Following on from my post over the weekend, our lawyers have this morning written to Leicester City Council challenging their right to debate the future of the city's Bowstring Bridge in private.
We have asked that they either let our reporter (and the public) into the meeting (which starts at 1pm today) or postpone any discussion of the issue until after they have considered our challenge.
For those interested in reading the letter, you can find it here (pdf).
Monday, August 03, 2009
Saturday, August 01, 2009
It may be policy ... but is it legal?
The way councils pay lip service to open government while riding roughshod over the right of the public to have a say in their decisions is one of those things that drive me mad.
Take Leicester City Council's decision to meet in private to discuss plans to knock down an historic local bridge and sell off the land to De Montford University so that it can build a £6million sports centre and swimming pool.
Would it be a good decision to pave the way for the new sports facilities? I don't know, but I do know that there is a huge amount of opposition locally to the plan because something similar has been mooted before and there was uproar.
But it's not the outcome that is worrying me, it's the council's decision to discuss this in private, excluding the public from the discussion and marking the papers 'not for publication' so that nobody can see the details. Why don't I like that?
Firstly: it may be illegal.
Secondly: and probably more importantly, it flies in the face of the council's alleged belief in open government.
Let's tackle the law first. Of course, the Mercury is not allowed to see the papers because they are confidential ... but somebody has chosen to leak them to us because they feel that the debate should be aired in public. The report author, Jeannette Franklin, a principal valuer at the city council, says her work is marked 'Not for Publication' because it contains exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 because it details 'information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).
I know, I know, stay with me - it is important.
With all due respect to Ms Franklin, it's unlikely that she made the decision that this information should be kept secret. The report is put forward in the name of Neil Gamble, the interim director of strategic asset management. But even then, my guess is that he didn't make the decision - it's quite normal in councils for a senior councillor (eg chair of the relevant committee) and a senior council officer (eg chief exec or relevant director) to get together and decide what is going into the secret part of any meeting.
However, we need to back up a little. The paper is said to contain exempt information, but exempt from what?
Well, the Local Goverment Act 1972 contains the following line: Copies of the agenda for a meeting of a council and ... copies of any report for the meeting shall be open to inspection by members of the public.
It goes on to say: If the officer thinks fit, there may be excluded from the copies of reports provided ... the whole of any report which, or any part which, relates only to items during which, in his opinion, the meeting is likely not to be open to the public.
So, the Act says that all papers being considered by the council must be available for public inspection unless those papers will be discussed in a part of the meeting which will be private. And, earlier in the Act, it says that all meetings must be open to the public unless that part of the meeting will discuss information which is exempt as defined in Schedule 12A of the Act ... which is what Ms Franklin refers to.
On the face of it, you'd say she was right. She says the document contains information about financial or business affairs.
And it does. It tells us that the council will sell some land to the university for £1, spend £472,000 knocking down the bridge and then receive something like £750,000 from the university as part of the deal.
And that is, I am sure, how the council sees it. We queried the decision to hold the meeting in private and were told as much - the report contains financial information and it is council policy to hold such discussions in private. We pointed out that the financial information had been all over the front page of the Mercury and were told it made no difference - that's the council policy.
And there, in a nutshell, is my issue with councils. They cannot have a policy that says all discussions involving such financial details will be held in private - it's not legal. It's against the law.
I know that my own analysis above shows that, on the face of it, the 1972 Act says they can discuss this in private, but there is another part of the Act which over-rules the bit they are quoting ... and it's something they always ignore.
Part 1 of Schedule 12A lists those bits of information that can be exempt from the requirement to be made public ... but Part 2 adds some qualifications to those exemptions.
It specifically says the information is exempt information if and so long, as in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
In other words, if the public interest is better served by the information being open, they cannot discuss it in private or hide the papers away. And they are required to consider this every time they make the decision to squirrel away information into a secret meeting. And they don't.
So let's look at this case. Why is this financial information better hidden away? Would it's publication endanger the deal? Not a chance - the deal is done, it's agreed. Would it jeopardise future deals? How? I can't see it.
There are a few other businesses involved who will be made to leave premises that will be knocked down (not least the Pump and Tap pub). But the report makes it clear that they get no say - they are going whether they like it or not. So what is the council saying? Is it best that these businesses don't find out until after the decision is made?
So there seems little to substantiate the argument that there is good public interest cause to discuss this in private, but what about the public interest in discussing this in the open?
Well, as I've already pointed out, there is massive public interest in the decision. There is a great deal of opposition - more than 3,000 people belong to a Facebook group opposing the plan, nearly 1,300 signed a petition on the Prime Minister's website, Leicester Civic Society is desperately trying to get the bridge designated as a listed building and, it appears, English Heritage is about to make a decision.
So exactly how do the scales of public interest come down on the side of the council's lightweight argument for secrecy?
Which brings me to the second part of my dismay - why do councils insist on saying they believe in open government and then decide to talk about controversial decisions in private?
Leicester's cabinet member for regeneration, Councillor Patrick Kitterick, sums up the attitude in Friday's Mercury when he says it is in private because the document includes the price of selling the land. 'That's always been our policy and there will be more opportunities for people to have their say.'
Yeah, right, thanks a bunch. You don't care what the law is and we can have our say after you've made the decision. Great.
UPDATE: The Mercury's political writer Martin Robinson has commented on the same issue on is blog: http://martinwsrobinson.blogspot.com/
Take Leicester City Council's decision to meet in private to discuss plans to knock down an historic local bridge and sell off the land to De Montford University so that it can build a £6million sports centre and swimming pool.
Would it be a good decision to pave the way for the new sports facilities? I don't know, but I do know that there is a huge amount of opposition locally to the plan because something similar has been mooted before and there was uproar.
But it's not the outcome that is worrying me, it's the council's decision to discuss this in private, excluding the public from the discussion and marking the papers 'not for publication' so that nobody can see the details. Why don't I like that?
Firstly: it may be illegal.
Secondly: and probably more importantly, it flies in the face of the council's alleged belief in open government.
Let's tackle the law first. Of course, the Mercury is not allowed to see the papers because they are confidential ... but somebody has chosen to leak them to us because they feel that the debate should be aired in public. The report author, Jeannette Franklin, a principal valuer at the city council, says her work is marked 'Not for Publication' because it contains exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 because it details 'information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).
I know, I know, stay with me - it is important.
With all due respect to Ms Franklin, it's unlikely that she made the decision that this information should be kept secret. The report is put forward in the name of Neil Gamble, the interim director of strategic asset management. But even then, my guess is that he didn't make the decision - it's quite normal in councils for a senior councillor (eg chair of the relevant committee) and a senior council officer (eg chief exec or relevant director) to get together and decide what is going into the secret part of any meeting.
However, we need to back up a little. The paper is said to contain exempt information, but exempt from what?
Well, the Local Goverment Act 1972 contains the following line: Copies of the agenda for a meeting of a council and ... copies of any report for the meeting shall be open to inspection by members of the public.
It goes on to say: If the officer thinks fit, there may be excluded from the copies of reports provided ... the whole of any report which, or any part which, relates only to items during which, in his opinion, the meeting is likely not to be open to the public.
So, the Act says that all papers being considered by the council must be available for public inspection unless those papers will be discussed in a part of the meeting which will be private. And, earlier in the Act, it says that all meetings must be open to the public unless that part of the meeting will discuss information which is exempt as defined in Schedule 12A of the Act ... which is what Ms Franklin refers to.
On the face of it, you'd say she was right. She says the document contains information about financial or business affairs.
And it does. It tells us that the council will sell some land to the university for £1, spend £472,000 knocking down the bridge and then receive something like £750,000 from the university as part of the deal.
And that is, I am sure, how the council sees it. We queried the decision to hold the meeting in private and were told as much - the report contains financial information and it is council policy to hold such discussions in private. We pointed out that the financial information had been all over the front page of the Mercury and were told it made no difference - that's the council policy.
And there, in a nutshell, is my issue with councils. They cannot have a policy that says all discussions involving such financial details will be held in private - it's not legal. It's against the law.
I know that my own analysis above shows that, on the face of it, the 1972 Act says they can discuss this in private, but there is another part of the Act which over-rules the bit they are quoting ... and it's something they always ignore.
Part 1 of Schedule 12A lists those bits of information that can be exempt from the requirement to be made public ... but Part 2 adds some qualifications to those exemptions.
It specifically says the information is exempt information if and so long, as in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
In other words, if the public interest is better served by the information being open, they cannot discuss it in private or hide the papers away. And they are required to consider this every time they make the decision to squirrel away information into a secret meeting. And they don't.
So let's look at this case. Why is this financial information better hidden away? Would it's publication endanger the deal? Not a chance - the deal is done, it's agreed. Would it jeopardise future deals? How? I can't see it.
There are a few other businesses involved who will be made to leave premises that will be knocked down (not least the Pump and Tap pub). But the report makes it clear that they get no say - they are going whether they like it or not. So what is the council saying? Is it best that these businesses don't find out until after the decision is made?
So there seems little to substantiate the argument that there is good public interest cause to discuss this in private, but what about the public interest in discussing this in the open?
Well, as I've already pointed out, there is massive public interest in the decision. There is a great deal of opposition - more than 3,000 people belong to a Facebook group opposing the plan, nearly 1,300 signed a petition on the Prime Minister's website, Leicester Civic Society is desperately trying to get the bridge designated as a listed building and, it appears, English Heritage is about to make a decision.
So exactly how do the scales of public interest come down on the side of the council's lightweight argument for secrecy?
