Neil Arun didn’t want to miss a rare but risky opportunity to embed with an Iraqi police unit, hunting members of al Qaeda. But his employers -- responsible for Neil’s security -- weren’t happy. This film by Richard Pendry nvestigates how a frontline journalist balances risk and reward.
Where journalists have greatness thrust upon them
Greenslade
Roy Greenslade's Guardian blog on politics, news and the media
Updated: 2 hours 23 min ago
A day in the life of British journalism
3 February 2012 - 1:18pmWhat do journalists do all day? Press Gazette (PG) has decided to find out by asking us to spend next Wednesday compiling diaries of our working day.
The magazine is calling on as many journalists as possible - in newspapers, magazines TV, radio and online - to contribute to its A day in life of British journalism project.
PG's contributing editor John Dale is urging people to send in "written snapshots" of their work over a 24-hour news cycle, from 6am Wednesday 8 February to 6am the following day.
He wants participants to write a summary of about 100-500 words "or whatever" that describes what they do during that period - the news jobs, stories, features, photos, mishaps, interviews, events, meetings, humour, even an office party.
"Include colour and emotion," he writes. "Rushed breakfasts. Watery coffee. Lunch at desk. Lunch with contact in greasy spoon/posh restaurant. The perils of alcohol. Quotes. Being married to the job. Story spiked - misery! Story splashed - ecstasy!"
The resulting article will be a third-person 24-hour narrative, so it's important to provide timings, Dale gives an example of the format he expects on both the PG site and on his own blog.
Any journalist anywhere can take part as long as they are working for a British news media outlet. So a paparazzi in Hollywood may take part or a war reporter in Afghanistan.
The project has been given the blessing of the Society of Editors, the British Society of Magazine Editors and the National Association of Press Agencies.
"When journalism is under profound scrutiny," says Dale, "let's celebrate the richness of our work."
Contributions should be emailed to johnkdale@msn.com as soon as possible after the date. Press Gazette will publish its news-day special report in its March issue, and a fuller version may run online.
Sources: Press Gazette and The irrepressible John Dale
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
A classic Sun front page...
3 February 2012 - 11:04amToday's Sun features a classic front page. Who could not read on after seeing a picture of a busty female next to the headline "I slept with 1,000 men.. but I used to be a man myself"?
I have to say the strapline, "Telly cougar's confession", had me scratching my head. A cougar? I had to look that up and, according to the urban dictionary, it transpires that a cougar is "an older woman who frequents clubs in order to score with a much younger man."
And I also had no idea who the woman was until I read the story. So I now feel as if I'm an unworldly member of the judiciary in the mould of that elderly judge in the 1960s who (allegedly) asked: "Who, or what, are the Beatles?"
Anyway, it seemed as though it might be construed as one of those red-top stories that, although interesting to the public, cannot be said to be "in the public interest."
That would be wrong, however. I am sure that Crystal's story might well help young people suffering from gender dysphoria, as the paper's superb agony aunt, Deidre Sanders suggested.
Doubtless, The Sun's editor, Dominic Mohan, might point out the value of such apparently trivial and titillating articles when he is recalled by the Leveson inquiry. It might raise a smile before he answers questions about the merits (!) of continuing to publish Page 3 girls.
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Mayer rocks on with Time promotion
3 February 2012 - 9:33amTime magazine's London bureau chief for the past five years, Catherine Mayer, has been promoted to Europe editor.
Good for her - she's an excellent writer. That fact is echoed in the hymn of praise to her skills in the official announcement of her promotion by Time's managing editor Rick Stengel.
But Stengel adds a nice touch by pointing out that "Catherine is also a rock and roll wife" because she is married Andy Gill, a guitarist with what he calls "the pioneering British post-punk band Gang of Four."
Source: Time Inc
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
News Corp appoints Hinton's successor
3 February 2012 - 9:29amLes Hinton's successor as chief executive of Dow Jones has been named by News Corp as Lex Fenwick.
He will be based in New York and report to Chase Carey, the company's president and chief operating officer.
Fenwick has spent 25 years with Bloomberg, most recently as head of its Ventures division.
Hinton resigned from News Corp in July last year in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal. From 1995 until 2005, he was in charge of News International.
Source: News Corp
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
How to reform press regulation - with backing from the state
2 February 2012 - 3:04pmI promised yesterday that I would spell out what I imagine to be the best way to construct a form of post-Leveson press regulation.
It is, of course, tentative. But it is a practical contribution to the various debates, including the one being conducted by concerned editors.
First, and most importantly, let's deal with the role of the state, about which everyone is getting into an unnecessary flap.
I am, like everyone else with any sense, plus a respect for press freedom, against statutory regulation.
But I can see that self-regulation - in the form operated through the Press Complaints Commission - has not worked. It didn't regulate. The "self" aspect tended to be opaque and, in the perception of many, too open to abuse.
Such claims were completely unproven, but who knows what X whispered to Y. The problem of opacity is that it tends to engender conspiracy theories. It is a matter of perception, rather than practice, implying a cosy arrangement by the industry.
