bloggers versus newspapers

This week’s newspaper circulation figures as reported by allmediascotland.com look disastrous for the Scottish press – which in turn is disastrous for the state of Scottish democracy.

The rate of decline of the Sunday Herald and Scotland on Sunday in particular is alarming – but not that much of a surprise to those who buy, or have bought these papers. 

I badly want these titles to succeed but they just don’t offer value for money.  We can all complain about the content of newspapers (as I do too much) but the bottom line is that neither of these titles have enough content to complain about. The are far too thin for a Sunday newspaper. 

The Sunday Times by contrast has actually put on sales -   for no reason other than it is better value than its rivals. There’s just a lot more of it. Sadly it’s hard to argue that its comparative success has anything to do with its Scottish coverage – those who write for the paper are stuck in the mindset that Scotland is basically crap, that the SNP is an illegitimate government and that anyone who works for the public sector is a useless scrounger.

I guess that many people who buy the paper do so in spite of, rather than because of, its treatment of Scotland. 

This matters because despite the rise of blogs, large-scale daily newsgathering -  the watchdog function much derided by leftist media theorists – is fundamental to democracy.  That means having lots of reporters – something that even the best and biggest blogs are never going to be able to invest in.

This is why much of the recent debate about blogging and newspapers simply misses the point.  Bloggers are in competition with professional commentators and (apart from the occasional spectacular) not reporters. We need both. 

I have some sympathy with Kezia Dugdale’s post on this subject. In Andrew Marr’s book on UK journalism, he describes newspaper columnists as journalist aristocrats. In fact I have always been sceptical of general opinion writers who expect to write with authority about Iraq one day and school reform the next – they may be elegant but can’t possibly have the specialist knowledge required. 

This tradition is not common across the world – in Denmark for example newspapers opinion pages have usually been reserved for genuine specialists – most of whom are not professional journalists.

But Kezia’s post throws up, as she I think recognises, why bloggers are not the same as reporters. At one point, in a reference to David Cameron, she  reveals real misunderstanding of the defamation law (ironically supporting  her own earlier point about some, but not all, bloggers’  lack of knowledge of this area).

Another key difference is this: in a reply to Iain Dale, she guesses at the circulation of The Sunday Herald – something a reporter would never do.  Interestingly in the comments section, someone posts the details (although  now  out of date ) an example of those who say the internet lends itself to fact-checking and correction.

The real point is this: the threat to newspapers (particularly Scottish ones) does not come from bloggers. It comes from under-investment and cost-cutting – a trend  that may now require some form of public subsidy – although I am yet to be fully convinced of this -  in order to maintain the newsgathering role,  something that’s far more important than commentating  - whether on a blog or in print.

Herald ignores Edi Stark

There’s a neat, if small,  illustration of one of the reasons why Scottish papers are struggling in yesterday’s Herald (apologies for not blogging this until today).

The paper carried a story about the nominations for this year’s Sony Radio Academy Awards.  One of the nominations is for the excellent Radio Scotland interviewer, Edi Stark, but this fact failed to interest the Herald journalist who wrote the story.

She did not get a single mention in the piece that accompanied the list of nominees.

Instead the article concentrated  mainly on Radio 1’s Chris Moyles.  Moyles is up against, amongst others,  Clyde DJ George Bowie – but his nomination again attracted no interest. Bowie was just listed, without comment,  in the copy alongside the other nominees.

There are various explanations for this. The most likely is that The Herald just lifted the story from PA, which of course would have led with a London angle, without changing it. 

If indeed it was re-written by a Herald reporter, it seems bizarre that the Scottish angle was  completely ignored.

Either way, it demonstrates one of the big problems for the Scottish national press. They cannot compete with the huge resources of their London rivals – their only hope is to emphasise their key selling point – their Scottishness.

But on this occasion The Herald just ran the same lazy line that could be found in the London papers.  I accept that this is a small item – but readers are being seduced by The Times, Guardian etc, with more pages and supplements because of their massively bigger budgets. If The Herald ignores its number one advantage over these papers (it’s Scottish, they are not) then what hope is there for it?

decisions, decisions…

There were two massive stories for news organisations to cover this week – the G20 and the tragic helicopter crash in the  North Sea.

One of these – the G20 summit in London – would have been the subject of massive preparation – particularly by the BBC and other broadcasters.

The other, the helicopter tragedy, was the kind of news event that  requires quick and difficult decisions – both in terms of how to cover the story and where to place it in running orders.

Looking back over the week I still find it hard to believe that the BBC Ten o’  Clock  News decided to lead on Wednesday night with a long, long preview of the G20 rather than the North Sea disaster.

It seemed a clear case of  ”we’ve done the planning and we’re not changing it now, no matter what.”  But it revealed once again the metropolitan mind-set that can warp news values. 

 Nothing of substance had been announced from the G20 – because the actual summit had not even started – and there had been some demonstrations with limited violence in the City of London.  But this was indeed happening in London – and that surely can be the only reason why news editors decided that this was a more important story at that point  (I’m not belittling the importance of the G20 as a whole) than the terrible events off the coast of Scotland.

I didn’t see it myself but I know that some journalists in Scotland were outraged by the BBC News Channel’s coverage of  the First Minister’s statement on the helicopter disaster – essentially, I am told, cutting away from it to discuss among other things Michelle Obama’s dress-sense.

Last night, when admittedly something had actually happened at the summit, the BBC at one stage seemed to use most of its foreign staff to deliver pointless, mini-reports on the reaction in various capitals around the world: “James, can you explain China to us in 20 seconds?”

The tone of the coverage between the BBC Ten and Newsnight was also instructive – cheer-leading on the main news compared with greater scepticism from Paul Mason.

By the way, for a brilliant analysis, try this from The Guardian’s economics editor, Larry Elliot.

I’m not saying the BBC’s coverage of the G20 wasn’t slick or well-presented, but it seemed to lack substance and ultimately, demonstrated that it wasn’t only the Prime Minister who got carried away by  over-blown talk of the world coming together.

Expenses and allowances

During and after the Olympics some commentators expressed distaste that politicians were falling over themselves to be associated with various gold-medal winners.

The basic idea seemed to be that these grubby low-lifes had no right to be anywhere near the likes of Chris Hoy, Rebecca Adlington and the rest of the victorious Team GB.

I actually believe  - and I think I can be pretty confident that this isn’t the most universally-held  of views – that politicians are generally at least as good, if not better, role-models than elite sportsmen and women.

The vast majority of politicians put themselves forward because they believe, however wrongly in the case of Scottish Labour, that that they can make a difference;  that they can genuinely improve the lives of  their fellow citizens.

For this they have to subject themselves to a generally unforgiving environment. Imagine in your job having to ask people every four or five years if they want you to continue and facing the prospect of a very public vote of no confidence and loss of employment.

If they do succeed they face routine public scorn and a hostile press. Alastair Campbell can be a hard man to like (especially for an SNP supporter) but his general analysis of political journalism is spot-on.  The obsession with gaffes, alleged humiliations, character assassinations and on-going hunts for resignations make any kind of reasoned deliberation a tough task.

But that’s why the behaviour of people like Tony McNulty is so infuriating. He may not have broken any rules but he’s confirmed so many negative opinions about politicians and makes it  almost impossible for those of us who want to defend them.

In a classic New Labour tactic, Gordon Brown has now called for a review of MPs allowances in an attempt to control the story. But this kind of thing doesn’t work anymore.

Mr McNulty should just hand the money back and issue an apology. It won’t make any difference but at least it would be the right thing to do.

Fundamental(ist) mistakes from The Steamie

I’ve written before (ok – quite a lot) about the generally poor level of political  commentary in Scottish newspapers. It’s not that I’m obsessed by this, but I really do believe that we could be doing things a lot better.

Working as a lecturer I’ve now started to become interested in the academic aspect of political opinion – particularly the contribution, if any, that newspapers make to the achievement of a deliberative democracy – the kind of engaged, inclusive democracy that the founders of the Scottish Parliament had in mind.

But for that to happen, we need at the very least to have a greater understanding of the political process.

This post in  The Steamie – a decent enough contribution to the political blogosphere in Scotland -  is an example of real misunderstanding masquerading as insight.

Political journalists were interested, reasonably enough,  yesterday in why Nicola Sturgeon, rather than Kenny MacAskill was chosen to front the launch of the SNP’s drive against Scotland’s booze culture.

David Maddox, in The Steamie, suggested that it was in part due to the desire to present Sturgeon, rather than MacAskill as the SNP leader in waiting:

“ Mr MacAskill …… is the most likely figure that any challenge from the so-called fundamentalist wing may gather around, if things were to go pear shaped in the next couple of years. ”  

I want to say this as politely as I can – but that is just daft.  Having worked for John Swinney during his leadership I would not deny that at that time there were painful divisions within the SNP.  But it was far too simplistic to present these divisions as fundamentalist versus gradualist.  It was really the result of the move by the SNP from being a party of protest to becoming a party of government.  There just isn’t a big fundamentalist/gradualist split anymore.

But even if there was,  Kenny MacAskill would probably be the least likely senior figure in the SNP that the fundamentalists would “gather round.”

After the election of 2003, Kenny wrote some interesting articles about the future direction of the SNP. You can get a flavour of this, by reading this piece in The Times, which includes the line:

 ”Shouting “independence” louder is no more likely to increase the vote than would wearing a darker shade of wode.”  Hardly a fundamentalist rallying cry I would have thought.

In truth SNP has developed into a thoughtful movement – is it too much to ask for political hacks to keep pace?

Why Daniel Finkelstein is very good

The best political commentator around is Daniel Finkelstein of The Times.

This high-quality posttoday demonstrates his ability. The reason he’s particularly good is that, unlike most political journalists, he’s  been involved in politics at a high strategic level – ie he’s actually tried to win votes and therefore knows something about it.

When I ran the SNP leader’s private office I was amazed at just how little political correspondents knew about – well, politics.  They were great at running stories about gaffes, humiliations, who was up and down and who said what to who.

But their opinions, freely given, on the business of campaigning for office were usually nonsense.

I remember John McTernan used to write well for Scotland on Sunday, even if I disagreed with almost everything he said,  and I have written occasionally for that paper and some others.  But here in Scotland the press really lacks commentators with the insight gained from running or even being involved in national election campaigns.

That might be one reason why political opinion in our newspapers (with the exception of Ian Bell and one or two others) is so woeful.

Stronger together weaker apart?

In common, I suspect, with most journalists who swap the newsroom for the lecture hall I was initially bemused by the sheer hostility of academic media studies towards the press.

Despite the fact that Marx wrote I think next to nothing about the media,  Marxism is often presented as a fundamental starting point for critical analysis of the western media.

In time I’ve come to learn that media studies and practical journalism are just two separate subjects.  Once you get that clear, it’s possible to examine each on their own merits.

Starting out as a lecturer, one of the few academics who didn’t appear to actually hate all journalists and media organisations was Brian McNair.  His textbook, News and Journalism in the UK,  was also accessible – not something that can be said of all media studies writing.

Today Brian plugs a new edition of the (very good) book in allmediascotland.com but ends the piece with a bizarre and seemingly out of nowhere attack on Independence, even including a paraphrase of Labour’s favourite anti-SNP slogan – stronger together, weaker apart.

The idea seems to be that Independence would be a disaster for Scottish newspapers - although the evidence base for this seems to be, well, zero. I’m not quite sure exactly how The Herald, Scotsman, Record etc. with their plummeting sales are  currently benefiting from the Union. 

Indeed given its plight the  Scottish media seems to be the worst possible industry to use to promote the status quo.

The fact is Independence would be the best  thing to happen to Scottish journalism. With a normal Parliament to report on and a government setting economic, European and foreign policy the papers would instantly become more interesting.

What would be the point in buying  a London title in such circumstances?

If you don’t believe me – take a look at the Irish Times site and compare it to The Scotsman’s.  There’ s no contest.

Up-date:  more evidence of how well Scottish papers are doing under the Union – some significant redundancies at the Daily Record.

Scottish newspaper turmoil

So there’s to be yet another change of editor at a Scottish title – with the replacement of Mike Gilson with John McLellan at The Scotsman.

This  item here from allmediascotland.com has a startling comparison of an era of stability before the year 2000 compared with the revolving door policy ever since.

The Scottish newspaper market  should not of course be looked at in isolation – we are not insulated from the economic and technological turmoil that is sweeping through newspapers world-wide.

This uncertainty is bound to lead to more frequent changes at the top. But there’s still something depressing about the current state of what should be one of Scotland’s great industries.

I don’t actually think any Scottish newspaper has come to terms with devolution or the wider change in public attitudes.  Far too many papers are out of touch. They give the  impression that they don’t actually like Scotland that much and think the whole idea of any kind of self-government is rubbish. 

No paper is central to the Scottish political debate in the way The Scotsman and Herald were in the 70s and 80s. I realise that simply being in touch with the country you are trying to serve is  not sufficient to put on sales – but it is at the very least a necessary pre-condition.

A cast-list of columnists that includes the likes of Jenny Hjul and Gerald Warner along with the usual tired, political hacks says more about the lack of vibrancy in Scottish papers than even the top-line circulation figures. (I confess to an interest here  that some may, uncharitably, call sour-grapes – I’ve had a few pieces  published myself but have had quite a few more rejected having refused to go down the SNP/Scotland is crap line). 

Whoever takes over at The Scotsman and/or Scotland on Sunday has a massive and difficult job – but a good starting point would be to understand that Scotland in 2009 is very different to 1989. If you think 1989 was better then perhaps editing one of our national papers is not for you.

Why are journalists so bad at this stuff?

I’m of the generation of journalists who started out about 20 years ago (that can’t be right, surely) in well-staffed offices which were just coming to terms with what was grandly called “new technology” -  ie computers.

I cut my teeth in a district office of a big regional daily. In my office alone (never mind the main newsroom) we had eight reporters. Circulation was also about 20,000 higher than now.

It’s tempting to say that newspaper sales have fallen because newsrooms have lost so many staff and therefore decent content – tempting but also naive.

While I think it is madness for Scottish papers in particular to be cutting back on Scottish reporters (which means tossing away their big advantage over the London “nationals”) there’s obviously a hell of a lot  more to circulation falls than staff cutbacks.

But if papers do have to make redundancies why do they have to do it so badly?

There’s a brilliant example of this in The Guardian media section which publishes memos from Rebekah Wade, John Witherow and other News International editors, explaining why they are making  job losses.

Any quarter-decent journalist reading these memos would recognise that the top line is the job losses themselves. All the stuff about investing in editorial and the necessity of combining online and paper editions may well be true – but these memos read like the kind of useless spin operations governments and companies out out while burying the obvious (and usually damaging) news angle further down.

Only one editor uses the word “sorry” about the redundancies and there’s a general tone of “don’t worry about these minor job losses – onward with News International!”

Why not just be honest with the people who know what the real news is: sorry, we have to make these redundancies. We think there is some good news but we know that most of you will not be concerned about that at present.

It’s almost as bad as the  incredibly insensitive interview given by the managing editor of The Herald titles, who went on Newsnight Scotland to talk about the exciting time ahead for the group on the same day that all staff had been told they would have to re-apply for their jobs.

Why can’t these people just tell it straight?

anti-Scottish ranting – why?

Gordon Brown and Jeremy Clarkson actually have a fair bit in common – they both for their own purposes like to wrap themselves firmly in the Union Jack.

Brown’s motivation is clearly political – a rather lame attempt to disguise his, well, Scottishness, and Clarkson’s is presumably commercial – there’s a market apparently in having a go at the French,  Germans etc.

I don’t know if Clarkson is the kind of person the Prime Minister has in mind when he talks about the “British genius” but I’m guessing after today probably not.

On their own,  I can’t actually take the The Top Gear’s latest moronic comments seriously - citing Brown’s disability and nationality and branding him an idiot (when no matter what you think of him he clearly is not) is just not worth bothering about.

But it’s interesting that it’s now ok to use Scottish and Scotland as terms of abuse. Read some of the comments on the above link and that’s clear.

Simon Heffer, in the Telegraph,  has recently essentially compared Scots in public life to dogs that need training. We used  know how to behave apparently, but sadly not now.  I should let this kind of stuff go, but a serious newspaper should be ashamed to allow this bile to appear in print.

The remarkable thing of course is that no TV presenter in Scotland or serious political commentator here would ever describe the English in these terms. (If they did we would be subjected to acres of newspaper coverage beating ourselves up over our dreadful anti-Englishness.)

But the reality is that such ingorant prejudice  just wouldn’t take place.