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.

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 beat (-ing of reporters) goes on...

NOTE: May I apologise for my absence in recent weeks - there appears to have been some 'suspicious activity' on my account which needed sorting... Interesting... However, let's carry on.

---

So, the industrial disputes continue as newspaper groups up and down the land continue to preach about 'difficult trading conditions'.

For what feels like the first time, the sacred business run by the saviour himself, Ray Tindle, has been in the news.

The 'Enfield Nine' - union members of Tindle's Enfield division - walked out of the office on April 19 and returned on May 4, thanks to some handily placed bank holidays.

The resulting spat has proved reasonably entertaining for those of us still struggling to hold down a job in the industry, as the relative inexperience of Tindle comes to the fore.

In a statement that read more like the ramblings of a bitter and jealous child than the reasoned outpourings of a large company the firm said: "During the strike all the papers were produced by the remaining staff and management with as much editorial if not more than a normal bank holiday week."

So hang on, rather than simply make no comment, or issuing a stock quote saying the dispute is on-going, blah blah blah, the group instead goes on the offensive like a wounded animal.

The statement, translated, seems to say (with a thumb clearly pressed to nose): "Well, they weren't here and we did even more editorial than before, so fuck you journalists, who needs you anyway. Na na nana na."

Clearly, this will be bullshit, and is offensive to everyone involved, including those journalists not in the union who probably bled themselves dry trying to fill those papers.

It's also offensive to readers, who are not stupid and would be well aware of the inevitable drop in quality those editions would have experienced.

As if to make things worse, Tindle actually published a statement in one of the editions produced during the strike which was, frankly, embarrassing.

It read: "Nine journalists of this newspaper who are members of the National Union of Journalists remain on strike for a second week so this is the second edition produced by the remainder of the staff and management.

"The dispute is about the paper’s non-replacement of staff leaving by natural wastage in this recession and is despite the company making huge and unsustainable losses.

"The group is the only one so far not to make journalists redundant in the downturn. That meant non-replacement of those who left for other jobs. We hope this edition is both local and acceptable to you, our readers."

Why run such a statement if the papers were as good, if not better, than previous weeks?

Tindle, who are you trying to kid?

Elsewhere in the world of industrial dispute, our friends in south west London have hit another barrier.

Earlier this week, editorial staff were told every position was under a three-month review with a view to making redundancies.

The irony, as always with these announcements, is in the wording.

Because while that entire newsroom sweats over whether they will get a pay cheque in three months' time, they should rest easy, because it is all in a bid to make the operation "more efficient".

Well thank fuck for that, for a minute there I'm sure they thought you were just looking to dump journalists in a bid to make more money.

Indeed, the week before, I understand the news editors of two of the group's titles - the Richmond & Twickenham Times and the Surrey Comet - were told they would be competing for a single job.

So two news editors, running sizable papers, are to be whittled down to one.

And how the fuck are they supposed to do that? Presumably, the management at Newsquest doesn't actually want to kill people through their jobs, but I can see a severe case of burnout on the horizon for the news editor lucky (or unlucky) enough to land that job...

However, I was mildly amused to read of the south west London NUJ chapel passing a vote of no confidence in the MD Roger Mills and advertising director Dene Stuart.

How refreshing to see an advertising name in there!

All too often chapels will attack an editor, or a regional publisher or whatever nonsense title such people now reign under, when the decisions are often taken by others.

This union seems to have at least recognised that while editorial staff are being thrown away left, right and centre, often the blame lies with an under-performing advertising department.

Good for them I say.

And let it be a message to advertising execs the world over: Yes, you are often too stupid to understand pretty-much anything, but we are wise to your game you muppets, so up your fucking game as what you do affects many, many lives.

Someone speak to the speaker... Please!

You've got to grudgingly admire Michael Martin don't you? Don't you? Okay, maybe not.

As far as stories go though, the former Commons Speaker is an absolute goldmine, even though - and indeed largely down to - his desire to be exactly the opposite.

