filming them, that it provides a better watch than (quite frankly) most entertainment programmes on our tele-visual-screens. It has brilliant moments in it - and keeps you watching over its twelve minutes because you know there might be more of them.

I'm a big advocate of student radio, and both the 'stars' of this video 'did' student radio. One of them - Tom Scott - won the Kevin Greening Award for Creativity at last year's Student Radio Awards. Out of every single awards entry in every category available - judges are able to nominate any entry they feel is suitably creative to contend for the award, so in my opinion it's a great acheivement.

And it shows - check out his website (link below) and if you get a chance, his Youtube channel.

So here's the video:

Featured in this are...Tom Scott and Matt Gray.

http://www.tomscott.com/

http://www.mattg.co.uk/

Has the media gone Twitter mad?

2009-09-15T19:50:00.011+01:00

@timoncheese has been thinking.

Everywhere I seem to look in the media at the moment, it’s all Twitter Twitter Twitter. On some platforms it even seems to be overtaking ‘texting-in’ as the standard format for audience interactivity. But has the media gone over the top with Twitter?

In the city I currently live in, I have a group of friends and most of them are on Twitter. My girlfriend is on Twitter. Lots of people I know from the media industry are on Twitter. More people join all the time, and I certainly feel that the interaction and wealth of information I get from it makes it seem like the social networking place to be. And it is, at the moment.

But – I’ve recently found myself falling into the trap of thinking that if I put something on Twitter, everyone in my life will know about it. Lots of people will. But they’re mostly people I don’t actually know very well. I went back and thought about how many of the people I really know actively use Twitter, and the answer is very, very few.

Out of all my close friends from my hometown, school and university, a handful are on Twitter. Probably only three or four check it frequently. I don’t know anyone in my family using it. And, amazingly, at work – so this includes all BBC staff producing radio and television output for an entire region (two radio stations and regional TV) – again it’s pretty much just a handful. I would expect and hope that most of my colleagues are on Twitter and know more about it than most because of the industry they work in, but that just isn’t the case.

This got me thinking that perhaps the media have jumped on board what could potentially be nothing more than a passing fad, to the extent that it’s alienating the majority of our audience every time we mention it. Perhaps that goes a bit far, and I really hope that Twitter isn’t a passing fad (nor do I believe it is), but the figures still don’t quite add up for the coverage it’s currently getting.

For me - and I work in the media and use Twitter frequently – it seems to make perfect sense. It’s wonderful and interactive to have all these Twitter mentions all over various media outlets all the time. But apparently I’m one of only a few million UK Twitter users each month.

There seem to be common themes that come out of articles and reports on UK Twitter user-data...that a couple of million UK users log on each month, that the late-teens/early twenties are using it the most, and that the minority tweet the vast majority (here’s one such article). So when you have over 50 million people in the UK listening to the radio and watching TV every single week, it’s clear that most of those people are not on Twitter, and those who are don’t check it that often, and even those who do don’t tweet all too frequently. So really – a teeny tiny minority of media audiences actively fully engage with Twitter.

Before I had the internet (the olden days), I got quite annoyed at TV programmes occasionally telling me that I could find more on their website. I can’t imagine how annoying that still is for the people who still aren’t ‘connected’ today – however it’s understandable and right that the industry pushed the internet in the way it did and still does. However, Twitter isn’t the internet. Is it right that an increasing number of radio shows are going on about Twitter to the extent they do? As a non-Twitter user (the majority of listeners) I think that would make me feel pretty left-out. Perhaps your radio station gets as many ‘@ replies’ or ‘DMs’ on Twitter as it does text messages. That’s beside the point – enough people have mobile phones now that giving out the text number or reading out a text is socially normal, you’re not excluding people (and even then only something like 1% of people ever text their favourite radio station). But if you go on relentlessly about all the tweets you’ve received, you’re excluding everyone who doesn’t use Twitter.

I absolutely love Channel 4 news. I really do. But when it comes to Twitter, they currently spring to mind as culprits of what I’m talking about. They generate some really good content using Twitter and get some great questions from listeners (although, the merits of using listener comments relentlessly is a whole debate of its own...). However, instead of just referencing where they got the questions, they tend to go on and on about Twitter. Twitter this, Twitter that. Lots of big radio stations do it too, and again, while it can provide some great programme content, I think there’s a big difference between using it moderately to get some decent comments, and talking about it all the time, excluding a large percentage of your audience.

Apparently ‘teens don’t tweet’. So why are Radio 1 (target audience 16 – 24) talking about Twitter all the time? I think they’re doing it because they get lots of comments from Twitter, and the majority of the presenters use it widely and so it feels natural to them. They feel obliged (and in most circumstances rightly so) to push the new media agenda. But the majority of their audience listening at any one time will just feel a bit left out by the continuous mention of a social media platform that they’re not on. Even if they feel peer-pressured by the media to join (I have friends who feel like they’re missing out because Chris Moyles keeps mentioning it), I just know they’re not going check Twitter for updates very often, let alone tweet much themselves.

I think there’s a balance to be struck, and at the moment the media is jumping slightly ahead of itself. It’s right that we should push new platforms, be innovative, creative and interactive. But we should try not to do this at the expense of the current audience.

The media needs to be careful not to assume that everyone listening or watching uses Twitter on a regular basis – they don’t.

(Hey, I'm on Twitter: @timoncheese)

An inside view: tips on being a great press officer

2009-08-18T21:47:00.013+01:00

There are some great press officers out there, but plenty who don’t always seem to grasp the editorial consequences their decisions could have.

So here are some of my top tips to new press officers – written from the journalists’ side of the fence.

I’ll admit I don’t have the experience from the press-office side. I also understand that some press officers’ hands are genuinely tied by those above them, or by the poor media-policies of the company for which they work.

The importance of the relationship

Ultimately it’s about building a relationship with the broadcaster. A good relationship between your press office and a broadcaster is worth more than anything else, because it will effect everything you do. If you have an excellent relationship, you’re more likely to be able to ‘use’ and work with the broadcaster to publicise your achievements/events/campaigns/messages – as they will attach merit and worth to your press releases and phone calls.

It also means that when you come in for a bit of bad publicity, the broadcaster will only land the punches it absolutely needs to – but there’s so much damage limitation done before this bad publicity even arises if you’ve got that great relationship.

This is all because, ultimately, it’s personal. If I genuinely know you and get on with you, if I want to run a negative story about your company, I have more to weigh up.

If there’s significant editorial or public benefit to running the story, it will get run regardless – that’s the job of a journalist. However, there will always be options to consider. Here’s a hypothetical example:

Do we run a series of negative stories of relatively low public benefit, about a particular public body or company that has done something wrong? It’s still interesting stuff...but it’s borderline...so do we cover it or not?

If we have a good relationship with the press office: No, maybe not. If it’s not a story that we have a ‘duty’ to report, it may be that it’s more beneficial for us to preserve the great relationship we have with that organisation’s press office, rather than approach it with a series of ‘less important’ stories where it feels like all we’re doing is ‘having a go’. This way, we might have more cooperation when a story of greater public significance comes along.

If we have a bad relationship with the press office: Yes, definitely. We have absolutely nothing to lose, and we can get some good editorial content by laying out the failings of your organisation. It’s not a consideration to us whether it annoys you – because you were never going to help us out with anything in the future anyway.

Top tips

If you want to know more about any of this: tim@radiotim.co.uk

Most of these tips feed directly into building that ‘special relationship’ mentioned above.

- Don’t reject tough interviews

“Hi...so we’re running this story in the morning about your organisation...you’ve basically done this terrible thing which we have proof of and we’d like someone to come on and talk about it.”

When press officers get that call, a lot of them have a similar reaction. They get ‘huffy’. Stop being defensive. Remember – you’re on our side – we’re best friends! So just listen to what we’re asking for and then see if you can help.

So – a lot of people/organisations think that staying quiet on difficult subjects is the best things to do. I totally disagree. First off – if you always stay quiet – you quickly fail at building any kind of ‘special relationship’ with the media. Secondly, it’s rarely in anyone’s interest to avoid the tough questions. Remember: the broadcaster has to balance a story – this means if we have a mountain of evidence and radio/tv content stacking up against your company, our only obligation is to ask for your response, and include some of that when we broadcast. A couple of scenarios:

#1 – you’re clearly in the wrong. Perhaps you’re a local council and you’ve wrongly discriminated against a worker on the grounds of a disability. Or maybe your boss-boss has embezzled millions of pounds from the charity you represent. In this scenario, put someone up to say sorry. It’s easy, and might alleviate some of the public bad-feeling the story will bring.

#2 – it’s a negative story where no matter what you say the public will still perceive you as the villain. Perhaps you’re a huge company that due to the recession has had to lay off a thousand workers. Or maybe you’re a police force whose annual stats show a rise in crime. Possibly you’re an ISP that cuts off customers for file-sharing but sometimes gets it completely wrong and disconnects ‘innocent people’. On countless occasions, press offices tend to shut down at the vaguest whiff of a negative story. From then on, it’s like drawing blood from a stone.