Which brings me to the second part of my dismay - why do councils insist on saying they believe in open government and then decide to talk about controversial decisions in private?
Leicester's cabinet member for regeneration, Councillor Patrick Kitterick, sums up the attitude in Friday's Mercury when he says it is in private because the document includes the price of selling the land. 'That's always been our policy and there will be more opportunities for people to have their say.'
Yeah, right, thanks a bunch. You don't care what the law is and we can have our say after you've made the decision. Great.
UPDATE: The Mercury's political writer Martin Robinson has commented on the same issue on is blog: http://martinwsrobinson.blogspot.com/
Thursday, July 30, 2009
And our new football writer is ... not a Leicester City fan
I'm really pleased to say that we've found a great talent to take over as our chief Leicester City writer.
Rob Tanner will be joining us from the Birmingham Post and Mail in the next couple of weeks - he's been covering West Midlands football for the past decade.
Following on from my earlier post, I can confirm that he is not a Leicester City fan. I got an interesting response to my post on this point, with 'readers' being split 50:50 on the importance of his allegiance, and journalists being 100% certain it was totally unimportant! In the end, I think the most important thing was whether or not we could find a great football writer. I had next to no City fans apply for the job which sort of made the decision for me, but it is clear that Rob has a good knowledge of football and it won't take him long to get up to speed on City.
I'm really excited that we've got a new writer to go along with a new season in a higher division ... and we're planning expanded coverage including a 16 page sports supplement for every Monday.
Rob Tanner will be joining us from the Birmingham Post and Mail in the next couple of weeks - he's been covering West Midlands football for the past decade.
Following on from my earlier post, I can confirm that he is not a Leicester City fan. I got an interesting response to my post on this point, with 'readers' being split 50:50 on the importance of his allegiance, and journalists being 100% certain it was totally unimportant! In the end, I think the most important thing was whether or not we could find a great football writer. I had next to no City fans apply for the job which sort of made the decision for me, but it is clear that Rob has a good knowledge of football and it won't take him long to get up to speed on City.
I'm really excited that we've got a new writer to go along with a new season in a higher division ... and we're planning expanded coverage including a 16 page sports supplement for every Monday.
Here is the name of our secret source ...
Dear Mr Goodman
Thank you for your letter asking me to name the person who handed over the confidential documents which showed that Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service was considering closing two fire stations in the county.
As requested, here is the name of the person who gave us the document: Ivor Story. He's an admin grade officer based at County Hall and his mobile number is 07976 78789. I hope that helps with your investigation.
Yes, that's right, journalists are always happy to name their sources. In fact, while I'm at it, would you like to know the name of the person who handed over the confidential documents that form the basis of our front page lead in tomorrow's Leicester Mercury? Or, perhaps, the real identity of Deep Throat?
What is it with council officials? Don't they have a proper job to do? Is Guy Goodman, solicitor and monitoring officer at the fire authority, so under-worked that he has time to waste writing to me asking me to reveal our source? Of course, he didn't decide to do it off his own bat - he was told to conduct an investigation by the Chief Fire and Rescue Officer, with the agreement of the Chairman of the Combined Fire Authority no less!
In a very formal letter addressed to me and marked 'Personal, Private and Confidential', Mr Goodman says: 'The unauthorised disclosure of this confidential report was a serious breach of both the Members' and Officers' Codes of Conduct. It is important that the source is identified and appropriate action taken.'
Important to who?
For the avoidance of doubt, it wasn't Mr Story. I made that up. Ivor Story (get it?)
Why won't I tell you? Apart from the obvious answer that says that nobody would leak information to the media if we revealed our sources, the Press Complaints Commission code of conduct, paragraph 14, Confidential Sources, says: 'Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential souces of information.'
And it's not just the code of conduct, the law is on my side (although I guess you already know that since you're a lawyer).
It seems likely that Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 would back our decision:
The moral outrage often expressed by council officials and elected members when they decide to hunt down somebody responsible for a leak is, at best, often disingenuous. So many of them leak documents when it suits them that they can't really expect to be treated seriously when they mount a high horse. I remember, many years ago, sitting in a council chamber listening to a council leader describing me as public enemy number one and saying that he would not rest until he had tracked down the source of a particular leak. There were two people in that chamber who knew who the source was - me, and the person who leaked it ... the council leader.
Thank you for your letter asking me to name the person who handed over the confidential documents which showed that Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service was considering closing two fire stations in the county.
As requested, here is the name of the person who gave us the document: Ivor Story. He's an admin grade officer based at County Hall and his mobile number is 07976 78789. I hope that helps with your investigation.
Yes, that's right, journalists are always happy to name their sources. In fact, while I'm at it, would you like to know the name of the person who handed over the confidential documents that form the basis of our front page lead in tomorrow's Leicester Mercury? Or, perhaps, the real identity of Deep Throat?
What is it with council officials? Don't they have a proper job to do? Is Guy Goodman, solicitor and monitoring officer at the fire authority, so under-worked that he has time to waste writing to me asking me to reveal our source? Of course, he didn't decide to do it off his own bat - he was told to conduct an investigation by the Chief Fire and Rescue Officer, with the agreement of the Chairman of the Combined Fire Authority no less!
In a very formal letter addressed to me and marked 'Personal, Private and Confidential', Mr Goodman says: 'The unauthorised disclosure of this confidential report was a serious breach of both the Members' and Officers' Codes of Conduct. It is important that the source is identified and appropriate action taken.'
Important to who?
For the avoidance of doubt, it wasn't Mr Story. I made that up. Ivor Story (get it?)
Why won't I tell you? Apart from the obvious answer that says that nobody would leak information to the media if we revealed our sources, the Press Complaints Commission code of conduct, paragraph 14, Confidential Sources, says: 'Journalists have a moral obligation to protect confidential souces of information.'
And it's not just the code of conduct, the law is on my side (although I guess you already know that since you're a lawyer).
It seems likely that Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 would back our decision:
'No court may require a person to disclose ... the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.'And Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights would seem to add further to our defence:
'(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority ...'The approach of the European Court of Human Rights as to the role of article 10 in achieving this was clearly set out by the court in Goodwin v United Kingdom (1966) 22 EHRR 123 in these terms:
- "39. The court recalls that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and that the safeguards to be afforded to the press are of particular importance.
- Protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom, as is reflected in the laws and the professional codes of conduct in a number of contracting states and is affirmed in several international instruments on journalistic freedoms. Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result the vital public watchdog role of the press may be undermined and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information may be adversely affected. Having regard to the importance of the protection of journalistic sources for press freedom in a democratic society and the potentially chilling effect an order of source disclosure has on the exercise of that freedom, such a measure cannot be compatible with article 10 of the Convention unless it is justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest."
The moral outrage often expressed by council officials and elected members when they decide to hunt down somebody responsible for a leak is, at best, often disingenuous. So many of them leak documents when it suits them that they can't really expect to be treated seriously when they mount a high horse. I remember, many years ago, sitting in a council chamber listening to a council leader describing me as public enemy number one and saying that he would not rest until he had tracked down the source of a particular leak. There were two people in that chamber who knew who the source was - me, and the person who leaked it ... the council leader.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
DMGT interim statement shows 33% reduction in year-on-year ad revenues for regional papers
Our parent company, DMGT, put out an interim management statement today, covering our third quarter trading, which ended on June 30th.
I think I've explained before that the Leicester Mercury and its sister publications in the city (primarily the Messengers, Mails and Leicestershire and Rutland Life) are part of Northcliffe Media, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Daily Mail and General Trust plc.
You can read the full statement here, but below is the bit about Northcliffe:
I think I've explained before that the Leicester Mercury and its sister publications in the city (primarily the Messengers, Mails and Leicestershire and Rutland Life) are part of Northcliffe Media, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Daily Mail and General Trust plc.
You can read the full statement here, but below is the bit about Northcliffe:
I think that it's fair to say that although Leicester continues to perform relatively well, we all still face a very challenging time despite the slightly slowing rate of decline in revenues.Northcliffe Media
Northcliffe Media’s total revenues for the quarter were down by 27% to £79 million. Of this, UK revenues were down 28% and International down 22% (down an underlying 19% in local currency).UK
UK advertising revenues for the quarter were 33% lower than the same period last year, compared with a year-on-year decline of 36% in the previous quarter. As we indicated in May, absolute weekly levels of advertising revenue appear to have stabilised. Retail, now the largest category, was down by 16%, recruitment down 56%, property down 46% and motors down by 28%. June and the first three weeks of July have seen revenues respectively 30% and 28% lower than the corresponding weeks last year.UK digital revenues for the quarter were just 6% lower than the same period last year, with recruitment revenues 43% lower but a 60% growth in other categories. Unique visitor levels to Northcliffe’s network of “thisis” websites in June 2009 were 37% higher than the previous June.
UK circulation revenues for the quarter were 8% below last year. Daily and weekly paid for titles sale (unaudited) declined by 9% and 8% respectively in the January to June 2009 ABC period.
Northcliffe has continued to transform its cost base. UK publishing costs were 19% lower in the quarter than last year with all major cost categories down. The closure of presses in Leicester and Bristol has further reduced printing costs.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
All in a day's work
My conversations today illustrate why being a newspaper editor is such a good job.
I know this wouldn't be everybody's cup of tea, but I spent an hour and a half talking with the chief exec of the soon-to-be defunct East Midlands Regional Assembly about the issue of getting people interested in a body which covers a region that nobody believes exists. The Assembly is currently made up of about 110 members drawn from the various local authorities across the 'East Midlands' which stretches from the south of Northampton to the edge of Manchester. On March 31st next year, the Assembly disappears. The next day, April 1st - I kid you not - the 110 members will be replaced by 14 council leaders who will form the new Local Authority Leaders' Board.
