RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
Steve Hermann (who is the Editor of BBC News Interactive) has just blogged this response to the Newssniffer app. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/sniffing_out_edits.html He goes into a fair bit of detail outlining the revision/iterative changes to BBC News stories that the NewsSniffer app illustrates, explaining how News works and concludes: "If sites like this can help show more of the journalistic process and make it more transparent that is no bad thing." Newssniffer is here: http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/ We've also just spotted this: "How in touch is the BBC ?" A neat app from Chris Riley showing "How in touch" the BBC News editorial team are with the general public using a simple percentage figure (see below), determined by comparing the top 10 headlines on the BBC News front page with the 10 most popular (most read) stories on the BBC News web site." http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/prototypes/archives/2006/10/how_in_touch_is.h tml It's the best use of the most popular feeds (and some good visual representation) offered by News we've seen so far. Thanks Chris. I think Chris will be on later to talk about how and why he put it together. Jem - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
There is an interesting re-publishing case developing in Greece where a Greek hosted RSS aggregating service republished content from a US hosted site that allegedly defamed someone in Greece, and the owner of the RSS aggregator has just been arrested by the Greek authorities over it. http://deviousdiva.com/?p=218mOn 27/10/06, Richard Lockwood < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Interesting point - but surely in the case of NewsSniffer, the user in question hasn't posted the content to the site - the site itself haseffectively gone out, and republished without the knowledge (or indeedexplicit consent) of the original poster. So there's surely anargument there in this case for the site being responsible for repeating any libel..?As Jem says, 'As Kim would say "I'm no lawyer"'.Devil's Advocate, maybe. :-)Cheers,Rich.On 10/27/06, Jeremy Stone < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>>> As Kim would say "I'm no lawyer" but its worth noting two recent actions of> legal claims being filed against users who posted comments/videos not > against the sites who hosted them.>> Robin Hamman (who also works for the BBC) has more details on his blog here:> http://www.cybersoc.com/2006/10/claimants_go_af.html >> Jem.>>>> -Original Message-> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of John Leach> Sent: Fri 27/10/2006 11:15 AM > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk> Subject: RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring>> I'd have thought (hoped) that something like News Sniffer would fall > under the defences of "Innocent dissemination" or perhaps even> "qualified privilege" (the project itself being in the public interest).>> It would also have to be shown to be doing further damage - I'm sure a > comparison of visitor logs from the BBC website and the News Sniffer> website would be amusing evidence to contrary here :)>> In Laurence Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited, it was established that > an OSP can be held accountable if failing to act once informed of the> libel:>> http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm> http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/07/19/uk_court_rules_on_isp/>> But nobody liked this outcome (except Mr. Godfrey I would expect :). > Demon, along with other ISPs and Electronic rights organisations, were> working on ensuring a change in law to protect OSPs in future.>> I don't have time right this minute to investigate if anything has > changed since this (1999). Anyone know any more?>> John.>>> On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 11:50 +0100, Kim Plowright wrote:> > Any subsequent republication of the libel is also actionable, > > though...> >> > IANAL!> >> >> >> __________________> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On> Behalf Of Phil> > Winstanley> > Sent: 25 October 2006 09:03 > > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk> > Subject: RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site> > monitoring> > > >> >> > I believe it's the "publisher" of content in Libel cases.> >> >> >> > Phil.> >> >> >> > > >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] On> Behalf Of Martin> > Belam> > Sent: 24 October 2006 15:44> > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site > > monitoring> >> >> >> >> > As someone who used to work closely with the BBC community> > site teams my first thought was what happens when the BBC > > pulls posts for legal reasons, and this site reproduces them -> > who ends up potentially legally liable - the site re-hosting> > the content, the BBC, or the original poster, even though they > > didn't give explicit permission for newssniffer to re-use the> > content.> >> >> >> >> >> > *shuffles off to consult lawyer* > >> >> >> >> >> > all the best,> >> >> > martin> >> >> > http://www.currybet.net> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 24/10/06, Jason Cartwright < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > wrote:> >> > Thought this might be of interest to the backstage crew:> >> >> >> >> > > >> http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/articles/list_by_rev
Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
