From Benton “Jesus Christ” the dog to Jon Huntsman’s rapping daughters, millions of us have been glued to YouTube, giggling on the bus and wasting time at work by watching the latest clips to take the nation by storm.

Here’s my round up of the top 5 viral videos of the past month..

Bizzle the half-man-half-dog:

The Jurassic Park parody of “Fenton” the dog:

..and of course a link to the unmissable original video.

The flour avalanche:

No embeddable videos of this one but you can watch it here (although latest reports suggest it might have been a set up)

A personal favourite – stage collapse at Belfast MTV awards:

Finally, to get you in the festive mood, here is Paul Toole’s AWESOME annual Christmas lights display:

Got any other favourites? Post them in the comments box below. 

Over and out.

Malcolm’s opening statement was as follows:

Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible.

All journalists suffer moral dilemmas. But when Malcolm’s piece was serialised in the New Yorker in 1989, it caused a mass outcry. She argued that McGinness was forced into the conclusions that he made through the subject’s “lack of vividness”, which pressed the author’s hand into portraying facts in certain ways to make him appear to be a more interesting character. But that didn’t go down so well. McGinniss’s rebuttal was fierce, other journalists criticised her for being melodramatic and unfair; while some accepted that what she said was valid, begrudgingly accepting it as the “necessary evil” of the trade.

21 years later, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Malcolm’s thesis still stands. In the two decades that have passed, I doubt there are many who could have missed the declining respect the general public have for journalists and their profession. The phone hacking scandal was just one (albeit very large) symptom of a world that is no longer seen as a force fighting for good against bureaucratic evils. Instead, journalism is often seen as a web of deceit, tricksters, unnamed ‘sources’, invented stories and money-grabbing reporters who will stop at nothing to get the story they want, in the way they envisage it will appear. For those within the profession, obviously the above is unfair and untrue – for most of us. But Malcolm’s harsh thesis bears a certain amount of truth even today.

This weekend, Bloomberg journalist Michael Kinsley wrote a fantastic retrospective on Malcolm’s work. “For the record, journalists are snakes,” he writes. Kinsley takes the topic of anonymous sources, which he says is one of the weakest aspects of modern day reporting:

In the Age of Transparency, when government officials and business executives are supposed to fill out a form and put it on the Internet every time they scratch their behinds, why should journalists expect to be able to say simply, “trust us” when they report controversial information?

In search of some proof for this theory, Kinsley carried out some research on the content of the Washington Post and NY Times. He counted the number of times the phrases “requested anonymity” and “asked not to be identified because” appeared in the papers over the course of two weeks. Among the 22 examples he gives are: “because of the delicacy of the situation”, “because they were not authorised to speak on the record” and “for fear of retribution”.

Kinsley’s conclusion is that Malcolm was – and is – right. He says:

Journalism is about betrayal: betrayal of sources by reporters, betrayal of friends, colleagues, family members by sources.

In other words, modern day reporters are con men, conning others into saying things they shouldn’t, all for the sake of a story. Kinsley also points to a few other useful aspects of anonymous reporting: bluffing, exaggerating quotes (because nobody knows who’s said what), and even using the same source to represent many different viewpoints, all described in different ways.

Now I don’t fully agree with what he says. There are a hell of a lot of decent, honest, fighting-for-good journalists out there who wouldn’t touch anonymity or conning sources into saying things they shouldn’t with a barge pole. But for all the goodies out there, there are the tabloid (and broadsheet) baddies – those who have come to rely increasingly on anonymous sources, shaping stories to fit headlines or editorial demands, and eking stories out of facts where they don’t really exist – all for the sake of filling a few column inches with their byline.

By revisiting Malcolm’s world - “a film-noir nightmare of betrayals and broken promises” – Kinsley reminds of something important. Journalists need to retain their integrity. In a world dominated by inane celebrity gossip, tacky tabloids and kiss n tell shams, we need to make sure the trade doesn’t lose its soul. There is still a way to be ethical, accurate and break a phenomenal story without sensationalising it. Take a look at the MP’s expenses scandal, for example. This kind of journalism does exist; it might just take a little bit of extra work.

Journalism can still be a force for good. I fundamentally believe that. But if we’re not careful, it could descend into the snake pit of rumours and lies that some people already think it has become.