So the central overseer of the current system, the Press Standards Board of Finance (PressBof), clearly has to go along with the PCC.
The role of the stateThe only plausible replacement is the state. Hang on. Don't scream yet. There is nothing wrong with parliament creating, under statute if necessary, an arm's-length framework for regulation.
That framework will consist of a body, itself appointed through the offices of the public Appointments Commission, to oversee the formation of a proper regulator and its twin complaints-handling office.
For the purposes of this argument, let's call it the Press Regulation Board (PRB). Its powers will extend to appointing the key members of the regulator and, most importantly, the power to compel publishers to fund the regulator and obey its decisions.
It will also have the power to compel the payment of fines should the ombudsman (see below) find it necessary to levy them.
But the PRB will have no power of involvement in the decisions of the regulator and it will not therefore inhibit press freedom.
Its remit will extend to appointing the most senior staff, monitoring all other the appointments, ensuring that the regulator is financed and certifying that all members of the industry take part.
It will receive annual reports from the two chiefs of the new regulation system.
The new regulatorThis will have two linked arms. One, let's call it the Office of the Press Standards Ombudsman (PSO), will be the real regulator. I'll come to that in a moment.
The other, let's call it the Press Standards Commission (PSC), will echo the PCC's work by handling complaints.
Both the ombudsman and the chair of the PSC will be appointed by the Press Regulation Board. Neither of them will have any formal links to the newspaper and magazine industries.
The ombudsman will have two advisers, one legal and the other chosen - by the PRB - from with the newspaper industry (or, possibly, a retired veteran). The ombudsman will be served by the secretariat of the PSC.
The PSC will be composed of up to 15 members, four of whom will be selected from the newspaper and magazine industries in order to give practical advice to the 11 "public" or lay members.
The PSC, where practicable and fair, will set out to resolve complainants by acting as advocate for the complainant and as conciliator. It will do so by reference to the editors' code.
If the resolution process breaks down, the PSC will have the power to hold oral hearings attended by a complainant and the representatives of a publication.
If there is no agreement at that point, the commission will adjudicate one way or the other.
Of course, in all cases where breaches are sufficiently blatant, there will be an adjudication.
The PSC will continue to give editors pre-publication advice, usually when requested but - in the case of sudden events requiring swift action - it will do so unasked.
The PSC will consider complaints from journalists who believe they have been ordered by their bosses to breach the code (see below).
The new commission will give much more latitude than has previously been the case to complaints made by concerned groups and also look favourably on third-party complaints (as long as they do not embarrass individuals).
If complainants are unhappy with the PSC's decision, or with its handling of their case, they will have a right to appeal to the ombudsman.
If the PSC deems it necessary, it will call on the ombudsman to use his/her investigatory powers.
The ombudsman will be the court of last resort for complainants. He/she will decide whether the commission has carried out its work properly.
The ombudsman will have the power to initiate inquiries, with the capability to demand answers from publishers and editors. In extreme cases, it will have the right to investigate, with the power to see documents, email trails etc.
The ombudsman will have the power to be pro-active, whether in ordering the commission to hold inquiries or by acting alone to do so.
The ombudsman will have the power to see all of the PSC's documentation and will audit the PSC's work on a regular basis.
In extraordinary cases, the ombudsman will have the power to levy fines appropriate to the misdemeanour while taking into account the finances of the offending publisher.
The editors' codeThe current editors' code of practice remains a largely sensible set of ethical rules (though we might revisit the definition of "the public interest").
Amendments over the years by the code committee have been understandable. It would not have been possible when it was first drawn up in 1990 to foresee events in subsequent years.
But the code committee would benefit - in terms of public perception, if not in practical ways - from allowing non-industry people to join it. These could be appointed through the ombudsman's office.
The code should be written into the contracts of employment of journalists on the staffs of newspapers and magazines.
Journalists who feel that have been asked to do something which breaches the code will be able to complain on a discreet basis to the PSC.
Publishers and editors will not be able to fire members of staff (who are to be regarded as whistleblowers) solely because they have complained to the PSC.
Publishers and editors: a new compactI have often said that the code, if obeyed to the letter, has not always been observed in spirit. Now we must do so.
These kinds of structures are necessary in order to encourage publishers and editors to toe the line.
I do not believe they threaten the freedom of the press. And I would hope that editors see them as a guide to ensure best practice.
I would hope that publishers and editors see the virtue in a system that should give the public more confidence in a regulatory system.
However, I would be the first to agree that even if this system were in place five years ago, it is plausible to argue that it would not have got to the bottom of the phone hacking scandal.
What mattered, in the end, was the quality of the journalism that exposed it. We still need to be free to police each other.
I would urge publishers and editors to enter into a new compact - with Leveson, with parliament and with the public. This is one way to do it.
An interim deal?In truth, there may not be a printed press in 10 years' time. But that is no reason to scorn a new system of newsprint regulation.
If publishers and editors want to attract readers to their websites in future, they will surely need to have convinced the public that their journalism is credible, that it is accurate and fair.
