Controversial media tycoon Rupert Murdoch has joined Twitter as an 80 Year Old. Is he simply curious or is his arrival part of a darker plan?

Rupert Murdoch has had a tough time. Suspicions were raised over News of the World’s (NoW) amoral practice in 2003 after royal correspondent, Clive Goodman, wrote a story surrounding medical treatment Prince William had received. Information in the article could only have come from Prince William’s closest friends and aroused suspicion in the media. Operation Motorman was established in the same year which investigated the press to find if there had been a breach of the Data Protection Act.

A few years later and the heat was really hitting News International. Andy Coulson, becomes “former NoW editor” in 2007 after having either allowed or was ignorant of his employees’ illegal practices at NoW. A unique opportunity for David Cameron to then hire him as his communications director! A position he eventually left after much media pressure in January 2011. Talk about a corrupt system…

News Corporations amoral dealings were dragged into the light and there was much screaming and kicking. Eventually NoW lost so much credibility that the paper, after being founded in 1843, was closed down (of which I wrote extensively about here).

Rupert Murdoch (and James Murdoch) is fighting three different battles:

1. Legal battles in court
2. Political battles (Commons Select Committee & Parliament Hearing)
3. Public battle to save image

The drivelling public apology advertisement, endless excuses and claim to ignorance either result in Rupert Murdoch being a liar and perjurer or truly useless at managing a business. In the words of Labour MP’s Tom Watson, “ [Rupert Murdoch] must be the first mafia boss in history who didn’t know he was running a criminal enterprise”.

Profound questions have often been asked of Rupert Murdoch’s management. Especially in 2009 when he ignorantly claimed that Google was stealing news content in their search listings. A serious accusation which indicates a deep lack of knowledge for the changing business model of journalism, something Murdoch should be well acquainted with. These remarks were followed by the announcement of pay wall barriers on a couple of News International’s sites which protects news content online by asking visitors to pay a subscription first.

Rupert Murdoch has joined Twitter out of desperation after having been placed on the naughty step for the past year. Murdoch’s public image has suffered; not only are the public increasingly wary but 2012 may finally be a year when politicians take a step back from the media moguls influence. He has joined Twitter, already playing host to 43,000+ followers, even supporting a ‘home made’ profile picture.

Rupert Murdoch’s online presence presents an entirely different profile compared to the man Lady Carr (after NoW’s attainment) reported to having no sense of humour and even lit a cigar before the end of their meal. It forces us to consider whether his own papers have provided false descriptions of what Murdoch is like or if this is just one long act. Who is to say that Rupert Murdoch’s Twitter account doesn’t lie in the hands of a ghost tweeter?

Something about the account feels staged, dishonest and requires further investigation.

July 2008 past UK PM, Gordon Brown, became embroiled in a debate concerning data sharing rules after a civil service department lost data which was claimed to be hidden under an “old pals” regulatory system. In response the UK Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas (succeeded by Christopher Graham in June 2009), released a report lobbying for increased transparency between Government, Private Companies and Councils. This is in line with Tony Blair’s speech to the UK e-Summit which outlined how transparency could create a new relationship between citizens and the state. A form of Institutional transparency which declares that the public have a right to know how their personal data is being utilised but with an element of control as outlined through privacy laws. Such an act by the state is intended to gain public trust but will require responsibility on institutions part to lower the risk of further lost data.

Far from a system of Government being viewed under a Machiavellian approach to data usage, it should open to the public. Yet this element of control is a deceit considering the growth of transparency which has been occurring for the last 15 years. Privacy rules only negotiate within matters of law and the government’s approach towards overt transparency is undermined by a radical transparency which is already occurring due to the growth of symmetrical communication online.

The launch of data.gov.uk in 2010 is designed to follow the principles set out by Richard Thomas allowing for non-personal factual data to be made available to the public. Eventually the UK Government will openly share this public data not only for central government but also across the public sector.

Yet transparency is not just concerned with the release of information but from the context it once originated from. Communication on the internet exists as a series of sharing (Re-Tweet, Google+ Share, Facebook Share, etc). Eventually context can be lost behind data due to a Web 2.0 form of Chinese whispers. Whilst the internet across multiple platforms may act as a middle man for communication it does not retain the sincerity or respect that may come from the connotations from where the source of the data appeared from.

Social Media is associated with the cult of the amateur, over simplifications can create inaccurate interpretations. So the government embracing institutional transparency is not only concerned with allowing public data to be freely available but to monitor the sources of where the data is being communicated from. Should a blog like mine have the authority to explain the data behind the Digital Economy Act or should that be left to BBC definitions?