This board will be responsible for putting together those strategies which are too small to be described as national, but too big to be left to individual councils, such as housing or transport. Perhaps the most interesting thing from Leicester's point of view will be how our city council leader, Ross Wilmott, reacts to being party to decisions made by a board which is dominated by Tories ... I think I'm right in saying that there will be 11 Tories and possibly only two Labour leaders.
Ok, ok, I know that doesn't sound like the most interesting start to a working day ...
But look at these three decisions I had to be involved in afterwards:
Firstly, I had a letter - yes, a real letter, hand-written on paper and sent with a stamp on it (I get quite a few) - from a reader who had attached a website article. What he wanted to know was why the Leicester Mercury had not reported on the attached article. 'I can see no reason not to believe it,' said the reader.
What was it that they believed and wanted us to report?
It was a report about an allegedly fearless Austrian investigative reporter, Jane Burgermeister, who has filed filed criminal charges against the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and several of the highest ranking government and corporate officials concerning bioterrorism and attempts to commit mass murder. She has also prepared an injunction against forced vaccination in America. These actions follow her charges filed in April against Baxter AG and Avir Green Hills Biotechnology of Austria for producing contaminated bird flu vaccine, alleging this was a deliberate act to cause and profit from a pandemic.
In her charges, Burgermeister presents evidence of acts of bioterrorism that is in violation of U.S. law by a group operating within the U.S. under the direction of international bankers who control the Federal Reserve, as well as WHO, UN and NATO. This bioterrorism is for the purpose of carrying out a mass genocide against the U.S. population by use of a genetically engineered flu pandemic virus with the intent of causing death. This group has annexed high government offices in the U.S.
And all of this for financial and political gain.
How do you reply to that? What do I say to the reader who can see no reason not to believe it? How do I reply without insulting the reader?
Then on a more serious note I had to deal with a complaint from another reader who was furious about something we carried in the paper on Monday which he said made someone in his family look like a white supremacist and, therefore, put them in danger.
He demanded that we carried a full and prominent apology, setting the situation right. The problem was that we could see nothing wrong with our report and could see no way it could be interpreted in the way that the family was interpreting it. We checked with our lawyers - they agreed with us. We even rang the Press Complaints Commission to discuss it with them and, although they couldn't actually comment as they could end up adjudicating on any complaint, we are confident that we have not breached the code.
I showed the offending article to several people and none of them agreed with the reader ... but the reader countered that everybody he had shown it to thought our reporting was outrageous.
That's a very difficult situation. I have often said that when we are in the wrong, we should admit it and apologise, but what happens when you are sure you are not in the wrong. It's easy to be bull-headed about it - go ahead and sue, we'll see you in court. Take it to the PCC, we're confident.
But there's the other side to this - these are readers who are upset. Why would want these people telling everybody they know how horrible we are? We wouldn't. I suggested a half-way house - we're not going to run a correction and apology when we don't think we've done anything wrong, but I would consider publishing something from the family explaining how they feel. The reader wasn't overjoyed by the suggestion - he'll still probably complain to the PCC - but he did say he would have a go at writing something. My fear is that he'll write something I won't feel we can publish ...
And then finally ...
We were faced with deciding how to deal with a story about Miss Leicestershire, Jade Elliott, who suffered, what I believe is euphemistically referred to as a wardrobe malfunction while competing in the final of Miss England. You can probably imagine what happened from the picture below ... what we had to decide was how to report it in a family newspaper (which is clearly not something that was bothering plenty of websites last night!) Suffice to say, we're not using the pictures that many others are.
You've got to admit, my job's nothing if not varied!
I know this wouldn't be everybody's cup of tea, but I spent an hour and a half talking with the chief exec of the soon-to-be defunct East Midlands Regional Assembly about the issue of getting people interested in a body which covers a region that nobody believes exists. The Assembly is currently made up of about 110 members drawn from the various local authorities across the 'East Midlands' which stretches from the south of Northampton to the edge of Manchester. On March 31st next year, the Assembly disappears. The next day, April 1st - I kid you not - the 110 members will be replaced by 14 council leaders who will form the new Local Authority Leaders' Board.
This board will be responsible for putting together those strategies which are too small to be described as national, but too big to be left to individual councils, such as housing or transport. Perhaps the most interesting thing from Leicester's point of view will be how our city council leader, Ross Wilmott, reacts to being party to decisions made by a board which is dominated by Tories ... I think I'm right in saying that there will be 11 Tories and possibly only two Labour leaders.
Ok, ok, I know that doesn't sound like the most interesting start to a working day ...
But look at these three decisions I had to be involved in afterwards:
Firstly, I had a letter - yes, a real letter, hand-written on paper and sent with a stamp on it (I get quite a few) - from a reader who had attached a website article. What he wanted to know was why the Leicester Mercury had not reported on the attached article. 'I can see no reason not to believe it,' said the reader.
What was it that they believed and wanted us to report?
It was a report about an allegedly fearless Austrian investigative reporter, Jane Burgermeister, who has filed filed criminal charges against the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and several of the highest ranking government and corporate officials concerning bioterrorism and attempts to commit mass murder. She has also prepared an injunction against forced vaccination in America. These actions follow her charges filed in April against Baxter AG and Avir Green Hills Biotechnology of Austria for producing contaminated bird flu vaccine, alleging this was a deliberate act to cause and profit from a pandemic.
In her charges, Burgermeister presents evidence of acts of bioterrorism that is in violation of U.S. law by a group operating within the U.S. under the direction of international bankers who control the Federal Reserve, as well as WHO, UN and NATO. This bioterrorism is for the purpose of carrying out a mass genocide against the U.S. population by use of a genetically engineered flu pandemic virus with the intent of causing death. This group has annexed high government offices in the U.S.
And all of this for financial and political gain.
How do you reply to that? What do I say to the reader who can see no reason not to believe it? How do I reply without insulting the reader?
Then on a more serious note I had to deal with a complaint from another reader who was furious about something we carried in the paper on Monday which he said made someone in his family look like a white supremacist and, therefore, put them in danger.
He demanded that we carried a full and prominent apology, setting the situation right. The problem was that we could see nothing wrong with our report and could see no way it could be interpreted in the way that the family was interpreting it. We checked with our lawyers - they agreed with us. We even rang the Press Complaints Commission to discuss it with them and, although they couldn't actually comment as they could end up adjudicating on any complaint, we are confident that we have not breached the code.
I showed the offending article to several people and none of them agreed with the reader ... but the reader countered that everybody he had shown it to thought our reporting was outrageous.
That's a very difficult situation. I have often said that when we are in the wrong, we should admit it and apologise, but what happens when you are sure you are not in the wrong. It's easy to be bull-headed about it - go ahead and sue, we'll see you in court. Take it to the PCC, we're confident.
But there's the other side to this - these are readers who are upset. Why would want these people telling everybody they know how horrible we are? We wouldn't. I suggested a half-way house - we're not going to run a correction and apology when we don't think we've done anything wrong, but I would consider publishing something from the family explaining how they feel. The reader wasn't overjoyed by the suggestion - he'll still probably complain to the PCC - but he did say he would have a go at writing something. My fear is that he'll write something I won't feel we can publish ...
And then finally ...
We were faced with deciding how to deal with a story about Miss Leicestershire, Jade Elliott, who suffered, what I believe is euphemistically referred to as a wardrobe malfunction while competing in the final of Miss England. You can probably imagine what happened from the picture below ... what we had to decide was how to report it in a family newspaper (which is clearly not something that was bothering plenty of websites last night!) Suffice to say, we're not using the pictures that many others are.
You've got to admit, my job's nothing if not varied!
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Phew ... the economy is recovering
A bit of light relief for all those who thought the economy was going through a tough time ...
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Pyramid Economy | ||||
| ||||
Friday, July 17, 2009
You can't please all of the people ... Part 1
We had 117 comments in three days on my post on plans to introduce registration to the comments system on thisisleicestershire ... and they illustrated the issues we face on every level.
Before I talk about what I made of the comments, I have to say this: I have no idea how many different people made the comments, how often people posed as other people to make comments or which comments were meant to be taken seriously. I do know that I tried to respond to four comments, but on each occasion the email address given by the poster turned out to be fake and my replies bounced back.
Despite all of that, I think it has been an interesting and useful exercise.
I think there were a number of trends that could be seen in the comments:
In this post, I'm going to deal with the first of these: the question of how we currently moderate is a difficult one for me as I don't recognise the claims being made as accurately reflecting our policy. What is clear is that we need to spell out what we think is acceptable and what we think is unacceptable - I'll come back to what that might be later, but, first, here's a selection of what some commenters said:
Clearly there is an issue. Something appears to be going wrong somewhere as I don't believe we have any policy internally that would lead us to moderate in a way that would make it so that someone like Susan could claim that she sticks to the point, is honest and makes every effort not to offend and then finds that her comments are deleted. I did try to write to a number of posters (not Susan) to ask them to give me examples of this, but unfortunately all those that I chose turned out to have fake email addresses.
So where do we go from here?
Firstly, I will carry out an audit of what exactly it is that we are deleting. That's not as easy as it should be, but we will do it.
Secondly, whatever decision we take on registration and moderation, we will post a set of guidelines which state exactly what we think is acceptable and not acceptable. Before we do this, we will post a set of suggested guidelines for discussion by users - I don't expect there to be unanimous agreement on this, but I believe there will be a lot of common ground.