I don't think it's overstating things to say the post-Leveson settlement could help to create the journalism of the future. So how we cope with the current crisis could prove crucial.
We have to clean house so well that we restore some kind of public confidence in what we still like to think of as the fourth estate, a press that holds power to account, acting as a watchdog to curb the power of the other estates.
My ideas may seem unduly autocratic. But we have to restore balance, we have to regain public trust. I hope this contribution is regarded as helpful.
- Leveson inquiry
- Press Complaints Commission
- Lord Justice Leveson
- Newspapers
- National newspapers
- Magazines
- Editors
guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Reporter on the spot to witness robbery
2 February 2012 - 12:36pmRegional reporter David Blackmore has just had one of those moments all reporters dream about - being witness to a news story.
He was walking along a street when a car screeched to a halt and a gang of hooded men bearing sledgehammers got out. They then smashed a jewellery shop window and made off with their loot.
Blackmore was forced to dive for cover as the car headed towards him, but he was quick thinking enough to get some pictures.
And the resulting shot graced the front page of his paper, the Eastern Daily Press, the following day, as shown here.
Blackmore, who was quoted in the resulting news story, later wrote in a blog: "For about ten seconds, I was quite literally frozen to the spot."
But not so frozen that he didn't reach for his phone and snap away. Soon after, he walked into a post office to pay his road tax and asked himself: "Did that really just happen?"
Sources: HoldTheFrontPage/Eastern Daily Press
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Is a Canadian publisher really Canadian?
2 February 2012 - 11:51amMany countries have laws ensuring that media ownership remains in national hands or, at least, a large percentage of it does so.
Some such laws are very specific. Others, such as the Investment Canada Act (ICA), are rather subjective. In the ICA's case, it empowers the Canadian government to forbid foreign investments of "significant" size if they do not present a "net benefit to Canada."
There is plenty of wriggle room there. What's significant? How does one prove whether it is of net benefit or not?
Those questions have become important since the old Canwest newspaper media conglomerate was acquired in July 2010 by a group of largely US investors - led by a Canadian businessman, Paul Godfrey - who established a company called Postmedia.
It publishes the Toronto-based National Post and a raft of city dailies and urban weeklies across Canada.
Now a media trades union, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP), is demanding that the government investigate Postmedia's corporate structure to discover whether it satisfies the ICA.
The main issue is over Postmedia's share arrangements. The union says that the 92% of the company's stock is held by non-Canadians, which amounts to foreign control.
Godfrey disputes the claim, saying that there is a dual share structure that gives voting control to its Canadian shareholders.
To qualify as Canadian-owned, a newspaper must either control 75% of its shares in Canadian hands or be listed on a stock exchange as a publicly traded company controlled by Canadians. Postmedia took that step last year.
Source: Toronto Star
guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Ethiopia jails journalists - and one faces death penalty
2 February 2012 - 10:52amIn a further sign of worsening repression in Ethiopia, a US-based journalist has been sentenced, in absentia, to life imprisonment on anti-terrorism charges. Two other journalists were given heavy prison sentences.
Elias Kifle, the exiled editor of a website opposed to the governent of Meles Zenawi, was charged over the content of online articles.
He was previously sentenced to life imprisonment in 2007, also in absentia, on charges of treason for his coverage of the government's repression during 2005 post-election protests.
The court in Addis Ababa also sentenced Reyot Alemu, a columnist with the independent weekly Feteh, and Woubshet Taye, deputy editor of the now-defunct weekly Awramba Times, to 14 years in jail and fines of £950 for their journalistic work.
The charges against all three relate to their alleged support for banned opposition groups, which have been criminalised under the country's 2009 anti-terrorism law.
Their sentencing came days after a fourth journalist, Eskinder Nega, was found guilty of terrorism charges. He faces the death penalty.
Source: IFEX
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Trinity Mirror shareholders question Sly Bailey's pay package
2 February 2012 - 10:39amThe day after announcing a further 75 editorial job cuts, Trinity Mirror is facing shareholder pressure over the pay of its chief executive Sly Bailey.
The Financial Times reports that some of TM's biggest investors believe her pay no longer reflects the size of the business, which is much smaller than when she arrived at TM nine years ago.
One top 10 shareholder is quoted as saying that Bailey's pay package was "just not tenable", adding: "It is out of kilter with the group's performance and current size.
"It is premature to say we are demanding her head but we are looking at it all very keenly."
A stockbroking analyst I spoke to this morning thought the "shareholder activism" very significant. Another spoke of it being "a positive development."
Evidently, the matter will be raised in investors' meetings with TM's incoming chairman, David Grigson, a former finance director with Reuters.
Shares in TM have fallen by 90% in the past five years and the FT piece quotes a second top ten shareholder as saying:
"Sly hasn't got a great many supporters now – not when she has lost so much and is so well paid."
Bailey's basic pay has been frozen since 2008. However, she also receives bonuses. Last year she earned a base salary of £736,000 together with a £660,000 cash bonus and £57,000 in deferred shares linked to the company's performance in 2006.
