Johann to be kidding...

I have read and dismissed a lot of Johann Hari over the years. Not for any political reason other than much of his flowery, overly-ambitious copy goes against my very being.

However, it never came as any surprise to me that such writing would garner awards from across the world of journalism.

Well, from the world of journalism that puts so much stock in whether a former editor and a Channel 4 news presenter removed from what many would call the 'coal face' these days thinks of you after reading your stuff, with only a 250-word piece you've written blowing smoke up your own arse and a complete lack of any 'real' context for company, anyway.

I must admit to being hugely surprised at his actions, however, and I am attempting to stick to those which he has admitted himself were wrong, involving using previously spoken quotes in his own interview pieces.

I am also surprised at the amount of support he has had. Who the fuck thinks this is okay?

The Independent? Surely not.

Fuck how flowery he can make his copy, simply put yourself in this situation, if you can remember being anywhere but a completely self-facing, patronising place as most national newsrooms are these days.

Your reporter returns from an interview of some importance, yet when you ask how it went and what he or she got, they respond with a blank face and say '[whomever they interviewed] didn't say much, but not to worry as I'll whack in some quotes form their book or from other interviews and write well around it'.

What would you do?

Please do not tell me - while expecting me to keep a straight face - that your reaction would be to pat him on the head, tell him what a good job he was doing and endorse the cheeky little fucker's nomination for a prestigious award.

An allegation too far for the News Of The World?

A while ago, I wrote a piece on how newspapers should be very careful when judging the News of the World as more and more details of the alleged phone-hacking scandal emerged.

I argued then that many newspapers should be wary of the heat given to the News of the Screws as it would inevitably come back to haunt them - and the industry as a whole.

I stand by that, to an extent.

Yet, the latest allegations - that reporters/private detectives hacked the phone of missing schoolgirl Milly Dowler before we discovered the horrific truth of her disappearance - do put something of a new light on things.

While never excusing the use of phone hacking, if indeed it was a common tactic for harvesting stories, I defended the needs of reporters under extreme pressure to produce exclusives and stated that many of us would use any means necessary to get the exclusive yarn.

But this does indeed feel like a step too far.

This is not using the tactic to find out if Jude Law is back together with Sienna Miller.

No, this allegation does not simply centre on listening in on messages, but claims messages were deleted once the missing girl's mailbox was full.

This is a whole new ball game, for everyone.

Not only could it have caused the police and her family problems, indeed may well have done, it also suggests a deeper heartlessness which many would have subconsciously ignored when reading of previous allegations and cases.

This story has now entered the world which the NoTW itself loves to harvest - that of the human interest story.

The News of the World itself ran an exclusive interview with the Dowler parents shortly after their daughter disappeared.

Now, it is alleged that they themselves had some hand in what those traumatised parents spoke of, what they thought, what they believed.

Journalists, if we could ever call them that, on the red tops may well have committed the ultimate act of suicide, launched the bullet with their name on it into their own foot, by crossing a line so cherished by their readers and which forms the basis of their own content.

The same self-righteous readers championing NoTW campaigns and shedding tears over interviews like that with the Dowlers, may well now turn on the paper that likes to think of itself as their voice.

The housewives and white van men who take so much comfort in bemoaning the actions of celebrities and the apparent idiocy of councils/the EU/the government highlighted by the NoTW week in, week out, may no longer hide behind the seemingly harmless world of 'well, you can't believe what you read in the papers anyway'.

No, now there is something they simply won't ignore. The News of the World has become the story, exactly the wrong type of story for them because they are now the aggressor against a traumatised family going through the kind of hell they milk every Sunday for sales.

The Milly Dowler allegations take this whole sorry saga to a new level, a level so base that not even the NoTW can ignore it, though they will doubtless hide behind another cloak of denial and shameless misinformation on what went on.

Other papers too must now brace themselves for the fallout, as I predict this won't be the last scandal to emerge from the murky underworld that has become national newspaper journalism.