Interesting point - but surely in the case of NewsSniffer, the user in question hasn't posted the content to the site - the site itself has effectively gone out, and republished without the knowledge (or indeed explicit consent) of the original poster. So there's surely an argument there in this case for the site being responsible for repeating any libel..? As Jem says, 'As Kim would say "I'm no lawyer"'. Devil's Advocate, maybe. :-) Cheers, Rich. On 10/27/06, Jeremy Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As Kim would say "I'm no lawyer" but its worth noting two recent actions of legal claims being filed against users who posted comments/videos not against the sites who hosted them. Robin Hamman (who also works for the BBC) has more details on his blog here: http://www.cybersoc.com/2006/10/claimants_go_af.html Jem. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of John Leach Sent: Fri 27/10/2006 11:15 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring I'd have thought (hoped) that something like News Sniffer would fall under the defences of "Innocent dissemination" or perhaps even "qualified privilege" (the project itself being in the public interest). It would also have to be shown to be doing further damage - I'm sure a comparison of visitor logs from the BBC website and the News Sniffer website would be amusing evidence to contrary here :) In Laurence Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited, it was established that an OSP can be held accountable if failing to act once informed of the libel: http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/07/19/uk_court_rules_on_isp/ But nobody liked this outcome (except Mr. Godfrey I would expect :). Demon, along with other ISPs and Electronic rights organisations, were working on ensuring a change in law to protect OSPs in future. I don't have time right this minute to investigate if anything has changed since this (1999). Anyone know any more? John. On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 11:50 +0100, Kim Plowright wrote: > Any subsequent republication of the libel is also actionable, > though... > > IANAL! > > > __ > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil > Winstanley > Sent: 25 October 2006 09:03 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site > monitoring > > > > I believe it's the "publisher" of content in Libel cases. > > > > Phil. > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin > Belam > Sent: 24 October 2006 15:44 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site > monitoring > > > > > As someone who used to work closely with the BBC community > site teams my first thought was what happens when the BBC > pulls posts for legal reasons, and this site reproduces them - > who ends up potentially legally liable - the site re-hosting > the content, the BBC, or the original poster, even though they > didn't give explicit permission for newssniffer to re-use the > content. > > > > > > *shuffles off to consult lawyer* > > > > > > all the best, > > > martin > > > http://www.currybet.net > > > > > > > > > > > On 24/10/06, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Thought this might be of interest to the backstage crew: > > > > > > http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/articles/list_by_revision > > > http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensored > > > J > > > > > Jason Cartwright > > Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Desk: (0208 57) 67938 > > Mobile: 07976500729 > - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of John Leach Sent: Fri 27/10/2006 11:15 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring I'd have thought (hoped) that something like News Sniffer wo
RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
Title: RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring As Kim would say "I'm no lawyer" but its worth noting two recent actions of legal claims being filed against users who posted comments/videos not against the sites who hosted them. Robin Hamman (who also works for the BBC) has more details on his blog here: http://www.cybersoc.com/2006/10/claimants_go_af.html Jem. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of John Leach Sent: Fri 27/10/2006 11:15 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring I'd have thought (hoped) that something like News Sniffer would fall under the defences of "Innocent dissemination" or perhaps even "qualified privilege" (the project itself being in the public interest). It would also have to be shown to be doing further damage - I'm sure a comparison of visitor logs from the BBC website and the News Sniffer website would be amusing evidence to contrary here :) In Laurence Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited, it was established that an OSP can be held accountable if failing to act once informed of the libel: http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/07/19/uk_court_rules_on_isp/ But nobody liked this outcome (except Mr. Godfrey I would expect :). Demon, along with other ISPs and Electronic rights organisations, were working on ensuring a change in law to protect OSPs in future. I don't have time right this minute to investigate if anything has changed since this (1999). Anyone know any more? John. On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 11:50 +0100, Kim Plowright wrote: > Any subsequent republication of the libel is also actionable, > though... > > IANAL! > > > __ > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Phil > Winstanley > Sent: 25 October 2006 09:03 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site > monitoring > > > > I believe it's the "publisher" of content in Libel cases. > > > > Phil. > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin > Belam > Sent: 24 October 2006 15:44 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site > monitoring > > > > > As someone who used to work closely with the BBC community > site teams my first thought was what happens when the BBC > pulls posts for legal reasons, and this site reproduces them - > who ends up potentially legally liable - the site re-hosting > the content, the BBC, or the original poster, even though they > didn't give explicit permission for newssniffer to re-use the > content. > > > > > > *shuffles off to consult lawyer* > > > > > > all the best, > > > martin > > > http://www.currybet.net > > > > > > > > > > > On 24/10/06, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Thought this might be of interest to the backstage crew: > > > > > > http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/articles/list_by_revision > > > http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensored > > > J > > > > > Jason Cartwright > > Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Desk: (0208 57) 67938 > > Mobile: 07976500729 > - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
