I AM strangely elated by the news that the owner of the Daily Sport and Sunday Sport newspapers has said that it is to enter administration after failing to pay off its debts.
I have lots of reasons to hate the publications. They were obscene and an anathema to real journalism, in that truth and accuracy played no part in decisions to publish.
Their attempts at humour, like Lancaster bomber found on the Moon or Elvis Presley is alive and well and living wherever, were mainly just stupid.
Most seriously they fuelled the calls for regulation on the Press.
When the media was trying to fend off active political campaigns to have them censored by politicians and their appointees, The Daily Star sent a reporter under cover into a hospital to photograph and interview the ‘Allo ‘Allo actor Gorden Kaye who had a terrible head injury from a freak road accident.
This was portrayed as proof of need for regulation, when no legitimate newspaper or broadcast medium would have dreamed of such an intrusion.
The trouble was that the Daily Sport wanted it both ways. They wanted to join the club of the media but didn’t want to obey any of its rules.
Sport Media Group (SMG), which in 2009 was saved from going out of business by former owner David Sullivan, has ceased trading with immediate effect.
The announcement came after the group warned it had experienced "an insufficient recovery" in trading since the adverse weather in December last year. This was as truthful as their stories.
The fact is that the Daily Sport filled a very narrow niche market, for a few years, and was now obsolete. Its place has been taken by the Internet.
That’s where people look for irresponsible, unregulated, frivolous, celebrity-driven news. If they want serious information and responsible reporting they turn to the traditional media.
Daily Sport, which specialises in celebrity news and soft porn stories and images, and was launched in 1991 by Mr Sullivan, had had its day.
I feel sorry for the 130-odd staff it employed, but its demise has been on the cards for some time. At its peak Daily Sport circulation, in 2005, was 189,473, the Saturday edition at 110,785 and the Sunday Sport at 167,473.
SMG withdrew its titles from the official newspaper industry monthly circulation audit after sales plunged and left each title at around a third of peak levels.
The company confirmed on Friday it had ceased trading - meaning its papers will not appear on news-stands - and it is set to appoint an administrator.
The chosen firm will seek to sell or close the operation. If shut down, it will be the first national newspaper to fold since Today in November 1995.
If any newspaper had to close, I am glad it was the Daily Sport.
Saturday, 2 April 2011
Monday, 28 March 2011
Silence on regime change
THE BBC’s reporting of events in Libya, already outrageously slanted, hit new depths of journalism tonight. The other media are nearly as bad.
The military action by America, the UK and France, from bases in Italy, was sanctioned by the United Nations on the understanding that it was to be confined to protecting Libyan citizens from attack and slaughter by the forces of dictator, Colonel Gaddafi.
They were specifically told that they were not to aspire to regime change.
This was very lucidly and eloquently explained by Penrith and Border MP, Rory Stewart, on Question Time last Thursday, when the unconventional Conservative MP warned of mission creep, as the Americans call it.
So what has happened? After bombing forces loyal to Gaddafi as they were said to be about to attack the rebels’ base city of Benghazi, the allies have been laying a trail of destruction across the North East coastline of Libya, clearing the way for the rebels to follow.
This is an obvious and blatant contravention of the UN resolution. It is not protecting Libya’s people from attack. It is giving the rebels clear military support.
That is interference in a civil war. Earlier today the Russians, who were so sceptical about the UN vote they abstained, pointed out this deception.
But what do the British media do? They ignore the Russian comments and blithely continue reporting the allied action without any analysis.
This evening the BBC and national newspaper web-sites were still lauding the “untrained” rebels for defeating Libya’s professional army, as they closed in on Colonel Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte.
Upbeat jingoistic language, like “the rebels have made lightning advances west from their stronghold in Benghazi”, litter the news channels.
But it is obvious that Gaddafi’s loyal troops dare not fight back, otherwise they will be bombed out of existence by the missiles from warships and aeroplanes. Some of the eye-witness reportage, notably in the Independent on Sunday, showed just how brutal and horrific these attacks on Gaddafi’s soldiers had been.
If this is not engineering regime change, I don’t know what is.
This issue ought to be right up there at the top of the BBC’s news agenda, not ignored as it was on the main news bulletins.
