Headlines and Deadlines

No news to report? Are you sure about that?

alisongow — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:15:43 +0000

A tweet by Jay Rosen led me to this online news story by the Jackson Sun, which says that there have been no newsworthy incidents in the area overnight. So far, so boring right?
I wonder. Because I have also played the ‘there is no news’ card – and there was a very calculated reason for it, although it is a bit of a long story…

In the mid-ninties I was working for the Gloucester Citizen as a senior reporter, somtimes helping out on the newsdesk, mostly just bemoaning the fact that I had missed out on covering the Rose West trial because the only hotel room left in the whole of Winchester was a twin bed one, the other reporter assigned to cover it for the Citizen was a bloke (who had covered the West horrorfest since the start, to be fair), and the company didn’t feel able to have a co-ed bedroom.
So as I kicked around the newsroom, complaining, an unexpected thing happened; the editor’s door opened, a shaft of sunlight appeared and a voice issued forth saying: “I need you to go and relaunch the Forest of Dean edition”. Truly, I was blessed.

For anyone not in the know, the Forest of Dean is a breathtakingly beautiful area of countryside on the Gloucester/Wales border, where sheep roam the roads freely (and get smeared along them by speeding motorists just as often) and tiny lanes lead to dizzying hilltops from which you can gaze across some of the most amazing views in Britain. In the mid-nineties. it also had one of the most bloody miserable, unhelpful, intransigent police forces that it’s ever been my misfortune to have to ring on an early shift.

Nothing happened in the Forest according the FoD police. Nothing. Even when a serving police officer – who went on the run from the North East following a string of dubious incidents, including how he attained the status of widower – turned up dead in a bathtub in a Cinderford semi, after assuming a false identity and joining the local am dram group. The Rapture could have happened in the Forest, and the local police would have denied any such activity.
So one day, several weeks into the relaunch, I snapped. It was a Monday, 7.30am, and there was snow on the ground when I phoned Coleford police station to find out what had happened overnight. “Nothing” came the reply. And at 11.30am the Forest edition started landing at newsagents with a nib in the p6 Briefs column that read: “Not crimes have been committed in the Forest of Dean overnight”. Same story in the Incident Book at Cinderford’s small police office – the Forest was at peace, and had been for several days, if that was to be believed.
Tuesday came, and I spoke to the desk sergeant at Coleford again. “Nothing”. “No crimes have been committed in the Forest of Dean since Saturday” ran the p6 nib. People were starting to ring say this was inaccurate because they were the victims of crimes; we explained the situation, and asked them to contact Coleford Police, also suggesting that perhaps they wouldn’t mind telling their friends of this conversation?
Wednesday and Thursday came and went, and so did the p6 nibs. And on Friday I was summoned to see the superintendent at Coleford Police Station for an exchange of views that led with me climbing off my high horser, and them agreeing a series of protocols for working with the press, and asking me to go on their next drugs raid.

I can’t say we became the best of friends but the ‘there is no news’ did at least kickstart the conversation and lead to some much-needed venting. I think both sides were arrogant and held each other in low estime, and with hindsight I feel a little ashamed that I used the Citizen’s readers as a stick to beat the police with; it wasn’t fair on those victims of crime, but… it did make a difference to how we were able to report crime, and -maybe? – how the police viewed those taxpayers.
So, I can’t look at the Jackson Sun’s little nib without wondering if there is some gameplay going on. I sort of hope there is.

Speaking Freely "This is a test from SpinVox…" (<<<< that’s their headline btw)

alisongow — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:19:00 +0000

“This is a test from SpinVox to my blog to see how long I can talk before, before it runs out of characters and how many if any mistakes it mate cos in that time. I am speaking very slowly and clearly there’s no background noise. So everything should work perfectly well past experience.”
spoken through SpinVox

The above comment was posted to my blog, from my phone, using Spinvox, a service I used back early in 2008 but quickly became disenchanted with because it couldn’t post anything I said without mangling it.
I can live with the ‘length of x3 SMS’ posts because mobile journalism is about This Is Happening Now rather than Look What We’ve Put On Our Website For You but I can’t live with the errors.

The sentence ‘mistakes it mate cos in that time’ should read ‘mistakes it makes in that time’ and the last sentence has been mangled; it should read ‘perfectly well although that hasn’t been my past experience’. But I did push my luck on the character limit so it’s probably my fault it contracted the less-than-favourable bit of the sentence. Although it is suspicious.

