Media manipulation
27/02/04 10:04 Permalink
Probably the most dangerous thing about yesterday's
Clare Short story was when the Sky News journalist
asked their political correspondent whether Short
might not have realised the importance of her
statements. At least it was dangerous to me; I was
waddling along on an exercise bike at the gym at the
time, which is no place to have a laughing fit. Clare
Short, not realise the importance of an announcement
like that?
Let's look at the timetable of this. In Sunday's Observer there was an interview with Short. The thrust of it was surrounding her appearance on Wednesday's BBC programme, 'My Week In The Real World'. She didn't mention the Annan stuff at all. No, she left that until Thursday morning's Today programme.
It's essential to understand something about the timing of this. Coming out with an allegation such as Short made in the morning means it misses the morning's papers. Since it hasn't been reported in print it dominates the broadcast headlines for the rest of the day, particularly when it's sourced from the Today programme - Hutton aside, it's seen as weighty.
Inevitably it then turns into headline news in print the following day - that's 48 hours of more or less solid coverage. Meanwhile on the Thursday Short had done an interview with Newsnight to stir things up a little more so the people she was criticising have been queueing up today to hit back so oh look, she'll be in the papers for Saturday as well. Timing it for Thursday was pivotal as the three days' coverage the item will have had by tomorrow will more or less oblige the Sundays to come out with some sort of analysis. So that's four days minimum.
You can believe Short was right or wrong. You can believe she's a hero or a traitor. But please, don't anybody ask whether she was naive in her estimation of the impact her comments would have - this is a seasoned Labour politician we're talking about.
Let's look at the timetable of this. In Sunday's Observer there was an interview with Short. The thrust of it was surrounding her appearance on Wednesday's BBC programme, 'My Week In The Real World'. She didn't mention the Annan stuff at all. No, she left that until Thursday morning's Today programme.
It's essential to understand something about the timing of this. Coming out with an allegation such as Short made in the morning means it misses the morning's papers. Since it hasn't been reported in print it dominates the broadcast headlines for the rest of the day, particularly when it's sourced from the Today programme - Hutton aside, it's seen as weighty.
Inevitably it then turns into headline news in print the following day - that's 48 hours of more or less solid coverage. Meanwhile on the Thursday Short had done an interview with Newsnight to stir things up a little more so the people she was criticising have been queueing up today to hit back so oh look, she'll be in the papers for Saturday as well. Timing it for Thursday was pivotal as the three days' coverage the item will have had by tomorrow will more or less oblige the Sundays to come out with some sort of analysis. So that's four days minimum.
You can believe Short was right or wrong. You can believe she's a hero or a traitor. But please, don't anybody ask whether she was naive in her estimation of the impact her comments would have - this is a seasoned Labour politician we're talking about.
|
Silly stuff
27/02/04 10:03 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
Secrets
25/02/04 10:02 Permalink
A number of people - a small number, but a number -
have commented that I seem to be very pro-BBC, as if
they can do nothing wrong, in this blog. This is sort
of true as a generalisation so it may be worth
redressing the balance with the comment that
occasionally they do something utterly
incomprehensible in their news prioritisation.
For example, did anyone see last night's ten o'clock news? I did. And did everyone who saw it know that President Putin sacked the entire Russian Government en masse during the day? Well, I hope you knew already. Because the ten o'clock news didn't tell you. Not even a hint. That's a nuclear-capable former superpower ditching all of its elected representatives bar the top man.
Amazing.
For example, did anyone see last night's ten o'clock news? I did. And did everyone who saw it know that President Putin sacked the entire Russian Government en masse during the day? Well, I hope you knew already. Because the ten o'clock news didn't tell you. Not even a hint. That's a nuclear-capable former superpower ditching all of its elected representatives bar the top man.
Amazing.
Our friend Michael
24/02/04 10:02 Media
issues Permalink
o here we are, the Conservative Party is positioning
itself as the BBC's Friend (click
on this link for a full story).