The public may support David Cameron’s decision to send troops and machines of war to Libya , but opinion polls would suggest the opposite.
It was not comforting to realise that he was only now starting to make contact with these rebels and find out what sort of people they are and what their aims are.
It is not the media’s job to decide what is right or wrong. But it is their job to highlight inconsistencies between what the Government says is the policy it supports and the reality on the ground. That is why licence fee payers pay for reporters to travel to these foreign trouble spots.
For reporters and camera crews to meekly follow the military line without putting it in political context is a betrayal of their profession.
The military action by America, the UK and France, from bases in Italy, was sanctioned by the United Nations on the understanding that it was to be confined to protecting Libyan citizens from attack and slaughter by the forces of dictator, Colonel Gaddafi.
They were specifically told that they were not to aspire to regime change.
This was very lucidly and eloquently explained by Penrith and Border MP, Rory Stewart, on Question Time last Thursday, when the unconventional Conservative MP warned of mission creep, as the Americans call it.
So what has happened? After bombing forces loyal to Gaddafi as they were said to be about to attack the rebels’ base city of Benghazi, the allies have been laying a trail of destruction across the North East coastline of Libya, clearing the way for the rebels to follow.
This is an obvious and blatant contravention of the UN resolution. It is not protecting Libya’s people from attack. It is giving the rebels clear military support.
That is interference in a civil war. Earlier today the Russians, who were so sceptical about the UN vote they abstained, pointed out this deception.
But what do the British media do? They ignore the Russian comments and blithely continue reporting the allied action without any analysis.
This evening the BBC and national newspaper web-sites were still lauding the “untrained” rebels for defeating Libya’s professional army, as they closed in on Colonel Gaddafi’s home town of Sirte.
Upbeat jingoistic language, like “the rebels have made lightning advances west from their stronghold in Benghazi”, litter the news channels.
But it is obvious that Gaddafi’s loyal troops dare not fight back, otherwise they will be bombed out of existence by the missiles from warships and aeroplanes. Some of the eye-witness reportage, notably in the Independent on Sunday, showed just how brutal and horrific these attacks on Gaddafi’s soldiers had been.
If this is not engineering regime change, I don’t know what is.
This issue ought to be right up there at the top of the BBC’s news agenda, not ignored as it was on the main news bulletins.
The public may support David Cameron’s decision to send troops and machines of war to Libya , but opinion polls would suggest the opposite.
It was not comforting to realise that he was only now starting to make contact with these rebels and find out what sort of people they are and what their aims are.
It is not the media’s job to decide what is right or wrong. But it is their job to highlight inconsistencies between what the Government says is the policy it supports and the reality on the ground. That is why licence fee payers pay for reporters to travel to these foreign trouble spots.
For reporters and camera crews to meekly follow the military line without putting it in political context is a betrayal of their profession.
Friday, 18 March 2011
County name in a pickle
CAN there be a more ridiculous demonstration of the nonsense surrounding the non-county of Cumbria than today’s ruling that Cumberland sausage has been granted Protected Geographical Indication status under European law.
It says that Cumberland sausage has been successful in its bid to be made only in Cumbria.
Why? Cumberland means the traditional county North and West of Orton Scar.
Cumberland doesn’t mean Cumbria, which was an administrative county invented in 1974. It doesn’t include Westmorland, Lancashire North of the Sands or those bits of Yorkshire North Riding, like Sedbergh, that were nicked, to make Cumbria.
The Cumberland Sausage now ranks alongside the likes of Champagne, Parma ham and Greek feta cheese in having Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) status under EU law. Other protected UK food and drink products include Cornish clotted cream and Stilton cheese.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the move would guarantee its heritage and be a major boost for Cumbria's butchers.
To display the PGI mark, the sausage must be produced, processed and prepared in Cumbria and have a meat content of at least 80%. Recipes vary from butcher to butcher, but must include seasoning and be sold in a long coil.
That may be good news for the customer, but it has nothing to do with geographical origin.
If any proof was needed, it comes in the distinctive shape of Peter Gott, of the Cumberland Sausage Association, who said: "This is a great milestone for the county and a well deserved place in England's food history for a truly sensational, diverse food product."