Rather than privacy rules being put in place to act as a rule to control institutional transparency the Government should require guidance for how data should be interpreted once it reaches the intermediary sources (such as Journalists & Bloggers). Even this won’t refrain from misinterpretation but knowing the source context behind public data will assist to reserve data integrity.

The new leader of the Labour Party is a heathen? It looks like Joseph Ratzinger’s warning against “aggressive secularism” is becoming a real threat. We shouldn’t let Atheist, Ed Miliband, anywhere near a seat of power. Just look at how moral Joseph Ratzinger’s decisions have been. Oh wait…

In an interview on BBC Radio 5 Live this afternoon Ed Miliband revealed that, “I don’t believe in God personally, but I have great respect for those people who do. Different people have different religious views in this country. The great thing is that, whether we have faith or not, we are by and large very tolerant of people whatever their view”. I understand the slenderness distilled to reveal a personal view but then, in the same fashion, to not seem bigoted by it.

Since Ed Miliband’s leadership victory it was inevitable aspects of his private life were going to come to the public’s attention. Journalists will be digging through history looking for juicy stories, rival parties will release negative stories and the Labour party will try its best to control the media fiasco. With blogs, such as this one, making that particular task impossible. Although Public Relations can release ‘news’, it is unable to control it with the same delicacy as online media creates conversation.

I respect the leaders Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband because they were brave enough to reveal a personal detachment from religion and disbelief in God. Traditionally it has been too easy in the past to admit believing in a God to the nation. In many ways society has changed, perhaps shown best by the numbers who decided to attend Mr Ratzinger’s talk. Lower numbers were caused by ticketing for a more ‘intimate experience’? Useless Vatican PR folly in my opinion, ticketing was introduced because of the inevitable lower numbers compared to 30 years ago.

This nation is becoming increasingly secular (and Islamic); admitting atheism is therefore a double edged sword.

I’m never too sure about where my political allegiances lie. However I will be focusing on Ed Miliband with great interest. I must confess that the majority of people clapping at the Labour Party against the Iraq War did annoy me. A few years ago they were in support of Tony Blair. Now they clap against the decision of the war? Was the clap also against those soldiers who died for their war? The result of their decisions during Labour’s cabinet meetings.

Although this story could just be another plot by the Labour PR team… making Ed Miliband the opposite of Tony Blair. Ed Miliband doesn’t agree with the Iraq War, does not have religious faith… how did he become Labour’s Leader? Oh yes, he got support from Trade Unions. Still, it was an extremely close fight.

Have you ever marvelled over an MP’s wardrobe? I have. With the amount of support for the Liberal Democrats I wouldn’t be surprised if clothes shops start releasing the “Lib Dem Summer Range”. If I were to go into politics in the future then the only way I could decide which party to join would be by colour. I fear red is just a bit too sensually saucy, yellow would not look good against my skin and so it looks like I’ll have to select a blue Monday.

Let’s just hope by Monday that our government finally pulls itself together. I am still trying to work out why Labour got so many votes. If I remember correctly the public was calling for Gordon Brown’s resignation and suicide after he became PM in 2007. Although it was mostly Scotland who voted for him on Thursday. Perhaps due to ‘national pride’ or maybe Scottish students saw a good deal when our University fees would go towards their free education.

At the beginning of this article I had turned on the television to watch the latest election fiasco. Unfortunately all BBC News could conjure up was following the tracks of a small anonymous protesting crowd. The main story is all about electoral reform. You must forgive me though if our views differ… but why do we want electoral reform? Oh wait! We don’t want it, the Lib Dems do.

I like our current system. Most of the votes for the Liberal Democrats came from Scotland. The point is that our current voting system takes into account regional diversity. Even though the Lib Dems got over 6 million votes, the Conservative’s 10 million came from a variety of constituencies. In my eyes this is a fair voting system. Although I can see the arguments against, the Lib Dems did still get 6 million votes and for that a lousy 57 seats. If the Lib Dems did get in I have no doubt that they would clean up Britain… before handing us over on a platter to the EU.

I found that the only way I could actually get through watching the election night on Thursday was by consuming a whole bottle of wine at the same time. For some reason election nights keep you hooked with the pretension that ANYTHING could happen. In reality our paper based voting system relies upon the sturdy eyes and fingers of the retired elderly and politically obsessed students. Counting votes takes hours, far longer than the eve of voting day.