This would be the Conservative Party that spent 17
years in power complaining about the Corporation,
which criticised the BBC's coverage of the Falklands
War and which spent ages moaning about the media as
it became apparent the Tories couldn't win the 1997
election.
It's not just the Tories. Labour has been indulging in a few unseemly sideswipes at the media overall since Hutton, and much good it's done them - all the polls still show the public thinks it was a whitewash. And Labour was far from pleased with the 'Sun What Won It' stuff in 1992. The Lib Dems seem not to mind the press but then there's so little prospect of their forming the next Parliament that they scarcely seem to matter.
Any readers who are so inclined have my permission to send a VHS of that Michael Howard/Jeremy Paxman interview to Conservative Party HQ, together with one of those laughing box things kids used to have that giggles insanely when you turn it upside down. He'll probably pass it on to his mate Tony Blair with a different tape almost immediately.
It's not just the Tories. Labour has been indulging in a few unseemly sideswipes at the media overall since Hutton, and much good it's done them - all the polls still show the public thinks it was a whitewash. And Labour was far from pleased with the 'Sun What Won It' stuff in 1992. The Lib Dems seem not to mind the press but then there's so little prospect of their forming the next Parliament that they scarcely seem to matter.
Any readers who are so inclined have my permission to send a VHS of that Michael Howard/Jeremy Paxman interview to Conservative Party HQ, together with one of those laughing box things kids used to have that giggles insanely when you turn it upside down. He'll probably pass it on to his mate Tony Blair with a different tape almost immediately.
A passion for independence
Now here's an interesting quandary. Should I, as an
independent journalist, be allowed to be a member of
a political party? OK, let's drop 'allowed' in a free
country and ask simply whether it's a good idea. My
sole value is my independence - would you trust. say,
a known Liberal or Conservative to commentate on the
current UK Government?
This issue is sharpened up somewhat by the NUJ's pushing through of the right to affiliate to a political party. In the UK this is likely to mean donations to Labour, at least in the short term.
You may or may not support the idea of a political levy in general. The difficulty I have with the NUJ's idea is twofold. First, I'm not comfortable with the idea of a national press that's avowedly aligned with a particular party - it gives the others too much scope to complain.
Second, though, it does rather throw up the difficulty of union membership and involvement in it. I am an NUJ member. I don't have much spare time as a freelance journalist and a father of a three-year-old. So I don't get to, for example, the meetings at which it is decided that my union is going to support a party for which I may or may not vote, now or in the future.
So actually it's not much use my complaining because if I wanted to change things I should have been there, presumably. Likewise I'm not going to get there when they decide to whom this political fund should be awarded. And neither will the vast majority. That's actually how unions normally work - there's this handful of activists and the rest are fairly passive.
But on this occasion, since it's a question of the UK Press' national body declaring a bias in favour of one party or t'other, I think it's worth taking a stand. Awkward sod though I may be for becoming involved only when I want to stop something, I shall be voting against.
This issue is sharpened up somewhat by the NUJ's pushing through of the right to affiliate to a political party. In the UK this is likely to mean donations to Labour, at least in the short term.
You may or may not support the idea of a political levy in general. The difficulty I have with the NUJ's idea is twofold. First, I'm not comfortable with the idea of a national press that's avowedly aligned with a particular party - it gives the others too much scope to complain.
Second, though, it does rather throw up the difficulty of union membership and involvement in it. I am an NUJ member. I don't have much spare time as a freelance journalist and a father of a three-year-old. So I don't get to, for example, the meetings at which it is decided that my union is going to support a party for which I may or may not vote, now or in the future.
So actually it's not much use my complaining because if I wanted to change things I should have been there, presumably. Likewise I'm not going to get there when they decide to whom this political fund should be awarded. And neither will the vast majority. That's actually how unions normally work - there's this handful of activists and the rest are fairly passive.