Thirdly, if we do introduce mandatory registration, we will consider writing to individual posters explaining why their comment was deleted.
Before I talk about what I made of the comments, I have to say this: I have no idea how many different people made the comments, how often people posed as other people to make comments or which comments were meant to be taken seriously. I do know that I tried to respond to four comments, but on each occasion the email address given by the poster turned out to be fake and my replies bounced back.
Despite all of that, I think it has been an interesting and useful exercise.
I think there were a number of trends that could be seen in the comments:
- A lot of people think we moderate unfairly at the moment.
- Very few people said they would not register to use the comments system.
- Some people think we moderate too much
- Some people think we don't moderate enough
In this post, I'm going to deal with the first of these: the question of how we currently moderate is a difficult one for me as I don't recognise the claims being made as accurately reflecting our policy. What is clear is that we need to spell out what we think is acceptable and what we think is unacceptable - I'll come back to what that might be later, but, first, here's a selection of what some commenters said:
- I have submitted comments on numerous subjects, but very few have appeared. I stick to the point, am honest and make every effort not to offend - Susan, Leicester
- I too have been a victim of my comments being removed - Bobbi, LE1
- I have said this time again you need guidelines, the Mercury do not play fare at all I have had comments removed with no reason what so ever, where other comments have stayed, which I believed to be more offensive! I would LOVE for a spokes person from the Mercury to explain why they have removed some of my comments and not others? Not just - CJ, Leics
- LM you have lost so many of your readers as you censor way too much and it is clear that the moderators are nothing other than crazy do gooders who only allow their own ideas to be published. Remember you are running a business LM and if you continue to shut down half of your customers comments they will simply go elsewhere. A newspaper is supposed to be inpartial to views but you are clearly not - Rob, Leic
- Does one presume, that you've actually noticed how many people have stopped commenting because of your censorship? - Mr A, leics
- Great idea, as your moderation of the site has, on occasion, seemed a little inconsistent in the past - Lol, Groby
- I won't object to having to register but please allow people to air their opinions without fear of having their posts deleted or edited for no good reason other than the fact that the moderator doesn't agree with them - Bill, leicester
- I still maintain however that the LM openly asks for people to put their views on this website and then proceeds to delete them if there not deemed pc enough or may cause a heated debate which is totally wrong - Daniel, Leicester
"I do not believe Pops was suggesting you ban do gooders - it is clear what he is saying and it is a view that many of us share and it is a view that has resulted in many, many people turning away from both your site and paper. Pops is clearly stating that the LM only appear to allow the views of the liberal left and any other views including more right wing views are simply deleted all the time - thus there is no balanced debate. It is so clear from viewing comments over the last few weeks that any right wing view is immediately deleted by the LM and any left wing view isAnd, finally on this topic, Tel, of Leicester, said: 'There is a lot of censorship going on.'
left on - so Pops was clearly saying that whilst the moderators are so clearly extreme pc and left wing that no normal people (non left wing) will bother to read, comment or buy your paper.
"It is common sense - either allow all comments and views to be aired without censorship (within legal boundaries naturally) or simply do not bother with having a forum as presently you only have extreme do gooders battering us all with their aggressive nonsense and like pops and myself and many others - we can not be bothered to even read your paper - let alone comment on it."
Clearly there is an issue. Something appears to be going wrong somewhere as I don't believe we have any policy internally that would lead us to moderate in a way that would make it so that someone like Susan could claim that she sticks to the point, is honest and makes every effort not to offend and then finds that her comments are deleted. I did try to write to a number of posters (not Susan) to ask them to give me examples of this, but unfortunately all those that I chose turned out to have fake email addresses.
So where do we go from here?
Firstly, I will carry out an audit of what exactly it is that we are deleting. That's not as easy as it should be, but we will do it.
Secondly, whatever decision we take on registration and moderation, we will post a set of guidelines which state exactly what we think is acceptable and not acceptable. Before we do this, we will post a set of suggested guidelines for discussion by users - I don't expect there to be unanimous agreement on this, but I believe there will be a lot of common ground.
Thirdly, if we do introduce mandatory registration, we will consider writing to individual posters explaining why their comment was deleted.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Looking to expand the conversation
We are planning to alter the way we allow people to comment on our main website, but would like to know what you think before we introduce any changes.
We would like to make the comment functionality on thisisleicestershire available 24-hours-a-day and for us to have a lighter touch in our moderation. We think the best way to do this would be to introduce mandatory registration for those who wish to comment and then ask for community volunteers to help with the moderation.
We also plan to introduce clear guidelines for what's acceptable - these will not be onerous, but are likely to include a ban on anything libellous or illegal, along with most swearing and personal abuse. They will not prevent people from criticising the Leicester Mercury or each other.
Currently, you do not need to register with our site to comment - anybody can come along and add their views in just a few moments, cloaked in anonymity and without us having any idea who they are. As such, a significant minority of people abuse the system and this, in turn, leads us to a situation where we feel the need to check every single comment added and, since we cannot have staff working 24 hours a day, seven days a week, we restrict comments to normal office hours as we can guarantee that somebody will be available to moderate.
We believe that asking people to register and validate their email address is more likely to create some form of bond with the site and will lead to more self-moderation and, therefore, a more reasoned debate. Combining this with some volunteer community moderators would, we hope, allow us to open up our comments on a 24/7 basis.
Over time, we plan to improve our comment functionality and to add forums and, hopefully, to allow people to use existing web profiles such as those created through Facebook, Twitter or their blog to comment.
What we'd like to know is whether or not you think these proposed changes are a good idea. Please leave your comments here (24 hours a day!) or on thisisleicestershire when we add this post to that site on Monday.
We would like to make the comment functionality on thisisleicestershire available 24-hours-a-day and for us to have a lighter touch in our moderation. We think the best way to do this would be to introduce mandatory registration for those who wish to comment and then ask for community volunteers to help with the moderation.
We also plan to introduce clear guidelines for what's acceptable - these will not be onerous, but are likely to include a ban on anything libellous or illegal, along with most swearing and personal abuse. They will not prevent people from criticising the Leicester Mercury or each other.
Currently, you do not need to register with our site to comment - anybody can come along and add their views in just a few moments, cloaked in anonymity and without us having any idea who they are. As such, a significant minority of people abuse the system and this, in turn, leads us to a situation where we feel the need to check every single comment added and, since we cannot have staff working 24 hours a day, seven days a week, we restrict comments to normal office hours as we can guarantee that somebody will be available to moderate.
We believe that asking people to register and validate their email address is more likely to create some form of bond with the site and will lead to more self-moderation and, therefore, a more reasoned debate. Combining this with some volunteer community moderators would, we hope, allow us to open up our comments on a 24/7 basis.
Over time, we plan to improve our comment functionality and to add forums and, hopefully, to allow people to use existing web profiles such as those created through Facebook, Twitter or their blog to comment.
What we'd like to know is whether or not you think these proposed changes are a good idea. Please leave your comments here (24 hours a day!) or on thisisleicestershire when we add this post to that site on Monday.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Using illegal phone hacks to find a story ...
Nick Davies, a freelance reporter and author of Flat Earth News, is not always the most popular of journalists amongst his peers. His book claims to take "the lid off newspapers and broadcasters, exposing the mechanics of falsehood, distortion and propaganda; naming names and telling the stories behind stories."
His latest article will presumably see him removed from even more journalists' Christmas card lists! Writing on the Guardian.co.uk today, Davies says that Murdoch-owned papers have paid out £1-million to gag what he calls 'phone-hacking victims'. He says the money was paid to settle legal cases that threatened to reveal evidence of journalists' repeated involvement in the use of criminal methods to get stories.
There's no doubt that the level of trust in journalists has eroded over recent years and, if it wasn't for the scandalous behaviour of some Members of Parliament, it's possible that no profession - no, not even estate agents - would come below journalists in a league table of 'trustworthiness'. In turn, this makes people question what we write more and more - see for example my post earlier this week on the reaction of readers to our article on swine flu in Leicester. Clearly articles like the one by Nick Davies don't help and few people are likely to spend much time wondering whether or not they should tar all journalists with the same brush any more than they would worry about generalising a claim that 'all MPs are on the take.'
I only really want to say one thing about the Nick Davies article and that is this: no journalist at the Leicester Mercury uses illegal methods to find stories.
How can I be so sure? If you get a moment, read media pundit Roy Greenslade's comments on Davies' revelations:
His latest article will presumably see him removed from even more journalists' Christmas card lists! Writing on the Guardian.co.uk today, Davies says that Murdoch-owned papers have paid out £1-million to gag what he calls 'phone-hacking victims'. He says the money was paid to settle legal cases that threatened to reveal evidence of journalists' repeated involvement in the use of criminal methods to get stories.
"The payments secured secrecy over out-of-court settlements in three cases that threatened to expose evidence of Murdoch journalists using private investigators who illegally hacked into the mobile phone messages of numerous public figures and to gain unlawful access to confidential personal data including tax records, social security files, bank statements and itemised phone bills. Cabinet ministers, MPs, actors and sports stars were all targets of the private investigators.It is a detailed and sensational story and I'm not in a position to comment on its veracity, but it does have the hallmarks of a well-researched and accurate account.
Today, the Guardian reveals details of the suppressed evidence which may open the door to hundreds more legal actions by victims of News Group, the Murdoch company that publishes the News of the World and the Sun, as well as provoking police inquiries into reporters who were involved and the senior executives responsible for them."