At the annual meeting last year, 11% of TM's shareholders voted against her package.
When Bailey joined TM in February 2003 the company's share price was about 390p, giving it a capitalisation of £1.1bn. Today the publisher is valued at just £119.1m and the shares closed yesterday at 46.25p despite the cost-cutting announcement.
Sources: Financial Times/Private conversations
- Sly Bailey
- Trinity Mirror
- Financial Times
- Media business
- Media downturn
- National newspapers
- Newspapers
- Reuters
- Trinity Mirror
guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Memo to information commissioner - reveal all to blagging victims
2 February 2012 - 10:02amWhy is the information commissioner refusing to inform people that they have been the victims of illegal press intrusion?
Labour MP Denis MacShane asked that question in the Commons a week ago and it was asked of the commissioner, Christopher Graham, on the same day at the Leveson inquiry. It was also asked in a letter to the commissioner by the Hacked Off campaign.
Those questions relate to the 2003 Operation Motorman investigation by the information commissioner's office (ICO) into allegations of breaches by newspapers of the data protection act.
That inquiry led to the discovery of a vast cache of documents in the possession of a private investigator, Steve Whittamore. It included lists of names of people whose private information had been passed to almost every national newspaper.
Whittamore pleaded guilty in February 2004 to conspiring to commit misconduct in public office and was given a conditional discharge.
The case was revealed in some detail in 2006 by the then information commissioner, Richard Thomas, in two ICO reports (here and here).
Though those reports detailed the papers responsible for receiving the information, it did not identify the people whose privacy had been compromised.
But the revelations of the News of the World's phone-hacking victims has shown the value of knowing exactly who suffered from intrusion (valuable in financial terms to the individuals concerned, of course, but of value also to society).
So why is Graham - Thomas's successor as information commissioner - keeping mum about a reputed 17,000 victims of what has become known as blagging?
As MacShane said in the Commons, isn't it an "extraordinary" situation to deny people their right to know what newspapers know about them and what the police also know (because its officers seized Whittamore's documents)?
Why should the blagging victims not have the same rights to legal redress as the hacking victims?
After his Commons question, MacShane said of Graham: "This man is meant to be in charge of freedom of information but he is denying the most important information to thousands of victims of newspaper collaboration with a criminal."
Graham was pressed by the Leveson inquiry's counsel, Robert Jay QC, to explain why people have not been advised of their data having been illegally accessed.
He talked about the impracticability of such an exercise, and implied that he lacked sufficient staffing. But his major objection was that the Motorman files were often too obscure. He told the inquiry:
"I think [former commissioner] Richard Thomas put the point very well in his response to you on this matter when he said if, having established the identity of the individual and their address, we wrote to them to say, 'Your details appear in the Motorman file, but we can't tell you why,' that might be an even greater breach of privacy than the original offence, because there would be a suggestion that there's no smoke without fire.
Other members of the family might see the letter and say, 'Hey, what's going on?' and I couldn't tell them any more than a name appears in a file.
It would be a phenomenal undertaking... There are an awful lot of very anonymous names and it simply isn't practical."
But he did add: "If Hacked Off and their lawyers are representing particular individuals then that's what we're here for. Subject access requests, here we go."
I see Thomas's point (and I am well aware of the constricted resources of the ICO). However, surely some of the 17,000 names are identifiable and, where possible, they should have been informed about the invasion of their privacy. They are, in effect, being denied their legal rights.
I can't help feeling that the ICO has failed in its obligations twice over. It did not investigate the journalists responsible for receiving information obtained illegally.
And now it refuses to disclose to people that they were the victims of blagging. It really isn't good enough and I'm with MacShane and Hacked Off on this business.
Sources: Denis MacShane/The Guardian/Hacked Off campaign/Hansard (1) and (2)
- Information commissioner
- Leveson inquiry
- Privacy & the media
- Privacy
- Lord Justice Leveson
- Newspapers
- National newspapers
- Press freedom
- Phone hacking
- News of the World
guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Sun journalists think Murdoch doesn't care for them any longer
1 February 2012 - 5:37pmThe arrests of four Sun executives have undermined morale among the rest of the paper's staff. And many now believe that Rupert Murdoch no longer cares for them.
In company with some journalists at The Times and the Sunday Times, they think Murdoch may be prepared to jettison the Wapping titles.
They are particularly exercised by the activities of the Management and Standards Committee - the unit created by News Corp to liaise with the police.
It is just one battlefront in the internal war now being waged within News Corp. As I argue in my London Evening Standard column today, bewildered Sun journalists are asking how Murdoch of all people got himself into such a fix.
- Rupert Murdoch
- The Sun
- The Times
- Sunday Times
- London Evening Standard
- Metropolitan police
- News Corporation
- News International
guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Trinity Mirror's job cuts are sad - but that's 2012 newspaper reality
1 February 2012 - 5:05pmSo it's redundancy time once again. First, at the two Telegraph titles and now at the Mirror trio.