And while I once warned of the consequences of such a collapse, I now rather welcome the possible demise of the tabloids (and possibly broadsheets) as we know them.

For while these people are spending thousands on private detectives and solicitors to fight battles they really have no right to wage, there are thousands of hard working reporters in the world who have no such resources to call on, no such tactics to use, who walk in to newsrooms up and down the country every day unconvinced they will walk out with a job.

The meek shall inherit the earth, and please, let it be those still working with some sort of integrity.

Great empires such as News International do fall, history tells us so, yet the world keeps turning.

Hopefully, painful though it will be for anyone linked with any newspaper, this could ultimately send it in the right direction.

Oxbridge? Groaniad indeed...

So some very flawed research over at Guardian Towers has 'revealed' that 38 per cent of the editorial workforce has a degree from either Oxford or Cambridge.

In my opinion, this 'research' is vastly underestimating that proportion.

I would estimate it's nearer 50 or 60 per cent, but that's just a guess - which basically makes it a fact, going by the same criteria as the research itself.

What other background could Guardian journalists have? I mean, no aspiring reporter - no matter how good - could afford to work in central London, have travelled to far-flung parts of the world and studied at Oxbridge before deciding they fancy having a go at journalism.

And that's before we consider the cost of the clothes these people wear, be it in court, a press conference or elsewhere.

No, these guys and gals wouldn't be seen dead in an ink-stained shirt that fitted you nicely in 2003 (the last clean one you had in the wardrobe), your old school shoes and a tatty suit your mum bought you for the interview.

And unfortunately, the distant reality enjoyed by these employees is coming through in the printed product and its agenda more and more.

The very idea that anyone doesn't already know this, or gives a flying fuck about where little Crispin wasted three years studying philosophy, is proof enough of the arrogance The Guardian now uses as fuel with which to power the continual production of inane drivel under the guise of 'proper' or 'meaningful' journalism, which is largely wide of the mark and equally wide of the agenda such a paper should be pursuing.

I am not a Guardian hater, but the percentage of what it does that has any merit or integrity is decreasing at a rapid rate.

The Guardian is now surviving on the very same principles as its reporters; portraying a fashionable facade with very little real content inside.

However, should anyone at The Guardian feel the need to correct my opinions, feel free to do so via thehaplesshack@gmail.com, or via Twitter - @haplesshack

Someone said it for me. And well.

As a follow up to my recent berating of 'aspiring' hacks who wouldn't know a story if it bit them on the arse, I thought I'd post this piece by former Guardian editor Peter Preston, who has expressed my sentiments far better than I could ever hope to do.

However, to chip in my foul-mouthed tuppence worth, read this you fucking wannabes and stop bleating on about how The Guardian is impartial while sitting in Starbucks.

And MDs across the country could do with reading it too, perhaps then they may take that 'mission statement' which is on the wall of their office on a nice plastic plaque a bit more seriously.

Anyway, Peter's piece full:

"Journalism isn't about sitting in some lofty office thinking great thoughts. It is about knowing the people you're writing for, understanding their concerns, their hopes and fears. And you can only do that if you’re out there amongst them, being part of the community you aim to serve.

"I started in journalism, long ago, doing school holiday shifts on my local paper, writing my first features about life at the university just up the road. When I went to university myself I did every job going on the twice-weekly student paper there - and then learned my trade on Liverpool's big evening and morning papers. I did funerals, Rotary Club speeches, dog shows, council rows and rugby matches. And at the end of that stint, when I moved on to cover local politics for the Guardian, I think I’d learned something precious. That politics doesn't exist in some rarefied world at Westminster. That democracy lives, breathes and reacts in the minds and the lives of the people you catch a bus to work with every morning. That the local dimension isn't some remote step ladder on the route to the top. It's where everything begins. It’s the foundation stone of society.

"And that's as true today as it ever was. Your local paper, in villages, towns and cities up and down the land, is there to reflect you, yourself - your own running commentary on life. In the mazy world of the world-wide web, where nothing seems more than a click away, it is still the place where the people around you put down their roots.