But who could forget their wonderful tribute to everyone’s favourite national newspaper..? It’s been over a year and a half since they released it, but the Daily Mail song never gets old. For anyone who missed it first time around, or who wants a Monday morning-cheering reminder, here it is:

Whatever you read in the papers today, just remember: “It’s absolutely true because I read it in the Daily Mail…”

In August, the Guardian featured a piece by freelance education journalist Janet Murray, who took the drastic step of advertising for an apprentice. Yes, you heard right: a journalist (and a freelance one) with their own apprentice. Janet’s idea raised a few eyebrows – not least because she argued that journalism has become a graduate-entry profession, which, she argued, doesn’t guarantee entrants’ ability – but her main point was as follows:

Over my 10 years as a freelance journalist, I’ve become adept at juggling the demands of different editors, even when it has meant working into the early hours or getting up ludicrously early to meet a deadline. But in recent months, I’ve realised I need help. I have a stack of story leads, but no time to do the research and I’ve been turning work down – something no freelance wants to do. I’ve decided to recruit an apprentice to assist me with research, transcription, developing story ideas and – once they have enough experience under the belt – possibly even the writing of articles.

So, the big news this week: Janet’s found her coveted apprentice. After receiving a flurry of applications via the National Apprenticeship Service, she whittled down the candidates and chose Rhian Jones, a 22-year-old student who is giving up her studies at Lancaster to work for Janet. Controversial, maybe, but Rhian will earn the princely sum of £6.08 an hour for 30 hours’ work a week. And it’s not a bad gig – for either of them.

While Janet’s new apprentice gets all her worldly wisdom and some extra-curricular experience on top; Janet finds someone who has the time to read documents, put in FoI requests, interpret complicated numbers, and research story ideas – on her behalf. It’s a lot of trust to put in someone else – but if Janet’s found the right combination, it might just work.

Maybe Janet's apprentice will drive her around in a snazzy car

Having an apprentice is, I reckon, a stroke of genius. It’s like suddenly doubling the time you have, as a journalist, to do journalisty things. And still get your articles written on a deadline. If I ever make properly make it in this big bad journalistic world, I might have to get myself one.

Let’s hope – after all this – she doesn’t end up just making Janet’s tea..

The Onion is known for its witty, parody-filled take on the day’s news – and, indeed, completely invented news stories – but for many readers, this time it went too far. Many Twitter users assumed the account had been hacked, while others slammed whoever was compiling the Twitter feed for being “unfunny” and “insensitive”. Police on Capitol Hill have had to confirm that the claims are false, and have even launched an investigation, while a spokesperson for The Onion has stepped forward to explain that the news ploy was entirely intentional.

So what on earth is going on? The ploy started with the following tweet..

 @TheOnion

BREAKING: Witnesses reporting screams and gunfire heard inside Capitol building.

 

And, of course, Twitter immediately went mad. With more than 100 retweets, some users were quick off the mark to question what The Onion was playing it. The hashtag #CongressHostage took off, and The Onion quickly backed up its alarming claims with a full story on its website. The content of the story is changing constantly – perhaps in a bid to mirror breaking news..or perhaps in response to almost-universal criticism – but the site claims the ‘kidnappers’ have decreed: “if any attempt is made to stage a rescue ‘all the kids will die’.” There’s also a horribly photoshopped image of the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, holding a gun to the head of a schoolgirl, alongside another man dressed in a ski mask and holding a rifle. The latest addition to the crude joke story is a video of whimpering schoolchildren supposedly ‘held hostage’ on Capitol Hill.

Here’s a screengrab of the page as it looks now.. just in case they decide to take it down:

The Onion's fake story about a hostage situation on Capitol Hill in the US

Now don’t get me wrong. I know the whole point of The Onion is satire. We’ve all ‘lol’ed at the Literally Unbelievable site, which showcases the funniest examples of Facebook users believing obviously spoof stories from The Onion. And I know it has been in trouble before, particulary when respected news organisations take The Onion’s claims a little too seriously (anyone remember the ‘It’s gay to smoke’ campaign? Or President Obama’s 75,000-word email complaining about America? Or Harry Potter inciting thousands of children to turn to witchcraft? Tee hee) – but this has gone beyond a joke.

Even as I write, The Onion’s Twitter feed continues to be updated with details about the story. The latest: a police helicopter has been ordered to pull back after a Senator tries to shoot it down, and two chaperones are said to be trapped inside the building, one of whom is pregnant. If ever there was a time to fire your Twitter writers, @TheOnion, it’s now.