It’s an amazingly familiar story: when I’m planning for the next morning, last thing the day before, a statement finally arrives in my inbox from the company Iapproached for an interview.

The problem with this for you as a press officer is how it sounds on air. For radio, for example, we’ve covered our bases – we’ve done what we can to get a response from you. All we have is a brief statement. So what happens is that on our breakfast show, we have three full-length quality interviews, including case-studies and moving personal stories, all painting an emotional account of a story where you are the big bad villain. Appended to back of these is the familiar audience switch-off line of “they sent us a statement, saying blah blah blah”.

No-one cares what your statement says. It’s absolutely worthless. When read by the presenter and preceded by “they sent us a statement”, in comparison to full-length ‘real’ stories – you are the ultimate villain of villains. What’s a real shame in all of this is that so often the organisation in question has some really valid points to make – and making these through a coherent spokesperson would have turned the broadcast into a real debate, providing a far greater defence.

- Be nice

Some press officers actually become rude when you’re asking them for something that they don’t personally deem positive or beneficial for their organisation. Don’t be rude. This is utterly self-defeating and will quickly get you hated and gossiped about by an entire region’s media. Socialising with people from a variety of media outlets in the region – it’s amusing how we all share the same bad feelings and horror stories of particular press offices and officers. Don’t be one of them! Surely not the best approach if part of your job description is to build a great press relationship with the media?

- Have fun

Journalists put in loads of calls to press officers every day. Press officers receive loads of calls every day. They don’t have to be a chore. If you make or receive any of these calls – you’re part of this odd little press-mircocosm. Just step back and take it for what it is, and maybe don’t always take yourself so seriously. Be professional, do what you need to do, but it’s also ok to have fun or a bit or a chat with the person on the other end of the phone.

Of course, plenty of journalists are grumpy and have far too great a sense of self-importance...in which case this one doesn't apply!

- Keep giving updates – time is short

Ok - perhaps this one is asking too much, but if you have enough time in your day...

This is a great tip – because so few press officers do it, so it can be a quick way to make you stand out. When you get a call requesting an interview, a lot hangs on it for the broadcaster. For you, it’s just another call saying “can we have this guest at this time please”. For the broadcaster, they are already intricately planning the order of their stories, their timings and their guests for the next day’s programme – or waiting for your comment for immediate use in news bulletins. If you’re going to turn round at the end of the day and say “sorry we can’t put someone up”, then we’ll need to find someone else (probably with only five minute of office-hours left), and really not be happy with you for leaving it so late to tell us.

So: every time you get that call wanting an interview – we’re watching the clock waiting for you to phone us back (even if it’s for the next day). The top tip is to phone us back on a regular basis to give updates – even if you have absolutely nothing to say. Honestly, we will love this. If it’s midday and we’re after an interview for the next morning, ring us back every half hour (or at least each hour) to tell us what’s going on. It may be that you’ve put the calls in that you need to. It may be to let us know that someone you need to speak to is on their lunch break. Give us an honest assessment of how likely you think it is our request will be met. Short and frequent phone calls will make us think you understand and are in-tune with the way we work, which of course you should be!

- Think carefully about your press releases

First, go and read my whimsical musings on writing press releases.

Don’t just send a press release to all of your media contacts every time someone in your organisation has something to promote. You need to think really carefully about what they say, and how to add value to them for the broadcaster. You want to be the press officer that sends the emails every journalist reads because they know it might be good – not one of the many that sends the releases most journalists know they can safely delete without missing anything important. I should really emphasise how true this is – there’s limited time in the day, and so many emails and press releases. When I’m busy and a new email comes in and the preview box flashes up – if it’s from certain people I’ll just go and delete it right from the preview box, because I know they normally just churn out dull releases.

Don’t get me wrong – press releases do get read – but perhaps some only get read by one person. If you’re a great press officer, you might be in a position where the maximum number of journalists and programme makers read your releases – and the more people that read it, the more likely someone will want to cover it.

Press releases need to make a good ‘story’. There are some great tips from Cambridge University press officers on the Sense About Science website about getting your story right (and the whole page is worth a read). Here’s something they picked up from a training course, and is a mnemonic for what a good press release needs:

T if it’s topical or timely - that’s what makes a news story
R if it’s relevant to an audience
U is if it’s unusual or even better unique
T again, is trouble - we all know that makes a news story
H is human interest.

Press Release LAWS

2009-06-11T07:24:00.007+01:00

So, I've had another morning of irritating press releases.