"There's been a local press in Britain for as long as there have been newspapers. There will be newspapers - in one form or another - for as long as people care about what happens around them. News is a necessity, your link to your neighbours. Prize

it, relish it, support it... because, not just in Local Newspaper Week but every week of the year, it helps your world go round."

Keepin' it real.

The Glum Times - an enjoyable two-page read

Oh dear, glum times in the newsroom as the age-old gripe returns; paginations.

In the heady days of easily-achieved 30% profit margins, expenses that served as your food shopping and two reporters (plus photographer) for every job, the possibility of cutting pages was folly, where would there be space for all of the advertisers knocking down our door to hand us their used £50 notes?

Alas, as we all know, those days are long gone.

Instead, we've all seen the cost-cutting initiatives rolled out in force across newspaper groups, all featuring a snappy, employee-friendly name like 'Aim Higher', 'Pursuing Excellence', when they should just be honest and call them 'Pursuing Lost Old Profits' - or PLOP for short.

So it was as we were glumly informed that due to a slow January (when is January not slow?) for advertising, our papers were going to be reduced to about one page of news each.

The raising of eyebrows around the conference table was almost audible among those who have been here before because we know how this goes.

Cut paginations, fewer stories, fewer staff.

The amount of resigned indignation was incredible and I suspect most people in the office are going to spend their Friday afternoon updating their CVs.

So why do management continue to chase that which is long past?

While none of us are so fucking stupid as to pretend things are easy out there, nor are we so naive as to think we are actually losing money.

We're not, and we know it.

Oh no, the problem for those enjoying a whopping pay increase is that the margins are falling, so for example, instead of making a £4,000,000 profit this year, we're heading for a mere £3,000,000 profit.

Obviously, the multinational companies that now own your local and regional newspapers couldn't give a flying fuck that this is still a hugely profitable business, they merely want to earn as much as they can, as much as last year, as much as ten years ago, so fuck us all over in a bid to return to that level.

It's absolute lunacy and must end. And I'm comfortable predicting that it will come to an end, in one way or another, this year.

How long before Newsquest, or Northcliffe, simply grows tired of not making the profits they used to and sells everything?

Surely it won't be long.

And far from fearing that day, I relish it coming, because once the evil empires loosen their grip on everything anyone reads and looks at online, the groups will splinter, some taken on by independent owners, even worker groups.

Then, and only then, will we see a newspaper run properly once more, by people who care about what goes in, what doesn't go in, and cares about the quality of the package over and above a huge profit margin.

Perhaps then we will see a newspaper that is happy with a 10% profit - 10% of a lot is still a lot - and will invest in quality product and people.

But am I just dreaming? You tell me...

Meanwhile, I'm off to update my CV and work out how I can maintain a story count in a newspaper the size of a Starbucks napkin.


You can, should you be minded, follow me on Twitter - @haplesshack - or email me at thehaplesshack@gmail.com

Is anyone listening in?

It may come as something as a surprise, but I have never blogged on the so-called phone hacking 'scandal'.

Being a legally-minded yellow belly has played a part in that of course, but so has my own difficulty in settling on an opinion of this tactic, whether it has happened or not.

You see, the clear cut moral supremacist in me immediately wants to cry 'outrage', 'folly' and other such words only an indignant mother can use with any authority.

But the reporter in me yearns to cry 'what the hell, these things are news and if people don't want you to find out, they should sort their fucking lives out' at the top of my voice across the newsroom.

So where do I fall? I remain, as yet, undecided.

One thing I can tell you however, is where I don't fall. That, my friends, is in the sickeningly self-righteous camp of those seemingly taking such joy in highlighting the alleged working processes of some newsrooms.

I mean, come on, even the most liberal newshound on Planet Papers has to swallow a bit of ego here and admit - to themselves in a darkened room on a cold winter night if no-one else - that they would love to have written the possible exclusives these alleged hackings have produced.

And more to the point, if they don't, why the fuck not?