Why-oh-why-oh-why do we not use computers to count votes yet? It would be so easy to just log on, register my vote and then update election results in real time around the country. The technology is there. For such a developed country I find it difficult why we still use paper and fingers. I learnt during Primary School that using a calculator was far easier than using my fingers and brain during maths (although the teacher didn’t share my enthusiasm).

I have some of my own theories about what will happen to our government over the next few days. There is no doubt in my mind that Tories will join the Lib Dems and we will have a coalition government. In light of this Gordon Brown will step down as leader of the Labour Party and I hope to see David Miliband become leader. The cynical part of me says that Labour never intended to win this election. If they had then they would have swiftly booted out Gordon Brown and his serial killer smile.

Ah well. I shall wait and see what happens. I guess my own uncertainties this election (as one who usually has strong opinions) shows just how complacent the country has become. Our choice of party leaders was actually fairly boring and now we will have a government which will be an agreement on policies rather than who the leader will be. It is certain to say that the only victors this election was the Conservatives. The swing for their party was larger than Labour’s in 1997.

For the last few months my mind has been eagerly hammering away trying to work out why people have lost their faith in politics. Could it have been the huge issue of the expenses scandal last year? The Labour Party immigration scandal? Perhaps the recent cash for influence scandal? No. Whilst these issues scratched the surface I believe there is a foundational problem.

People just don’t care because all politics end in disappointment. Dissatisfaction that the party they voted in, no matter how many terms they survive for, will leave with their heads bowed. It is inevitable that one is usually praised into politics and will leave a failed wreck of disappointment.

On the 6^th May this country has a very difficult decision to make. We have the choice to either vote back in for a 3^rd term the Labour Party. This is the party who have promised us again to fix the country. If they haven’t managed to do this in 18 years then why should we believe them this time? The Conservatives have invited us to David Cameron’s big shiny billboard face. Their manifesto welcomes us to the Government of Britain (I bet the Scottish are angry) but we haven’t even elected them yet! The Liberal Democrats, well, they seem quite relaxed but have apparently made a huge cock up with their calculations.

It just isn’t fair. The Americans got the choice of a electing a dangerously old man (with his crazy creationist side-kick), a black man or the wife of a previous president. It was interesting. For entertainment value it didn’t really matter who was voted in, whatever happened the outcome would be historic. In 2008 the American elections created a buzz in the UK which our politics cannot recreate.

We have the choice of three fairly boring white middle aged men who can only chirp on about ‘change’ all the time. The issue lies with the title of this blog post. No matter which party gets in, us, as cynical pessimistic British, just cannot see past the broken. Each party wants to fix something called a broken Britain. I’ll concur that some parts of the country are better than others but it is almost like a political party gets into office, ruins everything and then leaves.

I am just so fed up with the endless moaning about how the country has been ruined in this or that way. In a way it doesn’t matter. Thatcher ruined things, Blair started a war and Brown has borrowed almost the full about of our GDP. Everybody has their own views, mine aren’t necessarily the above but just what is the point about promising fixes?

I have this sinking feel that in some ways no political parties want to enter into office. The country has lost so much money that failing, once voted in, would be a political suicide that would cost a party future elections for the next decade.

Anyway, I have discoursed far too long on this subject. Perhaps the political debates this evening will change my perspective. The only interesting outcome for this election would be to see the Liberal Democrats get into office.

It was known as the Digital Economy Bill in the real world, #debill (now known as #deact!) on Twitter but from the 8^th April 2010 bill became Act.

If there were ever an example of parliament not listening then watching the progress of the Digital Economy Bill pass through the House of Lords, House of Commons, to then be granted Royal Assent has to be the pinnacle. The Bill has received much attention from industry experts but was never granted a debate despite the pleas of lobbyists and opposing MPs (ie. The intelligent Ones).

For the hardcore readers among you the full details of the Act can be found here. The Digital Economy Act is aimed to continue upgrading Britain so that we may remain a country focused on digital industry.

The only problem with this, at first, brilliant tribute to securing Britain’s digital age is that the Bill was constructed by out-of-date sage’s and probably money pilfering entertainment bosses. It might be that because the Bill is so up-to-date that it was eagerly nodded through parliament by the people who can only smirk at the digital age before confessing, “I am too old to learn about that”. Don’t think that our political system is full of bright, reasonably, charming people – in many cases we are discussing the very idiots who used to sit next to us in school.