Peter of course is Westmorland through and through, with his farm near Endmoor south of Kendal.
Food minister Jim Paice carried on the confusion when he said: "We're justly proud of British food and I'm delighted to welcome traditional Cumberland sausage as the first of our many fine sausages to win protected status.
"This should be a significant boost to Cumbrian producers, who will now be able to prove that their product is the real thing."
He obviously cannot tell Cumberland from Cumbria, either.
Westmorland Sausages are just as good, if slightly different from, Cumberland Sausages. But today’s ruling makes no mention of them.
Now if someone wants to use a recipe for Cumbrian sausages, then they could be said to come from Cumbria. But Cumberland Sausages can’t come from Westmorland, Lancashire or Yorkshire.
It says that Cumberland sausage has been successful in its bid to be made only in Cumbria.
Why? Cumberland means the traditional county North and West of Orton Scar.
Cumberland doesn’t mean Cumbria, which was an administrative county invented in 1974. It doesn’t include Westmorland, Lancashire North of the Sands or those bits of Yorkshire North Riding, like Sedbergh, that were nicked, to make Cumbria.
The Cumberland Sausage now ranks alongside the likes of Champagne, Parma ham and Greek feta cheese in having Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) status under EU law. Other protected UK food and drink products include Cornish clotted cream and Stilton cheese.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the move would guarantee its heritage and be a major boost for Cumbria's butchers.
To display the PGI mark, the sausage must be produced, processed and prepared in Cumbria and have a meat content of at least 80%. Recipes vary from butcher to butcher, but must include seasoning and be sold in a long coil.
That may be good news for the customer, but it has nothing to do with geographical origin.
If any proof was needed, it comes in the distinctive shape of Peter Gott, of the Cumberland Sausage Association, who said: "This is a great milestone for the county and a well deserved place in England's food history for a truly sensational, diverse food product."
Peter of course is Westmorland through and through, with his farm near Endmoor south of Kendal.
Food minister Jim Paice carried on the confusion when he said: "We're justly proud of British food and I'm delighted to welcome traditional Cumberland sausage as the first of our many fine sausages to win protected status.
"This should be a significant boost to Cumbrian producers, who will now be able to prove that their product is the real thing."
He obviously cannot tell Cumberland from Cumbria, either.
Westmorland Sausages are just as good, if slightly different from, Cumberland Sausages. But today’s ruling makes no mention of them.
Now if someone wants to use a recipe for Cumbrian sausages, then they could be said to come from Cumbria. But Cumberland Sausages can’t come from Westmorland, Lancashire or Yorkshire.
Monday, 31 January 2011
Bad law proposal
Oh no, not again! MPs are planning to introduce yet another law to interfere with freedom of speech, when it is completely unnecessary.
Granted, politicians often use leaks to the Sunday newspapers to test out public opinion. If their latest wheeze meets a hostile reception, then they can abandon the promised legislation and blame the journalist for making it up.
But the article in the Sunday Times saying the media face a ban on naming criminal suspects had the stamp of official approval. Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke and Dominic Grieve, the Attorney-general, no less are said to be supporting the idea.
It comes in a bill tabled by Conservative MP Anna Soubry in the wake of the publicity surrounding the arrest of the retired Bristol schoolmaster Chris Jeffries, who came under the spotlight while being questioned by police investigating the death of Joanna Yeates. Another man has since been charged with her murder.
Now I have blogged before on how disgracefully Mr Jeffries was treated particularly by the tabloid national Press, although the BBC and other electronic media were nearly as bad.
But we don’t need new laws that are almost certain to be interpreted in such a way as to inhibit perfectly legitimate reporting. Just use the laws we already have.
Ms Soubry was reported as saying that the law as it stands means an innocent person can be vilified, have their lives dismantled and their reputation sullied with complete disregard to his or her right to privacy.
That is just wrong. Broadly defamation and contempt of court ought to have the media in a completely water-tight pincer movement once an arrest has been made.
If they vilify someone who is arrested and later proved to be guilty, then the courts can and should prosecute for contempt. If the person is later proved to be innocent, like Mr Jeffries, then he or she can take the media to the cleaners through this country’s draconian libel laws.
The problem is not lack of legislation, but both individuals’ and the authorities’ lack of determination to implement those restrictions which already exist.