The last thing any reporter who understands the pressure in a national newsroom should be doing is taking this easy chance to, effectively, shit on their brethren.

Because like it or not folks, newspapers will ultimately stand and fall together, tabloid or broadsheet, tits-on-page-three or no-tits-on-page-three.

If we are all so confident we have never, ever, pushed a boundary in the pursuit of truth; whether we perceive it as being in the public interest or otherwise, then this nauseating witch hunt taking place at the NotW should continue unabated.

However, cast your mind back to your first day in a newsroom.

What would you have done to score a huge exclusive to impress the scary person sitting in the big office? I can guarantee the answer would have been an unequivocal 'anything'.

No, that doesn't excuse illegal tactics, if any of those being alleged have been used and those caught should face stern punishments.

But please, save me the self-righteous pontificating so much in evidence currently.

Student rags, or not?

As students started acting up this afternoon, I thought I'd do a quick run round the news sites, to see what everyone was making of the whole thing...

Anyway, here's the summary!

The Times:



Telegraph:



Metro:



Daily Mail:



Guardian:



Evening Standard:



BBC:



Interesting? Hardly... Mind you, the good old Express had nothing. Nothing at all. Can't say they don't know their audience, as there has been absolutely no mention of either Princess Diana or Madeleine McCann at the protests so far...

Carried out at around 2pm on November 24, 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...

When splashes go bad...

We've all been there.

You're running the newsdesk, an hour before deadline, and the splash falls through.

You've sold it to the editor, who has been touting it around his editor chums (I presume they call each other 'chums'? I think they should), telling them the next day's paper will sweep the board at next year's awards dos.

Then, almost in slow motion, you notice the reporter writing it is speaking to you.

The words come out slowly, deeply... And it's gone.

You compose yourself, try not to shout at them too loudly for waiting a week before actually doing any work on the story, then pop and see the editor.

This goes well, as you assure him you have an equally brilliant story as a back up, which of course, you don't.

A quick check with the court reporters proves fruitless, your 'banker' reporter has nothing, even the geeky bloke in the corner who only does FoI stories draws a blank.

Okay, compose yourself, there's a planning agenda on the desk. Yes, a planning agenda! Good old-fashioned reporting.

Yes, there has to be something in the planning agenda for God's sake...

And there is. Sort of.



Oh dear.

Imagine the editor's face when you go to him with this? You've oversold it, you know that, but you can make it work, you can...

But sometimes, you just can't.

The above story is a woeful tale. Planning application for a nursery. That's it. No hidden agenda. It's not a nursery for criminally-insane toddlers or anything like that.

No, it's just a nursery.

Quite how it has turned in to a honey trap for paedophiles is never actually explained, until mum-of-two Natalie Rooney steps in to the fray...

“We think there will be traffic problems because of all the parents dropping off and picking up their children.

“We think there will be noise problems because the children will be playing outdoors. We are also worried that paedophiles will be attracted to the area to be close to the nursery.”

Okay... She is worried that paedophiles will move in to the area to be close to the nursery.

Incredible.

Not only should the reporter have dismissed this immediately, actually, reporter Michael Purton should have 'mmm'-ed and 'aahhh'-ed in an agreeable tone before putting down the phone and pissing himself, but when the desk got this copy, they should have sorted it.

And the subs, surely the subs would not let such a thing through?

Wrong again.

All round, this is really not a ringing endorsement of the quality of reporting at News Shopper.

It;s lazy, it's desperate, and while I don't doubt it's probably the most-read edition for many years, it is NOT the way editors should be tempting in readers.

Sensationalism of the worst kind, done badly (what is going on with that headline?), and a copy of this should be held up at every single meeting to discuss why newspapers are a. hated and b. why sales are falling through the floor.

Do follow me on Twitter - I do get on there occasionally, so I will reply to any direct tweets or whatever it is you do on there! @haplesshack

Still on a massive seven followers - who I am eternally grateful too and will give a shout out to in the next blog! Join them and you'll get one too!

Here we go again on our own...

Well, well, well, just when we thought it was safe to come out from under the desk (where we all hide from time to time in the hope of avoiding the MD's eyes when he's playing ennie-meenie-minie-mo to select the next round of redundencies) it appears Northcliffe have once again opened that particular can of 'further efficiencies' worms...

Yep, another 50-plus subbing jobs are set to go across the Northcliffe stable in a fresh bid to save (and make) even more money.

While many business gurus will say that these things will happen in "times of economic downturns" and other such bollocks, the previous set of redundancies and creation of subbing 'hubs' seems also to have been abandoned, suggesting at best shortsightedness, at worst, a complete balls up of a business plan.

Why, all of a sudden, would a decision taken - at great expense and moral-sapping staff costs - less than 12 months ago, suddenly be a bad idea?

I just don't understand it.

And nor, it appears, does anyone at Northcliffe.

Just read that information again...

"The Plymouth hub is set to lose all responsibility for production of the Plymouth Herald, Torquay Herald Express, Exeter Express and Echo and Mid-Devon Gazette, all of which may move to Bristol."

So, that makes sense, they're moving Plymouth away from Plymouth and up to Bristol, which will, obviously, potentially see the need to lose a few subs from Plymouth.

Yet...

"Around 20 of the job losses are likely to occur at the Bristol hub, with responsibility for producing the Western Daily Press and Western Morning News moving to Plymouth."

Right, so the production of these newspapers are swapping 'hubs', yet that means staff can be lost?

How? This is not explained. Why would it not make sense to just leave them where they are and cut staff, rather than, as the evidence above indicates to me, swap some duties around and say this means you need less people?

If you need less people to sub the Herald, then come out and say it.

And of you need less people to sub the Western Daily Press etc, then again, say so.

You would think it could be down to buildings or something, not having enough room for all of the over-proportioned subs or something, but anyone who has ever seen either the Plymouth or the Bristol buildings knows that's a feeble argument at best.

Instead, they've played newspaper musical chairs and also added in to the mix the possibility of reporters writing their own headlines and typing up copy directly in to template pages.

This is a whole other argument, but does also serve to highlight how ridiculous this plan is.

Okay, so the thinking is that we need less subs because reporters are entering their copy directly in to a page.

Fine, disregarding the enforced absence of any kind of creativity in page layout, but who is checking that copy?

The reporter? The news desk?

In theory, we all know two people checking the copy should work, but it doesn't.

That's what copy subs are there for. If they weren't needed at all, they would have been cut before, believe me.

No, what all of these things indicate is not that the business is necessarily struggling (although I'm sure all are experiencing a drop in profits), but rather that the newspaper groups have finally given up pretending that they care about the quality of their offerings any longer.

Perhaps, initially, when sales figures started to drop, they did think quality was important and that producing a good paper would bring back readers (you know, they only made half of us redundant at first!).

But it hasn't, and this seems a clear example of a publisher saying 'bollocks to it, whatever we do, noone's buying it, so let's put out any old shit'.

And what hope is there for the reporters and subs after this?

None, surely.

No, what you need to invest in now is lots of middle-managers with ipads who can walk around and sell digital something-or-others.

While it gives no comfort to anyone facing the prospect of yet another round of redundancies, the same old result will come.

Those who should go; won't.

Does anyone else feel like giving up and letting the industry wallow in the shit it has so eagerly created for itself?

---

Oh, as usual, here's a plug for Twitter! @haplesshack - do log on there and let me know what you think of all these changes Northcliffe staff - and those beyond!

More from across the pond...

I had to post this, as it is out there, from the Fox Sports Network website.

Clearly, some Americans really don't understand what is offensive and what isn't...



If you can't see it, it's the headline regarding some bloke called Wayne Rooney, who apparently has had a tiff with a manager.

It begins: "Later, wankers..."

Either they just don't get it, or a rogue Man City fan is working for Fox.

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?

Pooping on your own doorstep...

Well hello my little Droogies, long time no speak, which of course is entirely my fault so I apologise.