This is the stark reality of modern newspapers, the result of a coincidence of commercial necessity and technological innovation.
There is sure to be more hand-wringing at the decision by Trinity Mirror (TM) to cut a further 75 jobs, amounting to 18.75% of its editorial workforce.
But, without wishing to appear to bless another tranche of redundancies at the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and The People, it must be obvious to all that it is the way of the world.
Most people are expected to leave voluntarily and it is to be hoped they pick up enough severance cash to ensure they can pay their mortgages for some time to come.
What many of them will know is that getting a replacement job is going to be very tricky indeed.
I expect both the British Association of Journalists (BAJ) and the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) will issue statements condemning the action.
They will be heartfelt and sincere, of course, but they will not change the course of a process that is now irreversible.
In June 2010, I reported that TM was making 200 editorial staff redundant. That 25% cut resulted in the overall staffing being reduced to the current 400.
So the three papers will end up in a couple of months' time with 325 journalists between them. (I seem to recall, when I edited the Daily Mirror 20-odd years ago, that it alone had more than 400 staff).
TM has announced that its move is linked to what it calls "editorial restructuring", which involves an expansion of its ContentWatch production system.
In its statement this afternoon, TM claimed that ContentWatch had "helped transform the newsroom". It probably has. And it is probably right in claiming also that the restructuring will "create an even more efficient multimedia operation."
None of us can ignore the fact that it is now possible to do so much so quickly with increasingly efficient digital tools.
Note, however, that "a centralised reporting and production hub" will operate with "teams working across all three titles" over seven days.
I can understand the production part of that operation. I am less sanguine about reporters working across titles.
Then again, somewhat contradictorily, the company's statement also says that there will be a "retention of bespoke editorial teams for each title to protect their unique identity."
I'm not quite certain how that squares with editors having "access to a greater number of reporters than is currently available to them on an individual basis."
Clearly, the editors - Richard Wallace, Tina Weaver and Lloyd Embley - have their work cut out to bed in the new system.
Wallace is evidently going to assume management responsibility for the new system while continuing to edit the Daily Mirror. Good luck with that, Richard.
- Trinity Mirror
- Media downturn
- Media business
- Daily Mirror
- Sunday Mirror
- The People
- Daily Telegraph
- Sunday Telegraph
- National newspapers
- Newspapers
- Telegraph Media Group
- Sly Bailey
- National Union of Journalists
- Richard Wallace
- Tina Weaver
- Lloyd Embley
guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Hey, I said it first - the Press Complaints Commission is NOT a regulator
1 February 2012 - 12:48pmI don't wish to be unduly critical of those responsible for running the Press Complaints Commission, especially in its dying throes, but I'm exercised by the repetition of one particularly irritating claim: the PCC is not a regulator.
Of course it isn't a regulator. And I seem to recall that I said that when it was neither profitable nor popular to do so.
Over the past 20 years, virtually since its inception, I have pointed out that the PCC has not been a regulator.
It is a complaint-handler. It has been a conciliator, an arbitrator and a go-between. And, it should be said, it has been hugely effective in those roles.
Similarly, it has been good at ensuring journalists know the editors' code of practice, especially through training sessions.
And it has also produced many helpful guides, such as those on the reporting of suicide, the handling of bereavement and the coverage of immigration (most significantly relating to asylum-seekers).
All of this has been valuable and is a tribute to the work - and thought - of its various directors and its hard-working secretariat
But the description of the PCC as a system of "self-regulation" surely implied that its founders and operators did view it as a regulator.
Regardless of the previous fiction, everyone is now engaged in a semantic sleight of hand by distancing themselves from such a description. Now it's fashionable to say the PCC isn't a regulator.
Former director Tim Toulmin told Leveson the the "virtue" of the description "self-regulation" is "that it explains to the public that the industry is behind what's going on. It's not making any claim to be a sort of formal statutory regulator." Really?
Current director Stephen Abell told the inquiry: "If, by 'regulator', we mean something that is more interventionist, the PCC has not shown itself to be that.
"I think while it has certain powers invested in it, I don't think they are sufficiently spelled out, or the structures attendant upon them are sufficiently clear, to place it in the category of regulator... it is... primarily a complaints-handing body".
And today PressBof chairman, Lord (Guy) Black, told Lord Justice Leveson: "I have never believed the PCC to be a regulator."
But a former PCC chairman, Sir Christopher Meyer, clearly disagrees, because he said: "I believe very firmly that it is a regulator."
And to complicate matters a little more, the current chairman, Lord Hunt, said in his written evidence: "The PCC was never constituted to be a regulator... It is purely a voluntary system."
The PCC's website describes itself "an independent self-regulatory body" and that has always struck me as an untrue statement.
It is neither independent nor, by admission of almost everyone except Meyer, does it regulate. That's why we're in this mess, after all.
But, in a desire to be practical - and following inspiration from talking last week to the Press Council of Ireland - I will blog tomorrow on the details of my imaginary press regulator.