But on this occasion, since it's a question of the UK Press' national body declaring a bias in favour of one party or t'other, I think it's worth taking a stand. Awkward sod though I may be for becoming involved only when I want to stop something, I shall be voting against.
Odd sort of bloke
20/02/04 09:59 Media
issues Permalink
On the way back home, airport lounge using a WiFi
hotspot on the laptop. Oh the sophistication (and no
doubt typos as the keyboard's playing up) - which is
more than can be boasted of the reading matter that
was on offer on the way out.
I don't think I'm a snob (much) but the recent launch of two men's weeklies in the UK, Nuts and Zoo, have left me cold. I'm 38 and probably an old git I appreciate, but do the marketing people really think there's nothing that's going to interest blokes more than boobs, football and cars?
These are of course the new weeklies which have opened up an entire new market, so we're told. I suppose I'm atypical because I don't go for spectator sports as much as average, but I do feel somewhat underestimated. I'd be more interested in light arts coverage, book reviews, lifestyle stuff. Yes there's the Esquire/GQ style of publication but those are monthlies - the well-written weekly with men primarily in mind seems, sadly, to be a thing of the past unless you're into the heavy politics of The Spectator or the New Statesman.
I could get quite nostalgic for Alan Coren't Punch, or The LIstener (also an old Coren stamping ground, as it happens). Come to think of it, did they say they'd discovered a new niche in selling to blokes? Or have they just found a cruder way of addressing an old market?
I don't think I'm a snob (much) but the recent launch of two men's weeklies in the UK, Nuts and Zoo, have left me cold. I'm 38 and probably an old git I appreciate, but do the marketing people really think there's nothing that's going to interest blokes more than boobs, football and cars?
These are of course the new weeklies which have opened up an entire new market, so we're told. I suppose I'm atypical because I don't go for spectator sports as much as average, but I do feel somewhat underestimated. I'd be more interested in light arts coverage, book reviews, lifestyle stuff. Yes there's the Esquire/GQ style of publication but those are monthlies - the well-written weekly with men primarily in mind seems, sadly, to be a thing of the past unless you're into the heavy politics of The Spectator or the New Statesman.
I could get quite nostalgic for Alan Coren't Punch, or The LIstener (also an old Coren stamping ground, as it happens). Come to think of it, did they say they'd discovered a new niche in selling to blokes? Or have they just found a cruder way of addressing an old market?
No such thing as a paid-for lunch
There’s a lovely piece in Private Eye this week
about the expenses and expectations charged by
certain members of my profession. Cars, expensive
lunches, they want the lot.
Anyway, on a different subject entirely I’m on the way to Venice for a briefing from a computer company called Ariba. They’re hoping to get into The Guardian or thereabouts through my good offices; I’m hoping to sell a story because if I don’t then this will be two dead days on which I’ve earned nothing.
The funny thing is that when I approached The Guardian about this in the first place they were, maybe understandably, a bit wary. Is there a story, they wanted to know, other than ‘Ariba takes journalist on jolly nice trip’? The answer is yes there is, although I have to concede they could have told me about it in the UK just as easily. If it gets in at all then it’ll come with a note that the journalist’s hospitality was paid for by someone with vested interests. I draw your attention to this purely because the presence of a ‘jolly’ in this case has diminished rather than enhanced the chances of coverage in the target press.
I wonder how long the PR industry will take to twig…
Anyway, on a different subject entirely I’m on the way to Venice for a briefing from a computer company called Ariba. They’re hoping to get into The Guardian or thereabouts through my good offices; I’m hoping to sell a story because if I don’t then this will be two dead days on which I’ve earned nothing.
The funny thing is that when I approached The Guardian about this in the first place they were, maybe understandably, a bit wary. Is there a story, they wanted to know, other than ‘Ariba takes journalist on jolly nice trip’? The answer is yes there is, although I have to concede they could have told me about it in the UK just as easily. If it gets in at all then it’ll come with a note that the journalist’s hospitality was paid for by someone with vested interests. I draw your attention to this purely because the presence of a ‘jolly’ in this case has diminished rather than enhanced the chances of coverage in the target press.