Anyway, Spinvox verdict: Not improved enough for me to use again regularly.

Google Wave, transparency* and engagement

alisongow — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:27:00 +0000

I’ve been using Google Wave for about a week now and every time I log on I discover something new. I’ve read a few gripes about things being broken, or it being too confusing, or too quiet, but for me the biggest problem is having time to play around with it enough to learn everything it can do.

Lifehacker has been invaluable, as has this post and this one although when I swept off in a, well, in a wave of enthusiasm to embed a wave on here I swiftly discovered my limitations. I was pretty downcast as well until I realised that it should be quite easy as it’s all done by automation but the facility isn’t switched on yet. And since my coding skills are pretty lowly I am really not up to tackling this without bot assistance. So instead of getting hung up on what it can and can’t do, I think I’m better off trying to work out the rules of engagement.

For example, I’ve just crashed a Wave. It’s about Flickr, I didn’t mean too, but I have just added myself to the discussion simply by clicking ‘reply’ to see if I could. No one cared but it was weird that a debate was going on between a group of people who obviously know one another and suddenly I’m in the middle of it. All a bit too “Ta-daaaaaaa!” for me right now. I guess it’s because I am still treating it like it’s a private conversation; it is a public Wave on the public timeline but, like Twitter, it’s not easy to keep that in mind when you’re using it. It becomes a little world and when someone new arrives it’s a surprise.

Here’s something else to, raised by Nick Miller in the ‘Wave, journalism and the mainstream media’ wave I joined today:

Watching people type in real time is fantastic, in a voyeuristic way. You can see their minds working.

But do we want people to see our minds working? How many times have we written an email, tweet or forum comment, only for our censor to kick in and say ‘don’t send that!’.

How many times? For me, a lot. Right now I’m getting mocked for my poor typing skills by fellow wavers who can see me correcting as I’m going – but there’s a lot more onus on me now to think through what I’m going to say. You know in Google Chat when it says X has entered text and it generally means they’re sense-checking what they’ve written? In a wave, your thoughts are revealed letter by letter. And I get very self-conscious if I start a sentence, then backtrack/delete and rephrase it while other people observe me making those changes.

What Google has done is create an application that allows those watching a wave to see thought-proceses at work; a wave is an aid to Transparency. A journalist using a wave is asking people to collaborate wiki-style in information-gathering – in fact, s/he should be writing the article in the wave, so contributors can participate in living, breathing news-making – a space where they can throw questions, facts and comments in themselves – not be served up a flat, one-dimensional statement of facts that ends when the story is thought to be the required amount of words.

I remember last July when a crane collapsed on an apartment block in Liverpool, and how Twitter was integral to the Post and Echo’s coverage – imagine if we’d been able to start a public wave on the topic and embed it on our websites. By bringing a contributing audience into our site and asking them to help us – using maps and images being added alongside observations and comments – the ‘journalist as gatekeeper’ would have been truly defunct. Rumours posted could be quickly checked and a breaking story updated constantly. And it would remain open for users to revisit, and add to. The playback option shows exactly who made what changes when, which is also pretty handy.

It’s not Twitter, or Facebook, or a wiki, or even email but it is, I think, a great learning opportunity for journalists who are prepared for the sense of exposure and vulnerability it brings. Letting someone see the messy spaghetti of a story-in-progress is something we’ve been conditioned against for decades – it’s many years since I sat my NCE but I’ll bet the NCTJ is still interested in the end product, not the journey – and Google Wave is all about in-progress. It would be unsettling (and possibly, initially, irritating) as a journalist to type a statement and then see another wave participant dive in and start editing the text you’ve just written to change a fact, or add information but I’d imagine it would also be exciting to see a news story being woven out of random strands of questions and facts.

Google Wave is going to be what a journalist wants make it – crowdsourcing, debating, real-time news-gathering, breaking news, image sharing, archived events, live-blogging, polling, asking for feedback – but, I think, the most exciting thing it offers is the opportunity to change the way we think about interaction and engagement. As a learning tool for transparency, it really could be amazing.