Interestingly Ms Soubry worked as a newspaper and television reporter before becoming a barrister and then an MP. She should know better.
Granted, politicians often use leaks to the Sunday newspapers to test out public opinion. If their latest wheeze meets a hostile reception, then they can abandon the promised legislation and blame the journalist for making it up.
But the article in the Sunday Times saying the media face a ban on naming criminal suspects had the stamp of official approval. Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke and Dominic Grieve, the Attorney-general, no less are said to be supporting the idea.
It comes in a bill tabled by Conservative MP Anna Soubry in the wake of the publicity surrounding the arrest of the retired Bristol schoolmaster Chris Jeffries, who came under the spotlight while being questioned by police investigating the death of Joanna Yeates. Another man has since been charged with her murder.
Now I have blogged before on how disgracefully Mr Jeffries was treated particularly by the tabloid national Press, although the BBC and other electronic media were nearly as bad.
But we don’t need new laws that are almost certain to be interpreted in such a way as to inhibit perfectly legitimate reporting. Just use the laws we already have.
Ms Soubry was reported as saying that the law as it stands means an innocent person can be vilified, have their lives dismantled and their reputation sullied with complete disregard to his or her right to privacy.
That is just wrong. Broadly defamation and contempt of court ought to have the media in a completely water-tight pincer movement once an arrest has been made.
If they vilify someone who is arrested and later proved to be guilty, then the courts can and should prosecute for contempt. If the person is later proved to be innocent, like Mr Jeffries, then he or she can take the media to the cleaners through this country’s draconian libel laws.
The problem is not lack of legislation, but both individuals’ and the authorities’ lack of determination to implement those restrictions which already exist.
Interestingly Ms Soubry worked as a newspaper and television reporter before becoming a barrister and then an MP. She should know better.
Barn befuddles critic
THE Sunday Times’ formidable art critic Waldermar Januszczak went way too far in his scathing attack on the current Royal Academy of Arts exhibition of 20th Century Sculpture at the weekend.
Even though his newspaper was supposed to be the media partner of the RA for the exhibition which is the largest of its kind for 30 years and runs until April, he is entitled to have a negative view.
He has every right to criticize, as he did, the omission from the artists exhibited of the likes of Anish Kapoor, Rachel Whiteread, Richard Deacon or Antony Gormley.
He is paid to be perceptive enough to point out that the preponderance of ancient artefacts, many of which are superior to the modern sculptures they inspired, rather confuses the point of the exhibition.
But he was not entitled to be downright rude to the curators Dr Penelope Curtis and Keith Wilson, calling them dunces, when he entirely missed the point of the Kurt Schwitters barn in the forecourt.
If he had bothered to ask them, as other newspapers did, he would have been told that the barn was designed to shock viewers into expecting the unexpected.
The barn was a symbol of dark and lonely places that artists work. It represented the artists who are ignored when they toil in unfashionable parts of the country away from the cultural capital. Its inclusion was designed to be a thorn in the side of Metropolitan establishment.
He ignored completely the fact that without Kurt Schwitters, who invented Merz and pioneered Collage and other art using the detritus of modern society, that there would probably have been no Richard Hamilton or Peter Blake in the 60s and 70s and no Tracy Emin or Damien Hirst, whose work Mr Janunszczak obviously admires, in the 21st century.
He claimed that Schwitters was not British. This is disputed as his citizenship papers arrived the day before he died in Kendal in 1948. But his only surviving Merz installation was made in that barn and can be seen to this day in the Hatton Gallery in Newcastle upon Tyne. He also influenced hugely British art in the second half of the 20th century.
Far from being dunces, the curators of the exhibition demonstrated a knowledge and emotional understanding of their subject that rather dwarf those of Mr Januszczak. Goodness knows what he would have written if his newspaper hadn’t had a vested interest in this brave and thought-provoking exhibition.
Even though his newspaper was supposed to be the media partner of the RA for the exhibition which is the largest of its kind for 30 years and runs until April, he is entitled to have a negative view.
He has every right to criticize, as he did, the omission from the artists exhibited of the likes of Anish Kapoor, Rachel Whiteread, Richard Deacon or Antony Gormley.