Whether it’s a joke gone wrong, or some sort of new shock tactic at The Onion, the ploy doesn’t seem to have worked as well as it planned. While some readers think it’s funny; others are despairing that such an intelligent publication has sunk to bad-taste parodies and attention-grabbing stunts. Threatening to shoot a group of kids is never going to be funny.

If today’s escapade has done anything, however, it’s proven the strength – and the dangers – of social media in the world of breaking news. Most of us know The Onion, and know its wicked ways.. but a lot of Twitter users don’t, and the announcement of an atrocity on Capitol Hill (involving schoolchildren and a pregnant chaperone, no less), risked sparking mass hysteria. Sgt Kimberly Schneider, spokeswoman for the Capitol Hill police, admitted that it was Twitter that drove the police to make a statement to calm fears about the alleged incident. If Twitter is now informing the police, where else are the rest of us supposed to get – and, indeed, verify – our information?

The Onion’s crazy stunt continues. Someone better get rapped on the knuckles for this.. it’s becoming increasingly unfunny, but the writers involved are sticking to their guns. In the meantime, there’s a lesson here about not believing everything you read on the interweb. Even if the satire goes over your head, there will usually be something in the story hinting at a spoof. Check, check and check again. And if all else fails, wait until the eagle eyed Twitterverse figures out the truth. Stay tuned here to watch the inevitable unravelling/backtracking in The Onion’s failed stunt.

The plans – invoking the Official Secrets Act – had been controversial from the outset, drawing a host of critical voices from journalism, politics and campaign groups in the UK and across the world. There were editorials in the Daily Telegraph, the Times, the Daily Mail and the Independent, while a contributor to the Columbia Journalism Review said – if successful – the decision would have…

“a chilling effect on sources’ willingness to expose corruption”

…which, as we hacks know, would be a Very Bad Thing.

After being put through the ringer itself during the #hackgate scandal, the Met  had planned to apply for a production order this Friday, in a bid to secure the handover of documents relating to sources for articles published by the Guardian newspaper, including the alleged hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone.

But today, it backtracked, and pretty dramatically. The official statement released by the Yard read:

“This decision does not mean that the investigation has concluded. Despite recent media reports there was no intention to target journalists or disregard obligations to protect their sources. It is not acceptable for police officers to leak information about any investigation, let alone one as sensitive and high profile as Operation Weeting.”

The force also made it clear that the legislation involved in the application for the production order was under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, not the Official Secrets Act as the media had concluded. The OSA, it said, was only mentioned in relation to one particular issue – the arrest of the police officer on September 18 in relation to Operation Weeting.

Mr Rusbridger was pretty happy. But it’s time for your thoughts. Was the Met right to withdraw its application? Or should it have stuck to its guns and pursued the Guardian at the expense of journalistic freedom? Votes below please:

View This Poll

And I quote:

“If it was the other way round – if a journalist I disapprove of had done something analogous – I’d be withering. I’d say, it’s not hard: get your quotes right, and don’t be mean about other people in a way you find painful when it’s directed at you. Spare me the self-pitying excuses.”

Hari: great at karaoke (Image from Jason Alvey, The Guardian)

Not only did the Independent journalist say sorry for (a) replacing direct quotes with interviewees’ written words, and (b) making up the pseudonym ‘David Rose’ to edit his own and other journalists’ Wikipedia entries in a malicious and underhand way, but he’s given back the Orwell Prize AND he’s going back to journalism school to learn all the things he seems to have forgotten on the road to success.

Hari has pledged to leave the Independent immediately,  unpaid, and will be allowed to return by new editor Chris Blackhurst only when he has completed his training (which he will fund out of his own pocket) in 2012. His interviews will then be posted online accompanied by audio transcripts and guarantee from the interviewee that what Hari has written is fair and accurate.

It’s quite an undertaking – but as Hari says (quoting Christopher Hitchins):

“If you don’t want to sound like the Pope, who apologises for everything and for nothing, then your apology should cost you something.”

Surely that’s due a pat on the back?

Not quite. It seems that even promising to sit on the naughty step for a while hasn’t got Hari out of trouble with his hacked-off peers.