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
French business daily gives up on print
1 February 2012 - 12:39pmLa Tribune, the troubled French financial newspaper founded in 1985, has ceased daily newsprint publication.
Its new owners, France Economie Régions and Hi-Média, say it will print a weekly issue from 6 April and publish daily news on its website.
La Tribune, which had a circulation of about 75,000, was formerly owned by LVMH, which owns the rival business daily Les Echos, having acquired it in 2007 from Pearson (ultimate owner of the Financial Times).
The cover of La Tribune's farewell daily issue on Monday depicted the front page going up in flames.
Source: WWD
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Telegraph redundancies under way...
1 February 2012 - 10:51amI reported on Monday that up to 30 jobs were to go at the Telegraph titles.
And it appears that Telegraph Media Group has not been hanging about - several people have already left the publisher's Victoria headquarters.
They include the Daily Telegraph's online editor, Marcus Warren, who has been with the paper for years, having previously been its Moscow correspondent and foreign editor.
Given that one of the reasons advanced for the cuts was to enable additional digital investment, Warren's departure has surprised many staff. A staff source said: "It's a real shock to see Marcus going."
Similarly, Saleem Khawaja, the group's digital technologist, has also left. And four others who have gone are the head of visuals, Guy Ruddle, picture editor Kim Scott-Clark, graphics chief Derek Bishton and review editor Tom Horan.
The source said: "None of them, apparently, saw it coming." It is thought that 17 production people - subs, design, graphics staff - will also be asked to leave this week.
A management source said it was an unhappy time, but there was a virtue in the swiftness with which the exercise was being carried out.
"We don't like it," he said. "But it was necessary." He added that several of those being made redundant will walk away with handsome pay-offs.
- Telegraph Media Group
- Media downturn
- Daily Telegraph
- Sunday Telegraph
- National newspapers
- Newspapers
- Media business
- Digital media
guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Now Wolff is at our door
1 February 2012 - 10:06amMichael Wolff, biographer of Rupert Murdoch, scourge of US military censorship, internet pioneer and one-time media entrepreneur, is joining The Guardian.
In announcing Wolff's appointment, the paper's US editor-in-chief Janine Gibson said he would be writing a weekly column that will appear in the Comment is Free section.
Wolff said: "I have long believed, and often written, that The Guardian is the world's most interesting newspaper... now I'm delighted to be present on a regular basis."
According to Jon Slattery, he will write about "media, tech, publishing and politics."
Wolff's columns and articles have appeared in various publications, including Vanity Fair, New York Magazine and Wired. He founded www.newser.com, a curatorial news site.
His Murdoch biography, The man who owns the news, was excellent, as was his Autumn of the moguls.
One day I'll get round to reading his best-seller, Burn rate: How I survived the gold rush years on the internet.
Sources: GNM/Jon Slattery/Wolff/Wikipedia
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
What the papers say about the former Sir Fred Goodwin...
1 February 2012 - 9:02amA look at what the national papers think about the removal of the banker's knighthood
Sir Fred Goodwin: the front pages
Most of today's front pages were devoted to the removal of Fred Goodwin's knighthood, with three choosing mild puns on his nickname.
The Daily Telegraph gave us "Goodwin is shredded", the Financial Times ran "Sir Fred's honour shredded", and The Guardian came up with "A reputation shredded: Sir Fred loses his knighthood".
The Independent looked rather red-toppish with a single word: "Dishonoured" while its little sister, i, went for "Shredded".
By far the best headline of the day was Metro's "Fred the pleb!" The Daily Mail's headline, "Humbling of Mister Goodwin", had the Mister rather unnecessarily underlined.
The Times changed its mind between editions. In one, it carried the straightforward: "Dishonoured: Goodwin stripped of knighthood". In another, it said: "Disgraced Goodwin is stripped of knighthood."
The Sun preferred, as is its wont, a sexual pun: "Once a knight Fred: Love-rat stripped of gong". Surprisingly, the Daily Mirror didn't lead with the story, carrying only a blurb on page one, "Orf with his Fred!"
But there was a significant split among papers over the wisdom of removing the honorary title from the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).
The Times, in a leader headlined The dishonours system, considered it "a mistake" to have given Goodwin a knighthood in the first place. But it argued that taking it away "was cheap." It continued:
"This is the first time it has been done for, effectively, commercial incompetence. And the setting of such a precedent is worrying...
It is the selection of an individual for public humiliation, and the changing of the rules just for him in order to make sure he is properly humiliated. Due process is replaced by the rule of the mob."
The argument that it was the rule of the mob was echoed by two other titles.
The Telegraph's leader, Who's next in line for ritual humiliation? thought the decision set "a new benchmark, whereby anyone identified as a convenient scapegoat for the country's woes can be similarly disparaged." It went on:
"David Cameron and the other leading politicians who have encouraged this populist bloodlust should be ashamed of themselves. Now that the precedent has been set, the mob will want more, because it always does."
The Independent was particularly critical, arguing that the removal of Goodwin's knighthood "is exceptional only in his totemic value to a mob baying for vengeance."