* Shortly after I published this post it was pointed out to me that the headline read ‘tansprency’; I told you my typing was hopeless…

Using animation to tell a news story

alisongow — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:09:00 +0000

No, I’m honestly not suggesting a return to those horrible stilted avatars reading the news headlines, but I do like the idea of using some animation to bring a reader into a story – particularly if the story is the latest in a long running saga and a handy recap of the tale-to-date would be useful.

I made my first cartoon using Xtranormal today; I know it’s a site usually used for making training and presentation tools, but I was interested in whether it might work for journalists.
It took me about an hour and I had a lot of fun doing it. As the clip embedded here explains, I chose an avatar (there’s everything from corporate to robot avatars available but I fancied having blue hair) and gave it a voice (she’s really plummy unfortunately) then started adding animations.

The script is translated to audio, and it does sound stilted, although when I played around with some of the words and punctuation it improved. I think if I’d spent more time on it I could have got it to flow better.
So I know it’s not Toy Story but it does the job, and I was more interested in seeing how efficiently it worked, and how long it took to put together, than the style and content.

Anyway, it made me think: why shouldn’t we incorporate more animation in our websites? I don’t mean some ‘toon cat informing us of a moider in a local suburb, I’m thinking more about the options to introduce some fun back into what we do, and what we provide for our audience.
I’d love to see reporters being given time to make multimedia content – soundslides, cartoon, blogging, timelines, wordclouds – to compliment the words they have to churn out every day.

So, this is my first cartoon, made for free on a free site which offers paying customers more characters, audio, sets and other options.

The problems with second-guessing our online audience

alisongow — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:01:00 +0000

Trying to second-guess what a newspaper’s online audience wants from its website is a tricky business. Apart from those who come to our sites for information there are huge numbers there purely for commercial services, and who find our sites through searches, not unflagging loyalty.

The second most viewed news article on the Echo site so far this month is a beauty contest semi-final; at the time of writing, it’s more than 5,000 hits ahead of (and two rankings higher than) an exclusive interview by the sports editor with the CEO of Liverpool FC, a club that can truly claim to be a global brand with fanatical followers around the world. In short, that was an article you’d have put money on securing the number one spot in the rankings, but it’s being beaten by a local beauty pagaent which is generating thousands of page views (possibly from proud relatives…)

The phrase ‘We Know What They Want’ is a kissing cousin to ‘If It Bleeds, It Leads’; murders sell papers and a news editor is always going to put the big crime story at the top of the newslist, but… a violent death isn’t always the best story of the day, and not all readers appreciate being served up a diet of crime.
They tell us so, in surveys, on forums, in phone calls, comments under articles, and on blogs. We can’t risk doing the same thing online – a YouTube video of some TV singer might do wonders for hits but considered retrospectively I’d say it’s a false positive and gives a skewed view of what our core audience values.

A slideshow presentation into the US news industry brought home to me the risks that accompany assuming you know your readership well. It details the results of a survey of 2,400 U.S. newspaper executive and was presented to last week’s American Press Institute’s Newsmedia Economic Action Plan Conference by Greg Harmon, of Belden Interactive, and Greg Swanson, of ITZ Publishing.

I discovered it via Steve Outing’s blog and I think the slides illustrate how out-of-touch some of the newspaper executives who took partwere. The survey shows the majority incorrectly assumed readers found their content very valuable; they also stated a belief that readers would struggle to find adequate replacements – the reader response was that they wouldn’t find it difficult.

API ITZ Belden Revenue Initiatives Survey

View more documents from NiemanLab.

Guest-blogging on Media140

alisongow — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:37:00 +0000

I wrote a blog post last week which you won’t see on this site. It was about how and why I use the Favourite option on Twitter, what its uses are, and different was of checking out other users’ Favourites, and when I finished it I pinged it off to the Media140 blog to use however they wished.
If you want to read it – and please, please do! I don’t want to be responsible for a dip in their traffic – the post is here.

It was the first time in just over 18 months of blogging that I’ve written a post for another person’s blog site, and it was a very different experience. I enjoyed it and it was a subject that I found interesting (hopefully so did others), but… I was a bit nervous about doing it because someone else (Dominique Jackson) had invested some trust in me – they’d asked me to provide a post on Twitter on their blog, and I wanted to do it justice.
I get angsty about some of the posts I write here, but at the end of the day this blog is my comfort zone, my own space where I can nip into the backroom and edit post-published spelling horrors, for example; guest-posting was a whole new responsibility.