There's no doubt that the level of trust in journalists has eroded over recent years and, if it wasn't for the scandalous behaviour of some Members of Parliament, it's possible that no profession - no, not even estate agents - would come below journalists in a league table of 'trustworthiness'. In turn, this makes people question what we write more and more - see for example my post earlier this week on the reaction of readers to our article on swine flu in Leicester. Clearly articles like the one by Nick Davies don't help and few people are likely to spend much time wondering whether or not they should tar all journalists with the same brush any more than they would worry about generalising a claim that 'all MPs are on the take.'
I only really want to say one thing about the Nick Davies article and that is this: no journalist at the Leicester Mercury uses illegal methods to find stories.
How can I be so sure? If you get a moment, read media pundit Roy Greenslade's comments on Davies' revelations:
Agreed."In my years on popular papers - as an editor and a senior executive on the Daily Mirror, The Sun and the Daily Star - it was inconceivable that any journalist could have produced an exclusive story without revealing its provenance.
It was the first question an executive asked of a reporter? How did you get it? And when the executive, be it news editor, features editor, assistant editor, whoever, presented that story at a conference, any editor worth his/her salt would ask the same."
Sunday, July 05, 2009
You can't always shoot the messenger!
Our story last week about the sudden increase in suspected cases of swine flu elicited a surprisingly vigorous response from a number of readers.
What our article stated was that public health officials (two of whom were named) had said that they felt the 20 confirmed cases of swine flu in Leicester were just the tip of the iceberg and that they thought the real number was 'in the hundreds' ... and that it was no longer possible to contain the spread of the virus.
It stated quite clearly that three schools had a small number of confirmed cases: Moat Community College had three, Lancaster School had four, and City of Leicester College had one. However, the officials went on to tell us that 15% of pupils at Lancaster and Moat were off with suspected cases.
The key to this is that the number of suspected cases had grown so rapidly across the city that the health authority had taken the decision NOT to test for the virus any more, but to tell doctors to make their diagnosis via a telephone interview with the patient.
Within 24 hours, the Government used very similar language to announce nationally that the virus could no longer by contained and that we could expect to see as many as 100,000 new cases a day by August. The whole country moved to 'diagnose by phone' method.
Despite this, our readers were not happy.
The very first comment on our story online came from an anonymous person calling themselves a teacher at Moat Community College: "I do not know where the papers have got their information from but 15% of our students are NOT off with Swine Flu, Thanks to this in the paper the students in Moat are very stressed out, thank you leicester mercury, but your input was not needed the students do not need to worry, there is no problem and no need for this report."
We then had this from Joanne: "my daughter is at c.o.l school i have just rang them to send her home but the school is promised my there is no cases of swine flu at the school.and very annoyed this storey has been printed."
And this: "I am a student at the city of leicester college, however i want to be kept anonymous. These falose allegations are rediculous and are worrying some people at our school. We have fath in our headteacher and we know she would keep us safe. She wouldnt open the school if she knew we were in danger. The person who apparently has the virus hasn't been diagnosed but however, is being tested.
After reading this i am glad i did not pick media as one of my gcse's. I woukld hate to be a lying journalist, scaring people into thinking things that are not true."
Finally, Chris Bell from Chochrane in Canada waded in with: "Yet again journalistic panic mongering. an obligation to inform the public or an attempt to create hysteria? me thinks the latter"
We have no interest in creating hysteria and I find it difficult to follow an argument that says we shouldn't report the fact that health officials believe the number of swine flu cases has jumped so dramatically and that they now believe the virus can no longer be contained, or, for that matter, the fact that they believe that these schools have a high number of cases.
The health authority came to us with the statements because they felt the public at large needed to know - they recognise that the Leicester Mercury is still the best way to get a message out quickly. Dr Philip Monk of the Health Protection Agency said: “It is important people realise we now have swine flu in Leicester. People should not panic, but they should be sensible and take precautions, such as good hygiene. There is evidence swine flu is spreading, particularly at Moat Community College and Lancaster School, where there are high absentee rates of pupils that have the flu. This is more widespread than we thought."
We didn't make it up and we carried the message that people shouldn't panic but should take sensible precautions several times in the article.
[The final irony came in our own newsroom where a senior member of our staff started a discussion about whether or not we were over-stating the case ... just a few hours later he was on the phone to his doctor who confirmed he had swine flu! Oh, and he has a direct connection with Lancaster Boys ...] UPDATE: It turns out that our senior staff member does NOT have swine flu! Final proof for the doubters that we have just made the whole thing up!
What our article stated was that public health officials (two of whom were named) had said that they felt the 20 confirmed cases of swine flu in Leicester were just the tip of the iceberg and that they thought the real number was 'in the hundreds' ... and that it was no longer possible to contain the spread of the virus.
It stated quite clearly that three schools had a small number of confirmed cases: Moat Community College had three, Lancaster School had four, and City of Leicester College had one. However, the officials went on to tell us that 15% of pupils at Lancaster and Moat were off with suspected cases.
The key to this is that the number of suspected cases had grown so rapidly across the city that the health authority had taken the decision NOT to test for the virus any more, but to tell doctors to make their diagnosis via a telephone interview with the patient.
Within 24 hours, the Government used very similar language to announce nationally that the virus could no longer by contained and that we could expect to see as many as 100,000 new cases a day by August. The whole country moved to 'diagnose by phone' method.
Despite this, our readers were not happy.
The very first comment on our story online came from an anonymous person calling themselves a teacher at Moat Community College: "I do not know where the papers have got their information from but 15% of our students are NOT off with Swine Flu, Thanks to this in the paper the students in Moat are very stressed out, thank you leicester mercury, but your input was not needed the students do not need to worry, there is no problem and no need for this report."
We then had this from Joanne: "my daughter is at c.o.l school i have just rang them to send her home but the school is promised my there is no cases of swine flu at the school.and very annoyed this storey has been printed."
And this: "I am a student at the city of leicester college, however i want to be kept anonymous. These falose allegations are rediculous and are worrying some people at our school. We have fath in our headteacher and we know she would keep us safe. She wouldnt open the school if she knew we were in danger. The person who apparently has the virus hasn't been diagnosed but however, is being tested.
After reading this i am glad i did not pick media as one of my gcse's. I woukld hate to be a lying journalist, scaring people into thinking things that are not true."
Finally, Chris Bell from Chochrane in Canada waded in with: "Yet again journalistic panic mongering. an obligation to inform the public or an attempt to create hysteria? me thinks the latter"
We have no interest in creating hysteria and I find it difficult to follow an argument that says we shouldn't report the fact that health officials believe the number of swine flu cases has jumped so dramatically and that they now believe the virus can no longer be contained, or, for that matter, the fact that they believe that these schools have a high number of cases.
The health authority came to us with the statements because they felt the public at large needed to know - they recognise that the Leicester Mercury is still the best way to get a message out quickly. Dr Philip Monk of the Health Protection Agency said: “It is important people realise we now have swine flu in Leicester. People should not panic, but they should be sensible and take precautions, such as good hygiene. There is evidence swine flu is spreading, particularly at Moat Community College and Lancaster School, where there are high absentee rates of pupils that have the flu. This is more widespread than we thought."
We didn't make it up and we carried the message that people shouldn't panic but should take sensible precautions several times in the article.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
You are the Editor ...
There was an interesting discussion in our newsroom today about how to deal with a story about a Leicester man who died after falling from a mountain and I'm interested in how people feel we should have reacted.
It reminded me of something that happened about 15 years ago when I was Editor of the South Wales Echo in Cardiff. One of our reporters had been to the Coroner's court in the city to cover the inquest into the death of a self-employed tiler who had died, along with a young apprentice who was the passenger in his van, when he crashed while speeding on one of the main roads into the city. The inquest was reasonably straight forward and we reported what we heard.
Two days later, the widow of the tiler asked if she could come to see me. Of course, I agreed and spent a harrowing hour listening to her telling me the other side of the story as she cried her eyes out and told me how unfair our report was. It wasn't inaccurate - she agreed that we had reported what was said in the court - but it wasn't fair because the court had looked only at the cause of the crash. It didn't tell the whole story of who her husband was or why he came to be speeding on that road, rather it left him looking like an idiot who risked his own life and that of a young lad while driving like a boy racer. Nobody in court mentioned that the young apprentice had been unemployed until her husband had taken him on and taught him a trade, that the boy thought the world of her husband who had treated him like a son. Nor did anyone explain that the reason that the tiler was speeding was because on his way to work that morning on a lucrative big contract on a major development in the city, the man had taken a phone call from an elderly widow who said that he had tiled her bathroom five years earlier and a tile had fallen off. He had turned the van round, driven the 15 miles to refit the tile and was, therefore, late for his contract. It doesn't excuse his speeding, but it does put it into context.
I asked the woman if she minded speaking to all my reporting staff so that they could hear the hurt that could be caused by an accurate report. She agreed and it was a difficult lesson for reporters.
More recently here in Leicester we have had the case of the teacher banned from teaching by the General Teaching Council - our article was an accurate report of what was said, but the reaction of parents and friends told us very quickly that the story was not fair and we have apologised and done what we can to put it right. For details see the interesting blog post by Ian Wishart, our education correspondent, on how he felt about what happened.
Today, we heard that a man from Leicester had died after falling from a mountain. We got the details - including the man's address - from the police where the accident happened and we went round to his home to talk to his family. Many people might be surprised to hear that families often welcome the local paper into their home at a time of tragedy, but this was not the case today. The family was adamant that they didn't want anything in the paper, not even a paragraph recording the fact of his death.
What would you do in this instance? The death happened in a public place, involved the emergency services and had been reported on a police website. All of my journalistic instincts say that we should publish.
