The failure of hyperlocal - and journalism training

As if tailor-made to add fuel to the fire over the Kelvin Mackenzie debate I touched on last week, a chat with a friend over the weekend revealed some very interesting things.

My friend is the editor of a series of weekly papers and recently oversaw the launch of a handful of hyperlocal sites, you know the kind of thing, the 'up your street' stuff, full of community fodder and police press releases.

Anyway, said friend had a brainwave while putting these sites together; to get student journalists in the area involved.

So, he diligently got his walking boots on and trundled around colleges across the area, preaching the values of the sites and the exposure they could give all of the talented, ambitious young hacks learning their trade.

Free exposure to thousands, an unending resource with which to boost your portfolio and your CV, which the students and tutors gleefully lapped up, as would anyone keen to gain the edge over thousands struggling to progress in a failing industry.

However, six months down the line, the number of stories he had received from these eager beavers?

His estimate? Three or four. Maybe five.

Still, no doubt they're happily producing a self-congratulatory magazine or something and getting free CDs.

Fools.

In defence of Kelvin Mackenzie

I feel I have to show some sort of support for Kelvin Mackenzie.

Yes, it's true, the man dubbed a "dinosaur" for his opinion that journalism courses at universities etc should be culled.

Kelvin, you have my support. It isn't worth shit, but you have it.

Having worked alongside, been in charge of and worked under people coming in to a newsroom straight from a university course, I can honestly say that all of them, 100 per cent of them, would have been better had they spent those three years working.

I'm sure not all journalism students are lazy, or do it because they want to be on the telly "like that one off've BBC Breakfast", or because they want to "write about football", but let's be honest here, those are the aspirations of many, many of these graduates.

Taking my own experience as a snapshot, less than 20 per cent of journalism graduates I have encountered had anywhere near 100wpm shorthand.

In three fucking years?

Yet I know trainees, in fact I was one, who worked full time on a newspaper and achieved that golden target in less than four months.

It's a fucking shambles to expect anyone who actually works in newspapers to buy the fact that it takes three years, in fact, that it takes three months, to do some basic training and get out there.

Yes, there has been a lot of loud-mouthed blabbering from some quarters, but don't take them all at their word, because you'll find those shouting loudest at Mr Mackenzie have a vested interest in journalism courses.

The other day I noticed a story which summed up my instant distaste for journalism as a 'course', a 'subject' to be studied.

"Half the journalism courses on offer at the University for the Creative Arts in Farnham are to be axed as part of a cost cutting measure.

"The university’s BA undergraduate degrees in Motoring Journalism, which claims to be the only one of its kind in the UK, and Leisure Journalism, launched in September 2009, have both been closed to new entrants in the face of financial pressures and low market demand."

...

"The university runs four journalism courses, the other two in Sports Journalism and just Journalism alone."

Now what the fuck is all that about?

Okay, you could just about get away with a one-year course entitled 'Journalism', so long as those taking it actually passed any fucking exams and got their shorthand, and that included at least two days a week working in a newsroom.

But Motoring Journalism? Really? And Leisure Journalism? Fuck me.

These courses are actually costing money, tax payers' money, to fund and support.

So before you fall in to line and join those slating Mr Mackenzie - who, remember, was not long ago someone who had the power to hire and fire a lot of fucking journalists on a daily basis (go figure that the next time some 'journalist' who has done fuck all comes to your college and tells you how well you're doing) - ask yourself what, exactly, the people taking Leisure Journalism are learning that a Journalism student isn't, and vice versa.

And quite what the fuck a Motoring Journalism course entails is completely beyond me.

However, feel free to follow me on Twitter, @haplesshack, and tell me why I'm wrong. Go on, I dare you...

Soon, I'm hoping to be on Facebook. Why? I have no idea, but apparently it's the thing to do.

Reporter wars on Twitter: Only a matter of time...

We all know reporters are an egotistical bunch.

Correct terrible grammar in their story, they won't give a shit, but spell their name wrong in a byeline and all hell breaks loose.