I'd have thought (hoped) that something like News Sniffer would fall under the defences of "Innocent dissemination" or perhaps even "qualified privilege" (the project itself being in the public interest). It would also have to be shown to be doing further damage - I'm sure a comparison of visitor logs from the BBC website and the News Sniffer website would be amusing evidence to contrary here :) In Laurence Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited, it was established that an OSP can be held accountable if failing to act once informed of the libel: http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/07/19/uk_court_rules_on_isp/ But nobody liked this outcome (except Mr. Godfrey I would expect :). Demon, along with other ISPs and Electronic rights organisations, were working on ensuring a change in law to protect OSPs in future. I don't have time right this minute to investigate if anything has changed since this (1999). Anyone know any more? John. On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 11:50 +0100, Kim Plowright wrote: > Any subsequent republication of the libel is also actionable, > though... > > IANAL! > > > __ > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil > Winstanley > Sent: 25 October 2006 09:03 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site > monitoring > > > > I believe it’s the “publisher” of content in Libel cases. > > > > Phil. > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin > Belam > Sent: 24 October 2006 15:44 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site > monitoring > > > > > As someone who used to work closely with the BBC community > site teams my first thought was what happens when the BBC > pulls posts for legal reasons, and this site reproduces them - > who ends up potentially legally liable - the site re-hosting > the content, the BBC, or the original poster, even though they > didn't give explicit permission for newssniffer to re-use the > content. > > > > > > *shuffles off to consult lawyer* > > > > > > all the best, > > > martin > > > http://www.currybet.net > > > > > > > > > > > On 24/10/06, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Thought this might be of interest to the backstage crew: > > > > > > http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/articles/list_by_revision > > > http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensored > > > J > > > > > Jason Cartwright > > Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Desk: (0208 57) 67938 > > Mobile: 07976500729 > - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
>Please excuse my interruption, but I would in all cases expect the original author to be accountable. You're absolutely right; the original author/publisher would of course be accountable, but, IIRC, under UK libel law is is acceptable for the plaintiff to *also* sue any additional publications who repeated or reported the original libel. Sorry - my one liner probably wasn't clear enough there; no agenda, just adding a useful bit of information. I'm not a lawyer - verify my often faulty memory before taking action based on my advice, etc. I think Jem covered your other points pretty well; nothing to add there except do remember that the BBC folk on the list are generally good, sympathetic folk who would - and do - fight very hard to defend projects like this. On a personal note; I understand the phew! after the legalese. A reasonably famous actor once made me cry by giving me a very sound telling me off about the same wording in a blood-chit agreement... From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard P EdwardsSent: 25 October 2006 18:24To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukSubject: Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring Please excuse my interruption, but I would in all cases expect the original author to be accountable. For the complete framework of the public's and BBC's legal responsibility, it is worth reading the BBC's disclaimer and House Rules. "You also agree to indemnify the BBC against all legal fees, damages and other expenses that may be incurred by the BBC as a result of your breach of the above warranty" I would suggest that Auntie has herself clearly protected, yet again. but the question of before and after the fact censorship is still very pertinent. I expect that someone is working hard as I type to close the path of information, certainly very difficult in this case. Such a tiny idea that has huge implications, hopefully to the benefit of us all. Humorously, (sic), it is the re-publication that would appear, under the BBC's "perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicenseable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, play, and exercise all copyright and publicity rights with respect to any such work worldwide and/or incorporate it in other works in any media now known or later developed for the full term of any rights that may exist in such content etc etc etc" clause phew!!!, to be the reason that the site could receive a cease and desist letter for using this information, sadly. Regards On 25 Oct 2006, at 11:50, Kim Plowright wrote: Any subsequent republication of the libel is also actionable, though... IANAL! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Phil WinstanleySent: 25 October 2006 09:03To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukSubject: RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring I believe it’s the “publisher” of content in Libel cases. Phil. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin BelamSent: 24 October 2006 15:44To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukSubject: Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring As someone who used to work closely with the BBC community site teams my first thought was what happens when the BBC pulls posts for legal reasons, and this site reproduces them - who ends up potentially legally liable - the site re-hosting the content, the BBC, or the original poster, even though they didn't give explicit permission for newssniffer to re-use the content. *shuffles off to consult lawyer* all the best, martin http://www.currybet.net On 24/10/06, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thought this might be of interest to the backstage crew: http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/articles/list_by_revision http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensored J Jason Cartwright Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive [EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 57) 67938 Mobile: 07976500729 "Recreate the world in your own image and make it better for your having been here" - Ray Bradbury
RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
> For the complete framework of the public's and BBC's legal responsibility, > it is worth reading the BBC's disclaimer and House Rules. > > "You also agree to indemnify the BBC against all legal fees, damages and > other expenses that may be incurred by the BBC as a result of your breach of > the above warranty" > > I would suggest that Auntie has herself clearly protected, yet > again. I'm no lawyer, but if such a case was brought, then the BBC could still be found at fault. The cost is in a way, incidental (and in another way, is not!) All the House Rules do is say that if there was a problem, the BBC would try and recouperate its loses from the "cause" of the problem. Of course, there's no guarentee that that money would be ever reclaimed. So better to try and prevent the incident, rather than respond to it in my personal opinion :) Legal cases of the past have naturally made large publishers of online content more than a little wary... - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
I would suggest that Auntie has herself clearly protected, yet again. but the question of before and after the fact censorship is still very pertinent. I expect that someone is working hard as I type to close the path of information, certainly very difficult in this case. Such a tiny idea that has huge implications, hopefully to the benefit of us all. Well i think these types of services are really useful (and aren't completely new for the BBC). Its also worth pointing out thatNewssniffer is a feature that as Richard Sambrook blogs here: http://sambrook.typepad.com/sacredfacts/2006/10/sniffing_out_bi.htmlillustrates moderation and iterative editing rather than bias or censorship. Richard (head of global news for the BBC) says about Newsniffer by the way: "I actually think it's a good idea and no news organisation should be worried about being held to account for changes made - usually it's for clarification or accuracy or of little consequence. And when it may be of some consequence news organisations should be prepared to explain. "He's right there is nothing sinister there. We have highly flexible moderation / publishing services as the BBC. (we need to, considering the volumes we attract). Every month we handle millions of user comments (across blogs - tens of thousands, message boards - currently c2m and have your say - millions). Many of these services now allow users to publish live to the server operating with moderation that is either post moderated (someone checks it after publication) or just a reactive service (nobody moderates it unless a user alerts us). This explains why comments across bbc.co.uk can be removed after publication. (although this is if they break the house rules) . As ever Martin (who used to work at the BBC) http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2006/10/sniffing_out_bias_and_censorsh.phpexplains in more detail.And I thoroughly welcome and would like to develop more services like this. Especially prototypes that illustrate the editorial changes that we make to BBC journalism or our editorial. Matthew Somerville's BBC Homepage Archive; http://www.bbc.co.uk/homearchive/ for example works in a similar way to Newsniffer and detects changes to the front page of bbc.co.uk and is live (well lurking) within the BBC. We commissioned Matthew to develop it "officially" for the BBC a while back.He's also developed several more ideas around the News archive as well. http://www.dracos.co.uk/work/bbc-news-archive/http://www.whitelabel.org/~matthew/bbcnews/2005/07/07/ If anyone on this list came up with something similar then I'd genuinely be keen to talk to you about it not ring up legal and get a cease and desist letter in the post.thanksJem Stone, Interactive Editor, bbc.co.uk
Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
Please excuse my interruption, but I would in all cases expect the original author to be accountable.For the complete framework of the public's and BBC's legal responsibility, it is worth reading the BBC's disclaimer and House Rules."You also agree to indemnify the BBC against all legal fees, damages and other expenses that may be incurred by the BBC as a result of your breach of the above warranty"I would suggest that Auntie has herself clearly protected, yet again. but the question of before and after the fact censorship is still very pertinent. I expect that someone is working hard as I type to close the path of information, certainly very difficult in this case. Such a tiny idea that has huge implications, hopefully to the benefit of us all.Humorously, (sic), it is the re-publication that would appear, under the BBC's "perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicenseable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, play, and exercise all copyright and publicity rights with respect to any such work worldwide and/or incorporate it in other works in any media now known or later developed for the full term of any rights that may exist in such content etc etc etc" clause phew!!!, to be the reason that the site could receive a cease and desist letter for using this information, sadly.RegardsOn 25 Oct 2006, at 11:50, Kim Plowright wrote:Any subsequent republication of the libel is also actionable, though... IANAL!From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Phil WinstanleySent: 25 October 2006 09:03To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukSubject: RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoringI believe it’s the “publisher” of content in Libel cases. Phil. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin BelamSent: 24 October 2006 15:44To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukSubject: Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring As someone who used to work closely with the BBC community site teams my first thought was what happens when the BBC pulls posts for legal reasons, and this site reproduces them - who ends up potentially legally liable - the site re-hosting the content, the BBC, or the original poster, even though they didn't give explicit permission for newssniffer to re-use the content. *shuffles off to consult lawyer* all the best,martinhttp://www.currybet.net On 24/10/06, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Thought this might be of interest to the backstage crew: http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/articles/list_by_revisionhttp://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensoredJJason CartwrightClient Side Developer - CBBC Interactive[EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 57) 67938Mobile: 07976500729 "Recreate the world in your own image and make it better for your having been here" - Ray Bradbury --received to: andyb.comMessage ID : o8b854b5cd7704bc7af26fd2de1e9ab0a.proSender ID : [EMAIL PROTECTED]Msg Size : 4k This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential andintended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they areaddressed.If you have received this email in error please notify the originator ofthe message. This footer also confirms that this email message has beenscanned for the presence of computer viruses, though it is notguaranteed virus free.Original Recipient: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukOriginal Sender : [EMAIL PROTECTED]Original Send Date: 25/10/2006 - 09:03:26
RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
Any subsequent republication of the libel is also actionable, though... IANAL! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil WinstanleySent: 25 October 2006 09:03To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukSubject: RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring I believe it’s the “publisher” of content in Libel cases. Phil. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin BelamSent: 24 October 2006 15:44To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukSubject: Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring As someone who used to work closely with the BBC community site teams my first thought was what happens when the BBC pulls posts for legal reasons, and this site reproduces them - who ends up potentially legally liable - the site re-hosting the content, the BBC, or the original poster, even though they didn't give explicit permission for newssniffer to re-use the content. *shuffles off to consult lawyer* all the best, martin http://www.currybet.net On 24/10/06, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thought this might be of interest to the backstage crew: http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/articles/list_by_revision http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensored J Jason Cartwright Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive [EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 57) 67938 Mobile: 07976500729 "Recreate the world in your own image and make it better for your having been here" - Ray Bradbury --received to: andyb.comMessage ID : o8b854b5cd7704bc7af26fd2de1e9ab0a.proSender ID : [EMAIL PROTECTED]Msg Size : 4k This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential andintended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they areaddressed.If you have received this email in error please notify the originator ofthe message. This footer also confirms that this email message has beenscanned for the presence of computer viruses, though it is notguaranteed virus free.Original Recipient: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukOriginal Sender : [EMAIL PROTECTED]Original Send Date: 25/10/2006 - 09:03:26
RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
I believe it’s the “publisher” of content in Libel cases. Phil. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Belam Sent: 24 October 2006 15:44 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring As someone who used to work closely with the BBC community site teams my first thought was what happens when the BBC pulls posts for legal reasons, and this site reproduces them - who ends up potentially legally liable - the site re-hosting the content, the BBC, or the original poster, even though they didn't give explicit permission for newssniffer to re-use the content. *shuffles off to consult lawyer* all the best, martin http://www.currybet.net On 24/10/06, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thought this might be of interest to the backstage crew: http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/articles/list_by_revision http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensored J Jason Cartwright Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive [EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 57) 67938 Mobile: 07976500729 "Recreate the world in your own image and make it better for your having been here" - Ray Bradbury -- received to: andyb.com Message ID : o8b854b5cd7704bc7af26fd2de1e9ab0a.pro Sender ID : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Msg Size : 4k This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses, though it is not guaranteed virus free. Original Recipient: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Original Sender : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Original Send Date: 25/10/2006 - 09:03:26
Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
One thing that might be worth considering in terms of adding and removing comments to have your sayis a ranking function. Consider a model where each new entry gets a relevance score. Then, all those abovea certain rank are kept. I know this isn't exactly what is happening, but would it be possible for News Sniffer to see if there are alteratoins in ordering for comments?MattHOn 10/24/06, Martin Belam <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:As someone who used to work closely with the BBC community site teams my first thought was what happens when the BBC pulls posts for legal reasons, and this site reproduces them - who ends up potentially legally liable - the site re-hosting the content, the BBC, or the original poster, even though they didn't give explicit permission for newssniffer to re-use the content. *shuffles off to consult lawyer* all the best, martin http://www.currybet.net On 24/10/06, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Thought this might be of interest to the backstage crew: http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/articles/list_by_revision http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensored J Jason Cartwright Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive [EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 57) 67938 Mobile: 07976500729 "Recreate the world in your own image and make it better for your having been here" - Ray Bradbury
Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
As someone who used to work closely with the BBC community site teams my first thought was what happens when the BBC pulls posts for legal reasons, and this site reproduces them - who ends up potentially legally liable - the site re-hosting the content, the BBC, or the original poster, even though they didn't give explicit permission for newssniffer to re-use the content. *shuffles off to consult lawyer* all the best, martin http://www.currybet.net On 24/10/06, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thought this might be of interest to the backstage crew: http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/articles/list_by_revision http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensored J Jason Cartwright Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive [EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 57) 67938 Mobile: 07976500729 "Recreate the world in your own image and make it better for your having been here" - Ray Bradbury
Re: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
I totally agree Brian, imagine if the results included the censored comments that apparently do break the rules.RevisionistaIt has been noted recently, regarding speeches by both the Pope and the President of Iran, that words have been taken out of context and reported as news in the media... this site shows brilliantly the true importance of positive editorial decisions and more importantly, the fact that "facts" are changing continuously with what we all would think of as static true news stories. I was interested today to see that the editorial changes removed the names of quoted persons on two or three occasions, therefore removing the direct responsibility.Very interesting indeed, I imagine this site will make the news itself very soon.Richard EdwardsOn 24 Oct 2006, at 18:41, Brian Butterworth wrote: J, re: http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensored This is one of the most insiteful sites I have ever seen. Very sadly it appears that Auntie is taking it upon herself to remove comments that, on the face of it, do not appear to break any of the house rules for "have your say" I have spoken to others and they have given up using HYS, because they said "my only thought was that because I didn't state an opinion as such just facts relevant to the argument, they weren't interested". The implications for monitoring BBC editorial independence are huge. Another idea on the same (but less controversial) vein might be to check the BBC weather forecasts (now we have them) again the actual conditions and see how accurate they are. Brian Butterworthwww.ukfree.tv From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jason CartwrightSent: 24 October 2006 12:56To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukSubject: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring Thought this might be of interest to the backstage crew: http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/articles/list_by_revision http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensored J Jason Cartwright Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive [EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 57) 67938 Mobile: 07976500729 "Recreate the world in your own image and make it better for your having been here" - Ray Bradbury --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.11/493 - Release Date: 23/10/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.11/493 - Release Date: 23/10/2006
RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
J, re: http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensored This is one of the most insiteful sites I have ever seen. Very sadly it appears that Auntie is taking it upon herself to remove comments that, on the face of it, do not appear to break any of the house rules for "have your say" I have spoken to others and they have given up using HYS, because they said "my only thought was that because I didn't state an opinion as such just facts relevant to the argument, they weren't interested". The implications for monitoring BBC editorial independence are huge. Another idea on the same (but less controversial) vein might be to check the BBC weather forecasts (now we have them) again the actual conditions and see how accurate they are. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason CartwrightSent: 24 October 2006 12:56To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukSubject: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring Thought this might be of interest to the backstage crew: http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/articles/list_by_revision http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensored J Jason Cartwright Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive [EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 57) 67938 Mobile: 07976500729 "Recreate the world in your own image and make it better for your having been here" - Ray Bradbury --No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.11/493 - Release Date: 23/10/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.11/493 - Release Date: 23/10/2006
RE: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring
Thanks Jason, Interesting stuff... Ian From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason CartwrightSent: 24 October 2006 12:56To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukSubject: [backstage] Newssniffer - BBC News site monitoring Thought this might be of interest to the backstage crew: http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/articles/list_by_revision http://newssniffer.newworldodour.co.uk/bbc/threads/mostcensored J Jason Cartwright Client Side Developer - CBBC Interactive [EMAIL PROTECTED] Desk: (0208 57) 67938 Mobile: 07976500729 "Recreate the world in your own image and make it better for your having been here" - Ray Bradbury