But should we? The family rang the office later in the day again to ask that we don't publish anything. It is not quite the same as the two examples above, but it is about whether a perfectly accurate story would cause such hurt that we shouldn't publish.
What do you think? What would your response be?
It reminded me of something that happened about 15 years ago when I was Editor of the South Wales Echo in Cardiff. One of our reporters had been to the Coroner's court in the city to cover the inquest into the death of a self-employed tiler who had died, along with a young apprentice who was the passenger in his van, when he crashed while speeding on one of the main roads into the city. The inquest was reasonably straight forward and we reported what we heard.
Two days later, the widow of the tiler asked if she could come to see me. Of course, I agreed and spent a harrowing hour listening to her telling me the other side of the story as she cried her eyes out and told me how unfair our report was. It wasn't inaccurate - she agreed that we had reported what was said in the court - but it wasn't fair because the court had looked only at the cause of the crash. It didn't tell the whole story of who her husband was or why he came to be speeding on that road, rather it left him looking like an idiot who risked his own life and that of a young lad while driving like a boy racer. Nobody in court mentioned that the young apprentice had been unemployed until her husband had taken him on and taught him a trade, that the boy thought the world of her husband who had treated him like a son. Nor did anyone explain that the reason that the tiler was speeding was because on his way to work that morning on a lucrative big contract on a major development in the city, the man had taken a phone call from an elderly widow who said that he had tiled her bathroom five years earlier and a tile had fallen off. He had turned the van round, driven the 15 miles to refit the tile and was, therefore, late for his contract. It doesn't excuse his speeding, but it does put it into context.
I asked the woman if she minded speaking to all my reporting staff so that they could hear the hurt that could be caused by an accurate report. She agreed and it was a difficult lesson for reporters.
More recently here in Leicester we have had the case of the teacher banned from teaching by the General Teaching Council - our article was an accurate report of what was said, but the reaction of parents and friends told us very quickly that the story was not fair and we have apologised and done what we can to put it right. For details see the interesting blog post by Ian Wishart, our education correspondent, on how he felt about what happened.
Today, we heard that a man from Leicester had died after falling from a mountain. We got the details - including the man's address - from the police where the accident happened and we went round to his home to talk to his family. Many people might be surprised to hear that families often welcome the local paper into their home at a time of tragedy, but this was not the case today. The family was adamant that they didn't want anything in the paper, not even a paragraph recording the fact of his death.
What would you do in this instance? The death happened in a public place, involved the emergency services and had been reported on a police website. All of my journalistic instincts say that we should publish.
But should we? The family rang the office later in the day again to ask that we don't publish anything. It is not quite the same as the two examples above, but it is about whether a perfectly accurate story would cause such hurt that we shouldn't publish.
What do you think? What would your response be?
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Michael Jackson publishing conundrum
The timing of Michael Jackson's death left us - and many other regional newspapers - with a difficult decision.
At the Leicester Mercury, we see ourselves as a local newspaper. We report on Leicester and Leicestershire and rarely stray beyond these boundaries other than to put a local angle on to national or international events. But sometimes, things happen that are just so big that it is impossible to ignore them.
Princess Diana's death, the country going to war, 9/11, the London tube bombings, Lockerbie, the Hungerford and Dunblane shootings - these are all examples of things which are not local, but which are so enormous in terms of public conscientiousness and reaction, that I believe a newspaper not leading on them looks odd.
I don't think Michael Jackson's death comes quite into the same category despite the level of reaction, but, nevertheless, we took the decision late on Thursday evening to lead the paper on the night's events. Why was that? It was at least in part because it happened so late that I thought that it might miss the early editions of the national newspapers, but it was also because I felt that it was a big enough story to mean that it would be the only thing people were talking about the next day.
Was that the right decision? I don't know. Many other regional papers disagreed and didn't change up and it's too early to see what effect it had on our sales figures. However, I would say that when I saw the bills in the streets later in the day, I felt the decision was right.
What made the decision more difficult was knowing that whatever we put on the front at 2 or 3 in the morning, was going to stay there all day. I would have felt more comfortable if we could have had the shock news of Jackson's death on our front page first thing in the morning when people were still digesting the news, but later in the day, or early in the evening, when many people read the paper, moved on to looking at the reaction ... but that's no longer possible with our overnight printing.
I've posted before about the fact that I believe that early morning printing means that we should be able to get later news into the paper than previously on most occasions, but this does highlight the downside of a single print run and it doesn't make the decision any easier!
As an aside, I noticed that the version of the article that we put on our website at midnight, but replaced by about 8am, was read almost 700 times.
At the Leicester Mercury, we see ourselves as a local newspaper. We report on Leicester and Leicestershire and rarely stray beyond these boundaries other than to put a local angle on to national or international events. But sometimes, things happen that are just so big that it is impossible to ignore them.
Princess Diana's death, the country going to war, 9/11, the London tube bombings, Lockerbie, the Hungerford and Dunblane shootings - these are all examples of things which are not local, but which are so enormous in terms of public conscientiousness and reaction, that I believe a newspaper not leading on them looks odd.
I don't think Michael Jackson's death comes quite into the same category despite the level of reaction, but, nevertheless, we took the decision late on Thursday evening to lead the paper on the night's events. Why was that? It was at least in part because it happened so late that I thought that it might miss the early editions of the national newspapers, but it was also because I felt that it was a big enough story to mean that it would be the only thing people were talking about the next day.
Was that the right decision? I don't know. Many other regional papers disagreed and didn't change up and it's too early to see what effect it had on our sales figures. However, I would say that when I saw the bills in the streets later in the day, I felt the decision was right.
What made the decision more difficult was knowing that whatever we put on the front at 2 or 3 in the morning, was going to stay there all day. I would have felt more comfortable if we could have had the shock news of Jackson's death on our front page first thing in the morning when people were still digesting the news, but later in the day, or early in the evening, when many people read the paper, moved on to looking at the reaction ... but that's no longer possible with our overnight printing.
I've posted before about the fact that I believe that early morning printing means that we should be able to get later news into the paper than previously on most occasions, but this does highlight the downside of a single print run and it doesn't make the decision any easier!
As an aside, I noticed that the version of the article that we put on our website at midnight, but replaced by about 8am, was read almost 700 times.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Michael Jackson reported dead - late night
The first sign I saw that there was something seriously wrong with Michael Jackson last night was on Twitter. At about 10.30pm UK time people were starting to say that he was in a coma ... and some were saying he was dead.
An hour later, there was an absolute storm of tweets, but what was most interesting was that the initial story was broken by the LA Times newspaper on its website and virtually every tweet was about whether or not traditional media outlets had or had not confirmed Michael Jackson's death.
Person after person came on to say that this outlet had confirmed it, or that one had not. And they were not talking about blogs or Twitter, they were scouring the newspaper and TV sites. The story seemed to be accepted only when the LA Times confirmed it.
I'm not sure what that says, but it says something!
I got calls from our chief photographer, Jason Senior, at about 11.30 telling me that national news agencies were confirming the death. Deputy Editor Richard Bettsworth was still in the office and after various conversations, he called the chief sub, Matt Sulley, back into the office and began redoing Page 1 for tomorrow, despite the fact that the news had yet to be confirmed. I updated the website based on the LA Times article.
It will be interesting to see how many of the morning papers have the news tomorrow ...
An hour later, there was an absolute storm of tweets, but what was most interesting was that the initial story was broken by the LA Times newspaper on its website and virtually every tweet was about whether or not traditional media outlets had or had not confirmed Michael Jackson's death.
Person after person came on to say that this outlet had confirmed it, or that one had not. And they were not talking about blogs or Twitter, they were scouring the newspaper and TV sites. The story seemed to be accepted only when the LA Times confirmed it.
I'm not sure what that says, but it says something!
I got calls from our chief photographer, Jason Senior, at about 11.30 telling me that national news agencies were confirming the death. Deputy Editor Richard Bettsworth was still in the office and after various conversations, he called the chief sub, Matt Sulley, back into the office and began redoing Page 1 for tomorrow, despite the fact that the news had yet to be confirmed. I updated the website based on the LA Times article.
It will be interesting to see how many of the morning papers have the news tomorrow ...
Monday, June 22, 2009
Should a local newspaper really be neutral?
When I posted a couple of weeks ago about the way we intended to cover the BNP, @goodfella66 posed this question:
It's interesting that both questioned the neutrality of the newspaper and yet I'm not sure that local newspapers make a claim to be neutral, other than in the sense that we tend not to be political in terms of supporting a particular political party. It's clear from our leader columns that we take a stance on all sorts of issues - we, for example, support Leicester's bid to bring the world cup to the city. Does that affect the way that we cover that issue? Well, yes and no. Yes in that we tend to look for positive articles to write about the bid and give them prominence; no in that it does not prevent us from asking questions (and writing articles) about the downside of the bid. Perhaps a better example would be the Special Olympics which are taking place in Leicester next month. The paper supports the bringing of the games to the city, but it does not prevent us from reporting that the sponsorship efforts for the game have failed and that local taxpayers are left with a bill of up to £1million.
In general, we would want to be supportive of things that we thought were good for the city and we would be anti those things which we thought were bad.
So, we would not support - or indeed publish - views that we thought were divisive. Sexism, racism, terrorism, crime etc. I don't think you'd expect any different.
The problem comes when you get to something like the BNP which is attempting - and, in some people's views, succeeding - to legitimise itself. At this point, there are those who don't accept that it's ok for us to unilaterally decide that the BNP is not acceptable and that we will not treat them in a neutral way.