The Bill has two key areas of concern; the ability for OFCOM to get involved online and piracy strategies. Of course the Bill covers many areas such as the future of radio, broadband penetration and the role of Channel 4. As reported by the BBC, “The government says it wants to protect the UK’s creative industries, which it says is under threat from piracy.” It strikes me that the Act will proceed as a double edged sword, both protecting and harming the creative industry.

It is perilously simple to write clauses, a certain strategy of rules which the Act seems to be, but far more complicated to actually carry out procedure. Under the Digital Economy Act copyright holders will be able to complain to ISPs to report illegal file sharing of a user. Such allegations require evidence and such evidence can only mean following the footsteps of a user’s IP. IP stands for Internet Protocol, not Intellectual Property! IP addresses change (although changes are easily tracked) but cannot act as solid evidence. If somebody were to access my wireless router to download copyrighted material illegally then my IP address would show up. Thus insinuating that I should be to blame for the illegal downloading. However, I wasn’t torrenting but the ISP would still label me as a pirate, a hater of the creative industry and I would be charged accordingly.

Such piracy measures are unnecessarily heavy handed and will not protect the industry but instead harm it. It is wrong to label those who ‘illegally’ download as criminals. Stealing a handbag is not the same as downloading copyrighted material. There is ethically a vast difference which supporters of the Digital Economy Act must be blind to understand. In many ways downloading copyrighted material is done by those who love film and music. Perhaps students who don’t yet have enough money to purchase but as they get older, earn money, will built up a huge music or film collection completely paid for. Furthermore, if ‘illegally’ downloading content widens a customer base then technically should cause more sales in the long run. In many ways torrenting could be a great (but uncertain) marketing activity. Extremely counter intuitive in the short term but certainly something that deserves a little bit of research.

We are fortunate that although this Act could potentially leave its mark on the way the United Kingdom use the internet, it will take at least 2 years for anything to happen. Within the Digital Economy Act it has been said that although ISPs will need to mediate between OFCOM and the internet user, that OFCOM will need to write its own industry code for consumers.

In the mean time the internet’s landscape will continue to change. The websites that are popular today will not be the same in 2 years time and new websites shall emerge. This, without a doubt, will leave a written Act looking dated.

The best thing about the Digital Economy Bill is a website that informs you of the vote of your local MPs. Turns out that my local MP (although technically during the dissolution of parliament there are no MPs) in Cheltenham, Martin Horwood, didn’t bother voting for the Bill whilst my local MP in Surrey, Paul Burstow, opposed it. Martin, having not bothered voting, has given me even more of a reason to vote for Mark Coote on the 6^th May.

The Digital Economy Act could be a real threat to the development of the internet. Pushed through parliament by wealthy creative industries without debate. I do not believe the measures within the Act can be fortified in reality. The Act deserves a debate and it is certainly worthwhile for everybody to call for a #deact.

Speculations have been on Twitter for the last few days but finally Mr Brown has visited the palace and called for dissolution of parliament. The election race begins which has given us the opportunity to choose change. Conservatives claim they will be change (not that ‘change’ means much. The change in my pocket is cheap for instance…), Labour say that we are on the road to recovery (I don’t think so…) and the Lib Dems say this isn’t a “two-horse race” (he is wrong).

Last month I did a video interview for WinkBall.com when not only did I share my views on the lack of understanding concerning the NUS Vote for Students Pledge but also how social media will play a part in this year’s General Election. Due to the brevity of the interview I wasn’t able to express  in full detail.

Since Labour first came into power in 1997 the country has changed a lot. Industry has changed immensely with many factories closing down and our trading increase as the world becomes a physical global village. Britain is moving towards becoming a leading digital economy. A controversial document at the centre of Britain’s change is the Digital Economy Bill. A document that is suspiciously kind hearted towards the multimedia industry with its piracy clauses and deserves a debate to uncover the consumers’ opinions. Despite this the bill does contain a heap of wondrous ‘developmental clauses’ that will continue to push Britain forward.

Britain has been moving along digitally and technologically for a long time. Too much has happened in the last 13 years to list but I will focus on Facebook and Twitter, both of which were set up in 2006. Both of which could be considered harmless websites for simple, fun, communication. In reality political parties and hardcore supporters will be lathering themselves with all of our posted information to gage the progress of the election battle.

The main battle this general election will take place online. As always, parties will need to tread carefully during this month but this election even more so. We have all seen what happens when many disapproving enthusiastic people meet up on Facebook. In many ways this will be the first digital general election, at least the most influential.

