(r)editorialise [v.] ~ to build value through editorialised linking

I've long thought that the BBC's public service content, paid for as it is by the license fee payer, is effectively owned by those who paid for it.

Unfortunately, that's not, for a whole slew of reasons - some real and some imagined by the corporation - the way it plays out in reality.

You can, within fair use guidelines, record BBC programmes for personal use using a PVR or other device and iPlayer allows you to catch-up on missed programmes (for those outside the UK, iPlayer is the BBC's seven day catch up service, available through a range of internet capable devices) without requiring users to actual set up recording beforehand.

But for most people, most of the time, missing the actual transmission means missing out completely. The valuable content, which has already been paid for by the license fee payers, is lost.

Speechification (see screenshot) aims to help those interested in speech radio, primarily from BBC Radio 4, to very quickly find, listen to and even subscribe to the very best bits. Watchification, a sister site, does the same with the BBC's video content.

The BBC broadcasts some wonderful content but, after transmission, makes little attempt to help audiences find there way to it. This is where Speechification and Watchification step into the void, and provide an excellent example of how value can be created through the simple act of editorialised linking.

These aren't the first sites to editorialise the BBC's content in ways that extract value from making that link. One of my favourite sites to do this is Speak You're Branes, which highlights, with humour, some of the worst (eg. anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-everything, etc) posts from BBC News Have Your Say. [Also piggie-backing on HYS is Newssniffer's Watch Your Mouth, which tracks "censored" discussions - the quotes are there because I don't actually believe that moderation, based on the fair enforcement of transparent house rules, is censorship. It's entirely automated so outside the scope of this post.]

By sifting through content and filtering out the best (or worst) bits - something only skilled, living, breathing humans can do, not algorythms -  these three sites have created their own compelling offerings from BBC content that otherwise would probably be lost. Imagine what could be done if, instead of simply putting out content and letting a few keen users get away with editorialising and reusing that content, the BBC (and other public service broadcasters) actually encouraged and harnessed the will of their audiences to help sift, categorise and rate content. Rather than the valuable content dropping off the edge of a cliff following transmission, and rapidly fading from the minds of those who did catch it first time around or on iPlayer, value could be retained and built upon over time.

Journalism has it's networked journalism, the harnessing of audiences to help gather information and report aspects of a story. I call the act of reviewing, sifting and helping audiences find content (r)editorising. Fans are ready and willing to do the work, they just need to be networked.

Just for fun, I've aggregated the RSS feeds of the four sites listed above [speechification, watchification, speak you're branes and newsniffer] to create a feed of sites which aren't particularly good bedfellows. It's a bit like getting a free DVD with your newspaper.

Comments

[Steve Bowbrick]

Blimey, mate. That's amazing. I think we'll probably have to link to your aggregated feed - although it's weird being mixed in with the nutters!