This one is for all those press officers out there who spend 40 hours of their life every week being press officers, and yet don't understand the absolute basics of sending a press release.

Most journalists are probably getting hundreds of press releases a day. When I get to work in the morning, I'll have a look at the 50 emails stacked up since last night and it probably takes me about ten seconds to delete them all - I just scan my eyes over the subject lines. Once I'm at work and more trickle in during the day, some of them might get opened and the first few lines of the email read.

With this context - here are some useful tips...

1. Think very hard about the subject line. If it just says "press release" = deleted. You need to explain exactly what the story is in the subject.

2. Don't just send the release in a Word document. This is the most common irritation. With hundreds of press releases to potentially look at - if the words are't right in front of me immediately there's no way I'm bothering to wait for my computer to open a Word document. It's fine to copy and paste the words of the release into the email and then attach more info or supporting documents - but the words have to be right there at the top of the email.

3. Don't bother phoning. So many people phone up and go "did you get the press release I sent"? Yes, yes we did. So we say "yes". Cue awkward pause until they say "...and would you like to do anything on it?". Well no, we wouldn't. Otherwise we'd have phoned you like you suggested in your email.

4. If you send a press release and offer someone for interview ... make sure that person is available for interview! You wouldn't believe the number of brainless press officers who send out a release with a name and number of someone to talk about it, you phone up immediately and say "yes please, can we talk to them?", and they just go "oh, um, err...I'm not sure. I think they're on holiday/in meetings all day/unavailable". Brilliant. Nice one.

Blog Moan #2 - Idiot Pedestrians

2009-06-10T21:11:00.005+01:00

Pedestrians are so annoying. Especially ones with children, who forget about everything else that exists, and just get in the way of every person they can. However, I'll forgive (some of) them because I appreciate how minding children day after day ain't the easiest of things, and doing so whilst catering for the pedestrian-demands of people like me is a bit much to ask.

However.

I'm quite tall, so I guess I walk quite fast. Mind you, I see lots of other people about who walk as fast as me. For all of us, many other pedestrians seem to try their hardest to get in the way. The complete and utter lack of awareness of everything around them that some people show is staggering.

If you're one of those people, here are a few rules for you:

1. Walk in a straight line, please! Stop bloody staggering diagonally around the pavement. You're getting in the way.

2. If you're waiting at a bus stop, just stay still. If you insist on sauntering across the pavement to have yet another look at the timetable you're already familiar with while you wait for your bus, first check you're not about to step out in front of an innocent pedestrian like me.

3. If there are three of you in a group, or perhaps two plus a pram, will you please stop walking really slowly in a line, blocking the pavement. When someone overtakes you by having to step onto the road, you can assuming they're insulting you under their breath as they do so. "They should have just said 'excuse me'" is not a reasonable excuse for being such an idiot.

4. Mobility scooters...I guess they deserve a whole post of their own...watch this space (ps. those with genuine disabilities/ailments = no problem there).

I could go on, but then I'd sound like a grumpy old man of 70+ rather than just 50+.

The Best News Mistakes (thanks Youtube)

2009-06-10T20:28:00.006+01:00

What a shame to be her. If you haven't seen this...you're in luck.

Another favourite is this one featuring Harold Pinter

And, I'm assuming just about everyone has seen the one where News 24 got the wrong guest on live - which is the only reason it's not #1 in this post. If you haven't seen it - a brilliant moment in broadcasting history. There were two people called 'Guy' sitting in BBC reception, one ready to be a guest on News 24, the other a cab-driver there for a job interview. Guess what happened...

Blog Moan #1

2009-06-10T19:15:00.011+01:00

DON'T DO IT. Please. Can't you see I'm already carrying one bag, that I've chosen to be eco-friendly and try to carry by hand the three things I've just bought, and that an entire one of my hands is taken up holding my wallet? To make it worse there's a queue of people who will stare at me while I try and juggle the money you're about to give me in the most annoying way you can.

WHY do some cashiers insist on giving you your change with the coins ON TOP of the notes. Even worse - with the receipt mixed in there too. What then? Unless you're a weirdo that shoves the whole lot into some kind of money-sack (or girl-purse) you have to find a way to get the coins put away first.

This smiley bastard is about to stab you in the back with his change-trickery. Don't trust him.

You may think this is insignificant. It is. You may have lots of really clever solutions, like "just put it in your pocket and deal with it later" or "just move to one side and put the money away" or "put your bags down first" - whatever your brilliant suggestion is just keep it to yourself. I maintain that it's a stupid way to give someone their change.