It accepted that Goodwin's "hubris and bad judgement drove RBS almost to bankruptcy", but added:
"Although undoubtedly incompetent, Mr Goodwin broke no law... Stripping Mr Goodwin of his knighthood is crass, childish, and wholly counter-productive."
By contrast, the Financial Times, while conceding that there was "more than a whiff of rough justice and political calculation" involved, it was Goodwin's "professional failings... that have driven the committee's decision."
He had "contributed to his own misfortune by his unrepentant demeanour since the collapse of RBS."
The FT leader continued: "Having disdained public opinion, he cannot complain about becoming a target for public opprobrium and for a prime minister eager to deflect attention to still-outsized bankers' bonuses."
Goodwin's humbling, it added, "is a reminder that there has never been a proper accounting for the crisis, and very few prosecutions, unlike in the US."
The Daily Mail was also supportive of the decision. Its leading article, Bankers' greed and a matter of dishonour, argued that "a manifest wrong has been put right."
It saw it as a warning to other bankers "looking forward to stuffing their pockets with another round of massive bonuses," adding:
"Mr Goodwin's fate should teach them that today they have a clear choice. It lies between the dishonour of selfish greed – and their duty to help this nation out of the crisis they caused."
The Mail's columnist, Stephen Glover, also thought it "a fitting punishment" for Goodwin's arrogance:
"He enjoyed a lavish lifestyle with a private aircraft and access to a fleet of limousines, as well as a suite at the Savoy for his visits to London...
"So far was this giant above ordinary mortals that he felt able to conduct an extra-marital affair with a senior RBS colleague...
He has become the symbol of all that is wrong with incompetent, unfettered capitalism."
The Sun was pleased that the poster boy for reckless, greedy gamblers has been "finally stripped of the knighthood Labour gave him.
"His much-lauded 'services to banking' proved to be services to bankruptcy," it said. "But with a £6,500-A-WEEK pension to fall back on, he's still laughing all the way to the bonk, sorry, bank."
The Mirror saw it very differently, heaping ordure over Cameron for engaging in the "decidedly suspicious" timing of the announcement which reeked "of a diversionary tactic by a rattled PM.
But the Mirror did agree that "Goodwin deserved to lose his knighthood" and believed - in company with several other papers - that others should lose their honours too.
The Telegraph also raised a tangential point that struck a couple of other papers about the "shadowy and allegedly independent body" known as the Honours Forfeiture Committee. Who knew that existed?
- National newspapers
- Fred Goodwin
- Daily Telegraph
- Financial Times
- The Guardian
- The Times
- The Independent
- i
- Daily Mirror
- Daily Mail
- Metro
- Newspapers
- David Cameron
guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
The irresistible rise of Will Lewis, News Corp's clean-up campaigner
1 February 2012 - 9:00amYou have to hand it to Will Lewis, the guy has a knack of being in the right place at just the right time.
Then again, as he would undoubtedly say, getting into the right place at the right time is a skill in itself.
Similarly, he has had penchant for making firm friends along the way, and that too has stood him in good stead.
So let's take a walk through the life and times of a man now at the heart of the News Corporation's clean-up campaign as a key member of its management and standards committee (MSC).
His has been an extraordinary career since he graduated from Bristol University and then gained a postgrad diploma in periodical journalism at City University London.
It was in 1991 that Lewis got his grounding as a financial reporter with the Mail on Sunday. Three years later he moved to the Financial Times, where he was noted for obtaining scoops.
In 1999, while working in New York as the mergers and acquisitions editor, he broke the story that Exxon was merging with Mobil. It helped to put the FT on the map in the US.
He returned to the paper's London office as news editor before switching, in 2002, to the Sunday Times as its business editor. It was, by his own admission, a "brutal" period but said later it helped him to learn fast.
In 2005, he was appointed as city editor by the Daily Telegraph and a rapid rise ensued, moving up to deputy editor and then managing director (editorial) before being named as editor in October 2006. Within a year, he also assumed responsibility for the Sunday Telegraph, attaining the title editor-in-chief.
In May 2009, he oversaw the Telegraph's exclusive revelations about MPs expenses, which resulted in the paper being named as newspaper of the year and Lewis winning the journalist-of-the-year accolade.
Within months, he was appointed by the Telegraph Media Group (TMG) to run a digital innovation division, called the Euston Project.
In May 2010, he was pushed out of TMG by its chief executive, Murdoch MacLennan due to differences of opinion between them (see here as well). The project was terminated as separate entity a month later.
Lewis then turned up, in July 2010, as group general manager at News International (NI). His former close colleague at the Euston project, Paul Cheesbrough, had been appointed as NI's chief technology officer the previous month.
Soon after, Lewis hired two of his former lieutenants - TMG's deputy managing editor Rhidian Wynn Davies and consultant editor Chris Lloyd - to become, respectively, NI's director of editorial development and director of editorial operations.
In January 2011, one of Lewis's oldest friends from their shared schooldays, Simon Greenberg, was appointed as NI's director of corporate affairs.
