As the war in Afghanistan enters its final chapter, Sean Smith's brutal, uncompromising film from the Helmand frontline shows the horrific chaos of a stalemate that is taking its toll in blood
Where journalists have greatness thrust upon them
Greenslade
Roy Greenslade's Guardian blog on politics, news and the media
Updated: 2 hours 52 min ago
Berlusconi aims to restrict blogging and social networking freedom
31 July 2010 - 9:49amNot content with trying to restrict the newspapers he doesn't control, Italy's prime minister Silvio Berlusconi is now attempting to interfere with the freedom of bloggers and the users of social networking sites.
His government wants to extend a provision within its proposed media and wiretapping law - which requires newspapers or anyone "responsible for informative websites" to publish corrections - by requiring Italians who post on the net to rectify "incorrect facts" by publishing corrections within 48 hours of receiving a complaint.
Any failure to abide by the law would result in a fine on the offending author or publisher of up to €25,000 (£20,800). It also requires bloggers to register with a legal authority.
The planned law has already provoked an outcry among journalists. It spawned this video, "no alla legge bavaglio" (No to the gag law). And it also prompted a "black-out" by the Italian press on 8 July organised by the press union, FNSI.
One of its members, Olivier Basille, said: "This is not just an attempt to gag bloggers and actually all journalists, but more widely it is about stopping the investigation of corruption and organised crime."
Hoping that the European Union might bring pressure to bear on Rome, Reporters Without Borders has written to its president, Herman Van Rompuy.
Sources: The Inquirer/EUObserver/GlobalVoices/Editors' weblog
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Paul Foot Award judges seek investigative journalism entries
31 July 2010 - 8:49amWhen writing about the Bevins Prize yesterday, I mentioned en passant the Paul Foot Award. What I didn't realise is that its judges are now seeking submissions too, with a closing date of 1 September.
The award has been running for six years under the auspices of Private Eye and The Guardian. There is a £5,000 prize for the best example of investigative/campaigning journalism, with awards of £1,000 to five runners-up.
Last year's winner was Ian Cobain of The Guardian and the year before the prize went to Camilla Cavendish of The Times.
Entry form and details can be found here.
PS: A commenter raised a query about the Bevins Prize rules of entry. I have appended the response below the posting (though I'm not certain I understand it!)
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
White House implores Wikileaks to stop posting documents
30 July 2010 - 4:39pmThe White House has implored WikiLeaks to stop posting secret Afghanistan war documents.
President Obama's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said the war logs jeopardised national security and put the lives of Afghan informants and US soldiers at risk.
"I think it's important that no more damage be done to our national security," Gibbs told NBC's Today show today.
The WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange said yesterday that the website had contacted the White House — with the New York Times acting as intermediary — to offer US government officials the chance to go through the documents to make sure no innocent people were identified. But the White House did not respond to the approach, he said.
Assange dismissed allegations that innocent people or informants had been put in danger by the publication of the documents.
US defence secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, called the release of the documents deeply damaging and potentially life-threatening for Afghan informants.
"Mr Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family," Mullen said.
But Assange also has supporters in the US. Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, argues that Wikileaks has become a journalistic necessity.
It is the result, be believes, of the US supreme court's failure to support journalists in their attempts to protect their confidential sources. He writes: "Wikileaks, in short, is a response to journalists' loss of control over their information."
Though Gates has told reporters that the documents offer little insight into current policies and events, Scheer says the stories extracted from the raw data by The Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel "shed new light on the role of Pakistani intelligence, the extent of civilian casualties, Taliban military capabilities and other matters."
Sources: AP/New York Times/HuffPo
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Israel's free daily secures top place in readership chart
30 July 2010 - 4:03pmA free Israeli daily, Israel HaYom, has just become the country's leading newspaper.
Its estimated readership is reported to have edged ahead of the long-time market leader, Yediot Aharonot. According to a biannual TGI survey, Israel HaYom has a readership of 35.2% compared with Yediot's 34.9%.
Two important dailies have lost readers. Haaretz dropped from 6.6% to 6.4% while Ma'ariv went from 13.6% to 12.5%.
The fall of the latter title will doubtless delight Israel HaYom's owner, the US-based billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who once accused Ma'ariv's owner of lacking sufficient patriotism.
Adelson is a big supporter of Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and an opponent of the two-state solution for the Palestinian people.
