Journalism.co.uk Editors' Blog

Why Nick Denton wouldn’t set up shop in UK

Judith Townend — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:42:33 +0000

From Politico: a report on a panel at the Institute’s Ideas Festival in Colarado, asking ‘What’s the News Worth to You?’

For us Brits, this is the interesting part:

“During the panel’s Q&A, Gawker Media’s Nick Denton sarcastically thanked the American newspaper industry for being so unaggressive, making it possible for ‘thugs’ like him to succeed.

“Conversely, Denton said he’d never set up shop in England. ‘Every single day, those editors get up and try to kill each other,’ said Denton. Not so in the U.S.”

(Hat-tip: Martin Stabe)

Similar Posts:

Malcolm Coles: re-thinking newspapers and RSS feeds

Judith Townend — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:18:41 +0000

“OK, newspapers shouldn’t turn off RSS feeds… I was wrong,” writes Malcolm Coles. After a little reflection on comments received about his post ‘ Newspapers: Turn off your RSS feeds‘ [also pasted on the Online Journalism Blog and his own blog] he concludes that link-bait headlines are dangerous… His fuller explanation is at this link…

Similar Posts:

Let your mind wander: the Economist’s new campaign

Judith Townend — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:56:10 +0000

In case you haven’t yet seen it, here’s some more free publicity for the Economist – the publication’s new advert asking us to let our minds wander (or legs, perhaps, to the newsagent.)

In June FoliMag reported that the Economist’s profits were up 26 per cent for the last fiscal year.

“The London-based company, which publishes its namesake magazine, reported approximately $92 million in operating profit, up 26 percent over the previous 12-month period. Revenue was up 17 percent to roughly $514.2 million.”

“The Economist’s worldwide circulation grew 6.4 percent during the period to 1,390,780, the company said. Ad revenue at Economist.com was up 29 percent while page views were up 53 percent.”

The Guardian, however, reported that overall advertising was down:

“Chris Stibbs, the Economist Group’s finance director, said that advertising across the company first turned negative in the final quarter of its financial year, between January and March 2009, and has continued to show a year-on-year decline since then.”

It attributed the profit-rise to recent job cuts:

“[T]he group has remained profitable thanks to a cost-cutting programme that has seen around 130 jobs cut – roughly one in 10 of the company’s global workforce – and leaving it with a staff of 1,100.”

NB: The Economist calls itself a newspaper, not a magazine: see the website for a lengthy description of its history.

Similar Posts:

Oh the irony… were the Australian’s subs trying to tell us something?

Judith Townend — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:19:47 +0000

Australian newspapers aren’t finding it as tough as many of their US and UK counterparts, John Hartigan, the chairman and chief executive of News Ltd, claimed in a speech on Wednesday. Roy Greenslade picked up on the Murdoch-owned Australian newspaper’s report that the nation’s print publications are ‘holding up well’.

But we feel he missed the best bit. As Crikey.com.au flagged up in its daily newsletter, there was something a little odd about a print headline in the paper on July 2 (helpfully highlighted here by Mumbrella.com.au – hat-tip @BlackAdder). This, courtesy of Crikey:

Also see Crikey’s comments on the speech / report here (registration required):

And links and commentary from Mumbrella here.

Oh, and you can ‘Marc the deth of newpapers with this stilish Crikey tee shiort. Avilable now fom the Crickley shop.’

Similar Posts:

Made-up news bylines: does it matter?

Judith Townend — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:19:19 +0000

Martin Moore, director of the Media Standards Trust, picked up a Private Eye story mentioning that seven regular sports journalists for the Telegraph are fakes.

Using the opportunity to plug the MST’s recently updated Journalisted.com as a research tool, he reckons ‘it would appear to be true.’ Read Moore’s post in full for his thoughts and concerns:

“Even if one accepts that, in an age of print, this was a common and recognised inside practice, does that make it justified? And, in the age of blogging, linking, transparency, and of the importance of cementing the brand of your journalists? Isn’t it time it stopped?”

But does it matter and what’s new about that, a couple of the commenters ask, below the piece.

What are the pros and cons of bylines? Is a byline a helpful mechanism in the checks and balances process anyway? Does a legit byline help decrease the level of agency-lifted copy? Some of the UK’s best journalism is un-bylined after all (the Eye, the Economist etc.).

Similar Posts:

The Washington Post and the cancelled lobbyist event

Judith Townend — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:35:17 +0000

The original Politico story:

“Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive ’salon’ at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to ‘those powerful few’ – Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.”