In July 2011, following NI's closure of the News of the World amid new phone hacking revelations, News Corporation set up its management and standards committee (MSC). Lewis and Greenberg were seconded to the unit.
Soon after, the MSC appointed the City PR firm Powerscourt to act on its behalf. Powerscourt was founded by Rory Godson, the former Sunday Times business editor who succeeded Lewis.
Now let's step back for a moment to December 2010, when Daily Telegraph reporters secretly recorded business secretary Vince Cable talking about declaring war on Rupert Murdoch.
It occurred at a time when Cable's department was deciding whether News Corp should be permitted to acquire total ownership of BSkyB.
Before the story was published by the Telegraph, the tape of Cable's remarks was leaked to the BBC's business editor, Robert Peston, another old friend of Lewis's.
TMG called in the corporate investigations firm Kroll to discover how the leak had occurred. In July 2011, it was revealed (here and here) that Kroll's investigators had a "strong suspicion" that Lewis had orchestrated the leak to Peston.
The Kroll report said it had established that there was "extensive telephone, text and social contact" between Lewis and a former TMG employee, who was also a colleague of Lewis's, in the period just before the leak. That employee is now employed by News International.
When questioned about the leak at the Leveson inquiry Lewis refused to answer questions about the leak, saying he wished to protect his sources. (see here as well).
Lewis later issued a statement saying that the counsel to the Leveson inquiry, Robert Jay QC, considered him to "have been of great assistance to the inquiry."
Meanwhile, the MSC is now the centre of media attention, especially since Saturday's arrests of four Sun journalists by Operation Elvedon, which is investigating police corruption.
And if the MSC is high profile, then so is Lewis - the man who once got headline stories and now makes headlines himself.
- Will Lewis
- News Corporation
- News International
- Rupert Murdoch
- Telegraph Media Group
- Daily Telegraph
- Sunday Telegraph
- Sunday Times
- Financial Times
- The Sun
- Mail on Sunday
- Exxon Mobil
- MPs' expenses
- Robert Peston
- BBC
- Vince Cable
- BSkyB
- Media business
- Phone hacking
- Leveson inquiry
- University of Bristol
- City University London
guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Gannett's profits plunge by 33%
31 January 2012 - 12:44pmGannett, the largest newspaper publisher in the United States, posted lower than expected earnings for the final three months of 2011.
It reported a 33% drop in income to $116.9m (£74m) compared with $174.1m (£111m) in the same period the year before.
The company said profits were weighed down by reorganisation costs and other special items, such as expenses related to the departure of its chief executive, Craig Dubow, due to ill health. Last October, he picked up £37m (£23.5m) in retirement, health and disability benefits.
Advertising revenue from Gannett's newspapers, including its flagship USA Today, continued to decline, falling by 7.3% in the US.
The company's British division, Newsquest - publisher of 183 titles - saw ad revenues fall by 5.5%.
The most optimistic part of the report concerns Gannett's digital operations, which it says are both profitable and growing.
Its USAToday.com site and related apps are said to be among the most popular on the net, and it makes a similar claim for its Newsquest sites.
Gannett's shares fell 6.9%, down to $14.17, after the release of its figures.
Sources: MarketWatch/New York Times/paidContent
- Gannett
- Media business
- Newsquest
- Media downturn
- US press and publishing
- Advertising
- United States
- Newspapers
guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Why investors bought 71 US newspapers last year
31 January 2012 - 9:25amThere is still a newspaper publishing market in the United States. Seventy-one of the country's daily newspapers changed hands last year in deals totalling just under $800m (£509m).
Why? A New York Times article concedes that answering that question is difficult. Both advertising and circulation revenues "have come under tremendous pressure in the last few years."
But, among the possibilities, is the belief by some investors that they can turn a quick profit by exploiting under-performing assets. Others may view owning a paper as "a civic duty."
It quotes media industry analyst Agata Kaczanowska as saying: "A lot of these companies are acquiring newspapers and looking for under-performing assets. They'll... go in and slash operations... It's kind of like flipping houses."
Another analyst, Ken Doctor, highlights the "historically low prices" for newspaper companies and the potential for the buyers to make a profit through cost-cutting."
And a third analyst, Alan Mutter, pointed to the deal made by the private equity group Platinum Equity, which bought the San Diego Union-Tribune in 2009 for a sum reported to be less than $50m and resold it for more than $110m last year.
"They're hoping for the same miracle that occurred with Platinum," said Mutter. "That's what all these guys are trying to get."
Real estate assets may also play a part in decisions to buy. Doctor said: "Newspapers have big buildings... usually in a somewhat valuable location."
Then there is the potential for building a viable online audience - and consequent digital advertising revenue - through exploiting the newspaper brand.
Douglas Arthur, a media analyst at banking advisory firm Evercore Partners, said: "There is the beginning of a slow paradigm shift on the web, where suppliers of content and consumers of content are beginning to realise that they need to pay for content... The free lunch will not go on forever."
Source: New York Times
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