Telegraph blogger Toby Young has – quite literally – taken Hari’s “personal apology” to pieces. “Balls”, he writes to much of the apologetic text. “You’re an unscrupulous little hustler and your continuing efforts to disguise this – even in the face of overwhelming evidence – is an insult to our intelligence.” Meanwhile, the Telegraph’s Christina Odone, who was herself a victim of Hari’s online taunts, warns that the “truth will out” after Hari’s apology read like a “J’Accuse” rather than a statement of penance.

The Spoof magazine has compiled a mock Editor’s response to Hari’s effort with lols galore. Signed with a kiss, it reads: “I will do everything I can now to regain your trust. I hope, after a period of retraining, you will give me the chance. Even though I wasn’t trained in the first place. [You're fired. Ed.]“

Bagehot in the Economist accuses Hari of “weasel wording” and urges anyone taken in by his so-called apology to read between the lines. “Read it carefully,” he says, “and Mr Hari is actually blaming his interviewees for their lack of verbal polish. It is a nifty defence: there he was, travelling the world to meet all these famous and brilliant people, conducting all these excellent interviews, only to find, on returning to his hotel room to transcribes his tapes, that time and again his subjects had garbled their lines.”

Interestingly, Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith in the lesser-read Catholic Herald has used Hari’s words as inspiration for a sermon-like piece on contrition. “A fine example for us Catholics, but also, I might add, to non-believers such as Mr Hari,” he writes.

Perhaps the most staunch rejection of Hari’s apology comes from Jeff Bercovici in Forbes, who calls it “Overdue, Dishonest and Meaningless” – and that’s just in the headline. A fuming Mr Bercovici writes:  ”It’s arrogant and stupid of you to think anyone you’re not related to by blood is going to buy this.” Oh well, at least his mum will be pleased.

Enough Hari-bashing. I, for one, thought his apology was well written, comprehensive, and probably quite heartfelt. I seem to be among the minority, but I stick by it. Not sure it warranted a front page in the Indy, but good on him for manning up and trying to put right what he’s done wrong. You’ve got to feel for him though – how will he get through j-school with a whole class of peers who know exactly what he’s done and why he’s there? Might be a time for home-schooling..

Anyway, at least the saga seems to be coming to an end. Much remains to be seen when he returns to work – albeit slightly modified – next year. And in the meantime, we can keep amusing ourselves with hilarious #interviewsbyhari jokes on Twitter. “I asked Piaf if she had any regrets. She tilted her head towards me in defiance and said, ‘Non, je ne regrette rien.’“

Never gets old.

There were live blogs galore, some serious infographics and visual storm trackers, and brilliant pieces of first-person journalism from those caught up in the eye of the storm. It’s also been a great time for local news, as well as an impressive amount of citizen journalism, which stepped up to the mark during a crisis and supplied major news channels with eyewitness accounts, photos and videos of the devastation.

But the award for the best hurricane reporting, by far, goes to Mr Tucker Barnes, an unsuspecting meteorologist for Fox News, who found himself right in the middle of one of the more disgusting effects of Irene during his report from Washington DC. If you haven’t seen it already, here’s the infamous video:

Opinions are still divided as to what the murkey brown goop actually is. Hurricane backwash? Sea foam? Raw sewage? Irene poo? Nobody quite knows. Not even Tucker Barnes, who says in the clip:

It’s in my face as well, as you can imagine, it doesn’t taste great… It smells like ocean, it’s some sort of organic matter, plankton or something, mixed in with sand and salt. I can tell you first hand, it doesn’t smell great.

Poor Tucker. In normal life he’s a Berkley graduate, who ironically says he loves reporting from Washington because of the “challenges it presents”. Not sure he ever imagined reporting on the biggest hurricane to hit New York in 25 years would get him in this kind of situation. And the giggling presenters back in the studio didn’t help matters with their extensive questions about the smell, taste and consistency of the foamy goo. But it’s certainly one of the more memorable clips from journalism during Irene so far. And I guess you gotta do what you gotta do.

Hurricane Irene continues her destruction across the US, barrelling into Canada after leaving 21 dead and a path of devastation in her wake. For up-to-the-minute coverage, tune in here to watch CNN’s intrepid reporters follow today’s events, which are sure to result in even more chaos for the storm-ravaged country.

We’re all hoping Irene will disappear as quickly and quietly as she arrived. But for now, it’s worth paying tribute to one seriously dedicated – and a little bit icky – reporter. Hats off, Tucker Barnes.

