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.

It's the NATIONAL TEAM

Now, I'm all for that old trick of taking a national story, finding something or someone similar in a region and using it in a rag. No problem, it's saved many a splash for me and remains an oft under-rated skill in a news room (making it interesting is the key, from that particular area).

However, rather predictably, as with so many other things in the regional newspaper world, the revelation that is the 'online sphere' (I'm convinced it is called something like that is senior meetings, that or 'internet realm', 'digital hemisphere' or 'that computer thing').

The FIFA World Cup TM (seriously, have you read the guidelines for using that title? Fuckin ridiculous) is once again upon us.

But this time, it is not only a shelf full of St George's flag-emblazoned inflatable chairs in Tesco we have to put up with, but blanket coverage, well, everywhere.

Including 'our' regional news sites.

Don't get me wrong, as mentioned above, if there is the slightest opportunity to use the FIFA World Cup TM in a rag, by all means do it, capitalise on the interest, and the knock-on effect online.

However, the prime target for simply exploiting it for no reason this week is, once again, our faithful friend Northcliffe.

Each and every one of their 'thisis network' (that's what they call it, another hangover from a management meeting I dare say) now has a 'World Cup 2010' (how do those bastards avoid putting the TM and FIFA prefix in?!) link in the main navigation.

Why?

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/ complete with link...

I could understand if these channels featured reams on a player from your side who is going, even a former player who is now in the international setup.

Filling it up with hundreds of localised stories; residents sharing the name Wayne Rooney, a pub refusing to show the football, or a woman cycling to South Africa to charity, would also be absolutely fine and a legitimate use of such a channel and perhaps even generating some interest from readers.

But, sigh, this is not what's happened.

The channels are full of PA copy, fed straight in from the dark dungeons of Victoria (or possibly even South Africa, I'm not sure what the PA budget is these days), with headlines mirroring every single national and major regional newspaper IN THE WORLD.

So what, I ask, is the fuckin' point of this? Please, I long for someone to let me know that there is some major, and I mean major, sponsorship deal that is allowing regional papers taking this shit to employ a handful of new reporters, or subs (I'm not asking too much am I?), but I fear this is not the case.

And besides, I'm not even sure those overseeing the sites would know how to drop the localised, possibly interesting stories, into this channel even if they had the instructions tattooed on their foreheads, but that's another issue.

Still, so long as they avoid having to write FIFA World Cup TM every five pissing seconds, it's money well spent.

Nevertheless, despite total FIFA World Cup TM wipeout, I will return to post some interesting things which you may chuckle at, shortly...

Triesman, treason, or t'reason..?

It seems the entire world has a view on the Lord Triesman scandal, exposed by the Mail on Sunday last weekend, in which a 'friend' recorded a private conversation during which the chief of England's 2018 World Cup bid is alleged to have spoken of conspiracy theories surrounding rival bids.

The MoS in particular has come in for a huge amount of criticism from most quarters, with many questioning why they would run such a story.

While I am not about to defend such a, well, quite frankly, rubbish story, I do find those voicing their anger at its publication rather hypocritical.

I mean, let's be right, this woman is hardly a class act is she? Despite her Clifford-inspired follow ups informing us of her "flowing flame red hair, a slim physique and ivory skin" and boasting her credentials as "impressive academic".

Please. Let's look at the facts:

* In the same piece we are told of her writing a blog giving us far too much detail of her alleged "relationship" with the 66-year-old.
* She purposely recorded an hour-long conversation with her alleged "friend" for use later when selling her story.
* Allegedly took her story to several (meaning most Sunday I would presume) newspapers before settling on a suitable "arrangement" (fee).

Now, forgive me if I don't totally believe that this was all done for some sort of greater good, or in the public interest.

And the MoS has quite rightly got quite a lot of stick for running it. Which is fine.

However, why aren't the same people slating the paper calling radio stations or writing to the PCC every single bloody week complaining about stories published on exactly the same basis as this one?

I'll tell you why; because they invariably involve a footballer or a politician shagging around, at no real cost to us.

The women will generally have done exactly the same; tipped off the press about the story and made a good lump of cash for doing so.

But the great, down-to-earth, angry of Manchesters aren't out then are they? No. Because the kiss-and-tell stories we lap up every week don't involve us losing a fuckin football tournament.

It's pathetic really. Just look at Johnny Workingclass crawling out of the woodwork now, undoubtedly with a tabloid newspaper featuring similar stories under his arm, ranting about what a disgrace the paper is.

Spare me your holier-than-thou bullshit people. You love it. But because it means you might not get to travel around the country beating up similarly deluded football fans without getting on a plane is not a reason to suddenly assume journalistic morals.

The best way to voice your disgust at this would not be to phone up a radio station, or write on an internet forum, it would be to STOP BUYING THIS STUFF.