Remember, this is the man who provoked outrage when fighting, to the absolute nth degree, to prevent the release of details of Parliamentary expenses under the Freedom of Information Act.

Now, in an altogether more amusing, yet in the minds of some equally outrageous statement, he has claimed journalists can be accused of helping burglars when covering stories.

Mr Martin, now Lord Martin of Springburn, has told the House of Lords that journalists door-stepping him - and let's be honest, there were a few occasions when that happened, through no fault of the journalists it should be said - could have threatened the security of his home by alerting burglars to the fact he wasn't in.

I mean for Heaven's sake, you really couldn't buy this stuff, could you?

Speaking during a debate in the Lords on the Fixed Term Parliaments Bill, he said: "I had a situation when a clown was outside my door - I describe him as a clown, although he called himself a journalist from Sky TV, using big satellite television equipment.

"There he was, outside the house while I was in London. He said 'We cannot get him; the house is empty'.

"Anyone who is involved in security will tell you not to advertise that you are away from home, but here was somebody broadcasting live television, saying that my house was empty. That is the type of pressure I am talking about."

Really? That's the pressure you were under?

By God, I'm sure that if Lord Martin of Springburn were to visit any housing estate in the UK - or beyond for that matter - and offer the services of every 24-hours news broadcaster to sit outside their homes constantly vigilant for movement of any kind, they would eagerly accept.

Because quite frankly, a vast array of cameras and people outside your house is the greatest fucking deterrent to a burglar you could ever have!

Just imagine Jonny Burglar now, sitting at home, watching Sky News (as I'm sure most of those inclined to commit such offences are avid viewers).

He thinks: 'Hmmmm, Martin isn't home eh? Only 25 members of the press, covering every angle of the house with highly-sophisticated equipment which could beam me around the world instantly as someone attempting to burgle the Speaker of the House of Commons, to get past.

'How stupid they will feel, mwa ha ha ha ha ha.'*

It's pathetic, it really is.

* That was intended to quote the laugh of an Bond-style evil genius. Apologies.

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.

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!

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?

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!

New BBC News site vs Telegraph Online

Well well, here it is at last.

After countless public information blogs and even some pre-launch screenshots, the new BBC News website confronted users this morning as they browsed for their morning fill of news alongside their Weetabix.

And what do we think? Well, I was surrounded by an array of reactions, from "cack" to many, much warmer-sounding "ooooh"s and even one "why have they done this to me?"...

For me, I don't mind it at all. It seems to be pretty reactionary (and what, in the world of news website design isn't?), which is more of a good thing when it comes to BBC sites in the UK, as they don't have to factor in advertising - the number 1 complaint of any web user when asked.

So it's clean and reasonably appealing, which in fairness, the BBC site has always been.

The first thing that gleans any kind of derision from this viewer is the sheer size of the main headline, in this case 'UK employment declines to 2.47m'*.

And it feels, even though comparing new to old is not the case, like there are fewer stories on the front.

This is because of the top story - two sub-stories - list of others approach being centre-stage.

Previously, the list of other stories was segregated, to the right-hand side of the page.

Now, it is right there in front of me, and a lack of images makes me feel like it is an after-thought. But that is just me. If a list of stories is to be a focal point, give it something to appeal to the reader.

I also don't like 'Also in the news' being so prominent (did you see what I did there, did you?). Again, this, to me, means a section full of stupid stories that no one knew what to do with, and I perceive them to not really belong in the news, but instead in some God-awful 'Funny news' or 'Weird news' section.

I wish the BBC would lose a touch of superiority complex and call it what it is; the 'Stuff that isn't really news but you might laugh at and send to your mates boosting our numbers and justifying why we put this crap up', but I understand that may contain a few too many characters.

Another thing I find slightly patronising, and a classic reaction to reports of clicks and reader response, is the sheer size of the 'Most Popular' panel. Does it really need to be so large?