While everyone’s eyes are on the emergence of informal forms of media, including crisis journalism and citizen reporting, the mainstream media outlets continue to be constrained by the mundane pressures of editorial control, financial and advertising limitations and basic page space.

The two models are as follows:

The idea of participatory journalism is nothing new, but what I want to know is whether the first model above even exists any more? All major media outlets have top-down pressures, true. But where would they be without the input of “I was there, I saw it” bystanders – whether it’s an eyewitness, photographer, videographer, or run-of-the-mill citizen reporter. Take yesterday’s tragic Red Arrows crash as an example – all the information that appeared in today’s papers came from ordinary people on the ground, at the time, who saw what happened and tried to help save a life.

The interactivity of news reporting – and indeed, the customisation of news – is both the future and the present. Little by little, the top-down broadcast model is being phased out. But in the meantime, the mindmap above raises a lot of questions, over who – or what – holds the real power in today’s media (and it’s not Mr Murdoch any more).

And another important point from the people at We Media:

But is the future of online news simply a continued extrapolation of this trend — news a la carte? Does greater personalization necessarily mean greater understanding for a democracy?

Participatory journalism is great. But so are the experts in the top-down press, who have worked in the trade for years and know how to put together a paper that sells. And we shouldn’t assume that including everyone in the reporting process – and putting it all online – necessarily makes it more democratic.

Many, many questions. Answers on a postcard please. In the meantime, you can download the full version of the We Media project – with lots more snazzy mindmaps - right here.

The latest reports say the violence has spread across the rest of England, with news that rioters have been spotted tonight in Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Manchester. More than 16,000 officers have been deployed on the capital’s streets, with officers from across the country joining forces with the Met, and the PSNI even sending armoured vehicles from Northern Ireland.

Citizen journalism, mobile reporting and social networks have all proven vital tools during the riots, which were sparked after police shot Tottenham father Mark Duggan last Thursday.

Blackberry messaging has been blamed for helping the rioting youths communicate and organise themselves, while social networking has been targeted as a catalyst for inciting and spreading the rioters’ message.

On the positive side, the web has come to the fore in sharing news, views, photos and videos of the rioting. With some news organisations suffering intimidation and violence on the so-called ‘front line’ of the riots, bystanders and onlookers have often been the only source of information.. and have posted some incredible pieces of information, as well as warning others about danger zones.

And when this insanity eventually ends, social media will once again prove crucial – as it has in helping seek out perpetrators (see the Met’s official Flickr site) and organising local clean-ups, under the hashtags #prayforlondon #riotcleanup and #riotwombles.

Two photos that stood out from the past few days – with many more like them on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube accounts – are the following:

A woman takes flight from the flames in Croydon (Image: Reuters)

Both great images – and great indications of the emotive potential of citizen (and indeed, crisis-led) journalism. And don’t miss the chilling YouTube videos captured of the unrest - this one of looting in Ladbrokes in Clapham, and this one of a vicious attack on a young boy during the riots in Barking, east London.

If there is only one thing you read on the subject of social media and the #londonriots, I’d recommend this great post by blogger and journalist Adam Westbrook, which warns Twitter users of the dangers of tweeting without fact-checking or corroborating the information.

I said there was some good news  after three nights of rioting.. it’s not even related to London, but cheered me up after days of social networks bringing bad tidings and crowd-sourcing responding to bad news.

The University of Buckingham has launched a scheme to bring the unseen works of Charles Dickens into the public eye for the first time. Ahead of Dickens’ bicentenary next year, researchers plan to scan in and put online over 30,000 pages of a weekly tuppence journal called Household Works, first published by the author in 1850.

The tiny team has called on Dickens fans across the world to take part in the project by helping out with proof-reading before the work can go online. Volunteers have been invited to help bring all 1,101 editions into the digital age, making them accessible to an audience as wide as the 300,000 Victorians who first bought the periodical.

It’s a mammoth job, but one made easier by the clever use of crowd sourcing to lighten the load. Already 20% of the workload has been taken on by keen participants who can access the manuscripts and edit them online. Great use of wiki-style methods to get a big job done faster, and nice to see a positive spin on crowd sourcing at a time when most news from the masses is bad. If you’re keen to sign up to help, log on here to show your support.

Back to London: stay safe out there. Here’s hoping this is the last night of rioting for a long time to come.