Seriously, if these people avoided any newspaper with a similar story published inside, they would soon stop running them. Honestly.

So please take your pompous and hypocritical bullshit and shove it.

And yes, that includes you Melissa Jacobs. Don't pretend to be some paragon of virtue when you've sold a private conversation to the highest bidder.

We would all respect you more - from Melissa to the editor of the MoS to outraged Johnny Normal - if you were all just honest about your reasons.

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?

Cash cow? How?

I seem to have seen it on every news page and read it on every news website more than 1,000,000 times in the past six months.

Open a newspaper now and look, yep, there it is.

I'm talking about the web plug. And I don't mean a box reading "Tell us what you think at www.blah.com", I mean something different, a new kind of space wasting...

"Follow us on Twitter"

"Find us on Facebook"

It's these bastards I'm talking about.

Now, I can understand a plug to the site from a newspaper - although on every story on every page is, frankly, ridiculous - but to flag up twitter and facebook accounts seems a complete and utter waste of time to me.

While I'm sure it's great for anyone who knows nothing about anything (they seem to feature more and more prominently in newsrooms don't they?) to say "ooh, Mr Charlie Big Bollocks, we now have 14,000,000,000 followers on twitter".

And I'm sure fellow know-nothing, who drives a company BMW, will respond about how great that news is.

But why?

Why is it great that someone is (probably) costing the much under-funded editorial budget far too much money to put stories on twitter, or facebook?

Yes, each may garner a few dozen more links for a story, but really, do we need someone giving serious time to this pursuit, which I can only assume is a case of vanity on behalf of each site, or newspaper?

Now, it would be different if someone had told me how much money they were making from such endeavours, but we all know that the grand total of income generated from having an infinite amount of friends on facebook is... Zero.

And twitter? Yep, zero.

Let's be honest, in reality, facebook and twitter don't really know how to make money from themselves, so why the hell would the ever backward-thinking newspaper industry suddenly be any different?

And please, someone tell me why we are taking up far too much space which could, ultimately, be used for exactly what people DO pay for - news.

I'm sure someone, someday, will come up with the framework for us all to make off these things (just as we were told they would with the internet 10 years ago, but how you doing on that one?) but until they do, why are we wasting time and resources on such folly?

I ask you.

Yet again, as I so often whinge on about, it is the misinformed and clueless managers employed at newspapers who will trumpet these things, as a smokescreen for their own failure.

You watch those middle managers hark on about success on facebook. They will lap it up, because equally-clueless senior management (who are too old to know what a laptop is, let alone anything else) will believe every bloody word they say and issue a directive that all reporters should immediately be tweeting their stories from the field before getting copy to newsdesks...

Honestly, it makes me want to turn into Adam Boulton.

By the way, I'm sure you can follow this on twitter, or facebook, or something... But you may want to just come back and read it next time?

A few funnies - and not-so-funnies...

Well, here's a few more of the best the web has to offer from news sites across the UK (and beyond, if we can find them)...

Just for pure comedy value really, as it's a sub's wet dream of a headline to write...

I'm afraid there are a few from our old friends http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/ this time around - as obviously I am being a good reporter and following up my review...

This is just pure joy. I feel for the kid really. And what's he doing on the site anyway?

This is a real beauty as a follow up to my review.

We were told by the digital publisher in said review that more news channels would follow in the "coming weeks and months" to make the new-look Northcliffe site a lot better for readers.

Well, we have one of the much-vaunted new channels, in the form of 'Crime'. Nothing wrong with that, but comparing the 'Crime' channel to the front page and 'News' channels, perhaps said digital publisher (dun dun duuuuuh!) was right to hold back on running before he could walk (I mean, copying stories to more than a couple of channels is a challenge for anyone eh?)...

The two stories which grabbed my attention here were:

'Gloucestershire train travellers shock as shopping trolleys dumped on track'*

and...

'CCTV pictures released after diamond ring heist on Cheltenham High Street'**

but...

...when I checked the 'Crime' channel, these stories were nowhere to be found!

If you're going to do it, do it properly. It does, however, explain a lot about the poor start the new site has had (as have many, many others in the Northcliffe stable).

What also explains a lot is this excerpt from the previously mentioned blog by the thisisgloucestershire.co.uk digital publisher (dun dun duuuuuuuhhhh).

"It’s Saturday afternoon and I’ve been battling with technical gremilins on TiG this morning.

Actually it wasn’t me personally – I am not the most gifted person with technology – it was the team up in Derby and down in London who do a great job keeping the Thisis sites working.

There was some problem with caching (whatever that is) which meant today’s stories didn’t upload this morning so apologies to everyone for that. It should be functioning better now."

Are you kidding me?! A digital publisher (dun dun duuuhh) who is "not the most gifted person with technology" and doesn't know what caching is?

Please, this really is getting fucking stupid now...