It's a difficult area and it is, to a large extent, a subjective decision. It's not that long ago that many papers treated Greenpeace as if they were a bunch of tree-hugging left-wing loonies intent on bringing down the capitalist state ... but in more recent years they have become a sort of media darling whose statements are not only actively sought, but accepted almost without question. They are often now portrayed as the heroes of many issues.
I guess, when it comes down to it, this is a decision that I have to make as Editor of the paper - get it right, and most people are happy; get it wrong, and we'd lose a lot of readers!
Interesting blog but in terms of a supposedly, neutral local paper don't you think it would be better just to report the interview as is & then let the reader make their mind up on whether he is racist, fascist, bigot, general good guy etc?And, this morning, I received a letter from a reader who said that they had never written to a newspaper before, but that they were outraged by a 'so-called neutral' local newspaper taking a stance that allowed one of our feature writers to 'ridicule' our new BNP county councillor.
It's interesting that both questioned the neutrality of the newspaper and yet I'm not sure that local newspapers make a claim to be neutral, other than in the sense that we tend not to be political in terms of supporting a particular political party. It's clear from our leader columns that we take a stance on all sorts of issues - we, for example, support Leicester's bid to bring the world cup to the city. Does that affect the way that we cover that issue? Well, yes and no. Yes in that we tend to look for positive articles to write about the bid and give them prominence; no in that it does not prevent us from asking questions (and writing articles) about the downside of the bid. Perhaps a better example would be the Special Olympics which are taking place in Leicester next month. The paper supports the bringing of the games to the city, but it does not prevent us from reporting that the sponsorship efforts for the game have failed and that local taxpayers are left with a bill of up to £1million.
In general, we would want to be supportive of things that we thought were good for the city and we would be anti those things which we thought were bad.
So, we would not support - or indeed publish - views that we thought were divisive. Sexism, racism, terrorism, crime etc. I don't think you'd expect any different.
The problem comes when you get to something like the BNP which is attempting - and, in some people's views, succeeding - to legitimise itself. At this point, there are those who don't accept that it's ok for us to unilaterally decide that the BNP is not acceptable and that we will not treat them in a neutral way.
It's a difficult area and it is, to a large extent, a subjective decision. It's not that long ago that many papers treated Greenpeace as if they were a bunch of tree-hugging left-wing loonies intent on bringing down the capitalist state ... but in more recent years they have become a sort of media darling whose statements are not only actively sought, but accepted almost without question. They are often now portrayed as the heroes of many issues.
I guess, when it comes down to it, this is a decision that I have to make as Editor of the paper - get it right, and most people are happy; get it wrong, and we'd lose a lot of readers!
Whoops! You mean THAT Edward Garnier?
It's not the question you want to hear from your lawyers when you ring them for advice after you've upset Edward Garnier: Is that THE Edward Garnier QC, and pre-eminent libel barrister?
Worse still, the answer was yes!
That's right, Edward Garnier, MP for Harborough is a barrister specialising in libel ... and we made a pretty poor error in our report on his expense and allowance claims. He wasn't happy! Fortunately, we reached agreement quickly and the error was corrected the next day, along with an apology, and that seems to be the end of the matter.
Worse still, the answer was yes!
That's right, Edward Garnier, MP for Harborough is a barrister specialising in libel ... and we made a pretty poor error in our report on his expense and allowance claims. He wasn't happy! Fortunately, we reached agreement quickly and the error was corrected the next day, along with an apology, and that seems to be the end of the matter.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Open and transparent? Yeah, right.
I know Wikipedia has all sorts of problems around accuracy and that the dictionary version, Wiktionary, is sometimes not much better.
But, every now and then, crowd sourcing throws up the perfect definition. Here's one of the entries for redaction: The removal of evidence of criminal deception or embarrassing lewd behaviour from a document.
Quite.
The details of MPs expenses have been so heavily redacted (read censored) that it makes a mockery of any claim for openness or transparency. In a recent Times article, Heather Brooke, the journalist credited with sparking the whole allowances row, said: "When it comes to politicians advocating open government the best advice is to ignore what they say and focus on what they do."
I've talked about politicians paying lip service to open government before, but if you get five minutes, read about Ms Brooke's four year battle against MPs and the Government to see their expenses and compare it with the 'road to Damascus' type statements of almost all MPs today.
Where does redaction fit with those statements?
Ms Brooke's Times article is also worth a read especially if you have a fondness for 'Yes, Minister' and the sort of tangled thinking that leaves us with a secret public consultation ...
But, every now and then, crowd sourcing throws up the perfect definition. Here's one of the entries for redaction: The removal of evidence of criminal deception or embarrassing lewd behaviour from a document.
Quite.
The details of MPs expenses have been so heavily redacted (read censored) that it makes a mockery of any claim for openness or transparency. In a recent Times article, Heather Brooke, the journalist credited with sparking the whole allowances row, said: "When it comes to politicians advocating open government the best advice is to ignore what they say and focus on what they do."
I've talked about politicians paying lip service to open government before, but if you get five minutes, read about Ms Brooke's four year battle against MPs and the Government to see their expenses and compare it with the 'road to Damascus' type statements of almost all MPs today.
Where does redaction fit with those statements?
Ms Brooke's Times article is also worth a read especially if you have a fondness for 'Yes, Minister' and the sort of tangled thinking that leaves us with a secret public consultation ...
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind
I come from a simpler time, a time when wicked meant, well, wicked. It meant the opposite of good. Then my children started to use it to mean the opposite of wicked. Suddenly it meant good. And then today I heard it used in a completely different way on the radio when someone referred to a wicked problem ... which I find defined on Wikipedia as a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognise.
This definition appears to have been around since the 1960s and is usually reserved, apparently, for discussions on social planning but I intend to borrow it to describe the way I feel about the challenges facing newspapers as they consider the digital future. In contrast to the web itself, which changes at an incredible speed, we take time to consider where we should be going and even more time to implement any decisions we take. It's easy to be sucked into a feeling that we should be constantly trying new things, that the creators of great services on the web know exactly what they are doing, but for every Google, or Amazon, or Facebook or Twitter, there are a thousand, no, probably hundred of thousands, of ideas that fell flat on their face with barely more than a handful of people hearing about them.
We don't have the resource - or may be it is luck - to take that many risks.
One issue that I worry about is our place in the conversations that go on in a community. Traditionally, we have played a key role in local conversation. The Leicester Mercury has been the main source for local news for the best part of a century and a massive amount of conversation is based around news. Don't get me wrong - the Mercury still has more than 150,000 readers every day and probably well over 200,000 every week and we can - and do - still put ourselves at the centre of many conversations.
But there is no doubt that social media has enabled a whole new set of conversations and, at the moment, most newspapers are not part of those discussions, or, if they are, it is at the edges. We have a limited amount of social interaction on our sites, usually in the form of comments on news articles, but we are constantly looking for ways to be more involved and you can find examples of newspapers setting up sites which are largely fed by user-generated content and the interaction of users with that content and each other. Perhaps the best example that I have been involved in is Lasting Tribute - a site based around the death announcements from our newspapers, but which relies almost entirely for its success on the content of its users.
However, the more I look at this issue, the more convinced I become that the mistake that we often make is that we attempt to bring our readers to our sites to create this content when we should probably be going to the places where they are already having these conversations, eg Twitter and on blogs. Why would somebody who habitually uses Twitter come to our site to say something that they have already told all their friends elsewhere?
Which is how I came to be sitting in a room in the Institute of Creative Technologies at Leicester's De Montfort University this afternoon surrounded by people who go online under names such as CaffeineBomb, Sleepydog and Solobasssteve. There were about 40 people in the room, gathered for an event run under the NLab badge which was ostensibly looking at how social media could be used to build resilience in small businesses.
In fact, the conversation was much wider and was looking at how social media could be used, for example, to empower individuals to have a better say in government, both locally and nationally.
I am sure that newspapers like the Mercury have a large part to play in these discussions because:
I don't know where we fit in the equation online, but I am sure we have a role to play.
What do you think?
This definition appears to have been around since the 1960s and is usually reserved, apparently, for discussions on social planning but I intend to borrow it to describe the way I feel about the challenges facing newspapers as they consider the digital future. In contrast to the web itself, which changes at an incredible speed, we take time to consider where we should be going and even more time to implement any decisions we take. It's easy to be sucked into a feeling that we should be constantly trying new things, that the creators of great services on the web know exactly what they are doing, but for every Google, or Amazon, or Facebook or Twitter, there are a thousand, no, probably hundred of thousands, of ideas that fell flat on their face with barely more than a handful of people hearing about them.
We don't have the resource - or may be it is luck - to take that many risks.
One issue that I worry about is our place in the conversations that go on in a community. Traditionally, we have played a key role in local conversation. The Leicester Mercury has been the main source for local news for the best part of a century and a massive amount of conversation is based around news. Don't get me wrong - the Mercury still has more than 150,000 readers every day and probably well over 200,000 every week and we can - and do - still put ourselves at the centre of many conversations.
But there is no doubt that social media has enabled a whole new set of conversations and, at the moment, most newspapers are not part of those discussions, or, if they are, it is at the edges. We have a limited amount of social interaction on our sites, usually in the form of comments on news articles, but we are constantly looking for ways to be more involved and you can find examples of newspapers setting up sites which are largely fed by user-generated content and the interaction of users with that content and each other. Perhaps the best example that I have been involved in is Lasting Tribute - a site based around the death announcements from our newspapers, but which relies almost entirely for its success on the content of its users.