To be honest, not a lot has made my ears prick up recently (although I did receive a very funny email about a certain newspaper which I have chosen not to highlight - thanks though, you know who you are).

However, something always comes along, and an email detailing some fine, fine work by the Croydon Advertiser came up trumps.

An interesting splash last week, exposing a brothel in the borough (unfortunately, I can't provide a link as they haven't - as far as I can see - uploaded the story to their website. Can you believe that?).

Basically, a brothel has been operating in West Croydon under the guise of a massage parlour and one intrepid reporter exposed it as a fully-fledged knocking shop.

Shock horror, obviously, leading to pure admiration at the Sherlock Holmes-like detective work involved in deducing something unsavoury may be going on...

However, here is the catch. Turn to the classifieds and you find the usual assortment of ads for massage parlours and the like and yes, you guessed it, there is an ad for the very parlour exclusively revealed to be a knocking shop just 50-odd pages earlier.

How embarrassing.

Why, for God's sake, didn't someone think to check this?

We all appreciate ad revenues are falling constantly and we are struggling to prop up our rich owners, so why bother with such a story (particularly one as unoriginal as this) when you are adding to the problem yourself by giving them an outlet to advertise their 'services'?

I ask you, a newspaper that runs a story exposing a brothel which is advertising with them should be exposed as a very, very poor publication, which I am more than happy to do here.

You can't take their money then call them scum. Get a moral grip people. We all know this goes on, yet turning a blind eye is one thing, being a damn hypocrite is another entirely.

Someone needs to be hauled over some very, very hot coals for that corker. Holier than thou my arse.

And we can't even read the bloody 'Exclusive' story online anyway. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be hilarious.

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...

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...

Needless to say, this was rectified later.

Tally ho!

LIVE! or, quite frankly, dead?

We all love a breaking news story; that rush of adrenalin when you get a big call, the joy when someone shouts that they have secured an interview with the main player (especially if you're that reporter), the satisfaction at seeing a million-page spread the next day that was created in under four hours. Oh, it's what it's all about.

And in digital realm, or digital sphere, (I love those corporate phrases so much I'm going to continue to use them) the breaking news possibilities are endless; live blogs, reader pics and comments from the scene, videos as they happen... Oh, it's better than sex really.

Imagine though, having to provoke that kind of enthusiasm for something not quite so exciting as a murder, or a hostage situation, or transfer deadline day (for the sport lovers out there)..?

Imagine instead, having to provide a constantly-updated, enthralling live blog of... The Tour de France. Or the World Cup (when noone is playing for more than seven hours), or county cricket (no explanation needed surely?).

Yep, I would imagine due to some impressive viewing figures for early live blogs, such as the BBC's excellent test match efforts from the likes of Tom Fordyce and Ben Dirs (see, I don't just slag off dear old Aunty) and the election coverage from the Guardian, the suits in charge of the digital sphere have now decided that this is the way forward.

Cue live coverage, on this random day, being provided at various news sites of the Tour de France, the World Cup, and county cricket.

By God, do we really need live coverage from county cricket grounds up and down the country, which we all know amounts to a bloke sitting in front of Ceefax waiting for a score to change?
Really?

In a world where we are constantly told, and are constantly moaning, that staff levels are lower than ever, is this really an effective use of resources?

If it is, I want to see those figures. How many people, really, sit and wait for the Guardian to update Durham's score from the County Ground? Although the question should really be, who - who is interested in such rapid-fire updates - doesn't have the desire to find Ceefax for themselves and get the updates more quickly?

It's ridiculous.

A big event is fine, an Ashes Test match, the FA Cup final, the World Cup final, something like that, especially when combined with witty banter and useless stats which we all love.

But we are excited about these things, just like a breaking story. And let's be right, the World Cup final IS a breaking news story, as is the FA Cup, or the Wimbledon tennis final.

But a day of county cricket that will be repeated EVERY DAY (or so it seems) throughout the summer?

Are you sure?