Critics argue that Israel HaYom follows the same political line. They also claim that its readership success is due mainly to Adelson's huge investment.
Sources: Globes/Jerusalem Post/The Independent
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Mail's Irish group pays €100,000 to dismissed journalist
30 July 2010 - 2:59pmA journalist has cleared his name, and picked up €100,000, after being embroiled in a bizarre sequence of events involving the Irish edition of the Mail on Sunday.
In March 2006, Jason O'Callaghan wrote an article for Ireland on Sunday - as the paper was then known - about a visit to the Republic by Paris Hilton.
It was based on a briefing from an anonymous source he described in the piece as "an Irish PR boss". But he was asked by one of the paper's executives for the name of the PR company.
The company was then mentioned in the article that was subsequently published in Ireland on Sunday, thereby revealing O'Callaghan's source, who was less than delighted. The source demanded an apology, which was then given.
However, O'Callaghan got a dressing down in a phone call from the managing editor, Ted Verity, because the paper had to issue its apology. And an hour after that, he was informed that his contract was being terminated and he would be paid one month's notice money.
O'Callaghan then sued the paper's publishers, Associated Newspapers, over his dismissal. It was finally settled yesterday in legal negotiations.
Under the settlement, an apology was read to the high court in Dublin by Gary Compton, counsel for Associated Newspapers. After admitting that the paper had referred to the PR company by name in its article, the statement added:
We are happy to acknowledge that in the draft submitted by Jason O'Callaghan no such reference was included."
We are happy to clarify this and we regret any upset caused to Mr O'Callaghan. We acknowledge that Mr O'Callaghan is an impeccable freelance journalist.
It is believed the settlement included a payment of some €100,000 (£84,000), including costs, to O'Callaghan.
Source: Irish Times
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Time publishes shock cover image of woman disfigured by Taliban
30 July 2010 - 12:14pmTime magazine's latest issue carries this disturbing cover image. It's a portrait of Aisha, a shy 18-year-old Afghan woman who was sentenced by a Taliban commander to have her nose and ears cut off for fleeing her abusive in-laws.
Aisha posed for the picture because she wants the world to see the effect a Taliban resurgence would have on the women of Afghanistan.
Her picture is accompanied by a powerful story on how Afghan women have embraced the freedoms that have come from the defeat of the Taliban — and how they fear a Taliban revival.
Richard Stengel, Time's managing editor, writes: "I thought long and hard about whether to put this image on the cover... First, I wanted to make sure of Aisha's safety and that she understood what it would mean to be on the cover.
"She knows that she will become a symbol of the price Afghan women have had to pay for the repressive ideology of the Taliban. We also confirmed that she is in a secret location protected by armed guards and sponsored by the NGO Women for Afghan Women.
"Aisha will head to the US for reconstructive surgery sponsored by the Grossman Burn Foundation, a humanitarian organisation in California." Stengel goes on to explain:
I'm acutely aware that this image will be seen by children, who will undoubtedly find it distressing. We have consulted with a number of child psychologists about its potential impact.
Some think children are so used to seeing violence in the media that the image will have little effect, but others believe that children will find it very scary and distressing...
I showed it to my two young sons, nine, and 12, who both immediately felt sorry for Aisha and asked why anyone would have done such harm to her. I apologise to readers who find the image too strong...
But bad things do happen to people, and it is part of our job to confront and explain them. In the end, I felt that the image is a window into the reality of what is happening — and what can happen — in a war that affects and involves all of us.
I would rather confront readers with the Taliban's treatment of women than ignore it. I would rather people know that reality as they make up their minds about what the U.S. and its allies should do in Afghanistan.
Photographer Jodi Bieber explains in this video how she pictured Aisha.
Source: Time
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Why is 'data journalism' less glamorous than 'sources journalism'?
30 July 2010 - 11:07amWhy is "data journalism" a minority sport? Which newspaper's famous investigation rested on a year-long trawl through documents? Which even more famous investigation made the use of sources seem glamorous? All the answers can be found in my article, We should be thankful to Wikileaks, on the CNN site.
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Daily Mail's Paul Dacre slams PCC critics as ignorant and predjudiced
30 July 2010 - 10:38amIn his typically forthright manner, Paul Dacre has taken a swipe at critics of the Press Complaints Commission.
He is exercised by those people "who should know better" who illustrate "a huge ignorance about how self-regulation works." They include politicians, the leaders of "self-appointed media accountability groups" and bloggers.