I wonder how long the PR industry will take to twig…
No such thing as a paid-for lunch
There’s a lovely piece in Private Eye this week
about the expenses and expectations charged by
certain members of my profession. Cars, expensive
lunches, they want the lot.
Anyway, on a different subject entirely I’m on the way to Venice for a briefing from a computer company called Ariba. They’re hoping to get into The Guardian or thereabouts through my good offices; I’m hoping to sell a story because if I don’t then this will be two dead days on which I’ve earned nothing.
The funny thing is that when I approached The Guardian about this in the first place they were, maybe understandably, a bit wary. Is there a story, they wanted to know, other than ‘Ariba takes journalist on jolly nice trip’? The answer is yes there is, although I have to concede they could have told me about it in the UK just as easily. If it gets in at all then it’ll come with a note that the journalist’s hospitality was paid for by someone with vested interests. I draw your attention to this purely because the presence of a ‘jolly’ in this case has diminished rather than enhanced the chances of coverage in the target press.
I wonder how long the PR industry will take to twig…
Anyway, on a different subject entirely I’m on the way to Venice for a briefing from a computer company called Ariba. They’re hoping to get into The Guardian or thereabouts through my good offices; I’m hoping to sell a story because if I don’t then this will be two dead days on which I’ve earned nothing.
The funny thing is that when I approached The Guardian about this in the first place they were, maybe understandably, a bit wary. Is there a story, they wanted to know, other than ‘Ariba takes journalist on jolly nice trip’? The answer is yes there is, although I have to concede they could have told me about it in the UK just as easily. If it gets in at all then it’ll come with a note that the journalist’s hospitality was paid for by someone with vested interests. I draw your attention to this purely because the presence of a ‘jolly’ in this case has diminished rather than enhanced the chances of coverage in the target press.
I wonder how long the PR industry will take to twig…
Gratuitous sexual reference
19/02/04 09:18 Permalink
Today I feel it is time to discuss the female body.
I'd like to do this in two ways; first by graphic and
unnecessary reference, and second by going all
schoolboy-ish and giggly.
The first instance isn't so much an actual female body as such, but the outrage aroused by John Lydon last week when he left I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here. He (gasp) swore at the camera and even (double-gasp) used a name for female genitalia that began with a 'c'. This word has always fascinated me; 99 per cent of the time it's used to mean someone you don't like, another driver who's made a small error, whatever - just about anything other than a vagina. Anyway, the story picked up by most of the papers was the minimal amount of furore Lydon caused. They were surprised that there were fewer than 100 complaints.
I'm not. Lydon came to prominence partly by swearing on the telly. He's a canny lad and understands that times have changed, so if he wants to hit the headlines then repeating the same shock horror phrases he did almost 30 years ago would have no effect. There is only one word that causes any TV outrage any more and he used it - but in such a predictable way that people were more likely to say 'aaah' than to write in and complain. I wasn't offended but I did feel it lacked a certain panache; you want to see inoffensive but funny swearing, you go and see Billy Connolly sometime. It's constant, it's hilarious and so much less clumsy.
The other element of femaleness that has come under scrutiny just recently has been the bare breasts on page 3 of The Sun. Clare Short MP has again been agitating to have them banned. Yes the Sun has defended itself and said it's only a bit of fun, of course it's true that you'll probably see more on a beach holiday than in newsprint and certainly the majority of Sun readers are female. Still, if people are offended there's probably a case worth examining in more depth than hurling insults at the complainant and sticking her head on a topless body or whatever.