He is paid to be perceptive enough to point out that the preponderance of ancient artefacts, many of which are superior to the modern sculptures they inspired, rather confuses the point of the exhibition.
But he was not entitled to be downright rude to the curators Dr Penelope Curtis and Keith Wilson, calling them dunces, when he entirely missed the point of the Kurt Schwitters barn in the forecourt.
If he had bothered to ask them, as other newspapers did, he would have been told that the barn was designed to shock viewers into expecting the unexpected.
The barn was a symbol of dark and lonely places that artists work. It represented the artists who are ignored when they toil in unfashionable parts of the country away from the cultural capital. Its inclusion was designed to be a thorn in the side of Metropolitan establishment.
He ignored completely the fact that without Kurt Schwitters, who invented Merz and pioneered Collage and other art using the detritus of modern society, that there would probably have been no Richard Hamilton or Peter Blake in the 60s and 70s and no Tracy Emin or Damien Hirst, whose work Mr Janunszczak obviously admires, in the 21st century.
He claimed that Schwitters was not British. This is disputed as his citizenship papers arrived the day before he died in Kendal in 1948. But his only surviving Merz installation was made in that barn and can be seen to this day in the Hatton Gallery in Newcastle upon Tyne. He also influenced hugely British art in the second half of the 20th century.
Far from being dunces, the curators of the exhibition demonstrated a knowledge and emotional understanding of their subject that rather dwarf those of Mr Januszczak. Goodness knows what he would have written if his newspaper hadn’t had a vested interest in this brave and thought-provoking exhibition.
Monday, 24 January 2011
A job application
Dear Mr Cameron,
I would like to be considered for your current vacancy for a communications director.
Now that nice Mr Coulson has fallen on his sword over those annoying mobile phone tapping allegations when he was in his previous employment as Editor of the News of the World, I believe the time is ripe for you to go for a different type of replacement.
It would be wise of you to distance yourself from Mr Coulson’s former boss, media magnate Rupert Murdoch. If you go for another employee of his, there will be considerable concern in the wider political community. If you go for an employee of a rival, you risk the wrath of the Murdoch clan.
Although I have experience of working for the national Press, most of my 40 years in journalism have been with the regional Press, 25 of them as a manager.
The regional Press routinely sells more copies in their circulation area than all the National Press put together, so in a sense they are more successful.
They are also nearer to the communities that they serve, so that they are used to having to be held responsible for what they say, unlike the Nationals.
You have espoused a new strategy of Localism, so it would fit to have a communications director who understands how Localism works.
We have met when you were still just the leader of the Conservative Party and came to the offices of The Westmorland Gazette, of which I was Editor at the time, to support your local candidate Gareth McKeever against the sitting local Liberal Democrat MP Tim Farron.
The fact that Mr Farron had the second largest swing to Liberal Democrats in the country in the subsequent general election was no reflection on your performance that day, as you were clearly well briefed on the issues affecting a largely rural constituency. Your answers were articulate and straight-forward.
It is rather ironic that your party has ended up in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, but my knowledge of both sides could also be seen as an advantage.
There are two possible obstacles to my appointment. But obstacles are there to be leaped.
The first is I wouldn’t dream of moving from the Lake District to London, so I wouldn’t be able to join you daily in the bunker in 10, Downing Street. However in these days of new technology, that shouldn’t be a problem. E-mail, Twitter, Facebook and Skype could all be used to improve communications, albeit at a distance.
Second, your policies on the National Health Service, Education, economic deficit et alia seem ill-thought out and are abhorrent to me. But it is reported that you like a Communications Director who is prone to argue with you and give you a dose of reality, so even that could be seen as an advantage.
I look forward to hearing from you soon,
Regards,
Mike Glover
I would like to be considered for your current vacancy for a communications director.
Now that nice Mr Coulson has fallen on his sword over those annoying mobile phone tapping allegations when he was in his previous employment as Editor of the News of the World, I believe the time is ripe for you to go for a different type of replacement.
It would be wise of you to distance yourself from Mr Coulson’s former boss, media magnate Rupert Murdoch. If you go for another employee of his, there will be considerable concern in the wider political community. If you go for an employee of a rival, you risk the wrath of the Murdoch clan.