As it turned out Dominique gave it a lovely standfirst, edited the intro so I looked witty and bright and uploaded it. And then she tirelessly promoted it. So thanks for asking me to guest blog Dee – it was another new learning experience in my blogging life. And, um, I have another idea for a post…

Five phrases to outlaw in newsrooms

alisongow — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:21:00 +0000

I was reading a translated version of the Internet Manifesto (you can find it here) when I was suddenly and unexpectedly struck by an attack of cynicism. Because I agree with the statements it makes but the huge, clanging problem with the 17 stated fundamental points, basic as they are, is that they are on… the internet. And, for too many people in too many newsrooms, things on the internet really don’t seem to be considered that important.

Exactly why this is depends on who you’re talking to. Higher up the editorial food chain the internet might not be on their radar because the focus is on the money-making print product. At reporter level, it can be a whole different set of issues, although workload is probably at the forefront.
So writing down journalism manifestos and putting it online isn’t the answer, because too many of the people who need convincing aren’t looking there that often.

It’s a serious problem and, I think, it’s the new elephant in the newsroom. Do we really know how far a rival’s newsroom has embraced multimedia? Every regional paper in the UK talks Good Digital but the reality is somewhat detached from that, I’d be willing to bet.
Now, there are moves to create a new Internet Manifesto here so I’m not going attempt to reinvent the wheel here. But, for me, there are five comments that are – at one time or another – heard in a newsroom, which all the manifesto pledges in the world aren’t going to solve; these are the issues that newspaper execs need to start addressing right now.

1. “I’m too busy to..”
Someone who says “I’m too busy to…” (shoot a video/record some audio/set up a survey…) is limiting themselves to one avenue of story-telling – text. By committing to a traditional interview – a reporter writes information down, then writes it up - the newspaper closes off new ways of exploring the issues and finding out what is relevant to its readers.

Time is obviously a consideration – you still have to edit video packages, or create that survey – and a journalist who is juggling three other page leads they need to write for the next day’s paper is going to look for savings somewhere. But it shouldn’t be the multimedia aspect of a story. I would say: take responsibility for your workload; if you’re filming a video package to run with the online version of your news story, the newsdesk needs to budget for you being out of the office to do the interview, write the copy, and then edit said package. Whether the issue is reporters speaking up, or news editors listening to them, or editors being clear on what the agenda is, it’s not an insurmountable problem.

2. ‘I don’t know how to use/make that’
Saying ‘I don’t know how to use/make that’ is pefectly ok - so long as you follow it up with ‘so will you show me?’ No one is born knowing how to run an rss feed into a widget, but plenty of people in your newsroom have learned how it works and will help you out if you ask. Blogging isn’t a mystery, but why some people in a newsroom view it as a chore to be avoided it at every opportunity is. The internet isn’t going away and advertisers are not going to start hurling money at newspapers like they used to; this means that anyone planning on staying in journalism should want to be learning new skills – not only do these open up whole new ways of story-telling, but they make sense from a point of self-interest. After all, in a multimedia world, who is more likely to find themselves valued by an employer?

3. “No one asked me…”
If you’re asked why you didn’t (grab some cameraphone footage/record audio/write a blog post) the reply “No one asked me for any” is possibly the worst one you can give (other than “I didn’t have time” – see point 1). Don’t wait to be asked – think! Plan ahead in the same way you marshal your questions in advance for a planned interview, and if it’s a breaking news story then the scope for instant digital journalism is even greater – tweet, post photos of what’s happening to your own or your newspaper’s Twitter stream, livestream action using Qik or Bambuser, and be proactive. Text is the least creative part of any news story; ultimately, no matter how well-written your colleagues tell you it is, it’s simply 350-plus words to fill a space in a news page. If you supplement your text with still and moving images, a podcast, an interactive Q&A, or a liveblog, how much more dynamic and memorable will your complete package be? How much more valuable will it be to the audience? The answer is simple: A lot.
Stop thinking in terms of words and pictures for a printed page because this happens anyway if you’re doing multimedia journalism the right way.