Personally I'd probably stop them if given half a chance but not for any censorious reason, simply because I don't want to become bored with breasts. I'd assume it's a sign of middle age or something when it might not be. Nevertheless whatever action is taken I can't help but be a little concerned that Short or anyone else thinks this is a matter for Parliament - that's quite a hammer to swat that particular fly, and it's not as though the Government hasn't got weightier matters on its mind.
P. S. I see in yesterday's Observer that Kevin Marsh, the editor of the Today programme when the infamous Andrew Gilligan broadcast took place, is considering legal action against Lord Hutton on grounds of Natural Justice. Hutton criticised the editorial scrutiny of the piece in his report; Marsh had a statement prepared on the exact steps he took and the procedures he went through but Hutton never heard this - in spite of criticising Marsh's practices scathingly, Lord Hutton never thought to call Marsh to hear his side of it. An interesting decision, m'lud.
The first instance isn't so much an actual female body as such, but the outrage aroused by John Lydon last week when he left I'm A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here. He (gasp) swore at the camera and even (double-gasp) used a name for female genitalia that began with a 'c'. This word has always fascinated me; 99 per cent of the time it's used to mean someone you don't like, another driver who's made a small error, whatever - just about anything other than a vagina. Anyway, the story picked up by most of the papers was the minimal amount of furore Lydon caused. They were surprised that there were fewer than 100 complaints.
I'm not. Lydon came to prominence partly by swearing on the telly. He's a canny lad and understands that times have changed, so if he wants to hit the headlines then repeating the same shock horror phrases he did almost 30 years ago would have no effect. There is only one word that causes any TV outrage any more and he used it - but in such a predictable way that people were more likely to say 'aaah' than to write in and complain. I wasn't offended but I did feel it lacked a certain panache; you want to see inoffensive but funny swearing, you go and see Billy Connolly sometime. It's constant, it's hilarious and so much less clumsy.
The other element of femaleness that has come under scrutiny just recently has been the bare breasts on page 3 of The Sun. Clare Short MP has again been agitating to have them banned. Yes the Sun has defended itself and said it's only a bit of fun, of course it's true that you'll probably see more on a beach holiday than in newsprint and certainly the majority of Sun readers are female. Still, if people are offended there's probably a case worth examining in more depth than hurling insults at the complainant and sticking her head on a topless body or whatever.
Personally I'd probably stop them if given half a chance but not for any censorious reason, simply because I don't want to become bored with breasts. I'd assume it's a sign of middle age or something when it might not be. Nevertheless whatever action is taken I can't help but be a little concerned that Short or anyone else thinks this is a matter for Parliament - that's quite a hammer to swat that particular fly, and it's not as though the Government hasn't got weightier matters on its mind.
P. S. I see in yesterday's Observer that Kevin Marsh, the editor of the Today programme when the infamous Andrew Gilligan broadcast took place, is considering legal action against Lord Hutton on grounds of Natural Justice. Hutton criticised the editorial scrutiny of the piece in his report; Marsh had a statement prepared on the exact steps he took and the procedures he went through but Hutton never heard this - in spite of criticising Marsh's practices scathingly, Lord Hutton never thought to call Marsh to hear his side of it. An interesting decision, m'lud.
Who's who
18/02/04 09:58 Permalink
My sources tell me the BBC may be about to make a
significant announcement. Given the high-profile
departures of late you can only wonder who and what
this will be.
The BBC advertised for a new chair of the Board of Governors a few weeks back and speculation has been rife over who might land the job. The Observer on Sunday suggested Joan Bakewell as a candidate, who would indeed be a good choice; my own preference, were he to be interested, would be David Attenborough. He has in-depth experience of taking charge of BBC1 and BBC2, his commitment to programming excellence is beyond any doubt and he would satisfy both the populists and the people who criticise the Corporation for dumbing down.