Two of the highest treading hashtags on Twitter will probably be #GeneralElection and #Labourfail. The three main political parties will be tweeting, along with their personable members, local members, supporters, journalists, columnists, celebrity figures and most importantly… us. No doubt about it. Twitter will be a battle ground of opinions and perhaps the occasional fact. I guess the general election on Twitter will be the UKs get-back for all the tedious iPad coverage.

Of course, people like me will be writing silly little blog posts, filled with ill-informed opinion. The most popular blog posts will work their way up Google, the comments on said posts will lead onto other (perhaps lesser known) bloggers and you will find yourself lost in a forest of political opinion. Heck, bloggers have already been given access into Westminster Parliament.

The government is worried about people not voting. In many ways social media will either put people for life off voting or force them into a trolling session to actually brave the great outdoors, away from the computer and tick their piece of paper. That will be a thumb down for that annoying YouTube member.

YouTube is already being used to make fun out of the conservatives, Gordon Brown manages to make fun out of himself and just who is Nick Clegg? Local PPCs are already using YouTube to upload their election videos, along with the website WinkBall.com (which I mentioned earlier) which is one of the main political video hubs to visit.

Due to the realities of modern politics and the social side of social media, there is no doubt in my mind that this election is going to be more of a question of ‘vote for this person’ rather than ‘vote for the party’. The most interesting aspect of social media this election will not just be the tactics implemented but the outcome. Will social media make a positive difference? Does social media portray accurate public opinion?

The conservative candidate for Cheltenham, Mark Coote, was kind enough to invite me out as his guest to a talk by the journalist Andrew Pierce (Go on Andrew, join Twitter!).

Described as a “fearless writer” by the Guardian, Andrew’s career has seen him step from the Gloucestershire Echo, to The Telegraph and now to The Daily Mail. A somewhat questioned move since Jan Moir’s heavily bigoted article last year and Andrew’s status as Fleet Street’s highest profile gay columnist. Meeting Andrew for me was unbelievable, surreal and wetted my appetite for success such as his.

Finding the Church had been a matter of iPhone over mind as I saw myself as a GPS dot navigating my way to the Church where the talk was taking place. You won’t often find me in a Church and on arrival I was surprised to be greeted immediately by name.

Apparently I was one of the youngest people in the room and this soon became very clear. I tend not to have any difficulty spending time with elder people, as long as they don’t presume a ‘higher class’. Not all wisdom comes with age. The only time I got disgruntled was when a lady commented that I looked like I was 15 years old. Clearly this still can’t be the case, I thought smoking was meant to age the skin?

Andrew Pierce has a warm presence but a defiant character which is often revealed in his writings. As he spoke people attentively nodded along, chuckled at the jokes and a couple were taking notes. What he was saying was deeply imbedded in the current political situation in Britain. He spoke with wit and anecdotal stories about a world inside Westminster.

Although I understand politics I find it very difficult to follow a single party. I will vote but my voting will be done on the basis of ideas. Namely the ideas I see as plausible but it is inevitable that no matter which party I vote for there will be ideas not supported by me. Political parties are simply a mixture of ideas and once elected anything could happen. The manifesto is the guideline and methods of achievement must be found to support each clause. At least that is how I view the government.

Andrew Pierce was very interesting but I was more concerned with the journalism side of his career. He might be a political commentator but his job is as a journalist. Whilst speaking with him he commented that he regularly gets sent press releases, more accurately described as propaganda in some cases.

Over the last couple of months it has become increasingly clear to me that I have learnt about Public Relations from a singular point of view. If our work is to be with the press then students should have a better understanding of their job. This can partially be done in the classroom but better achieved through work experience.

Throughout the evening I had one thought in my mind; journalism sounds fun.

Fair enough, it is a busy job but I would hope any job would be busy. I can’t really explain how enticing the feeling of ‘fun’ is to me. Journalism could be a real possibility. Perhaps a backwards step from Public Relations, after all, lots of journalists are now moving into Public Relations.

Could Journalism be the career path designed for me? In many ways that question is irrelevant in my stage of education. With a sandwich year coming up soon I am required to find a Public Relations job. I already know I enjoy Public Relations and so my year out will be something to look forward to. A period of time to continue achieving, learn the ways of the corporate Public Relations world and hopefully earn some money to fund my 4^th year. All I need to do is keep working, get my degree and then make some big decisions.

Who knows what could happen? All I know is that I am thankful to Mark Coote for inviting me along to the evening, Andrew Pierce for being so charming and that journalism is a career path I am definitely interested in. Yet again – how safe is the journalism industry and publishing?