4. “It’s only the website
If you believe “It’s only the website” it tends to show. I suspect any digital editor can reel off the names of those in their newsroom who ‘get’ the web, and those who Can’t, Don’t or Won’t. Those that do are the ones who update their blogs without thinking, are comfortable joining and conversing in online communities, whose toolkit extends further than notebook and pencil. They may turn to Twitter when there’s a breaking news story to ask for people’s help in covering it, and they are likely to commit spontaneous acts of multimedia journalism. The Can’ts need time, training and encouragement; at its most simple, digital journalism is just publishing instantly, instead of waiting for a press to start rolling.
The Don’ts and the Won’ts usually revert to Stress, Morose or Baffled mode when asked to do something vaguely digital, and then don’t do it, citing various problems, from technical to time. The main problem, of course, is that their chosen industry has evolved, and they haven’t, yet.

5. “Digital doesn’t make money” (variation: “Print is profitable”)
Any journalists who use the phrase “Digital doesn’t make money”, or its evil twin “Print is where the money is” when questioning (aloud or as part of an inner debate) the value of a newspaper’s website need to stop and consider this question: Why does suddenly this matter to you?
Someone raised an interesting point with me recently by asking why newspaper journalists – who have always viewed themselves as above the sordid business of making money – have suddenly started wielding digital income statistics like a shield.
Ten years ago, the Advertising department was a newsroom’s mad wife in the attic – we all knew it was there, but didn’t really like to think about what it was up to. Frankly, most journalists neither know nor care what the industry’s print advertising revenue is. What you, as a journalist, probably do care about is that things are changing, you’re unsure about the future, and you have no idea whether you chose the right career or not.

I agree that updating your work blog is unlikely to turn around the financial black hole our industry is attempting to extract itself from at the moment.
But that work blog might help your future prospects, it definitely allows your audience to start conversations with you and it’s certainly one of the more rewarding ways of sharing facts, opinions, photos, videos, links, slideshows, audio, word clouds, tweet clouds, timelines, interactive widgets – and those are just the things I can list off the top of my head. And more ways of telling the story are being invented all the time.
Online journalism shouldn’t be a chore, it should be exciting, different, interesting, and fun. If you’re working as a multimedia journalist you have the opportunity to be a real pioneer in the art of online storytelling, audience engagement, and new ways of sourcing, sharing and developing information. That has to be worth being a part of.

Paywall drives sales for Newport Daily News

alisongow — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:20:00 +0000

Back in June I blogged some thoughts about newspapers, paywalls and and online subscriptions, with the conclusion that regional newspapers, in my view, were some way off being able to charge for content.

The post was the result of some research I’d been doing around linked questions, and as part of my wander through the online industry experts and observers I discovered that the Newport Daily News had decided to start charging a lot for the privilege of accessing its news online.

The paper’s argument was that it was undermining its own product with a free online offering. So it set out to make the online option much less attractive, and something you wouldn’t pay for unless you had no other option. A year-long annual online subscription to the Daily News was set at £345, while a print subscription was £200.

This was a concept I found interesting, and I figured it was worth keeping an eye on. It definitely was; the latest figures show the Daily News is, according to Newsweek, now selling an extra 200 copies a day.
William F. Lucey III, assistant publisher and general manager, said the Daily News, which has a circulation of 13,000 has seen a significant gain in its print sales, despite poor weather (every editor knows rain is one of the biggest triggers of a sharp sales drop off).

Of course, the famously monied Newport yachting set isn’t typical, and the Daily News has all jumpers-tied-around-shoulders types over a barrel when it comes to online subscriptions; if they want to read what’s going on in their spiritual home they have to be prepared to pay for it. Not something too many other papers could rely on. But it does go to show, when people have no other option they will pay for information they want badly enough.
It appears that, in the historic home of yachting, the Daily News has discovered the truth of Bertha Calloway’s observation: “We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails”.

Pic: Stp243

Why the RSS river of news drowns Facebook and Google Reader

alisongow — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:11:00 +0000

My Facebook page has had a serious clear out. I junked my Twitter feed, Friendfeed and Mento links (along with a host of other stuff that I never liked or really wanted but which I acquired every time a friend sent me something).
The reason was simple: whenever I logged on I was faced with an overdose of my tweets, Friendfeed rss, bookmarks, notes and more.

As an individual user, I don’t much like Facebook. I don’t want to be sent kittens, issued with challenges or quizzed, and I prefer sites where I don’t have to decide whether to fend off Zombie attacks. I like FB status updates, but that’s about it. I use, as opposed to visit, Twitter, Plurk, Flickr and Delicious, all the time. Wired Journalists, Dipity, Last.fm, Spotify and Blip, and Good Reads are coming up on the rails.