His complaints are made in his statement as chairman of the the editors' code of practice committee that accompanies its latest annual report.
One of his examples of ignorance - a doctor's call for lay members to join the PCC (when, of course, they are there, and in the majority) - touches once again on the problem of the commission's visibility.
Although people say they know of its existence, they know little about its composition, how it operates and the work that it does.
I could suggest to Dacre - editor of the Daily Mail -
that one of the key reasons for the PCC's low profile is that newspapers like his do not publicise the commission well enough. How often does the Mail mention the PCC? Why is there no link on its website to the PCC?
Anyway, back to his statement. He rightly takes issue with a suggestion by the Commons culture, media and sport select committee that papers adjudged guilty of breaching the code should be suspended for a day and/or be fined. He writes:
The first suggestion would bring joy to Robert Mugabe. The second would have Messrs Sue, Grabbit and Runne rubbing their greedy hands with glee.
It cannot be said too often that the imposition of sizable fines would result in complainants and particularly the press having to use lawyers to defend their interests - signalling the death of a FREE fast system of complaints adjudication.
He notes that many such ideas - also evident in submissions to the code review, and the recent governance review panel - "sadly perpetuate opinions founded more in prejudice and preconception than fact." He continues:
The sadness is that much of this criticism simply misses the point, for it is an ineluctable truth that many provincial newspapers and some nationals are now in a near-terminal economic condition.
If our critics spent as much zeal trying to help reverse this tragic situation and work out how good journalism - which is, by its nature, expensive - is going to survive financially in an internet age, then democracy and the public's right to know would be much better served.
Dacre calls for greater understanding by the PCC's "detractors in parliament and in these self-appointed media accountability groups." (I guess he means MediaWise and the Media Standards Trust. I'm not certain who he is referring to in his mention of the blogosphere).
He concludes: "They will probably never concede the truth, which is that the PCC has over the years been a great success story. Britain's newspapers are infinitely better behaved than they were two decades ago.
"Yes, the industry can do more to improve standards. We will rise to our challenge. If our critics will rise to theirs, today's often-corrosive debate could become instead tomorrow's constructive way forward."
Source: Code committee statement
- Paul Dacre
- Press Complaints Commission
- Editors
- Newspapers
- Magazines
- National newspapers
- Regional & local newspapers
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Entrants invited for the 2010 Bevins Prize award
30 July 2010 - 9:18amI don't do awards. Let me qualify that. I do give space to some international press freedom awards because I consider them of crucial importance in helping to publicise heroic journalists, most of whom live and work in totalitarian states.
I have also covered one British award, that given in memory of Paul Foot, because it champions investigative reporting.
Today I'm pleased to mention another, The Bevins Prize, which is particularly apposite in the wake of the Wikileaks revelations and the consequent importance of "data journalism".
The award was founded in honour of political journalist Anthony Bevins who was one of the few reporters willing to spend the time to sift through raw data.
As a commenter to this blog, simonh, recently pointed out, Bevins was prepared to plough through the detail of select committee reports etc "to get stories that would otherwise have passed under the radar."
Bevins, who died in 2001, worked for several national titles in his career but managed to maintain his own independence. "Wherever he worked," it says on the award site, "Bevins researched rigorously, and regularly broke otherwise untouched – even 'untouchable' – stories."
In that spirit, the award in his name is aimed at encouraging and promoting the relentless pursuit of truth.
The two previous winners were Deborah Haynes, Iraq correspondent for The Times who exposed the plight of translators working for the British army, and Paul Lewis, a news reporter for The Guardian who revealed the circumstances of Ian Tomlinson's death in last year's G20 disturbances.
Now Bevins Prize organisers are calling for entrants to this year's award (a bronze statue of a "rat up a drainpipe", a favourite Bevins' phrase).
Entries must be received by 3 September. Details here.
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Mexican editor dares to campaign against drug barons
30 July 2010 - 9:09amAt a time when Mexico's journalists are the targets of organised crime and violence against reporters goes largely unpunished, declaring an editorial war against corruption and drug trafficking seems suicidal.
But that's precisely what Zeta, a weekly news magazine in Tijuana, has done.
Editor Adela Navarro, who stepped into the chair after her predecessor, Francisco Ortiz, was shot dead, says: "I love my line of work. Other newspapers along the border have decided to stop investigating drug trafficking. Us, no."