However, the more I look at this issue, the more convinced I become that the mistake that we often make is that we attempt to bring our readers to our sites to create this content when we should probably be going to the places where they are already having these conversations, eg Twitter and on blogs. Why would somebody who habitually uses Twitter come to our site to say something that they have already told all their friends elsewhere?
Which is how I came to be sitting in a room in the Institute of Creative Technologies at Leicester's De Montfort University this afternoon surrounded by people who go online under names such as CaffeineBomb, Sleepydog and Solobasssteve. There were about 40 people in the room, gathered for an event run under the NLab badge which was ostensibly looking at how social media could be used to build resilience in small businesses.
In fact, the conversation was much wider and was looking at how social media could be used, for example, to empower individuals to have a better say in government, both locally and nationally.
I am sure that newspapers like the Mercury have a large part to play in these discussions because:
- Social media is not universal and we are already looking at a digital divide between the haves and have nots
- Information overload is already an issue - it is easy to be swamped and there is something to be said for somebody helping to filter data and conversation
- Social media is by its nature fragmented - it is not easy to follow dozens of conversations going on in dozens of different places. Simply because you write online doesn't mean you will be read - there may well be a role for an organisation that can help give visibility
- There is clearly still a very large number of people who want to read a newspaper
- We are skilled in activities which are vital whatever the distribution platform, not least of which are journalism and sales.
I don't know where we fit in the equation online, but I am sure we have a role to play.
What do you think?
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Rallying to the aid of the Boston Globe
Crowdsourcing and the wisdom of the crowd are pretty alien concepts to many journalists who see a lack of professional vigour undermining the validity of the results obtained when you ask the general public for an opinion.
Only yesterday, I was reading about the Editor of the Birmingham Post, Marc Reeves, who was crowdsourcing photos for his paper, news that was met with outrage from some journalists - the very first comment saying: 'Great way to fill up a page on restricted resources. 'Let's slash the workforce, keep the managers, and make the papers a scrapbook for sumitted letters, photos and match reports.'
There was some support for the Editor:
My co-ordination is not scientific. I haven't managed to find all the comments as they are spread across many different blogs (most of which, like my blog, have no form of search), but I have captured a few hundred points. I have tried to split them into three different sorts of comments: those that have suggestions for how to improve the print edition; those which primarily suggest going digital; and those that cover other areas such as ownership.
There are a few points that need to be born in mind while reading the comments: Leicester is not America, the Mercury is not the Globe (two very big differences are that the Mercury makes a profit and it is almost entirely devoted to local news), and, of course, those commenting are part of a self-selecting technorati who almost certainly don't represent everyone in Boston (let alone Leicester).
Having said that, UK newspapers face many of the same issues as those in the States and the future of news and our papers is often the main topic of conversation whenever senior media people get together. It's not that often that we get the opportunity to hear what so many readers think ... and they do come up with a lot of very interesting ideas.
To see all the comments that I managed to collate click here, published via Google docs. I apologise that the document doesn't look that pretty, but I haven't found any time to format it yet.
To be honest, I started collating the comments out of personal interest, but thought others might find them useful, given that so many people that I speak to want to discuss the future of newspapers and where our digital offerings fit in our thinking. My own feeling about the comments is that I feel optimistic and doomed in equal proportions as I read through them.
I'd love to hear your views on the future of newspapers in general, and the Mercury in particular and, if that's too big a topic, just let me know of any ways you think we can improve the service we offer in print or online now.
Thanks.
By the way, the image at the top of this page was produced at Wordle and is a graphical illustration of the words found in the all the comments on my Google doc. It's a sort of tag cloud except it's not as good as it is only an image and doesn't link to the words!
'I read these comments and feel quite sad. For too long, journalists have behaved as though they are the only ones with a right to appear in a newspaper. If the Post chooses to pick pictures to print, and people are happy for their pictures to be used, then surely there's not a problem. Newspapers need to be part of a community online to survive, and you can't be part of a community if you believe that you are better than everyone else.'Meanwhile, over in the States, the New York Times company has threatened to close the Boston Globe because between them they are making such big losses ... and one of the most interesting responses has come from the blogoshpere where a number of local bloggers have launched a blog rally.
The instigator appears to be Paul Levy, the president and CEO of the local Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre. Here, in his own words is what is going on:
Well, the people of Boston have certainly come up with lots of ideas - there are currently 62 on Paul Levy's blog alone - and they make for very interesting reading. Although one poster asks who is co-ordinating all the responses and is told: 'Co-ordination is not part of social media', I've decided to try to pull them all together ...
'We have all read recently about the threat of possible closure faced by the Boston Globe. A number of Boston-based bloggers who care about the continued existence of the Globe have banded together in conducting a blog rally. We are simultaneously posting this paragraph to solicit your ideas of steps the Globe could take to improve its financial picture:
We view the Globe as an important community resource, and we think that lots of people in the region agree and might have creative ideas that might help in this situation. So, here's your chance. Please don't write with nasty comments and sarcasm: Use this forum for thoughtful and interesting steps you would recommend to the management that would improve readership, enhance the Globe's community presence, and make money. Who knows, someone here might come up with an idea that will work, or at least help. Thank you.'
My co-ordination is not scientific. I haven't managed to find all the comments as they are spread across many different blogs (most of which, like my blog, have no form of search), but I have captured a few hundred points. I have tried to split them into three different sorts of comments: those that have suggestions for how to improve the print edition; those which primarily suggest going digital; and those that cover other areas such as ownership.
There are a few points that need to be born in mind while reading the comments: Leicester is not America, the Mercury is not the Globe (two very big differences are that the Mercury makes a profit and it is almost entirely devoted to local news), and, of course, those commenting are part of a self-selecting technorati who almost certainly don't represent everyone in Boston (let alone Leicester).
Having said that, UK newspapers face many of the same issues as those in the States and the future of news and our papers is often the main topic of conversation whenever senior media people get together. It's not that often that we get the opportunity to hear what so many readers think ... and they do come up with a lot of very interesting ideas.
To see all the comments that I managed to collate click here, published via Google docs. I apologise that the document doesn't look that pretty, but I haven't found any time to format it yet.
To be honest, I started collating the comments out of personal interest, but thought others might find them useful, given that so many people that I speak to want to discuss the future of newspapers and where our digital offerings fit in our thinking. My own feeling about the comments is that I feel optimistic and doomed in equal proportions as I read through them.
I'd love to hear your views on the future of newspapers in general, and the Mercury in particular and, if that's too big a topic, just let me know of any ways you think we can improve the service we offer in print or online now.
Thanks.
By the way, the image at the top of this page was produced at Wordle and is a graphical illustration of the words found in the all the comments on my Google doc. It's a sort of tag cloud except it's not as good as it is only an image and doesn't link to the words!
Monday, June 15, 2009
Update on our new Leicester City writer
Since I asked the question about whether or not the Leicester Mercury's next football writer should be a Leicester City fan, I've had a decent mix of replies from readers with pretty much a 50:50 split for and against.
The answers have ranged from the definite: 'Yes, if the Mercury is to have a future'; to the more common: 'It doesn't really matter providing they are a good writer'.
The former came from AJC who helpfully suggested on his own blog how I might improve my chances of survival:
Returning to the question of the football writer, about 10 years ago I set up a website aimed at regional journalists: www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk (HtFP). It is very widely read by said journalists and is now jointly owned by the UK's four big regional newspaper publishers - Northcliffe, Trinity Mirror, Newsquest and Johnston Press. Today, HtFP picked up on my question about the football writer and re-phrased it:
Anyway, as I said, I was more interested in what the readers of the Mercury thought and I'm grateful for those who expressed a point of view even though there was no consensus. As is the way of my blog, most of those who replied did so either via Twitter (@tipexxed) or email. There's still time to add your thoughts.
The answers have ranged from the definite: 'Yes, if the Mercury is to have a future'; to the more common: 'It doesn't really matter providing they are a good writer'.
The former came from AJC who helpfully suggested on his own blog how I might improve my chances of survival:
'So what's a struggling editor supposed to do? Well, the first thing is to employ a couple of undergraduates over the summer to show them how to produce a Kindle edition, then in the autumn, roll out trials of downloads and hyperlocal print-on-demand terminals. And of course, the most important thing of all is to get serious about the website and change it from a low rent car boot sale to a conduit that the local community cares about.'But more of that later.
Returning to the question of the football writer, about 10 years ago I set up a website aimed at regional journalists: www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk (HtFP). It is very widely read by said journalists and is now jointly owned by the UK's four big regional newspaper publishers - Northcliffe, Trinity Mirror, Newsquest and Johnston Press. Today, HtFP picked up on my question about the football writer and re-phrased it:
'What do you think? Should football writers' jobs always go to fans of the local side - especially in one-club cities - or do writers who are more dispassionate about the game generally do a better job?'To be honest, I wasn't that bothered about what the journalists thought - my guess was that they would all, predictably, think the same as me: it doesn't matter, all that is important is that we get a great writer. And, surprise, surprise, that's pretty much what they all say on HtFP. Equally predictably the conversation collapses into a discussion around the use - or misuse - of apostrophes by a recent graduate looking for a break into the profession:
'If newspaper's only employed football writer's who support the club they cover on their back pages, then how are the journalist's who have taken sport journalism degree's meant to break into the industry?'Quite. (Although, I'm not sure that isn't a fake post aimed at riling journalists!)
Anyway, as I said, I was more interested in what the readers of the Mercury thought and I'm grateful for those who expressed a point of view even though there was no consensus. As is the way of my blog, most of those who replied did so either via Twitter (@tipexxed) or email. There's still time to add your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)