So it was no surprise this morning when I noticed the first indication of such egomania in the realm of social media (I'm getting good at this Twitter lark, Facebook is next!).

Two reporters in Gloucestershire had a little, light-hearted spat over one oft hem tweeting the other's story.



Obviously, with such a cracking local rag yarn up for grabs, the reporter who I presume wrote it was quick to claim back his turf!



This is where it starts kids, and it'll all end in tears...

Less is more, so will we lose managers?

When I read this morning that new Northcliffe group managing director Steve Auckland had announced he was to appoint three regional publishers to replace the roles of regional editors and MDs I was actually quite pleased.

I'm not a completely heartless bastard, however if there are cuts to be made - and I'm not completely averse to that looking around some newsrooms at the complete losers drawing a wage - I would prefer to start the cull at the top and work down, rather than do away with roles which are needed in a bid to avoid paying off the regional director of useless shit and management speak.

Imagine my disappointment then when we discover that while the roles will "replace" those of regional editors and MDs, in the next breath "Northcliffe says no one is likely to lose their job".

So, in fact what I thought was a decent start to lowering costs for struggling newspapers across the UK, is actually just bringing in another manager on big money.

*Sigh*

However, perhaps all hope is not lost.

Part of my initial thinking on the move - back when I thought it was perhaps the most sensible thing I'd heard for a while - was that maybe, just maybe, Auckland was backing up his promise "to do away with the corporate stuff and get the editors and the managing directors free to do what they want to do".

And it still could be - with an ever-more-distant 'regional publisher' (let's face it, there will be three of the feckers covering the entire country), I don't see how they can be hands-on in their approach.

Fingers crossed more power returns to editors up and down the land, tasked merely with delivering certain things, and how they do it is up to them.

Then they can begin the middle-management cull.

Directors of public sector loss making advertising based in the office having pointless meetings everywhere, brace yourselves!

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.

Falling off the North Cliffe?

I read with interest the Guardian interview with in-coming Northcliffe chief Steve Auckland.

Mr Auckland, who is now an industry God through his work making the Metro everyone's favourite news-for-nothing publication, was strangely forthright in his opinions, if not a little contradictory.

Take this quote for example:

"If you have stacks of titles and lots of loss-makers and lots publishing six days a week and not making money you have to look at the portfolio.

"I want a step change. It might be harsh but it gives a platform for the future. The key thing is a product portfolio review. We have to look at the number of titles and frequency of publishing."

I don't think anyone could argue with the first par. No business, run by the giant arses of Northcliffe, Newquest or otherwise, wants to keep running a title that continues to lose money year after year.

So fair enough.

However, the contradiction for me comes when the piece explains Auckland was "keen to stress he is not a hatchet man".

Well, I would suggest that's exactly what he is, judging by his own words. Threatening to look at all titles and the frequency of publishing is clearly an indication that the hatchet is about to be wielded.

There may be nothing wrong with that, but at least be honest.

Anyway, I'm merely nit-picking there.

There real interest comes with other remarks, particularly:

"Less is more is my motto: I want a clear vision at each operating centre. I'm trying to do away with the corporate stuff and getting the editors and the managing directors free to do what they want to do in their centres," he added.

"Originally regional newspapers were run by entrepreneurial-type people back in the halcyon days. I want to get back to that flexibility. If they want to change the cover price or business cards or say that publishing on one day, or two, or staying at six is most profitable then I want them to have that flexibility."

'Less is more', to idiots like me, can simply be truncated to 'less'. Again, Mr Auckland, please just be honest. Less will NEVER be more, it is a complete misnomer on every conceivable level.

We all understand the "halcyon days" went as soon as Gannett darkened UK doors, so please don't patronise us with the usual bullshit, we've had enough of 'aim higher' initiatives and the likes which always seem to make us more efficient and still manage to do away with hard-working people.

However, it cannot be disputed that Northcliffe does indeed now have less, or more, if you are Mr Auckland. 50% more, or less, in fact, as Peter Kirwan points out in his excellent blog.