Despite the dangers, she insists that Zeta will go on publishing the photos and names of drug lords so that "people can identify and denounce them."
Source: Knight Centre
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Council cuts down on newspaper orders to save money
29 July 2010 - 3:49pmLocal authority spending cuts could affect newspaper sales if the latest decision by Aberdeen council is replicated across Britain.
From Monday onwards, there will be fewer daily papers available for the city's councillors to read in their lounge.
The administration will no longer provide copies of the Daily Record, the Scottish Sun, the Scottish Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times and The Times.
Aberdeen's councillors will have to make do with the city's own titles - the Press and Journal and the Evening Express - one from Glasgow, The Herald, and one from Edinburgh, The Scotsman.
Expected savings: about £1,336 a year. (No jokes please about excessive Scottish thrift). Perhaps the good burghers of Aberdeen will buy their own papers, or read at least some of those titles for free online.
Anyone know of councils elsewhere doing the same?
Source: AllMediaScotland
- Scotland
- Newspapers
- Regional & local newspapers
- Financial Times
- The Times
- Daily Telegraph
- The Sun
- Daily Record
- Daily Mail
- The Scotsman
- Newspapers & magazines
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Murdoch seeks $600,000 from White House for news service
29 July 2010 - 3:26pmIt looks as though Rupert Murdoch has finally found a way to make the White House pay — literally.
The Wall Street Journal has raised the rate it charges the administration's news clipping service by a jaw-dropping $600,000 (£384,000) per year.
"Obviously, we're not paying", said an administration official. "We have no idea how we're going to handle this. We may have to drop [The Journal]."
It's unclear how News Corporation arrived at the figure. For the past decade, the White House has paid a small media company, Bulletin News, about $100,000 a year to prepare customised packages of excerpts from print, TV, radio and blog outlets. The WSJ has always been part of the package... until now.
Earlier this month, a Bulletin News executive informed the White House of the fee increase, which appears to have been motivated by Murdoch's business model, not his conservative politics.
Dow Jones, the News Corp subsidiary that publishes the WSJ, runs its own aggregation service, Factiva, and the administration has been told it could get a substantially better deal if it cut out the middleman — Bulletin News — and negotiated directly with Factiva.
There is one simple way around the problem. Individual administration officials could subscribe to the Journal personally, and pass stories along to fellow employees.
Source: Politico.com
- Rupert Murdoch
- Barack Obama
- News Corporation
- Wall Street Journal
- US press and publishing
- Charging for content
- Paywalls
- United States
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Chinese police remove journalist from 'most wanted' status
29 July 2010 - 10:58amFurther to the posting below, Chinese journalist on 'most wanted' list, it now appears that senior police chiefs have decided that the local police department was wrong to place reporter Qiu Ziming on the most wanted list.
So the police have rescinded the order, accepting the view that it "did not comply with the relevant laws". They have also been ordered to apologise to Qiu and compensate him.
Moreover, they have also announced that they will investigate the newspaper's allegations against the company about insider trading. The company, Kan Specialties Material Corporation, says it has done nothing wrong.
Since going on the run several days ago, Qiu has garnered broad support across the internet. His Weibo account gained 8,000 "followers" and his case generated sympathetic media coverage.
An online poll organised by Sina.com (China's equivalent of Twitter) drew more than 33,000 responses. And 86% of users viewed the police pursuit of Qiu as "unlawful".
Sources: MySinchew/Tania Branigan
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Time for British libel arbitration panel is long overdue
29 July 2010 - 10:38amThere are a number of interesting features to today's libel victory by Tamil hunger striker Parameswaran Subramanyam.
I can see how the Daily Mail tripped up. Clearly, a police source gave the paper false information, leading to its way-over-the-top report: "Hunger striker's £7m Big Mac."
There were also two unequivocal picture captions: "Tamil who cost London a fortune in policing was sneaking in fast-food" and "Tamil takeaways" plus, naturally, a picture of a Big Mac itself.
I noted the following day that the Mail carried a story of Subramanyam's denial, Tamil hunger striker: I did NOT break my fast, but it was a news report rather than an apology.
It suggested that the paper did not believe Subramanyam, because it also contained a (sort of) justification for its original story. One sentence said: "The Mail revealed how police surveillance teams saw fast food being smuggled to Mr Subramaniyan."