I doubt the adrenalin pumps quite so freely for more than a dozen people across the land.

Still, one thing that did warrant 'live' coverage on this day, was the excellent Sky News blog on the Raoul Moat incident, including video updates etc.

Lovely stuff, and I bet the adrenalin was pumping like a good 'un.

Jordankatiejordanpricekatie

I can't stand it when people use the phrase "literally" when they, surprise surprise, say something literal. But there you go, that's just me. Anyway, on to something else.

Jordan. Katie Price. Katie 'Jordan' Price. The glamour model formerly known as Jordan. Whatever her fucking name is now, she has reappeared in our newspapers having been away for ooh, at least ten minutes.

And what a way to make a comeback.

Just weeks after stories appeared (from "sources") letting us all know that her fella was short of cash, we have the glitzy wedding-style ceremony in leafy Surrey for "close friends and family", as well as the obligatory 3,000,000 photographers.

These photographers were, of course, unwelcome and were the subject of what looked like some strong security measures to protect the blushes (and weighty exclusive TV contract) of the 'bride'.

Still, why the fuck were there photographers there anyway?

I know it's a classic old-man rant, but honestly, do we really give a shit that a two-bit glamour model is married to a cage-fighting thick bloke who was once on a Channel 4 programme called Celebrity Tossers in Fame Bid or somesuch nonsense? Do we?

I suppose we must do because why else would newspapers be so desperate to get the story?

I really do despair.

Still, at least she didn't come out with a quote using the dreaded "literally", oh, hang on...

"We're not going to have a wedding planner, we're literally going to do it ourselves."

I give up.

Even more news oddities...

You see? I told you I'd find more, and you are a darling bunch for responding to my plea for help so quickly!

So onwards and well, downwards I suppose...

First up, the ever-optimistic http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/, which we are told has launched a revolutionary news shopping site.

I hear your gasps, and indeed, I gasped too, as I was looking forward to seeing what revolutionary enhancement they had come up with.

Alas, disappointment...

Yep, just an adopted page from Amazon. Still, I'm sure the good people who are 'getting' Surrey are glad they can now 'get' their DVDs alongside their local news...

Elsewhere, job ads are not, or are, what they used to be.

Regional newspaper site Hold The Front Page, often the first port of call for the many, many glitzy and glamorous opportunities on offer in the world of journalism carried an ad that intrigued me for a 'Club Reporter'.

A typo, me thought, but on closer inspection, that was indeed exactly what they were after!

And quite frankly, who wouldn't want a job working alongside the comedy genius who came up with "Send us your pitch"? Lovely stuff.

I couldn't let this bumper day of fun go by without mentioning our dear friends over at http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/ now could I (and there's more on them soon)?

Yep, the ever-enjoyable (or ever-cringe-worthy) TiG (ahhh) Blog continues to amaze with its biting wit and enlightenment of the workings of the site (when was the last time anything about the site and not the writer's tedious life was ever mentioned?).

Anyway, this particular piece of scripture really caught my eye.

Yes, I must admit that my life and understanding of thisisgloucestershire.co.uk is much richer now that I know this chap doesn't like Britain's Got Talent, or, more precisely, the acts he mentions (I personally wouldn't know any of them if I fell over them).

However, being a journalist, I do read newspapers and couldn't fail to spot the misspelling in the blog of the act Spelbound (correct spelling of the act), of course, spelt incorrectly as "spellbound".

Nothing big in that, you may think, and of course, we all make mistakes.

But what provoked me into commenting is that a few steps down is this gem:

In it, the writer (I presume it's always the same person, otherwise this irony is completely lost?), while discussing the literary growth of his offspring (why do we care again?) professes himself to be "a graduate of English Literature" and "a wordsmith".

A wordsmith would surely check the spelling of a TV talent show act before publishing?

Why of why don't people realise that if they are commenting on something, particularly if they're slating it, that they perhaps need to check if they're spelling names correctly?

Anyhow, I'll attempt another blog today if possible, I know I have neglected you for a while...

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!

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.