Although I have experience of working for the national Press, most of my 40 years in journalism have been with the regional Press, 25 of them as a manager.
The regional Press routinely sells more copies in their circulation area than all the National Press put together, so in a sense they are more successful.
They are also nearer to the communities that they serve, so that they are used to having to be held responsible for what they say, unlike the Nationals.
You have espoused a new strategy of Localism, so it would fit to have a communications director who understands how Localism works.
We have met when you were still just the leader of the Conservative Party and came to the offices of The Westmorland Gazette, of which I was Editor at the time, to support your local candidate Gareth McKeever against the sitting local Liberal Democrat MP Tim Farron.
The fact that Mr Farron had the second largest swing to Liberal Democrats in the country in the subsequent general election was no reflection on your performance that day, as you were clearly well briefed on the issues affecting a largely rural constituency. Your answers were articulate and straight-forward.
It is rather ironic that your party has ended up in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, but my knowledge of both sides could also be seen as an advantage.
There are two possible obstacles to my appointment. But obstacles are there to be leaped.
The first is I wouldn’t dream of moving from the Lake District to London, so I wouldn’t be able to join you daily in the bunker in 10, Downing Street. However in these days of new technology, that shouldn’t be a problem. E-mail, Twitter, Facebook and Skype could all be used to improve communications, albeit at a distance.
Second, your policies on the National Health Service, Education, economic deficit et alia seem ill-thought out and are abhorrent to me. But it is reported that you like a Communications Director who is prone to argue with you and give you a dose of reality, so even that could be seen as an advantage.
I look forward to hearing from you soon,
Regards,
Mike Glover
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
Communication breakdown
NOW that the weather has returned to just normal winter rather than the extremes, it is time to reflect on all the disruption. One lesson needs to be learned by major companies everywhere: the importance of communication.
Recalling the disruption to flights, car and train journeys and facilities supplies, the same message came from customers everywhere: why couldn’t we be told what was going on?
Whether it was passengers stranded at Gatwick, trains abandoned in Peterborough (and elsewhere), or the good people of Ulster unable to have water delivered, it wasn’t so much the interruption to normal service which upset people, it was the inability of the companies to keep a good stream of information flowing.
When heads eventually rolled, it was usually for the short-comings in informing customers, rather than for the interruptions themselves.
It is amazing that in the 21st century, business has still failed to grasp how important good communication is.
It’s not as if it is hard to prepare for these emergencies. Most firms have a business continuity plan, or disaster recovery plan, or whatever else they call it.
They just forget to build in a section to deal with telling customers what is going on.
All they need are lists of clients to hand; staff on standby to man a communication centre and a good supply of the latest information.
There may be issues over mobile phone reception, which is particularly important in real life-threatening circumstances, but these can be overcome with the right planning.
There may be issues about accurate weather forecasts, but an open and honest admission of when this is likely to be the case will overcome these.
In short, there is a lack of commitment to put resources into communication. It would be cheaper to prepare than face frustrated, angry and litigious customers after the event.
Recalling the disruption to flights, car and train journeys and facilities supplies, the same message came from customers everywhere: why couldn’t we be told what was going on?
Whether it was passengers stranded at Gatwick, trains abandoned in Peterborough (and elsewhere), or the good people of Ulster unable to have water delivered, it wasn’t so much the interruption to normal service which upset people, it was the inability of the companies to keep a good stream of information flowing.
When heads eventually rolled, it was usually for the short-comings in informing customers, rather than for the interruptions themselves.
It is amazing that in the 21st century, business has still failed to grasp how important good communication is.
It’s not as if it is hard to prepare for these emergencies. Most firms have a business continuity plan, or disaster recovery plan, or whatever else they call it.
They just forget to build in a section to deal with telling customers what is going on.
All they need are lists of clients to hand; staff on standby to man a communication centre and a good supply of the latest information.
There may be issues over mobile phone reception, which is particularly important in real life-threatening circumstances, but these can be overcome with the right planning.
There may be issues about accurate weather forecasts, but an open and honest admission of when this is likely to be the case will overcome these.
In short, there is a lack of commitment to put resources into communication. It would be cheaper to prepare than face frustrated, angry and litigious customers after the event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
