I can absolutely appreciate the position of Sky and the BBC – largely thanks to what you’ve written about it – but can’t help thinking of the audience’s position in all of this – something that has been alluded to in the title of the blog. I guess it all boils down to what is more important to the audience/reader? Getting the breaking news first, the instant that it happens, or reliability, trust and quality of the news provider? Both Sky and BBC 24 have made it their business to strive for both up until now, so this really feels like a line-in-the-sand moment.

My first instinct was to really question which is more important to me. But the reality is I want both – and this is where the BBC/Sky policies make sense. I may look to twitter for my breaking news, wide diversity of opinions/commentary and – in the case of RTs – information and news straight from the original source, but if something grabs my attention there I’ll usually find myself heading back to traditional news providers like the BBC site for verification or the “official” take on events.

That said, I would personally take a RT as sharing rather than validating, because that’s how I use it myself. Posting a link to another person/organisation’s content = “I find this interesting” (and may comment on it myself later), which is not necessarily the same thing as ” I agree with this/endorse it”. But then, as Will points out, I don’t have Ofcom breathing down my neck with everything I say/write/post.

your comparisons with the print media and USA broadcasters, neither of whom have anything like the same rules/cultures/inhibitors are perhaps apples and pears.

it doesn’t mean the the proposals aren’t muddled or need to evolve, and certainly that they aren’t appropriate for all outlets but that is where it seems to be coming from.