"Overall, the numbers for the six years between 2005 and 2010 are remarkable:

Headcount: Down by over 50% from 8,013 to 3,817

Quoted cumulative cost savings: £125m

Quoted restructuring costs (incl. redundancy): £71m

Quoted write-downs in asset values: £200m"

So Mr Auckland, you have inherited a group which indeed has a lot 'more' than previously, so good luck with that.

But basically, what all of this ponderingly bad writing is attempting to convey is that, as Mr Kirwan also points out, "plans for industry consolidation have gone badly awry".

Indeed they have. Lord Rothermere couldn't flog Northcliffe a few years ago, so what hope now?

My bet is that we will see more and more dailies become weeklies - watch your backs any newspaper showing figures down 10%+ - and some under-performing weeklies either sold or merely closed down.

I am also intrigued by the idea that editors will suddenly be enjoying a new-found freedom under Mr Auckland to basically edit their papers.

I am eagerly awaiting the day this is put to the test by an editor who wishes to reward his staff with a pay rise, or an extra reporter...

I do love the term "consolidation" though, as it would suggest joining something together for an all-round gain, a positive, for growth.

And don't we all know that is absolute shite? Consolidation has brought nothing but evil to journalism.

Look at it like this: a sub hub is a group of sub editors consolidated to one location.

A good thing?

Fuck it, let's all have a drink.

The Next 18-20 Months for Newsquest

You have to wonder how the fuck these people sleep at night.

Yesterday's announcement that Newsquest chief executive Paul Davidson has been rewarded for his 'efforts' at the 'struggling' group with a lump of shares which will see him avoid the breadline for the foreseeable future.

Well, after breathing a huge sigh of relief for the miserable git, the usual explosion of rage at the mere mention of his name returned.

Let's remember...

Only last week, we learned that Newsquest London, apparently one of the more profitable groups in the Newsquest stable, had asked staff to consider voluntary redundancy just weeks after asking the same staff to take unpaid, furlough leave.

I will refrain from commenting on how those working at the London offices were told of this decision, one which could change their lives forever, as I am informed it was via a three-line email, but I can't believe that to be true? If it is, someone please email that to me and I will happily take a look.

Anyway, Mr Davidson is ultimately responsible for these staff - and let's be honest, Newsquest London is not the only branch which will be royally fucked over in the coming months - facing the end of their careers, or a decision which could see them abandon what they love.

But for what? Exactly how badly is a company doing when the likes of Davidson are receiving these stock options, potentially worth millions?

Again, I'll ask the question; how the fuck does he sleep at night?

I hate to keep on moaning about the seemingly-systematic destruction of newspapers by profit-hungry morons in ill-fitting suits in rather modern-looking and faceless ivory towers, but fuck it, they are killing everything we work for.

And here's my prediction Davidson, to save you and your money-grabbing cronies the bother of pretending to know what lies ahead for hundreds of newspapers and thousands of staff sweating every day to eek out a living so that you can line your fucking pockets with cash:

First of all, at the end of the year, Newsquest will scrape their ridiculously-high profit margin.

It will then - and only then - dawn on fools like you that this is simply not a sustainable position.

So, you will go to Gannett and tell them you would love to provide them with a 25% profit margin again in 2012 but that, unfortunately, you have nobody left to cut but that you will try.

At the end of the first quarter, despite only having a trainee reporter and a sub in every Newsquest centre across the land - many of which will be covering patches previously covered by at least three Newsquest groups - you still won't have hit the target.

Then, you will be sacked, or you will 'retire' as nob ends in the higher ranks of business call it, with a fucking enormous golden handshake for destroying something which meant so much to us, the journalists, the other Newsquest staff, and millions of readers.

And therein lies my theory on how foolish, greedy morons such as Paul Davidson sleep at night:

He knows all of this really, and is simply lining his pockets before the inevitable retirement comes.

And I for one, will be lovingly sending him a watch - £2.99 from Argos - engraved with the words: "Thanks Paul".

---

As usual feel free to follow me on Twitter - @haplesshack - or send me an email with your abuse. Thanks.