Unrequired Reading {23.1.09}

January 24, 2009

Unrequired Reading

These are some of the things that have caught my atten­tion lately. It’s a more eclectic mix than just the news busi­ness, but then so’s life:

  • The day the news­pa­per died | The New Yorker — News­pa­pers aren’t always on the side of liberty. Not every­one agrees on what liberty means. Some struggles never end. And it’s not the news­pa­per that’s forever at risk of dying and need­ing to be raised from the grave. It’s the free­dom of the press.
  • How to: Track a con­ver­sa­tion in Twit­ter | Journalism.co.uk Edit­ors’ Blog — Twit­ter is increas­ingly being used by journ­al­ists to make con­tacts and track news events, but the Twit­ter user-interface (UI) itself is pretty lim­ited mak­ing it dif­fi­cult to track con­ver­sa­tions. For­tu­nately its open API struc­ture and the abil­ity to sub­scribe to vari­ous types of RSS feeds from Twit­ter means there are a num­ber of ways to track a ‘buzz’ around an event or spe­cific conversations.
  • Ques­tion: Jacques, what really happened? Answer: Naff all. — Pub­lic ser­vice broad­cast­ing: “There is a term in the news­pa­per busi­ness for what Jacques does: cuts jobs. Knit together old mater­ial, add archive pho­tos to make it look fancy, bung it all under a new head­line and hope no one notices. In an hour long TV doc, there is no hid­ing place and the holes are too glar­ing to miss. How can a cuts job be worth an hour on Chan­nel 4? And on such well vis­ited sub­jects as Dodi Fayed, Paul Bur­rell, Michael Bar­ry­more? Every per­son Jacques “invest­ig­ates” can be eas­ily filed under another journ­al­istic term for sub­jects no longer of interest: “Those we used to love.”
  • Press­ing for respect | Doc Searls — When has “the press” ever been the “voice of the people,” and by what insti­tu­tional arrog­ance does it CONTINUE to give this role to itself? Per­haps the press would be bet­ter off it star­ted see­ing itself as a par­tic­u­lar cat­egory of con­tent pro­du­cers (a noble, unique and import­ant one to be sure) and drop all this voice of the people foolishness.
  • PR on Web­sites: Press Area Usab­il­ity — Journ­al­ists are not gull­ible, and they don’t take a company’s own word as truth. Indeed, almost all journ­al­ists said that press releases were use­ful only to find out how a com­pany is try­ing to pos­i­tion itself. We strongly recom­mend that PR areas have links to external sources, includ­ing press cov­er­age; journ­al­ists often con­sider art­icles from inde­pend­ent news­pa­pers and magazines to be much more cred­ible than a company’s own press releases. We’ve seen sim­ilar find­ings in stud­ies of pro­spect­ive cus­tom­ers eval­u­at­ing products on con­sumer– and business-oriented sites, so links to external press cov­er­age can also help pro­mote sales.
  • Roy Greenslade: Did Mur­doch engin­eer Lebedev’s Stand­ard takeover? | Media Guard­ian — The bit­ter­ness at Murdoch’s suc­cess­ful under­min­ing of his greatest Brit­ish news­pa­per rival sur­faced in a single para­graph Wednesday’s Stand­ard in the story announ­cing Lebedev’s takeover:

    Two years ago, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp launched a free paper called The Lon­don Paper in a cal­cu­lated bid to dam­age the cir­cu­la­tions of the Stand­ard and its own free sis­ter paper, the Lite. To date, The Lon­don Paper is thought to have lost News Corp about £40m.”

    Though DMGT exec­ut­ives and edit­ors have long said that in private — and much more besides — the unwrit­ten rule that exists between pro­pri­et­ors ensured that no such claims were made in pub­lic, and cer­tainly not in print.

    It should be seen as some­thing of a turn­ing point in news­pa­per his­tory. The gloves are off. All the own­ers now know they are engaged in a battle to be the last one stand­ing when the music stops. Papers will go to the wall. They will change hands.

  • Lob­by­ing: Access and influ­ence in White­hall | House of Com­mons Pub­lic Admin­is­tra­tion Com­mit­tee — A REGISTER OF LOBBYING ACTIVITY: FIRST PRINCIPLES

    168.  We can identify five key prin­ciples for a register of lob­by­ing activity:

    a)  it should be man­dat­ory, in order to ensure as com­plete as pos­sible an over­view of activity.

    b)  it should cover all those out­side the pub­lic sec­tor involved in access­ing and influ­en­cing public-sector decision makers, with excep­tions in only a very lim­ited set of circumstances.

    c)  it should be man­aged and enforced by a body inde­pend­ent of both Gov­ern­ment and lobbyists.

    d)  it should include only inform­a­tion of genu­ine poten­tial value to the gen­eral pub­lic, to oth­ers who might wish to lobby gov­ern­ment, and to decision makers themselves.

    e)  it should include so far as pos­sible inform­a­tion which is rel­at­ively straight­for­ward to provide—ideally, inform­a­tion which would be col­lec­ted for other pur­poses in any case.

  • Why Mur­doch is the story behind the Stand­ard | Shakeup Media — Page eleven of the Murdoch-owned Lon­don Paper today gives us a clue to how he — and there­fore his senior staff — are think­ing.
    In a full page vic­tory memo from the Lon­don Paper’s editor it says, in so many words, that:
    The Lon­don Paper has killed the Stand­ard as a ser­i­ous paper
    Murdoch’s strategy forced Rothermere to sell
    The Stand­ard lost the plot
    The Stand­ard will hence­forth be a minor, eccent­ric player on the Lon­don stage
    The Lon­don Paper is pro­ject­ing fat profits in the future
    Lon­don Lite has lost its raison d’etre (to defend the Stand­ard)
    Mur­doch is thrilled by the turn of events. With his son-in-law watch­ing over the devel­op­ment of The Stand­ard in the next few years it is unlikely to become too trouble­some. I would not be sur­prised if it is shar­ing office space and print­ing facil­it­ies at Wap­ping in three years and three days from now (once con­trac­tual guar­an­tees with Asso­ci­ated have expired).

{ 0 comments… add one now }

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: