As if tailor-made to add fuel to the fire over the Kelvin Mackenzie debate I touched on last week, a chat with a friend over the weekend revealed some very interesting things.
My friend is the editor of a series of weekly papers and recently oversaw the launch of a handful of hyperlocal sites, you know the kind of thing, the 'up your street' stuff, full of community fodder and police press releases.
Anyway, said friend had a brainwave while putting these sites together; to get student journalists in the area involved.
So, he diligently got his walking boots on and trundled around colleges across the area, preaching the values of the sites and the exposure they could give all of the talented, ambitious young hacks learning their trade.
Free exposure to thousands, an unending resource with which to boost your portfolio and your CV, which the students and tutors gleefully lapped up, as would anyone keen to gain the edge over thousands struggling to progress in a failing industry.
However, six months down the line, the number of stories he had received from these eager beavers?
His estimate? Three or four. Maybe five.
Still, no doubt they're happily producing a self-congratulatory magazine or something and getting free CDs.
Fools.
Like this rubbish? Subscribe!
Posts
All Comments
Showing posts with label journalists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label journalists. Show all posts
Monday, 18 April 2011
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
In defence of Kelvin Mackenzie
I feel I have to show some sort of support for Kelvin Mackenzie.
Yes, it's true, the man dubbed a "dinosaur" for his opinion that journalism courses at universities etc should be culled.
Kelvin, you have my support. It isn't worth shit, but you have it.
Having worked alongside, been in charge of and worked under people coming in to a newsroom straight from a university course, I can honestly say that all of them, 100 per cent of them, would have been better had they spent those three years working.
I'm sure not all journalism students are lazy, or do it because they want to be on the telly "like that one off've BBC Breakfast", or because they want to "write about football", but let's be honest here, those are the aspirations of many, many of these graduates.
Taking my own experience as a snapshot, less than 20 per cent of journalism graduates I have encountered had anywhere near 100wpm shorthand.
In three fucking years?
Yet I know trainees, in fact I was one, who worked full time on a newspaper and achieved that golden target in less than four months.
It's a fucking shambles to expect anyone who actually works in newspapers to buy the fact that it takes three years, in fact, that it takes three months, to do some basic training and get out there.
Yes, there has been a lot of loud-mouthed blabbering from some quarters, but don't take them all at their word, because you'll find those shouting loudest at Mr Mackenzie have a vested interest in journalism courses.
The other day I noticed a story which summed up my instant distaste for journalism as a 'course', a 'subject' to be studied.
"Half the journalism courses on offer at the University for the Creative Arts in Farnham are to be axed as part of a cost cutting measure.
"The university’s BA undergraduate degrees in Motoring Journalism, which claims to be the only one of its kind in the UK, and Leisure Journalism, launched in September 2009, have both been closed to new entrants in the face of financial pressures and low market demand."
...
"The university runs four journalism courses, the other two in Sports Journalism and just Journalism alone."
Now what the fuck is all that about?
Okay, you could just about get away with a one-year course entitled 'Journalism', so long as those taking it actually passed any fucking exams and got their shorthand, and that included at least two days a week working in a newsroom.
But Motoring Journalism? Really? And Leisure Journalism? Fuck me.
These courses are actually costing money, tax payers' money, to fund and support.
So before you fall in to line and join those slating Mr Mackenzie - who, remember, was not long ago someone who had the power to hire and fire a lot of fucking journalists on a daily basis (go figure that the next time some 'journalist' who has done fuck all comes to your college and tells you how well you're doing) - ask yourself what, exactly, the people taking Leisure Journalism are learning that a Journalism student isn't, and vice versa.
And quite what the fuck a Motoring Journalism course entails is completely beyond me.
However, feel free to follow me on Twitter, @haplesshack, and tell me why I'm wrong. Go on, I dare you...
Soon, I'm hoping to be on Facebook. Why? I have no idea, but apparently it's the thing to do.
Yes, it's true, the man dubbed a "dinosaur" for his opinion that journalism courses at universities etc should be culled.
Kelvin, you have my support. It isn't worth shit, but you have it.
Having worked alongside, been in charge of and worked under people coming in to a newsroom straight from a university course, I can honestly say that all of them, 100 per cent of them, would have been better had they spent those three years working.
I'm sure not all journalism students are lazy, or do it because they want to be on the telly "like that one off've BBC Breakfast", or because they want to "write about football", but let's be honest here, those are the aspirations of many, many of these graduates.
Taking my own experience as a snapshot, less than 20 per cent of journalism graduates I have encountered had anywhere near 100wpm shorthand.
In three fucking years?
Yet I know trainees, in fact I was one, who worked full time on a newspaper and achieved that golden target in less than four months.
It's a fucking shambles to expect anyone who actually works in newspapers to buy the fact that it takes three years, in fact, that it takes three months, to do some basic training and get out there.
Yes, there has been a lot of loud-mouthed blabbering from some quarters, but don't take them all at their word, because you'll find those shouting loudest at Mr Mackenzie have a vested interest in journalism courses.
The other day I noticed a story which summed up my instant distaste for journalism as a 'course', a 'subject' to be studied.
"Half the journalism courses on offer at the University for the Creative Arts in Farnham are to be axed as part of a cost cutting measure.
"The university’s BA undergraduate degrees in Motoring Journalism, which claims to be the only one of its kind in the UK, and Leisure Journalism, launched in September 2009, have both been closed to new entrants in the face of financial pressures and low market demand."
...
"The university runs four journalism courses, the other two in Sports Journalism and just Journalism alone."
Now what the fuck is all that about?
Okay, you could just about get away with a one-year course entitled 'Journalism', so long as those taking it actually passed any fucking exams and got their shorthand, and that included at least two days a week working in a newsroom.
But Motoring Journalism? Really? And Leisure Journalism? Fuck me.
These courses are actually costing money, tax payers' money, to fund and support.
So before you fall in to line and join those slating Mr Mackenzie - who, remember, was not long ago someone who had the power to hire and fire a lot of fucking journalists on a daily basis (go figure that the next time some 'journalist' who has done fuck all comes to your college and tells you how well you're doing) - ask yourself what, exactly, the people taking Leisure Journalism are learning that a Journalism student isn't, and vice versa.
And quite what the fuck a Motoring Journalism course entails is completely beyond me.
However, feel free to follow me on Twitter, @haplesshack, and tell me why I'm wrong. Go on, I dare you...
Soon, I'm hoping to be on Facebook. Why? I have no idea, but apparently it's the thing to do.
Monday, 14 February 2011
Where next for the cash cows?
So where next for regional newspapers?
We've had a week of speculation since figure for the likes of Newsquest and Northcliffe were released - both showing what we all knew really.
In summary, newspapers are still making quite a lot of money.
However, is has been the way for years, the profit margin is the issue for men in nice suits sitting in head offices up and down the land.
Among the latest to talk shit about the industry was a chap from Northcliffe, a man so nondescript I can't even remember his name.
Anyway, he said consolidation was needed in the industry, despite the fact that consolidation has been rampant in newspapers for years and look where it's got us.
He told Press Gazette: "Our attitude is we think it [consolidation] is worthwhile and a good thing for the industry because it will create bigger businesses who are more able to make the transition to the brave new world.
"There’s obviously going to be a further transition…We are not going to be the consolidator. We are not going to be acquiring other regional newspapers companies to consolidate with Northcliffe.
"I think we have other opportunities in the group for investment. But we are very content to go on operating Northcliffe, it makes good cash flow and so on."
Okay, so let's actually tell it like it is, shall we? Northcliffe thinks consolidation is needed, but won't be consolidating.
Does anyone else smell a 'come and get me' plea?
No wonder he thinks consolidation is needed when clearly Northcliffe would be hugely interested in getting rid of a cash cow that is struggling to produce milk in the quantities of years ago.
Let's not forget, it was Northcliffe who was for sale only a few years ago, only not sold.
So don't patronise us.
Meanwhile, in newsrooms up and down the country, we are being told of the continued squeeze on 'revenues' and the need to make cuts, take furlough leave and such like.
However, in among the headlines of Northcliffe effectively being up for sale, and the drop in 'revenues', it seems to have been missed that Northcliffe's operating profit last year increased - yes, increased - by 24% to £30 million.
That is on revenue down 10% year on year.
So just how hard is it out there? Being complete arses has earned Northcliffe £30 million, an increase.
Now I realise £20 million is a tiny sum of money, but why not just make that much profit in what is widely regarded as the worst recession we've seen, and keep a few of the jobs you've not replaced, or pay those who remain a little bit more?
I know, it's a crazy thought...
But the reality is that the newspaper industry has been a cash cow for a long time, and we - as well as out papers - are simply being milked for all we are worth until profits drop to, oh, I don't know, £10 million? Then we'll be sold off for pennies to another group who will do more of the same.
Depressing, I know, and if anyone can give me an alternative view of the future, I'd love to hear from you.
Email me at thehaplesshack@gmail.com, or chat to me on Twitter, @haplesshack
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Inside what? Just get on with it Croydon...
Now, I'm not averse to a good old scrap, be it in print or behind closed doors, so I was particularly amused to see a little tete-a-tete developing between one London editor and a blogger this week.
The esteemed - only by himself admittedly - Inside Croydon recently had a bit of a rant against a campaign run by the Croydon Advertiser, a Northcliffe weeklie.
Inside Croydon claims the paper - in their 'it-was-us-what-won-it' edition - was in collusion with the councillor concerned over the results of a consultation.
Clearly, if Inside Croydon has any actual experience in a newsroom, he'll already know that no newspaper will run a campaign unless a. they can win it, or b. it is a hugely popular lost cause that not even the campaigners expect to win anyway.
So, we all take the Croydon Advertiser gloating with a pinch of salt, as every paper deserves to big itself up every now and again.
But not Mr Inside Croydon, he attacks the paper pretty harshly, with rapier-like wit such as:
"Yet the Croydon Sadvertiser, with its deadline of last Wednesday – a full seven days before the announcement is due – contained extensive details from what it claimed to be a leaked council report, alongside a lovingly staged picture of “Two Permits” Thomas and the paper’s editor receiving a massive ... 250 signatures [coughs with embarrassment].
"The Sadvertiser was very late to this particular story, despite being contacted by local residents’ groups nearly two months ago. In the end, the CRAPP (that’s not too rude; it means Croydon Residents Against Parking Plans) online campaign, and its dedicated band of supporters who leafleted and petitioned in their neighbourhoods, managed to raised [sic] nearly 10 times the number of signatures that the local newspaper did."
Again, as anyone who has ever been involved with regional/local/national newspapers knows, the last thing, the very, very last thing that anyone should do at this point is respond...
Well, I thought everyone knew that anyway.
Cue a rather tetchy response from Croydon Advertiser editor Glenn Ebrey in his online blog.
Glenn, in a total loss of any kind of editorial judgement, hits back with just as non-rapier-like wit, with such gems as:
"Firstly, he continually describes us as the Croydon S-Advertiser, which must have taken a whole 30 seconds to think up. No chance of a job on the subs desk with lame puns like that.
"Then, he goes on to criticise us for daring to start a campaign (a successful campaign, I might add) against Croydon Council’s parking proposals. If we hadn’t bothered with a campaign, we probably would have been criticised for that too. Isn’t campaigning what all good local newspapers should be doing?
"Next, we are slammed for having the cheek to report documents we obtained before their official publication. Isn’t that just good journalism Mr Insider?"
Well, not really Glenn, as anyone who knows anything about journalism will also know that in all probability, there was no Mission Impossible-esque espionage involved in getting the report. Or was there? If so, please email me with the details and I'll happily praise your reporter/s for their efforts!
Anyway, as shit as that response is, it's nothing to what Mr Ebrey does next.
Yes, in true local rag style, he challenges the Inside Croydon blogger to spend a day in his newsroom while boasting of the paper's circulation.
Again, anyone in papers knows this is total bollocks, so stop trying to kid yourself that the Croydon Advertiser is different from any other newspaper in the country Glenn and is enjoying a new-found period of growth and prosperity, it isn't.
However, he wrote: "The mystery blogger also suggests we have an “increasingly small circulation”. Last time I checked, our papers were distributed to more than 100,000 people a week. That sounds like a pretty captive audience to me.
"I have no idea who Mr Insider is because, despite being so forthright in his views, he very bravely decides to remain anonymous.
"But, if you are reading this, I’d like to put forward a challenge to you Mr Insider. Come and spend a day in our office, see how hard our reporters work, the dedication and hours they put into producing the paper each week, and see if it changes your view."
I mean Christ, if you're going to go out on a limb and respond, you might as well do it in a really innovative way; a car park fight perhaps?
But no, the old day in the newsroom challenge it was.
And Inside Croydon's response?
"If you don’t mind, for now we’ll pass your offer for us to give up a day of our expertise to give your staff some training and show them how to do their jobs. And we will continue to judge them, and you, on results."
That was, at least, actually quite funny.
However not unexpected, as the last time I had any contact with Mr Inside Croydon, I was emailed with strict instructions not to publish any of his comments in this blog, I presume due to a sudden burst of shyness.
Oh, the irony...
But in this case, I can't help but doff my cap to Inside Croydon, and wield a sword of disappointment in the direction of Glenn Ebrey for committing the ultimate newspaper crime of rising to the bait and losing.
Disappointing all round really.
The esteemed - only by himself admittedly - Inside Croydon recently had a bit of a rant against a campaign run by the Croydon Advertiser, a Northcliffe weeklie.
Inside Croydon claims the paper - in their 'it-was-us-what-won-it' edition - was in collusion with the councillor concerned over the results of a consultation.
Clearly, if Inside Croydon has any actual experience in a newsroom, he'll already know that no newspaper will run a campaign unless a. they can win it, or b. it is a hugely popular lost cause that not even the campaigners expect to win anyway.
So, we all take the Croydon Advertiser gloating with a pinch of salt, as every paper deserves to big itself up every now and again.
But not Mr Inside Croydon, he attacks the paper pretty harshly, with rapier-like wit such as:
"Yet the Croydon Sadvertiser, with its deadline of last Wednesday – a full seven days before the announcement is due – contained extensive details from what it claimed to be a leaked council report, alongside a lovingly staged picture of “Two Permits” Thomas and the paper’s editor receiving a massive ... 250 signatures [coughs with embarrassment].
"The Sadvertiser was very late to this particular story, despite being contacted by local residents’ groups nearly two months ago. In the end, the CRAPP (that’s not too rude; it means Croydon Residents Against Parking Plans) online campaign, and its dedicated band of supporters who leafleted and petitioned in their neighbourhoods, managed to raised [sic] nearly 10 times the number of signatures that the local newspaper did."
Again, as anyone who has ever been involved with regional/local/national newspapers knows, the last thing, the very, very last thing that anyone should do at this point is respond...
Well, I thought everyone knew that anyway.
Cue a rather tetchy response from Croydon Advertiser editor Glenn Ebrey in his online blog.
Glenn, in a total loss of any kind of editorial judgement, hits back with just as non-rapier-like wit, with such gems as:
"Firstly, he continually describes us as the Croydon S-Advertiser, which must have taken a whole 30 seconds to think up. No chance of a job on the subs desk with lame puns like that.
"Then, he goes on to criticise us for daring to start a campaign (a successful campaign, I might add) against Croydon Council’s parking proposals. If we hadn’t bothered with a campaign, we probably would have been criticised for that too. Isn’t campaigning what all good local newspapers should be doing?
"Next, we are slammed for having the cheek to report documents we obtained before their official publication. Isn’t that just good journalism Mr Insider?"
Well, not really Glenn, as anyone who knows anything about journalism will also know that in all probability, there was no Mission Impossible-esque espionage involved in getting the report. Or was there? If so, please email me with the details and I'll happily praise your reporter/s for their efforts!
Anyway, as shit as that response is, it's nothing to what Mr Ebrey does next.
Yes, in true local rag style, he challenges the Inside Croydon blogger to spend a day in his newsroom while boasting of the paper's circulation.
Again, anyone in papers knows this is total bollocks, so stop trying to kid yourself that the Croydon Advertiser is different from any other newspaper in the country Glenn and is enjoying a new-found period of growth and prosperity, it isn't.
However, he wrote: "The mystery blogger also suggests we have an “increasingly small circulation”. Last time I checked, our papers were distributed to more than 100,000 people a week. That sounds like a pretty captive audience to me.
"I have no idea who Mr Insider is because, despite being so forthright in his views, he very bravely decides to remain anonymous.
"But, if you are reading this, I’d like to put forward a challenge to you Mr Insider. Come and spend a day in our office, see how hard our reporters work, the dedication and hours they put into producing the paper each week, and see if it changes your view."
I mean Christ, if you're going to go out on a limb and respond, you might as well do it in a really innovative way; a car park fight perhaps?
But no, the old day in the newsroom challenge it was.
And Inside Croydon's response?
"If you don’t mind, for now we’ll pass your offer for us to give up a day of our expertise to give your staff some training and show them how to do their jobs. And we will continue to judge them, and you, on results."
That was, at least, actually quite funny.
However not unexpected, as the last time I had any contact with Mr Inside Croydon, I was emailed with strict instructions not to publish any of his comments in this blog, I presume due to a sudden burst of shyness.
Oh, the irony...
But in this case, I can't help but doff my cap to Inside Croydon, and wield a sword of disappointment in the direction of Glenn Ebrey for committing the ultimate newspaper crime of rising to the bait and losing.
Disappointing all round really.
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
Mail order from the Daily Mail website?
Now, the Daily Mail website is something I've written about before.
Namely, HERE and HERE.
However, a recent article from The Guardian made me revisit it today.
Basically, as we already knew, the site has become quite a big player as far as 'news' sites go. I use the word news in inverted commas because, quite frankly, the lack of news on the site is my major gripe - and possibly the obvious reason behind the site's success.
While you do get some stories, you don't really get news, as such, in any prominent position, or in other words, anywhere that may attract a real news reader.
That is, of course, unless you count anything mentioning I'm a Celebrity, X Factor, chavvy footballers or benefit cheats as high-ranking on the news agenda, which sadly, I don't.
So I thought I'd just write this as an adendum to my previous post if you like, to say that the Mail website is the X Factor of news sites.
Yes, it appeals to the masses, and you can't knock it for what it does, it does well.
But when you look at it for any actual value, it's dog shit.
Sadly, this is something we're now seeing mirrored across the DMGT group's regional newspaper arm, Northcliffe.
ThisIs sites across the land now bear a little section on the bottom of their front pages titled 'SHOWBIZ'.
Basically, this is simply an excuse to post headlines that will attract the chav Googler to the site.
But while it may bump numbers for the site - the below is from www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk but it is everywhere - it has absolutely nothing to do with that area.
Just as the Daily Mail website has absolutely nothing to do with news.
I compare this bandwagon thinking to what the likes of Northcliffe are doing to our newspapers.
They have something that works (name me a site doing ONLY solid, regularly-updated local news that is falling in visitor numbers), yet far from being happy with that, they need to have more, more, more, and some complete fuckwit has told them Google looks in headlines and picture captions for searched terms and the even bigger dipshit who actually makes decisions has jumped on the bandwagon.
As with their newspapers, they'll soon release (too late, I would assume) that this will only work in certain circumstances and the gains will be limited.
Just as cutting staff back continually will when the papers are folded, despite still making a healthy profit.
Still, you can't teach an old dog new tricks, especially when the old tricks brought in 30% profits for them knowing fuck all...
Here's the link to the previous Daily Mail website article again if you missed it the first time!
And don't forget, follow me on Twitter and you'll get a mention every now and again!
@haplesshack is my address. You can debate my 'the Daily Mail website is dog shit' verdict on there right now if you like...
Namely, HERE and HERE.
However, a recent article from The Guardian made me revisit it today.
Basically, as we already knew, the site has become quite a big player as far as 'news' sites go. I use the word news in inverted commas because, quite frankly, the lack of news on the site is my major gripe - and possibly the obvious reason behind the site's success.
While you do get some stories, you don't really get news, as such, in any prominent position, or in other words, anywhere that may attract a real news reader.
That is, of course, unless you count anything mentioning I'm a Celebrity, X Factor, chavvy footballers or benefit cheats as high-ranking on the news agenda, which sadly, I don't.
So I thought I'd just write this as an adendum to my previous post if you like, to say that the Mail website is the X Factor of news sites.
Yes, it appeals to the masses, and you can't knock it for what it does, it does well.
But when you look at it for any actual value, it's dog shit.
Sadly, this is something we're now seeing mirrored across the DMGT group's regional newspaper arm, Northcliffe.
ThisIs sites across the land now bear a little section on the bottom of their front pages titled 'SHOWBIZ'.
Basically, this is simply an excuse to post headlines that will attract the chav Googler to the site.
But while it may bump numbers for the site - the below is from www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk but it is everywhere - it has absolutely nothing to do with that area.
Just as the Daily Mail website has absolutely nothing to do with news.
I compare this bandwagon thinking to what the likes of Northcliffe are doing to our newspapers.
They have something that works (name me a site doing ONLY solid, regularly-updated local news that is falling in visitor numbers), yet far from being happy with that, they need to have more, more, more, and some complete fuckwit has told them Google looks in headlines and picture captions for searched terms and the even bigger dipshit who actually makes decisions has jumped on the bandwagon.
As with their newspapers, they'll soon release (too late, I would assume) that this will only work in certain circumstances and the gains will be limited.
Just as cutting staff back continually will when the papers are folded, despite still making a healthy profit.
Still, you can't teach an old dog new tricks, especially when the old tricks brought in 30% profits for them knowing fuck all...
Here's the link to the previous Daily Mail website article again if you missed it the first time!
And don't forget, follow me on Twitter and you'll get a mention every now and again!
@haplesshack is my address. You can debate my 'the Daily Mail website is dog shit' verdict on there right now if you like...
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Sod local, minor celebrities are the way forward...
Farcical, often-offensive comedy.
Yes, I am talking about regional newspaper bosses and their recent running of the industry we all care so much about.
Yet decisions made by those who have some actual power took perhaps the most surreal turn of all this week, with the announcement of 'comic' Jim Davidson taking on a column in Torquay's Herald Express.
While the jokes make themselves, obviously, a decision such as this really does raise serious questions about what the hell we are all doing here.
In an industry where we are constantly cutting back on local columnists, loved by many readers, to - as we are told - satisfy the desire for "higher story counts"*, what does it say to our faithful when we will happily give over God knows how much space to what many regard as an offensive comedian with no real link to the area**?
The mind boggles.
I'm sure the Herald Express would argue the publicity they have gained will bump up circulation a bit in the first few weeks, but really, is it worth isolating such a large faction of readers for a quick gain?
Again, the questions are so appropriate for decisions taken within the industry as a whole it's untrue.
The way this was announced is also not great, from the perspective of someone reading these papers.
The piece on the Herald Express website informs us that Davidson will be "jotting down his words of wisdom" in the column.
One can only marvel at what such words of wisdom may be, from a man who penned such beauties as this, a quote attributed to Davidson when asked of the reasons behind his move to Dubai when a Labour Government was elected:
"I may as well go to Dubai and be an ethnic minority there than wait five years till I become one here," he said.
Hmmm...
Well, I suppose one age-old newspaper adage that will remain true is that the readership will be the best judge of what works in the paper.
And what doesn't.
* regardless of quality.
** A "regular visitor and former seasonal resident", according to the Herald Express piece, which makes me a qualified columnist for Majorca quite frankly.
Yes, I am talking about regional newspaper bosses and their recent running of the industry we all care so much about.
Yet decisions made by those who have some actual power took perhaps the most surreal turn of all this week, with the announcement of 'comic' Jim Davidson taking on a column in Torquay's Herald Express.
While the jokes make themselves, obviously, a decision such as this really does raise serious questions about what the hell we are all doing here.
In an industry where we are constantly cutting back on local columnists, loved by many readers, to - as we are told - satisfy the desire for "higher story counts"*, what does it say to our faithful when we will happily give over God knows how much space to what many regard as an offensive comedian with no real link to the area**?
The mind boggles.
I'm sure the Herald Express would argue the publicity they have gained will bump up circulation a bit in the first few weeks, but really, is it worth isolating such a large faction of readers for a quick gain?
Again, the questions are so appropriate for decisions taken within the industry as a whole it's untrue.
The way this was announced is also not great, from the perspective of someone reading these papers.
The piece on the Herald Express website informs us that Davidson will be "jotting down his words of wisdom" in the column.
One can only marvel at what such words of wisdom may be, from a man who penned such beauties as this, a quote attributed to Davidson when asked of the reasons behind his move to Dubai when a Labour Government was elected:
"I may as well go to Dubai and be an ethnic minority there than wait five years till I become one here," he said.
Hmmm...
Well, I suppose one age-old newspaper adage that will remain true is that the readership will be the best judge of what works in the paper.
And what doesn't.
* regardless of quality.
** A "regular visitor and former seasonal resident", according to the Herald Express piece, which makes me a qualified columnist for Majorca quite frankly.
Thursday, 11 November 2010
Strike me down, but they need organising...
I find the recent upsurge of strikes across Newsquest centres very sad.
Not simply because of the moves which have made them inevitable - ever-falling staffing, sub hubs, pension changes, senior executives behaving like banking fat cats - but also because of the seemingly random way in which they are organised.
Speaking to colleagues on Newsquest papers, it seems there is no coherent thinking by that age-old bastion of a union, the NUJ.
I would expect the NUJ, as the NUS did yesterday in London, to organise something on a slightly larger scale than a handful of people outside a newspaper office on an industrial estate.
This is what happens to a union when it simply doesn't do enough.
After many years of membership, I eventually stopped my direct debit, as the cost of the union seemed to constantly increase in direct proportion to the loss of representation I actually felt.
I'm not alone.
So, say what you like about the NUS action on Wednesday, the NUJ can only dream of such a turnout.
And that, I'm afraid, is largely their own fault.
Not simply because of the moves which have made them inevitable - ever-falling staffing, sub hubs, pension changes, senior executives behaving like banking fat cats - but also because of the seemingly random way in which they are organised.
Speaking to colleagues on Newsquest papers, it seems there is no coherent thinking by that age-old bastion of a union, the NUJ.
I would expect the NUJ, as the NUS did yesterday in London, to organise something on a slightly larger scale than a handful of people outside a newspaper office on an industrial estate.
This is what happens to a union when it simply doesn't do enough.
After many years of membership, I eventually stopped my direct debit, as the cost of the union seemed to constantly increase in direct proportion to the loss of representation I actually felt.
I'm not alone.
So, say what you like about the NUS action on Wednesday, the NUJ can only dream of such a turnout.
And that, I'm afraid, is largely their own fault.
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
Wow, such a lot to contemplate in recent days...
The over-arching issue is, of course, the announcement of a new daily newspaper; i (apparently it is supposed to be in italics, as all modern titles should be, naturally, as a single, italicised letter clearly means cutting edge and new).
It's going to cost us 20p and from what I can gather, is intended to give us all of our news, in a deep enough format to make it interesting, yet still take something like 25 seconds to read in order to fit in with our hectic lifestyles.
So which is it? Is it the Metro? Or simply a butchered Indy? Either way, it'll be interesting to see whether it can challenge the early-morning dominance of the free, unitalicised, Metro.
The most ironic journalism news of the week however could only go to one issue. Newsquest.
Our esteemed friends from across the pond, at parent company Gannett, have really put their feet in said pond with comments made last week.
Gracia Martore, president and CEO (you have to say that with an American accent don't you?), is reported to have said: "Let me once and for all dispel the myth that Newsquest doesn't make money.
"Newsquest makes a lot of money. In fact, their margin, as I have said a couple times, is consistent with the margin that our local US Community Publishing operations generate.
"So their margins are in the high teens to low 20s and they have consistently made money throughout the years."
Oh right, well, that's okay then! If you're so chuffed Gracia, why not reward your staff? Oh, my mistake, you have, in the form of a 20% pay rise to one "top earning director" (believed to be Newsquest chief executive Paul Davidson).
The irony, of course, came in the form of a news story published in the hours following this brilliant news from the US regarding Newsquest, that jobs were to go as two new subbing hubs were being created in southern England, including shipping The Argus subs from Brighton to Southampton.
And which company is responsible for this? Newsquest of course, who are so good at making money.
While we're at it, I would urge Newsquest to issue a statement addressing the concerns of many friends of mine who work for that group, which is clearly so successful, on why there is a group-wide pay freeze which clearly, if we are to believe Gracia, only runs up to the buffers of "top earning directors".
Clearly, this is a cleverly-worded piece of super-jargon that is so clever and cunning that none of us will realise no journalist will ever have a cat in hell's chance of getting such a rise because when would one ever be a "top earning director".
It's enough to make you puke isn't it?
The over-arching issue is, of course, the announcement of a new daily newspaper; i (apparently it is supposed to be in italics, as all modern titles should be, naturally, as a single, italicised letter clearly means cutting edge and new).
It's going to cost us 20p and from what I can gather, is intended to give us all of our news, in a deep enough format to make it interesting, yet still take something like 25 seconds to read in order to fit in with our hectic lifestyles.
So which is it? Is it the Metro? Or simply a butchered Indy? Either way, it'll be interesting to see whether it can challenge the early-morning dominance of the free, unitalicised, Metro.
The most ironic journalism news of the week however could only go to one issue. Newsquest.
Our esteemed friends from across the pond, at parent company Gannett, have really put their feet in said pond with comments made last week.
Gracia Martore, president and CEO (you have to say that with an American accent don't you?), is reported to have said: "Let me once and for all dispel the myth that Newsquest doesn't make money.
"Newsquest makes a lot of money. In fact, their margin, as I have said a couple times, is consistent with the margin that our local US Community Publishing operations generate.
"So their margins are in the high teens to low 20s and they have consistently made money throughout the years."
Oh right, well, that's okay then! If you're so chuffed Gracia, why not reward your staff? Oh, my mistake, you have, in the form of a 20% pay rise to one "top earning director" (believed to be Newsquest chief executive Paul Davidson).
The irony, of course, came in the form of a news story published in the hours following this brilliant news from the US regarding Newsquest, that jobs were to go as two new subbing hubs were being created in southern England, including shipping The Argus subs from Brighton to Southampton.
And which company is responsible for this? Newsquest of course, who are so good at making money.
While we're at it, I would urge Newsquest to issue a statement addressing the concerns of many friends of mine who work for that group, which is clearly so successful, on why there is a group-wide pay freeze which clearly, if we are to believe Gracia, only runs up to the buffers of "top earning directors".
Clearly, this is a cleverly-worded piece of super-jargon that is so clever and cunning that none of us will realise no journalist will ever have a cat in hell's chance of getting such a rise because when would one ever be a "top earning director".
It's enough to make you puke isn't it?
Monday, 11 October 2010
Twits, the lot of'em.
Yes, I have to admit it. I have been looking in to Twitter as a result of constant badgering from those of you good enough to read this little blog in passing every now and again.
Just some of the comments I have had:
"It's great, you can just post things straight away and not have to have an entire blog prepared."
"You should tweet*, you'll get loads more followers."
And...
"It's 140 characters so you won't be able to winge on talking shite to stretch out your blogs."
Okay, the last one was made up, but the others are real.
So, as I say, I've been looking in to it. And it has made me laugh a few times, so I am, today, going to announce the official Hapless Hack Twitter account. All I need to do is set it up.
Anyway, in perusing the latest internet phenom (apparently that's an acceptable word nowadays, as is nowadays) I have come across some very amusing things.
Yet I have also come to one very obvious conclusion. Basically, it's a tabloid hack's dream isn't it?
So-called 'celebrities' posting their thoughts, off-the-cuff, pr-free, reaching out to their 'fans' from the information super highway.
Or is it basically yet another tool for the lazy bastards that need something to write about?
Take the News of The World on Sunday. Now, I started following Lord Alan Sugar (let's be honest, it doesn't sound anywhere near as good as "Sir Alan") as apparently it is actually him, as he seems at pains to point out every five minutes.
So I watched his little joust with Conservative housing advisor extraordinaire Kirstie Allsopp as it happened, and chuckled to myself as I imagined the work experience kid at NoTW house tripping over as he ran to the newsdesk to explain the "row", "fight", whatever going on before his very eyes.
And sure enough, there it was on page 12 on Sunday, complete with "row", "bust-up" and amusing headline pun ('Apprentwit').
Oh, the joy of the technological age.
It's just an excuse for even more overblown crap really isn't it?
I'm going to start a new competition, email me (thehaplesshack@gmail.com) with your Twitter stories and I'll give away 50% of the highest tabloid fee I get to one lucky winner...
Anyway, you can now follow me on Twitter, I'm @haplesshack apparently, so climb on and let's join the revolution! See you there.
Just some of the comments I have had:
"It's great, you can just post things straight away and not have to have an entire blog prepared."
"You should tweet*, you'll get loads more followers."
And...
"It's 140 characters so you won't be able to winge on talking shite to stretch out your blogs."
Okay, the last one was made up, but the others are real.
So, as I say, I've been looking in to it. And it has made me laugh a few times, so I am, today, going to announce the official Hapless Hack Twitter account. All I need to do is set it up.
Anyway, in perusing the latest internet phenom (apparently that's an acceptable word nowadays, as is nowadays) I have come across some very amusing things.
Yet I have also come to one very obvious conclusion. Basically, it's a tabloid hack's dream isn't it?
So-called 'celebrities' posting their thoughts, off-the-cuff, pr-free, reaching out to their 'fans' from the information super highway.
Or is it basically yet another tool for the lazy bastards that need something to write about?
Take the News of The World on Sunday. Now, I started following Lord Alan Sugar (let's be honest, it doesn't sound anywhere near as good as "Sir Alan") as apparently it is actually him, as he seems at pains to point out every five minutes.
So I watched his little joust with Conservative housing advisor extraordinaire Kirstie Allsopp as it happened, and chuckled to myself as I imagined the work experience kid at NoTW house tripping over as he ran to the newsdesk to explain the "row", "fight", whatever going on before his very eyes.
And sure enough, there it was on page 12 on Sunday, complete with "row", "bust-up" and amusing headline pun ('Apprentwit').
Oh, the joy of the technological age.
It's just an excuse for even more overblown crap really isn't it?
I'm going to start a new competition, email me (thehaplesshack@gmail.com) with your Twitter stories and I'll give away 50% of the highest tabloid fee I get to one lucky winner...
Anyway, you can now follow me on Twitter, I'm @haplesshack apparently, so climb on and let's join the revolution! See you there.
Thursday, 22 July 2010
Press Release of the Week That WILL Feature in The Daily Mail & Daily Express
I know 'Press Release of the Week That WILL Feature in The Daily Mail & Daily Express' is not a feature of this blog, but I had to create one in honour of this release.
It's pure genius...
Here is the unedited copy (so the PR firm should send me at least a tenner):
Manchester United and the Cardiff Devils Ice Hockey Team face a boycott by Muslim fans because the devil emblems included in their club insignia could be outlawed in Islam.
Already religious leaders in Malaysia have forbidden Muslims to wear Manchester United shirts because the red devil emblem is forbidden in Islam.
The Johor Religious Council adviser and the Mufti of Perak have told fans that images of crosses, liquor brands and devils on football shirts are insulting to Allah.
This could spread to Britain which is home to 2.5 million Muslims.
Secret Millionaire star Paul Ragan and new owner of the Cardiff Devils denies there is any problem.
“We have a predominant ‘devil’ in our logo but the last thing in anyone’s mind was to cause any religious offence. No one has ever complained about our club name or our badge,” he said.
Cardiff has by far the largest Muslim population (4%) in Wales. In the Principality overall Muslims account for less than 1 per cent of the population (22,000 people).
Manchester United have devoted considerable effort in building a fan base for their merchandise in Malaysia. They toured there last summer and have a five-year sponsorship deal with communications group Telekom Malaysia.
“There is no excuse for wearing such garments because it means, as a Muslim, you are idolising the symbol of another religion,“ said Datuk Nooh Gadot, the Mufti of Johor.
The badges on Barcelona, Brazil, Portugal and Northern Ireland strips all feature crosses.
Who wants odds on it being in at least one national and the topic of conversation on EVERY talk-based radio phone-in in the next 24 hours?
bets to the usual address... Cash in advance you understand.
It's pure genius...
Here is the unedited copy (so the PR firm should send me at least a tenner):
Manchester United and the Cardiff Devils Ice Hockey Team face a boycott by Muslim fans because the devil emblems included in their club insignia could be outlawed in Islam.
Already religious leaders in Malaysia have forbidden Muslims to wear Manchester United shirts because the red devil emblem is forbidden in Islam.
The Johor Religious Council adviser and the Mufti of Perak have told fans that images of crosses, liquor brands and devils on football shirts are insulting to Allah.
This could spread to Britain which is home to 2.5 million Muslims.
Secret Millionaire star Paul Ragan and new owner of the Cardiff Devils denies there is any problem.
“We have a predominant ‘devil’ in our logo but the last thing in anyone’s mind was to cause any religious offence. No one has ever complained about our club name or our badge,” he said.
Cardiff has by far the largest Muslim population (4%) in Wales. In the Principality overall Muslims account for less than 1 per cent of the population (22,000 people).
Manchester United have devoted considerable effort in building a fan base for their merchandise in Malaysia. They toured there last summer and have a five-year sponsorship deal with communications group Telekom Malaysia.
“There is no excuse for wearing such garments because it means, as a Muslim, you are idolising the symbol of another religion,“ said Datuk Nooh Gadot, the Mufti of Johor.
The badges on Barcelona, Brazil, Portugal and Northern Ireland strips all feature crosses.
Who wants odds on it being in at least one national and the topic of conversation on EVERY talk-based radio phone-in in the next 24 hours?
bets to the usual address... Cash in advance you understand.
Monday, 19 July 2010
Hyperwhatallnow?
Have you ever heard the term 'hyperlocal'?
If you work in a newsroom and you ever pay any attention to anyone who wears a suit that cost more than your monthly salary, then you probably have.
It's the future, we're told, and involves providing news to communities that they will find relevant and interesting.
Well I never, whatever was it we were doing before?
Anyway, 'hyperlocal' is certainly the buzz term of the minute, so we are all being gently prodded, with a big stick made of redundancy, towards coming up with ways to achieve the ultimate in 'hyperlocal' coverage.
Just as research really, I looked up the term 'hyper' and derivations thereof in a bid to deduce exactly what it is these people may be after.
Needless to say, the results were disappointing:
hype n intensive or exaggerated publicity or sales promotion.
hyper adj Informal overactive or overexcited.
hyper- prefix over, above, excessively, e.g. hyperactive.
Still, first one to come up with exactly what it means wins a media industry...
If you work in a newsroom and you ever pay any attention to anyone who wears a suit that cost more than your monthly salary, then you probably have.
It's the future, we're told, and involves providing news to communities that they will find relevant and interesting.
Well I never, whatever was it we were doing before?
Anyway, 'hyperlocal' is certainly the buzz term of the minute, so we are all being gently prodded, with a big stick made of redundancy, towards coming up with ways to achieve the ultimate in 'hyperlocal' coverage.
Just as research really, I looked up the term 'hyper' and derivations thereof in a bid to deduce exactly what it is these people may be after.
Needless to say, the results were disappointing:
hype n intensive or exaggerated publicity or sales promotion.
hyper adj Informal overactive or overexcited.
hyper- prefix over, above, excessively, e.g. hyperactive.
Still, first one to come up with exactly what it means wins a media industry...
Thursday, 15 July 2010
Some funnies ahead of Friday!
Well, as we all know, a Thursday is basically a Friday in newsrooms up and down the country due to the classic 'final day wind-down'.
So in anticipation of the start of the drinking, here are a couple of funnies. I'll try and get back tomorrow for something for the weekend, as it were...
First up is the delightful Press Gazette (the magazine that is officially not as good as it used to be, like Viz), which must have been having a slow day on this occasion...
Yep, that is the homepage.
And just to round off this quick-fire bulletin, the new BBC News website had something of a glitch on only the second day post-launch.
The new layout shows off images really well, unfortunately...
So in anticipation of the start of the drinking, here are a couple of funnies. I'll try and get back tomorrow for something for the weekend, as it were...
First up is the delightful Press Gazette (the magazine that is officially not as good as it used to be, like Viz), which must have been having a slow day on this occasion...
Yep, that is the homepage.
And just to round off this quick-fire bulletin, the new BBC News website had something of a glitch on only the second day post-launch.
The new layout shows off images really well, unfortunately...
Needless to say, this was rectified later.
Tally ho!
Friday, 2 July 2010
Some funny news stories from recent weeks...
Apologies for being a bit distant recently with things to (hopefully) brighten the inevitably dull day in whatever newsroom/office/trolley park (these itelephones are all the rage you know) you may find yourself in, but here are a few notable news shits...
First up, the oh-so-pretty-and-clever website for the FIFA World Cup 2010TM (see an earlier post, it's a nightmare...).
While the site itself is very lovely and has all the bells and whistles you would expect from a multi-billion pound organistation, I noticed one glaring error when checking it for the time of a game (I can't remember which one, I'm a fuckwit I know).
That is clearly not going to be vivible is it? So I'll explain...
The time (handily included in the non-visible grab, I grant you) in the corner of my desktop says 12.27pm.
Flit to the very clever ad beside the picture and the countdown timer (sponsored, no doubt, for a lot of cash) says the next match begins in 10 hours and 32 minutes.
Seeing as the next match kicked off at 3pm, if I were the sponsor, I'd be kicking right off (at 12.27pm).
It's so incredibly famous by now, but I had to include this one, just for a giggle.
From the New York Post:
Cracking.
Anyway, sorry it's so short and sharp for the minute, but I will have a trawl today and find no end of crackers, I promise...
Meanwhile, if you find any, do email the usual address: thehaplesshack@gmail.com
It's nice when the inbox shows you're out there. Cheers for the mails, you know who you are!
First up, the oh-so-pretty-and-clever website for the FIFA World Cup 2010TM (see an earlier post, it's a nightmare...).
While the site itself is very lovely and has all the bells and whistles you would expect from a multi-billion pound organistation, I noticed one glaring error when checking it for the time of a game (I can't remember which one, I'm a fuckwit I know).
That is clearly not going to be vivible is it? So I'll explain...
The time (handily included in the non-visible grab, I grant you) in the corner of my desktop says 12.27pm.
Flit to the very clever ad beside the picture and the countdown timer (sponsored, no doubt, for a lot of cash) says the next match begins in 10 hours and 32 minutes.
Seeing as the next match kicked off at 3pm, if I were the sponsor, I'd be kicking right off (at 12.27pm).
It's so incredibly famous by now, but I had to include this one, just for a giggle.
From the New York Post:
Cracking.
Anyway, sorry it's so short and sharp for the minute, but I will have a trawl today and find no end of crackers, I promise...
Meanwhile, if you find any, do email the usual address: thehaplesshack@gmail.com
It's nice when the inbox shows you're out there. Cheers for the mails, you know who you are!
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Suck eggs? But how?
It's a common site in newspapers, both national and local, a story or comment condemning the waste of an unusually-large amount of money on a survey that tells us exactly what we already know.
You know the sort: '£15,000 for university to prove men have different down-belows to women', that kind of thing.
Yet the one that caught my eye this week was commissioned and published by the previously-esteemed Press Gazette.
The story (online) was headlined: 'PG poll: Web most popular source of sport news'
Well flip me sideways and call me Doreen.
I presume the PG (since when was it called that?) is intending for us newspaper bods to gasp in amazement that mullet-haired readers no longer get on their Chopper bikes, rush down to their independent newsagent every morning, eager to hand over their 5p for a paper.
But amazingly, most of us no longer live in 1975.
Of course the internet is the most popular way of finding out sport news, doh! In the world of a sports fan - and I can not call myself in any way a dedicated one, yet can still understand their obsession - any minute could bring news of a transfer deal, an injury to your star player, a manager's resignation, team news, etc.
So why would you wait?
The only thing that surprised me was the fact that a television provider was picked out as the favourite 'publication, website or broadcast outlet for sports news'.
But that wasn't what surprised me (obviously, if you can watch something on telly, you would rather that surely?), no, what surprised me was that the most popular choice among the 1,000 apparently-sensible adults polled, was the fuckin' BBC!
Now, far be it from me to knock our over-funded, snobbish and often rubbish public broadcaster but clearly, this is simply wrong.
I can only presume that maybe, just maybe, those polled DO in fact live in 1975, and Football bleedin' Focus remains king, in a land where a jibbering Mark Lawrenson and, quite frankly, annoying Lee Dixon share private jokes that noone else can find funny with the likes of Martin Keown (and he knows about the subtlety of tactics how?).
But that stand out fact aside, this survey was completely pointless. And I would even dare to hazard a guess that those who voted for good old Aunty still initially found their sports news online, only to watch the Footy Focus feature on it while their wives or husbands or whatever else were out picking up the bread.
Hang on though, hold the phone, this wasn't the only surprising thing in the results.
Only three newspapers made it into the top ten favoured sources of sport news.
Well fuck me, perhaps it is earlier than 1975, as I thought none would get in there.
You know the sort: '£15,000 for university to prove men have different down-belows to women', that kind of thing.
Yet the one that caught my eye this week was commissioned and published by the previously-esteemed Press Gazette.
The story (online) was headlined: 'PG poll: Web most popular source of sport news'
Well flip me sideways and call me Doreen.
I presume the PG (since when was it called that?) is intending for us newspaper bods to gasp in amazement that mullet-haired readers no longer get on their Chopper bikes, rush down to their independent newsagent every morning, eager to hand over their 5p for a paper.
But amazingly, most of us no longer live in 1975.
Of course the internet is the most popular way of finding out sport news, doh! In the world of a sports fan - and I can not call myself in any way a dedicated one, yet can still understand their obsession - any minute could bring news of a transfer deal, an injury to your star player, a manager's resignation, team news, etc.
So why would you wait?
The only thing that surprised me was the fact that a television provider was picked out as the favourite 'publication, website or broadcast outlet for sports news'.
But that wasn't what surprised me (obviously, if you can watch something on telly, you would rather that surely?), no, what surprised me was that the most popular choice among the 1,000 apparently-sensible adults polled, was the fuckin' BBC!
Now, far be it from me to knock our over-funded, snobbish and often rubbish public broadcaster but clearly, this is simply wrong.
I can only presume that maybe, just maybe, those polled DO in fact live in 1975, and Football bleedin' Focus remains king, in a land where a jibbering Mark Lawrenson and, quite frankly, annoying Lee Dixon share private jokes that noone else can find funny with the likes of Martin Keown (and he knows about the subtlety of tactics how?).
But that stand out fact aside, this survey was completely pointless. And I would even dare to hazard a guess that those who voted for good old Aunty still initially found their sports news online, only to watch the Footy Focus feature on it while their wives or husbands or whatever else were out picking up the bread.
Hang on though, hold the phone, this wasn't the only surprising thing in the results.
Only three newspapers made it into the top ten favoured sources of sport news.
Well fuck me, perhaps it is earlier than 1975, as I thought none would get in there.
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
The light is brighter from the outside...
It's funny how people suddenly become so critical once they leave a particular branch of the industry isn't it?
Case in point - Marc Reeves, former editor of the Birmingham Post.
In his blog, he speaks about how newspapers (including those under his leadership) have singularly failed to make the most of the internet.
While his thoughts may be exactly right, I do have one question to ask:
WHY DIDN'T YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT THEN?
It's all well and good moaning after the fact but let's be honest, an editor has at least some sway in his own newsroom, even when it comes to the digital offering?
Anyway, let's have a look at what he actually said, at least that way we can nod along and laugh...
"I spent the last 15 years of my newspaper career regularly attending industry conferences in which the threats and opportunities of the internet were endlessly discussed and analysed.
"Pretty much everything that has come to pass was predicted, but what did the big newspaper groups do? Very little that was right, it turns out."
Again, why didn't you, as the person attending these conferences (at no extra cost to your employer I presume) suggest doing anything differently? Or did you and were ignored?
Anyhoo, it continues...
"Saddled by a shareholder base that had grown used to the cash cow returns of a monopoly, the regional newspaper industry in particular was structurally incapable of adopting the entrepreneurial approach that is the only option available when almost every aspect of your business model is rendered obsolete."
Preach on, brother.
Advertising models, editorial models, everything should have changed. While it can be argued that certain elements of news content was, is, and always will be pretty much standard, something, anything, should have changed at some point.
Instead, we have the desperation of blogs, desperation and copycat websites called thisiswhateversomeoneelsehasalreadydonebetterthanus...
Marc makes some very good points very well, yet singularly fails to address what he would have done differently (it's worth noting he is now working for the thebusinessdesk, yawn).
Yet newspaper groups should listen to someone finally free from the shackles of managing directors who have no clue, advertising directors who continue to see online adverts as a 'bolt-on' for in-paper displays and the likes.
It is not easy to theorise that there are many, many other editors, still in office, who realise that they are effectively stewards of a sinking ship.
However, rather than sitting in another meeting talking about it and doing actually nothing, why doesn't some maverick actually try something different?
Why won't someone look to the future? And I mean actually look, not just babble on talking complete shit about how newspapers will be dead soon and we are all going to die, actually see how this could work?
No, they won't, because they have bonuses, pensions and shitty company cars to consider, as do many of us (not me, but you know, trying not to simply batter middle management here, oh fuck it, go on then...).
It's a shame that while these newspaper groups were enjoying the fruits of a booming market, they never actually utilised much of the talent that existed (and perhaps still does?) in the lower ranks.
No, they promoted a bunch of pricks instead, didn't they?
Sorry this has been a bit worthy-wank, I will be funny as soon as I can. Well, I'll try, you know what I mean...
Case in point - Marc Reeves, former editor of the Birmingham Post.
In his blog, he speaks about how newspapers (including those under his leadership) have singularly failed to make the most of the internet.
While his thoughts may be exactly right, I do have one question to ask:
WHY DIDN'T YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT THEN?
It's all well and good moaning after the fact but let's be honest, an editor has at least some sway in his own newsroom, even when it comes to the digital offering?
Anyway, let's have a look at what he actually said, at least that way we can nod along and laugh...
"I spent the last 15 years of my newspaper career regularly attending industry conferences in which the threats and opportunities of the internet were endlessly discussed and analysed.
"Pretty much everything that has come to pass was predicted, but what did the big newspaper groups do? Very little that was right, it turns out."
Again, why didn't you, as the person attending these conferences (at no extra cost to your employer I presume) suggest doing anything differently? Or did you and were ignored?
Anyhoo, it continues...
"Saddled by a shareholder base that had grown used to the cash cow returns of a monopoly, the regional newspaper industry in particular was structurally incapable of adopting the entrepreneurial approach that is the only option available when almost every aspect of your business model is rendered obsolete."
Preach on, brother.
Advertising models, editorial models, everything should have changed. While it can be argued that certain elements of news content was, is, and always will be pretty much standard, something, anything, should have changed at some point.
Instead, we have the desperation of blogs, desperation and copycat websites called thisiswhateversomeoneelsehasalreadydonebetterthanus...
Marc makes some very good points very well, yet singularly fails to address what he would have done differently (it's worth noting he is now working for the thebusinessdesk, yawn).
Yet newspaper groups should listen to someone finally free from the shackles of managing directors who have no clue, advertising directors who continue to see online adverts as a 'bolt-on' for in-paper displays and the likes.
It is not easy to theorise that there are many, many other editors, still in office, who realise that they are effectively stewards of a sinking ship.
However, rather than sitting in another meeting talking about it and doing actually nothing, why doesn't some maverick actually try something different?
Why won't someone look to the future? And I mean actually look, not just babble on talking complete shit about how newspapers will be dead soon and we are all going to die, actually see how this could work?
No, they won't, because they have bonuses, pensions and shitty company cars to consider, as do many of us (not me, but you know, trying not to simply batter middle management here, oh fuck it, go on then...).
It's a shame that while these newspaper groups were enjoying the fruits of a booming market, they never actually utilised much of the talent that existed (and perhaps still does?) in the lower ranks.
No, they promoted a bunch of pricks instead, didn't they?
Sorry this has been a bit worthy-wank, I will be funny as soon as I can. Well, I'll try, you know what I mean...
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
A few funnies to go with the sunshine...
Well, here we are eh? The sun is streaming through the window, everything (even the office car park) is looking fantastic in the gleam, although the glare through the window is still pissing everyone off...
Anyway, enough of that bollocks, let's laugh at someone less fortunate than us, shall we?
First up, I've got to post this, not because the site, the writing, or anything is bad, it's just ludicrous (as anyone of a certain age who remembers proper festivals will agree, I'm sure)...
Isn't that lovely? In fact, to correct myself, isn't everything that is wrong with the modern music festival, encapsulated in one story? Waitrose? Delia Smith? Are you fuckin sure?
Anyway, enough of that folly, on to something serious. Well, kind of.
http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/news/100601response.shtml
Genius from the Newspaper Society, which is apprently fighting for us and our jobs. Gawd 'elp us all.
A fuckwit at the Beeb may steal a local rag's story (try addressing the fuckin' agencies NS, who genuinely rob cash from reporter's pockets)? Who would Adam and Eve it eh? Still, fear not, I hear our old friends at http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/ (bless 'em) have hatched a plan to catch out these pesky story-stealing twats, and it's cunning...
I'm not sure if you can make that out very well, but the salient points are this; the story is about a Gloucester chap, named as "Ibrahim Musaji", who was caught up in the Gaza/Israel/Palestine incident this week.
"All well and good Hapless, those reporters are doing their job," I hear you cry!
But hold the phone peeps. As we cut to the following morning...
The follow up...
"Hey Hapless, you're out of order now, they've even followed the story up and you're still pissing and moaning?" again, I hear your cries...
But look a bit closer (as I said, you may not be able to see, so up yours), or I will just explain...
The first story, as mentioned above, concerns the plight of "Ibrahim Musaji". The second? Well, that's something else entirely, despite the picture, as that is about "Ebrahim Musaji".
You see?
"Hang on now Hapless, that's it, I'm going to kick your sorry ass for being so out of order when someone simply makes a mistake," I hear you spit from your vile little mouths (not really, I'm sure you're lovely).
I'm with you, everyone can make a mistake, although I found these two on the same day, so why they wouldn't have changed the incorrect one (whichever that is!) is beyond me.
"So, Hapless, what is the fucking point of any of this?" your final cry rings out...
Well, clearly, one of these names is wrong, and I am going to presume it's the first story (as why would you repeat the error?) because a simple search reveals:
Yes, a BBC story, posted a couple of hours later than that at http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/, featuring the spelling "Ibrahim"...
So, from what do we deduce from this dear Watson?
Could it be that the reporter at http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/ is a fuckwit who spelt the name wrong in the first story?
Possibly.
Is it that the BBC then "lifted" said story, therefore making exactly the same mistake?
Again, possibly.
Or could it be that http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/ spelt a chap's name correctly in their first story, then incorrectly in the second?
I leave it for you, my dear readers, to decide for yourselves (theories, answers on a postcard (or email, to the usual address please)...
If you don't know the usual address, it's thehaplesshack@gmail.com, I thank you.
Anyway, enough of that bollocks, let's laugh at someone less fortunate than us, shall we?
First up, I've got to post this, not because the site, the writing, or anything is bad, it's just ludicrous (as anyone of a certain age who remembers proper festivals will agree, I'm sure)...
Isn't that lovely? In fact, to correct myself, isn't everything that is wrong with the modern music festival, encapsulated in one story? Waitrose? Delia Smith? Are you fuckin sure?
Anyway, enough of that folly, on to something serious. Well, kind of.
http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/news/100601response.shtml
Genius from the Newspaper Society, which is apprently fighting for us and our jobs. Gawd 'elp us all.
A fuckwit at the Beeb may steal a local rag's story (try addressing the fuckin' agencies NS, who genuinely rob cash from reporter's pockets)? Who would Adam and Eve it eh? Still, fear not, I hear our old friends at http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/ (bless 'em) have hatched a plan to catch out these pesky story-stealing twats, and it's cunning...
I'm not sure if you can make that out very well, but the salient points are this; the story is about a Gloucester chap, named as "Ibrahim Musaji", who was caught up in the Gaza/Israel/Palestine incident this week.
"All well and good Hapless, those reporters are doing their job," I hear you cry!
But hold the phone peeps. As we cut to the following morning...
The follow up...
"Hey Hapless, you're out of order now, they've even followed the story up and you're still pissing and moaning?" again, I hear your cries...
But look a bit closer (as I said, you may not be able to see, so up yours), or I will just explain...
The first story, as mentioned above, concerns the plight of "Ibrahim Musaji". The second? Well, that's something else entirely, despite the picture, as that is about "Ebrahim Musaji".
You see?
"Hang on now Hapless, that's it, I'm going to kick your sorry ass for being so out of order when someone simply makes a mistake," I hear you spit from your vile little mouths (not really, I'm sure you're lovely).
I'm with you, everyone can make a mistake, although I found these two on the same day, so why they wouldn't have changed the incorrect one (whichever that is!) is beyond me.
"So, Hapless, what is the fucking point of any of this?" your final cry rings out...
Well, clearly, one of these names is wrong, and I am going to presume it's the first story (as why would you repeat the error?) because a simple search reveals:
Yes, a BBC story, posted a couple of hours later than that at http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/, featuring the spelling "Ibrahim"...
So, from what do we deduce from this dear Watson?
Could it be that the reporter at http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/ is a fuckwit who spelt the name wrong in the first story?
Possibly.
Is it that the BBC then "lifted" said story, therefore making exactly the same mistake?
Again, possibly.
Or could it be that http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/ spelt a chap's name correctly in their first story, then incorrectly in the second?
I leave it for you, my dear readers, to decide for yourselves (theories, answers on a postcard (or email, to the usual address please)...
If you don't know the usual address, it's thehaplesshack@gmail.com, I thank you.
Thursday, 13 May 2010
Please, for God's sake...
Now even I'm getting fed up of it.
Yes, it's www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk AGAIN.
I have been made aware of a massive problem that clearly someone at Northcliffe, or at whatever regional centre runs Gloucestershire's site, has overlooked...
Many people, particularly with a relaunch only weeks ago, would want to contact the site to let them know what they think.
So, a contact form is vital you would imagine, and there duly is one on hand (see below).
Yes, it's www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk AGAIN.
I have been made aware of a massive problem that clearly someone at Northcliffe, or at whatever regional centre runs Gloucestershire's site, has overlooked...
Many people, particularly with a relaunch only weeks ago, would want to contact the site to let them know what they think.
So, a contact form is vital you would imagine, and there duly is one on hand (see below).
So, you fill in your comment, yet when you click the 'Send' button, disaster!
You are presented with a page from the beta version of the OLD thisisgloucestershire.co.uk (again, see below)!
And yes, you can navigate around the OLD thisisgloucestershire.co.uk beta site to your heart's content.
Let's hope there is no embarrassing content uploaded on there as a test...
For fuck's sake people, how shit do these sites have to be before someone does something?
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
Cash cow? How?
I seem to have seen it on every news page and read it on every news website more than 1,000,000 times in the past six months.
Open a newspaper now and look, yep, there it is.
I'm talking about the web plug. And I don't mean a box reading "Tell us what you think at www.blah.com", I mean something different, a new kind of space wasting...
"Follow us on Twitter"
"Find us on Facebook"
It's these bastards I'm talking about.
Now, I can understand a plug to the site from a newspaper - although on every story on every page is, frankly, ridiculous - but to flag up twitter and facebook accounts seems a complete and utter waste of time to me.
While I'm sure it's great for anyone who knows nothing about anything (they seem to feature more and more prominently in newsrooms don't they?) to say "ooh, Mr Charlie Big Bollocks, we now have 14,000,000,000 followers on twitter".
And I'm sure fellow know-nothing, who drives a company BMW, will respond about how great that news is.
But why?
Why is it great that someone is (probably) costing the much under-funded editorial budget far too much money to put stories on twitter, or facebook?
Yes, each may garner a few dozen more links for a story, but really, do we need someone giving serious time to this pursuit, which I can only assume is a case of vanity on behalf of each site, or newspaper?
Now, it would be different if someone had told me how much money they were making from such endeavours, but we all know that the grand total of income generated from having an infinite amount of friends on facebook is... Zero.
And twitter? Yep, zero.
Let's be honest, in reality, facebook and twitter don't really know how to make money from themselves, so why the hell would the ever backward-thinking newspaper industry suddenly be any different?
And please, someone tell me why we are taking up far too much space which could, ultimately, be used for exactly what people DO pay for - news.
I'm sure someone, someday, will come up with the framework for us all to make off these things (just as we were told they would with the internet 10 years ago, but how you doing on that one?) but until they do, why are we wasting time and resources on such folly?
I ask you.
Yet again, as I so often whinge on about, it is the misinformed and clueless managers employed at newspapers who will trumpet these things, as a smokescreen for their own failure.
You watch those middle managers hark on about success on facebook. They will lap it up, because equally-clueless senior management (who are too old to know what a laptop is, let alone anything else) will believe every bloody word they say and issue a directive that all reporters should immediately be tweeting their stories from the field before getting copy to newsdesks...
Honestly, it makes me want to turn into Adam Boulton.
By the way, I'm sure you can follow this on twitter, or facebook, or something... But you may want to just come back and read it next time?
Open a newspaper now and look, yep, there it is.
I'm talking about the web plug. And I don't mean a box reading "Tell us what you think at www.blah.com", I mean something different, a new kind of space wasting...
"Follow us on Twitter"
"Find us on Facebook"
It's these bastards I'm talking about.
Now, I can understand a plug to the site from a newspaper - although on every story on every page is, frankly, ridiculous - but to flag up twitter and facebook accounts seems a complete and utter waste of time to me.
While I'm sure it's great for anyone who knows nothing about anything (they seem to feature more and more prominently in newsrooms don't they?) to say "ooh, Mr Charlie Big Bollocks, we now have 14,000,000,000 followers on twitter".
And I'm sure fellow know-nothing, who drives a company BMW, will respond about how great that news is.
But why?
Why is it great that someone is (probably) costing the much under-funded editorial budget far too much money to put stories on twitter, or facebook?
Yes, each may garner a few dozen more links for a story, but really, do we need someone giving serious time to this pursuit, which I can only assume is a case of vanity on behalf of each site, or newspaper?
Now, it would be different if someone had told me how much money they were making from such endeavours, but we all know that the grand total of income generated from having an infinite amount of friends on facebook is... Zero.
And twitter? Yep, zero.
Let's be honest, in reality, facebook and twitter don't really know how to make money from themselves, so why the hell would the ever backward-thinking newspaper industry suddenly be any different?
And please, someone tell me why we are taking up far too much space which could, ultimately, be used for exactly what people DO pay for - news.
I'm sure someone, someday, will come up with the framework for us all to make off these things (just as we were told they would with the internet 10 years ago, but how you doing on that one?) but until they do, why are we wasting time and resources on such folly?
I ask you.
Yet again, as I so often whinge on about, it is the misinformed and clueless managers employed at newspapers who will trumpet these things, as a smokescreen for their own failure.
You watch those middle managers hark on about success on facebook. They will lap it up, because equally-clueless senior management (who are too old to know what a laptop is, let alone anything else) will believe every bloody word they say and issue a directive that all reporters should immediately be tweeting their stories from the field before getting copy to newsdesks...
Honestly, it makes me want to turn into Adam Boulton.
By the way, I'm sure you can follow this on twitter, or facebook, or something... But you may want to just come back and read it next time?
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Newspapers compared to the Premier League...
Newspapers can be directly compared to Premier League football clubs.
There it is, I've said it. And while it may sound ridiculous, please permit me the time to argue my apparently-bullshit point...
Premier League clubs had their day. The first TV deal done with Sky was worth somewhere around £200m, which was unheard of at the time.
The deal then increased, to more than £1 billion.
Obviously, the clubs spent this new money lavishly, be it on ludicrous transfer fees, or the oft-slammed player wages.
Now compare that to newspapers. Many were the unchallenged media outlet of their time. In the early- to mid-eighties, newspapers seemed to have endless amounts of cash (simply listen to the whinging reporter or resident old person in your news room for tales of 'the old days' and how they had money and expenses thrown at them).
Then, the bubble starts to burst.
The financial slowdown has hit both industries hard. Football clubs, not in the Premier League but elsewhere, have gone into administration, with Premier League clubs soon to follow.
Newspapers too have closed, offices have shut, central 'hubs' created and printing presses sold off.
However, while we criticise the football clubs for the way they are run, surely it is only a matter of scale?
Take a look at the stories regarding West Ham recently. Their new owners came out in the press, berating previous incumbents for employing doctors at £200,000 a pop, players on mad money and giving everyone at the club a mobile phone. They didn't even know what some people did, they claimed, while pledging to make sweeping changes.
Now look around your newsroom. I bet there are people there that seem to do nothing. Nothing.
I bet there are part-time reporters, more-often feature writers, who come in for two or three days a week, churn out a couple of press releases and go home.
Alas, perhaps the biggest source of your not-doing-anything-but-being-paid-a-lot ligger, is in middle management.
Cuts have taken their toll on this much-maligned worker, however, we are still deluged with managing editors / content editors / assistant editors / editors-in-chief etc.
Yet where have the biggest losses come? Reporting staff, no question.
So why are we so bemused at the collapse of newspapers?
Football clubs are disappearing nowhere near as quickly as newspapers. Why? Because they aren't making their players redundant, they are losing those not-needed doctors, managers and mind-helpers...
Players are the club's assets, as are reporters. Good ones.
So, a piece of advice for newspaper groups; don't immediately cut reporters, or see them as cannon fodder.
Instead, walk up to everyone in your office and ask a simple question: "What are you doing today? In fact, right now?"
Anyone who gives you a blank look, or says they are catching up on things, should be given a notice immediately.
Also, anyone with a title with the main factor being "special products" or "special projects", yep, get in the dole queue too my son.
Get rid of these people, usually paid double that of a decent trainee, reinvest some of it in staff, some to prop up the profits and you're laughing.
The point is, I believe newspapers DO have the resources to provide really good coverage - just as good as in 'the old days' - only they choose to distribute these resources in completely the wrong ways.
Probably because those who would make this decision would lose their own job...
There it is, I've said it. And while it may sound ridiculous, please permit me the time to argue my apparently-bullshit point...
Premier League clubs had their day. The first TV deal done with Sky was worth somewhere around £200m, which was unheard of at the time.
The deal then increased, to more than £1 billion.
Obviously, the clubs spent this new money lavishly, be it on ludicrous transfer fees, or the oft-slammed player wages.
Now compare that to newspapers. Many were the unchallenged media outlet of their time. In the early- to mid-eighties, newspapers seemed to have endless amounts of cash (simply listen to the whinging reporter or resident old person in your news room for tales of 'the old days' and how they had money and expenses thrown at them).
Then, the bubble starts to burst.
The financial slowdown has hit both industries hard. Football clubs, not in the Premier League but elsewhere, have gone into administration, with Premier League clubs soon to follow.
Newspapers too have closed, offices have shut, central 'hubs' created and printing presses sold off.
However, while we criticise the football clubs for the way they are run, surely it is only a matter of scale?
Take a look at the stories regarding West Ham recently. Their new owners came out in the press, berating previous incumbents for employing doctors at £200,000 a pop, players on mad money and giving everyone at the club a mobile phone. They didn't even know what some people did, they claimed, while pledging to make sweeping changes.
Now look around your newsroom. I bet there are people there that seem to do nothing. Nothing.
I bet there are part-time reporters, more-often feature writers, who come in for two or three days a week, churn out a couple of press releases and go home.
Alas, perhaps the biggest source of your not-doing-anything-but-being-paid-a-lot ligger, is in middle management.
Cuts have taken their toll on this much-maligned worker, however, we are still deluged with managing editors / content editors / assistant editors / editors-in-chief etc.
Yet where have the biggest losses come? Reporting staff, no question.
So why are we so bemused at the collapse of newspapers?
Football clubs are disappearing nowhere near as quickly as newspapers. Why? Because they aren't making their players redundant, they are losing those not-needed doctors, managers and mind-helpers...
Players are the club's assets, as are reporters. Good ones.
So, a piece of advice for newspaper groups; don't immediately cut reporters, or see them as cannon fodder.
Instead, walk up to everyone in your office and ask a simple question: "What are you doing today? In fact, right now?"
Anyone who gives you a blank look, or says they are catching up on things, should be given a notice immediately.
Also, anyone with a title with the main factor being "special products" or "special projects", yep, get in the dole queue too my son.
Get rid of these people, usually paid double that of a decent trainee, reinvest some of it in staff, some to prop up the profits and you're laughing.
The point is, I believe newspapers DO have the resources to provide really good coverage - just as good as in 'the old days' - only they choose to distribute these resources in completely the wrong ways.
Probably because those who would make this decision would lose their own job...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)