And the concluding sentence stated: "Scotland Yard last night refused to discuss whether it had received intelligence that the hunger striker had been passed food."
That's one of those intriguing non-comments. Did it mean that the story was correct but the police didn't want to say anything on the record? Or was it an indication that the story was just plain wrong?
The latter turned out to be the case. As the Mail's counsel said in court this morning, the paper "published the article in good faith based on information that, at the time, was understood to be reliable."
I can also understand how The Sun came a cropper. Its online team simply repeated the Mail story without checking on its veracity. And that, sadly, happens often - in print and online - when a story conforms to a paper's prejudices.
But the editors and journalists on both newspapers know all this. They would have been aware for many months of the shaky ground for the false allegations made against Subramanyam.
So, once again, the central problem is about the length of time it takes to obtain justice once people sue papers for libel.
The stories libelling Subramanyam were published in October last year, so he has had to wait almost 10 months for the story to be officially denied.
Why? Well, once newspapers are sued the legal machinery kicks in because, aside from reputation, money is at stake. In this case the claimant has been paid "substantial damages" (£80,000 evidently) plus his costs.
First off, papers try to bluff it out, hoping to justify the unjustifiable. Once they've lost that battle, it all comes down to haggling over the level of damages and the wording of statements.
The final agreement will have been hammered out in lengthy and costly negotiations. It is an unsatisfactory way of sorting out such matters.
Ahead of mooted libel law reform, there have been various ideas about dealing with these cases by the setting up a legal panel. This would be a much swifter and less costly way of settling disputes.
All three parties involved - the Mail, The Sun and the upset, libelled Subramanyam - would have benefited from the creation of such a sensible and practical arbitration panel.
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Trinity Mirror extracts profit from its Manchester acquisition
29 July 2010 - 9:26amGosh! Look at what Trinity Mirror has done with its new Manchester acquisition.
The Manchester Evening News and its various sister titles have contributed revenue of £18.2m and operating profits of £2.7m to their new parent.
Trinity has managed to extract that profit in about three months, given that it bought the MEN and 30 other titles from Guardian Media Group in March. It paid £7.4m and the cancellation of a £37.4m printing contract.
Trinity's half-year figures show that the Manchester deal has helped to boost the group's income, which would have suffered a 5% drop without it.
"The acquisition of GMG Regional Media was a clear demonstration of our ability to lead consolidation in regional media in a way that adds substantial value for shareholders," said TM's chief executive Sly Bailey.
The GMG purchase has clearly exceeded Trinity's expectations by making a significant impact on its regional advertising revenues. Without the deal they were down 8%; with it, they increased by 6%. Advertising revenues from the national titles rose 2.2%.
Overall, Trinity - publisher of the Mirror group titles, several regional dailies and scores of weeklies - reported flat revenue in the 26 weeks up to 4 July at £382.2m, compared with £383m in the same period last year. But pre-tax profits leaped considerably, up from £2.1m last year to £84.8m.
Trinity also gave an adjusted profit figure, after stripping out non-recurring items, of £50.4m, up from £31.3m. The group cut debt by £15.6m to £308.4m.
Relentless cost-cutting, which has seen the group axe 20% of staff, shut 30 newspapers, close offices and a printing plant, has helped Trinity push margins up from 12.8% to 16.2%. It hit its £15m savings target and has increased its full-year figure by £5m to £25m.
Bailey said: "The continued execution of our clear and consistent strategy has enabled the group to deliver a strong performance for the first half of the year with operating profit up 25.7% and earnings per share up 58.6%.
"This was achieved despite a fragile economy and volatile trading conditions.
"We have continued to invest in the business through the downturn in strengthening the portfolio and delivering IT led efficiencies, in addition to maintaining a keen focus on costs."
And there are, of course, more cuts under way. Mirror group is shedding 200 staff, including casuals. Journalists have threatened to strike in a ballot that is being held again.
Sources: The Business Desk/Trinity Mirror
- Trinity Mirror
- Manchester Evening News
- Guardian Media Group
- Regional & local newspapers
- National newspapers
- Newspapers
- Media business
- Newspapers & magazines
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Journalistic blogging is fair, balanced and ethical
29 July 2010 - 8:42amI have been taken to task for a posting I put up here eight days ago on an article by Cardiff University's Andy Williams about the state of the newspapers run by Media Wales, a division of Trinity Mirror.
David Higgerson argues that journalism bloggers (well, two of us - me and Press Gazette editor Dominic Ponsford) are letting the side down because we posted on the Williams critique without seeking a prior response from Trinity Mirror.
Higgerson, by the way, is head of multimedia for Trinity Mirror's regional titles, but he stresses that he is writing "in a personal capacity."
Anyway, to the substantive point. This blog is a mixture of aggregation, commentary, analysis, diary items and news reporting. It represents a developing form of journalism as we come to terms with the digital revolution.
This platform is very different from print, not least in the way it allows for swift, almost instantaneous, rebuttal and comment from users. It is a forum for the rapid exchange of ideas and views. That is a great advantage, and an advance, over printed newspapers.
In content terms, a blog is not a screen replica of a print newspaper. It is journalism in the raw, a live conversation between people interested and involved in a specific topic (in this case, journalism).
It does not mean, as Higgerson argues, that we bloggers ignore basic journalistic principles. If a news story is acutely sensitive (witness yesterday's separate items here on the News of the World and The Independent) then it may be necessary to ensure the posting reflects opposing points of view (or fact).
That said, I would even be prepared to make out a case for running stories on this blog without contacting "the other side" in the knowledge that this platform enables people to respond.
I often carry lengthy pieces in which someone takes issue with an original posting. And that's exactly what happened in the Williams' case.
A lengthy piece of academic research is not a news story. And I didn't doubt for a moment that Trinity Mirror would take issue with his study, as it did.
This blog therefore became just what it should be - a forum hosting a debate between each side, between Williams and Trinity Mirror. It allowed for a full, fair and balanced exposition of each side's point of view.
But I would not wish to claim that this blog is neutral or objective. I do have views (some might call them prejudices) and they undoubtedly affect how I post and what I post. Newspapers rarely admit to that bias.
So, in the case of Trinity Mirror's stewardship of its papers, I concede that I was predisposed to believe that Williams had put his finger on a genuine problem (notwithstanding that there were glaring errors in his assertions about TM's disposal programme, pensions and levels of debt).
No-one is more aware than I that newspapers are facing an unprecedented crisis, but it does not blind me to the fact that their owners have imperilled journalism with injudicious cost-cutting.
That takes me to me final beef with Higgerson. He suggests in a previous posting about the Williams study that it constitutes an attack on the reporters who work for Media Wales.
If my email inbox is anything to go by, I don't think all the staff see it like that. Unlike their bosses, they do not feel able to speak out in public about their belief that the Williams report is spot on.
Oh yes, and a final, final, point: Higgerson's chronology was wrong. Dominic posted his blog comment more than three hours after my posting.
- Blogging
- Trinity Mirror
- Regional & local newspapers
- Wales
- Newspapers & magazines
- Media business
- Media downturn
- Cardiff University
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Council apologises to newspaper over freedom of information failure
29 July 2010 - 8:30amA council has apologised to a weekly newspaper for failing to release a key document that a reporter had requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
But Wycombe district council did give the document - about the siting of a sports stadium - to a member of the public rather than the Bucks Free Press.
Now council spokeswoman Catherine Spalton has issued a statement apologising to the paper "for any inconvenience or confusion" caused by not releasing an important consultancy report into the stadium plan.
She added: "We will be reviewing their request and ensuring that all appropriate documents are released to them."
Free Press editor Steve Cohen said: "We were stunned when we realised that the council treated our request differently [from that of a member of the public] but we are pleased that the council was big enough to accept its error and apologise."
There has been considerable local opposition to the spending of £750,000 on the project, which will result in moves by the Wycombe Wanderers football team and London Wasps rugby side.
Sources: Bucks Free Press/holdthefrontpage
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Chinese reporter in hiding after exposing company's insider trading
29 July 2010 - 8:05amA Chinese reporter who exposed insider trading has become a fugitive from justice. Police are hunting for Qiu Ziming to charge him with "fabricating and disseminating false information" that harmed a company's reputation".
Qiu, who works for the Beijing-based business weekly, the Economic Observer, went into hiding after being placed on a national list of wanted criminals.
His newspaper is standing firmly behind him and the four stories it published, which alleged there had been illegal trading in a paper manufacturing company in Suichang, east China.
Qiu has defended himself through messages posted on Sina.com's microblogging service (China's version of Twitter). He also claims that company officials had offered him and the newspaper bribes to withhold the story.