Director General is less clear-cut for me as we'd probably be talking about someone below retirement age, not that those people named above understand the definition of the word 'retirement'. My preference would be an experienced TV producer and production company entrepreneur - Verity Lambert would be eminently suitable; she currently produces Jonathan Creek and was the brain behind the original Doctor Who, Minder, Budgie, Euston Films and Cinema Verity. Dismally, David Puttnam has said he wouldn't consider it. Maybe someone ought to talk him round.
My other sources, mind you, tell me that the announcement's not going to be to do with management at all, but that they've chosen a new Doctor Who. Which would of course be vastly more important.
The BBC advertised for a new chair of the Board of Governors a few weeks back and speculation has been rife over who might land the job. The Observer on Sunday suggested Joan Bakewell as a candidate, who would indeed be a good choice; my own preference, were he to be interested, would be David Attenborough. He has in-depth experience of taking charge of BBC1 and BBC2, his commitment to programming excellence is beyond any doubt and he would satisfy both the populists and the people who criticise the Corporation for dumbing down.
Director General is less clear-cut for me as we'd probably be talking about someone below retirement age, not that those people named above understand the definition of the word 'retirement'. My preference would be an experienced TV producer and production company entrepreneur - Verity Lambert would be eminently suitable; she currently produces Jonathan Creek and was the brain behind the original Doctor Who, Minder, Budgie, Euston Films and Cinema Verity. Dismally, David Puttnam has said he wouldn't consider it. Maybe someone ought to talk him round.
My other sources, mind you, tell me that the announcement's not going to be to do with management at all, but that they've chosen a new Doctor Who. Which would of course be vastly more important.
Who's who
18/02/04 09:33 Media
issues Permalink
My sources tell me the BBC may be about to make a
significant announcement. Given the high-profile
departures of late you can only wonder who and what
this will be.
The BBC advertised for a new chair of the Board of Governors a few weeks back and speculation has been rife over who might land the job. The Observer on Sunday suggested Joan Bakewell as a candidate, who would indeed be a good choice; my own preference, were he to be interested, would be David Attenborough. He has in-depth experience of taking charge of BBC1 and BBC2, his commitment to programming excellence is beyond any doubt and he would satisfy both the populists and the people who criticise the Corporation for dumbing down.
Director General is less clear-cut for me as we'd probably be talking about someone below retirement age, not that those people named above understand the definition of the word 'retirement'. My preference would be an experienced TV producer and production company entrepreneur - Verity Lambert would be eminently suitable; she currently produces Jonathan Creek and was the brain behind the original Doctor Who, Minder, Budgie, Euston Films and Cinema Verity. Dismally, David Puttnam has said he wouldn't consider it. Maybe someone ought to talk him round.
My other sources, mind you, tell me that the announcement's not going to be to do with management at all, but that they've chosen a new Doctor Who. Which would of course be vastly more important.
The BBC advertised for a new chair of the Board of Governors a few weeks back and speculation has been rife over who might land the job. The Observer on Sunday suggested Joan Bakewell as a candidate, who would indeed be a good choice; my own preference, were he to be interested, would be David Attenborough. He has in-depth experience of taking charge of BBC1 and BBC2, his commitment to programming excellence is beyond any doubt and he would satisfy both the populists and the people who criticise the Corporation for dumbing down.
Director General is less clear-cut for me as we'd probably be talking about someone below retirement age, not that those people named above understand the definition of the word 'retirement'. My preference would be an experienced TV producer and production company entrepreneur - Verity Lambert would be eminently suitable; she currently produces Jonathan Creek and was the brain behind the original Doctor Who, Minder, Budgie, Euston Films and Cinema Verity. Dismally, David Puttnam has said he wouldn't consider it. Maybe someone ought to talk him round.
My other sources, mind you, tell me that the announcement's not going to be to do with management at all, but that they've chosen a new Doctor Who. Which would of course be vastly more important.
Tabloid or broadsheet
17/02/04 09:32 Media
issues Permalink
The Guardian has come out and denied it's going to
launch a tabloid version (see
the report in the paper's media pages
here)
because it would lose its distinct selling points.