I realise click reports will show this to be THE panel on the homepage - although again, the Beeb retains an intellectual standpoint by putting the doubtless under-used 'Features & Analysis' panel above it - but honestly, if we are struggling to see it, we'll have our eyes tested.

The mid-page barrier, a customizable insert for weather and news from various regional and local BBC sites, is actually quite nice, also retaining some of the 'elsewhere' links from the old site.
Below here though, is where it starts to lose the plot for me.

The homepage descends into some sort of half-impression of the Daily Mail site - see here for what I mean - with overblown story summaries (yet none on the main headlines? A compromise would have been nice) in a bid to gain Google hits, and just simple over-population of this area.

It smacks of the developer saying "well, this is where you've lost most visitors, as our research shows most readers will scroll for 1.7534 turns of the little wheel thing on their mouse, so we thought we might as well cram as many keywords as possible into this section".

For me, it looks silly and too slap-dash.

And it also looks like the Telegraph, as the entire site does, far too much.

And the Telegraph constantly freezes my browser, so let's hope this isn't the case with the new BBC News site...

Overall though, there isn't a drastic change here, just a few minor alterations in a bid to catch up to other news sites in terms of volume of content and keywords.

BBC News has long been a reliable and technically-sound site - let's hope it stays that way.

* For the record, a font this big, with the SEO headline is just annoying to me. Get over the SEO thing people, or wait three months, then someone will come up a tag that hides the bit Google searches from us poor readers who have to look at it.

When searchable headlines go mad...

The plight of the sub editor is an oft-heard tale; there aren't enough of them, template pages are killing the art, etc etc.

And while sharing their pain to an extent, it's something that has never really hit home, not being a sub.

But gradually, over the years of growth of news on the interweb, I have come to relate to their issues.

Google. Google. Google. That is all we seem to here now from web gurus across the news globe. Your stories must be 'Googleised', or 'Googleified', or whatever the term is that they shout in my ear and which just doesn't seem to register, having not read 'What iPCmacbookpad?' this month.

Yet this morning, two things on the Daily Mail website caught my eye and summised my growing affection for those bods who sit and correct our stories day in, day out, for little recognition (let's be honest, the amount of changes they make to some copy, they deserve a byline).

Firstly, the Daily Mail site was among the first to cotton on to the benefits of being found by Google, i.e. appearing first in any search gives you the overwhelming majority of clicks from searchers.

So it adapted the way it wrote headlines for stories appearing online, which is fair enough.

However, with other news outlets catching up fast, the Mail has continued to grow its efforts, and quite frankly, the site is becoming one gigantic Google hub.

Repeated links are EVERYWHERE - see a grab below, which shows only a small section of the front page.



I realise it's not very clear, but basically, the Daily Mail homepage seems to have become a page containing hundreds of stories, with hundreds of links to those stories, everywhere!

Apparently, this will score massively with Google, but at what cost?

I do wonder whether anyone reading this site is with me when I say that I get quite frustrated with the same stories appearing everywhere when I'm looking for something else to read?

I've read the top story, so why link to it another four times on the homepage, in prominent positions? It baffles me.

But that is not the only 'Googleisation' tool that concerns me. The tailored headlines are now so ridiculous they take up half the page!



That headline, to me, is just too damn long.

Yes, I can see that includes loads of things people might be searching for; I can understand (despite the protestations of our web chap that it is dreadfully complicated) that people probably do search for 'Kylie concerts' and 'cocktails' a lot - and probably together a surprising amount too.

But was it really worth it for a four-deck headline that just looks a bit silly? I'm probably living in the dark ages (probably?) but for me, it wasn't.

I'm in no way averse to the joys of having a really popular website, but I do still hold a strong amount of pride in the presentation of a story, regardless of whether it is on a piece of paper or a monitor.

So I do share the pain of a sub when I see headlines like this. Where has the skill gone?

Yet as if the web people at the Mail were aware of my growing sadness, they provided me with something to laugh at...

Lovely. Thank you.

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.

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...

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.

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).

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?