So, on a personal level, Facebook as an aggregator is a turn-off for me but it’s not alone; my Google Reader has also undergone a wholesale clearout. I realised the best way I found new blogs and websites was through Twitter – I sometimes subscribe to hashtag themes in my Reader so I can follow a debate, but Friendfeed works just as well. And it’s a lot less time-consuming to dip in and out of a hashtag search than see there are 1200 unread items in my reader. Mashable, for example, has been binned and replaced with an rss of @Mashable’s tweets – faster to skim through, no adverts – and it saves me clogging my Twitter feed.

I talked at TEDx Liverpool about journalists now having a river of information available to them through social media; I later learned the River of News analogy was well-established in regards to RSS . Google has also been thinking about this RSS news river and the need for more social opportunities in our Reader, I guess, because it’s now added ‘comments’ and ‘power reader’ recommends to its options (click to enlarge the image):

I’m not really interested in the comments (they tend to be of the ‘great post, Jon!’ variety) and although I click on the ’1 person liked this’ links sometimes – I found this interesting post on the subject through six degrees of separation from the ‘like’ option – I don’t want to know what’s in a power user’s Reader.
If I’m not following them on Twitter or Friendfeed someone who does will no doubt be retweeting them or linking to a post. And if they don’t, does it really matter? It’s not like I need to know everything that’s new or news. And what I think is important might be trivia to someone else.

* River photo by talaakso

A (very unscientific) test between the N97 and iPhone, With added dinosaurs…

alisongow — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 19:46:00 +0000

Two titans went up against each other in a desperate battle for supremacy this week, at the Walking With Dinosaurs show in the Echo Arena.

Yes, amid earth-shaking, smoke machines and screaming children, I pitted an iPhone 3Gs and a Nokia N97 against each other to see which came out top.

Actually, it wasn’t quite as organised as that. The truth is, my N95 8GB has died and I was torn between replacing it with a sleek, sexy iPhone and a practical and workmanlike N86. And while I procrastinated, unable to decide, work stepped in, took away my N96 and replaced it with an N97. And I happened to be sitting next to the owner of a swish new iPhone at the WWD spectacular. Well, he was my husband…

The new iPhone has a much-vaunted camera and video facility, but no flash. The N97 has a 5 megapixel camera, Carl Zeiss lens and touchscreen facilities. It also has a flash, but because WWD asked people not to use flash photography, I switched it off for the photos and the video, which made it a more fair contest. (Also, you can see on the videos how distracting it is when people took photos using flash.)

We also forgot to charge our phones before we went in – the Nokia had 3 bars left, the iPhone a quarter charge showing.

So, photos:

N97 (camera settings on automatic, minimal zoom)

iPhone (autofocus)

I think the iPhone won that – it’s much crisper and has handled the low light better – and I think the zoom function compromised the N97 focus.

N97 (florescent white balance; no zoom)

iPhone (autofocus)

The N97 image is sharper but the iPhone definitely makes better use of the available light. The Allosaurus is barely visible in the Nokia image.

Finally for the photos:

N97

and iPhone

I think the N97 took the better shot although perhaps I was lucky that Mama Rex and tot stopped moving for a nanosecond as I shot this one. Both the Nokia and iPhone images look much sharper when viewed smaller, it’s only when they are used larger that they start to degrade.

(Those dinosaur models move rather quickly by the way; it was difficult getting a steady shot without any blur on either phone.)

Video:

N97

iPhone

In terms of video I was really impressed with the iPhone; the sound and image quality is good. The N97 was capturing action on the far side of the stage, and picked up in terms of clarity when it shifted nearer my seat, but I still thought it would beat the iPhone, and I don’t think it did, on comparable settings. If I’d adjusted the set-up it probably would have performed better but – using it as a news-gathering tool, you’re not always going to have the luxury of time to do that. Of course, a Flip would have blown both iPhone and Nokia away in this test, but you couldn’t exactly use it to then mobile upload your videos. Or ring the story through to your newsdesk.

On sundries, the N97 battery lasted about 20 minutes longer than the iPhone. Sound quality on all the videos we took came out better on the N97, but I suspect that was because it’s so easy to accidentally muffle the Apple microphone with your hand when you’re recording. So which phone won, in my view?

Reader, I went out the very next day and bought… an N86.