The paper's editor-in-chief, Wang Shengzhong, has issued a statement saying: "As a responsible media outlet, this newspaper has always upheld the principles of rational and constructive reporting.
"We believe that Qiu Ziming, along with all our journalists, has abided by the principles of objective and fair reporting."
The newspaper said media organisations had the right to act as a watchdog, adding: "We strongly condemn the use of public power to suppress public opinion and any threats to the personal safety of media workers."
It has called on the General Administration of Press and Publication, which oversees China's newspapers, and the official All-China Journalists Association to safeguard the right to report and protect the personal safety of media workers.
Zhou Ze, a Beijing lawyer, said it was an abuse of power for police to place Qiu on a 'most wanted' list.
He said: "The police cannot order Qiu's arrest without verifying the truth of his reports. Reporters have the right to monitor corporations."
Sources: Global Times/China Daily/The Guardian
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Freedom of information campaigner justifies writing behind a paywall
28 July 2010 - 5:05pmFreedom of information campaigner Heather Brooke answers critics who think it ironic that her articles for The Times are now behind a paywall.
First off, she writes, there is a difference between public bodies and private industries. The former should be transparent, and therefore accessible, so that the taxpayer can be assured they are working efficiently for the benefit of all. She continues:
The Times is a private company. Its survival depends entirely on whether people feel they get something of value for the money they pay.
Newspapers are not free and they never have been. They can appear to be so but someone, somewhere is covering the costs whether that is through advertising, a patron's largesse or a licence fee. Advertising is no longer subsidising the industry and so the cost must fall somewhere – why not on the people who use it?
Brooke goes further by suggesting that charging people for access to content increases the chances of honest journalism because "readers are not going to pay for inaccurate rumour or propaganda." She adds a personal note:
I believe the experience and skills I've gained over 22 years as a journalist and writer have value, which is why I don't give away my work for free.
I've written for The Times because they have valued what I do enough to pay me. The New Statesman magazine also asked me to write an article but they didn't want to pay me anything. To me, that shows how much they value quality journalism.
If you don't think there is any value in the work I, or any other serious journalists do, then don't spend your money on it. At least you have the choice. You'll still have to pay your taxes, though.
Now that's telling us. Anyone care to disagree?
Source: Heather Brooke
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
News of the World releases John Higgins video tapes to investigators
28 July 2010 - 3:40pmThe News of the World has handed over to investigators all the video tapes shot during its sting operation on snooker player John Higgins.
I understand that the paper has given its unedited footage to David Douglas, a board member of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA).
The former Met Police chief superintendent was given the task of investigating accusations made by the paper in May that Higgins had agreed to fix matches in return for a £261,000 bribe.
Douglas has, in turn, passed the video tapes on to Sport Resolutions, the independent dispute resolution service for sport that will judge whether Higgins was at fault.
Higgins and his then business partner, Pat Mooney, have protested that the News of the World entrapped them into making incriminating statements during a visit to Kiev.
They argue they were plied with drink. They have also contested the credibility of tapes that were posted on the paper's website to accompany the story.
The men's lawyers have not had the opportunity to see the tapes. It was claimed in a posting on the sportingintelligence website earlier this week that they refused an offer to receive the tapes in return for agreeing not to take legal action against the News of the World.
However, if that offer was made, it did not come directly from the NoW. The paper issued a statement yesterday categorically denying the claim. It said it had not had any dealings with the lawyers representing Higgins or Mooney about the tapes.
It added: "We stand by our revelations published in May this year and have made all of our evidence available to the authorities."
Until that statement, there had been a growing belief within sporting and journalistic circles that the newspaper was about to back down over its allegations.
That view was fuelled by previous claims on the sportingintelligence site about the authenticity of the tapes. It commissioned forensic tests on the edited footage which suggested that there was substantial manipulation, with over-dubbing, chronological changes and contextual infelicities.
Higgins, who has been suspended from playing snooker by the WPBSA, will not know his fate until a Sports Resolution tribunal hearing, to be chaired by Ian Mill QC, that is set for early September
Both he and Mooney have been told of the charges they will face at the hearing.
A spokesman for Higgins said: "Throughout this process we have avoided being drawn on speculation or conjecture. Given there is a quasi-judicial procedure on going, it would be wrong for us to comment.
"We are completely focused on clearing John's name in relation to the accusations of match fixing."
Roy Greensladeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