I'm not so sure (and no, I have no inside knowledge
as a contributor). The Times and The Independent have
both done well as compacts (or whatever we're going
to call them), and the Guardian and Telegraph have
seen their circulation fall.
I'm not suggesting that the Guardian will take the plunge immediately, indeed editor Alan Rusbridger's comments about the dual identity of the Times and Indie being unsustainable seem spot on. Another comment he makes is that nobody believes there will be a broadsheet Independent long-term, which makes sense; he says the Guardian will do its own thing eventually, and there's no reason to think he has any hidden agenda behind that statement.
I wonder, though, having seen the improved sales and immediate reader acceptance of the new format (that's 'new' in the sense of 'The Mail and Express did this 30 years ago'), whether anyone truly believes there will be any such thing as a broadsheet outside the Financial Times within a few years?
P. S. The Guardian suggests Independent co-founder and Daily Mail writer Stephen Glover is picking an odd time to consider launching yet another mid-market tabloid. Is he hell. With the Telegraph on its knees until its ownership is settled and the Barclay Brothers, who hope to buy it, hinting that it might lean to supporting Labour if they take it over, there's going to be room for a high-quality, right-wing National paper that's upmarket and younger than the Daily Mail and a readership that's hungry for it. There's never been a better time for Glover and the cohorts he claims to have a go - and let's be honest, he didn't exactly misread the market when launching the Independent.
I'm not suggesting that the Guardian will take the plunge immediately, indeed editor Alan Rusbridger's comments about the dual identity of the Times and Indie being unsustainable seem spot on. Another comment he makes is that nobody believes there will be a broadsheet Independent long-term, which makes sense; he says the Guardian will do its own thing eventually, and there's no reason to think he has any hidden agenda behind that statement.
I wonder, though, having seen the improved sales and immediate reader acceptance of the new format (that's 'new' in the sense of 'The Mail and Express did this 30 years ago'), whether anyone truly believes there will be any such thing as a broadsheet outside the Financial Times within a few years?
P. S. The Guardian suggests Independent co-founder and Daily Mail writer Stephen Glover is picking an odd time to consider launching yet another mid-market tabloid. Is he hell. With the Telegraph on its knees until its ownership is settled and the Barclay Brothers, who hope to buy it, hinting that it might lean to supporting Labour if they take it over, there's going to be room for a high-quality, right-wing National paper that's upmarket and younger than the Daily Mail and a readership that's hungry for it. There's never been a better time for Glover and the cohorts he claims to have a go - and let's be honest, he didn't exactly misread the market when launching the Independent.
Sources and protection
16/02/04 09:31 Media
issues Permalink
So Lord Saville has decided not to prosecute Jon Snow
and Lena Ferguson for refusing to disclose the
identities of those who spoke to them about the
Bloody Sunday incident.
I should think not. Protection of sources has been a fundamental of journalism since cover-ups began. It was 1990 when journalist Bill Goodwin of The Engineer published a piece about software house Tetra and the courts, having established that someone stole the information in order to get it to him, decided he had to hand his source over. He didn't do so because he was protected by Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act, which enshrines the right to protect your sources unless there's some danger of injustice or crime (which is a pretty loose criterion).
Goodwin had to go to Europe in order to have the ruling overturned and I really, really thought we'd moved on since then. But it transpires that the Snow and Ferguson decision didn't go without saying as it ought, the judge felt he had some leeway in the matter and under British law he did. The Europeans are better than we are at this. Lord Saville has respected the job being done and his decision is to be applauded; I wonder, though, what's in danger of being covered up under the auspices of less enlightened legal bods.
I should think not. Protection of sources has been a fundamental of journalism since cover-ups began. It was 1990 when journalist Bill Goodwin of The Engineer published a piece about software house Tetra and the courts, having established that someone stole the information in order to get it to him, decided he had to hand his source over. He didn't do so because he was protected by Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act, which enshrines the right to protect your sources unless there's some danger of injustice or crime (which is a pretty loose criterion).
Goodwin had to go to Europe in order to have the ruling overturned and I really, really thought we'd moved on since then. But it transpires that the Snow and Ferguson decision didn't go without saying as it ought, the judge felt he had some leeway in the matter and under British law he did. The Europeans are better than we are at this. Lord Saville has respected the job being done and his decision is to be applauded; I wonder, though, what's in danger of being covered up under the auspices of less enlightened legal bods.
Who pays the webbyman?
12/02/04 10:16 Media
issues Permalink
Damn. I'm not usually given to swearing fits, but
damn.
The Guardian
is going to start charging for bits of its online
information.
This is a pity from a number of points of view. First, inevitaably fewer people will look at the Guardian online and they'll miss a superb service. Yes I know I'm biased as a contribitor but it's an honest opinion. Columns, news, whatever you want it's all there.
The Independent also charges for its archived articles as do the other broadsheets. I suppose it was commercial suicide for them to continue to subsidise non-paying readers for an infinite amount of time, but it does seem a shame that the BBC will shortly be the sole source of excellent free journalism - depending on the outcome of its charter review later in the year.
Looks like the free party on the Net really is coming to an end.
This is a pity from a number of points of view. First, inevitaably fewer people will look at the Guardian online and they'll miss a superb service. Yes I know I'm biased as a contribitor but it's an honest opinion. Columns, news, whatever you want it's all there.
The Independent also charges for its archived articles as do the other broadsheets. I suppose it was commercial suicide for them to continue to subsidise non-paying readers for an infinite amount of time, but it does seem a shame that the BBC will shortly be the sole source of excellent free journalism - depending on the outcome of its charter review later in the year.
Looks like the free party on the Net really is coming to an end.
Yet more Hutton
10/02/04 09:20 Permalink
It just won't go away, will it? Today's Radio Times
has John Humphrys of the Today programme laying into
Alastair Campbell (click
here for a piece about it in The
Guardian)
for triumphalism after the Hutton Report. Campbell is
typically graceless when asked to comment. On the
face of it you might argue Humphrys has Campbell down
to a tee - the bully, the nasty man who's caused
resignations at the BBC. Even so, I wonder whether
there isn't some justification for Campbell's
attitude in recent times? Yes he's appeared boorish,
yes you can argue 'triumphalist', but then I've never
been accused of artificially and deliberately
engineering a war. How do I know what's the
appropriate way to react? 'Still livid' sounds
reasonable enough. And more - it's the media that got
a savaging from Hutton and the media that's reporting
all the reactions afterwards. How different would
Campbell have looked if the Guardian had simply said
'Campbell declined to quote' rather than 'Mr Campbell
declined to respond to Humphrys' attack. "Why should
I bother? Why should I care about what John Humphrys
says?" ' There's a lot still to come out about
journalists and Hutton, of that I'm sure - but the
continued demonising of one particular individual has
long ceased to be useful.
Hutton thoughts
06/02/04 09:17 Permalink
By now enough has been written about Hutton, mostly
by people who have read the press rather than the
report, to clog up a landfill. One interesting point
nobody seems to have raised, though, is about the
leak of the report to the Sun, which happened on the
day of its publication. On that day, Conservative
leader Michael Howard asked the Prime Minister 'Who
do you think benefited from it?' Far be it from me to
suggest there was a veiled accusation in there. The
interesting point, though, is that the one person who
couldn't have benefited less if he'd tried was Tony
Blair himself. Exonerated, rightly or wrongly, by a
report like that, it was clearly in his best
interests to see the report come out in its alotted
time without any scurrilous leaks opening the door to
yet another Parliamentary punch-up.
No, whoever leaked that report appears to have been no friend of Labour. The investigation continues.
No, whoever leaked that report appears to have been no friend of Labour. The investigation continues.