Full story at this link…

And also read about it here:

The Atlantic: ‘Should journalists be entertainers?’

Washington Post: ‘Post Co. Cancels Corporate Dinners: Journalistic Boundaries Brought Into Question’

WashingtonMonthly.com: ‘Wash. Post selling access?’

A video from Politico showing the Whitehouse press secretary Robert Gibbs answering a question about the ’salon’:

Similar Posts:

#FollowJourn: @alexwoodcreates/multimedia reporter

Laura Oliver — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:55:57 +0000

#FollowJourn: Alex Wood

Who? Multimedia reporter specialising in Japan, health, business and technology.

What? Has worked for Sky News Online, Homovision, BBC Online and Journalism.co.uk.

Where? @alexwoodcreates or alexwoodcreates.com.

Contact? freelance [at] alexwoodcreates ( dot ) com.

Just as we like to supply you with fresh and innovative tips every day, we’re recommending journalists to follow online too. They might be from any sector of the industry: please send suggestions (you can nominate yourself) to judith or laura at journalism.co.uk; or to @journalismnews.

Similar Posts:

#Tip of the day from Journalism.co.uk – headlines that work

Laura Oliver — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:52:23 +0000

CopyBlogger's tips for writing headlines that work: a 'great headline can also communicate a full message to its intended audience...' Tipster: Judith Townend.

To submit a tip to Journalism.co.uk, use this link - we will pay a fiver for the best ones published.

Science journalism: a row

Judith Townend — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:57:35 +0000

This week is the World Conference of Science Journalists (#WCSJ). This is what the Independent’s Steve Connor had to say in an article entitled ‘Lofty medics should stick to their day job.’

“The sixth World Conference of Science Journalists is underway in London. I can’t say it’s going to change my life, as I missed out on the previous five, but I did notice that it has attracted the attention of a bunch of medics with strong views on the state of science journalism today.”

Connor picked up on a gathering advertised by Ben Goldacre (a post-event meet-up on July 1 with Petra Boynton and Vaughan Bell) and quoted Goldacre’s website, labelling him as the ‘bête noir’ of science journalists.

“All three speakers are gainfully employed by the public sector so they don’t actually have to worry too much about the sort of pressures and financial constraints the mainstream media are under. But they nevertheless condescended to offer some advice on the sort of ‘best practice guidelines’ I should be following, for which I suppose I should be eternally grateful.

“But their arrogance is not new. Medical doctors in particular have always had a lofty attitude to the media’s coverage of their profession, stemming no doubt from the God-like stance they take towards their patients. Although I wouldn’t go as far as to say their profession is broken, dangerous, lazy, venal and silly – not yet anyway.”

Ouch. Goldacre spotted it and comments beneath his post, and Connor’s article, are flowing pretty fast. Goldacre also reproduces a letter and email sent to the Independent, on his blog.

Here’s the letter sent to the Independent (unpublished as yet):

Dear Sir,

Your science journalist Steve Connor is furious that we are holding a small public meeting in a pub to discuss the problem that science journalists are often lazy and inaccurate. He gets the date wrong, claiming the meeting has already happened (it has not). He says we are three medics (only one of us is). He then invokes some stereotypes about arrogant doctors, which we hope are becoming outdated.

In fact, all three of us believe passionately in empowering patients, with good quality information, so they can make their own decisions about their health. People often rely on the media for this kind of information. Sadly, in the field of science and medicine, on subjects as diverse as MMR, sexual health, and cancer prevention, the public have been repeatedly and systematically misled by journalists.

We now believe this poses a serious threat to public health, and it is sad to see the problem belittled in a serious newspaper. Steve Connor is very welcome to attend our meeting, which is free and open to all,

yours

(Drs) Vaughan Bell, Petra Boynton, Ben Goldacre

In other WCSJ news, Goldacre wasn’t too happy with the panel addressing science and investigative journalism yesterday. He tweeted from the event: “so what about investigative science journalism done by bloggers? not a single person addressed the question. these ppl need to read more.”

Similar Posts:

Nieman Journalism Lab: Why the NYT was wrong to keep quiet about Rohde’s kidnap

Judith Townend — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:33:09 +0000

Matthew Ingram believes the cover-up of David Rohde’s kidnap made ‘things harder not just for future kidnapping victims such as Rohde, but for newspapers and other mainstream media outlets as a whole.’

Ingram responds to criticism in the comments below the post.

Full post at this link…

Also see: NYTimes.com: ‘Keeping News of Kidnapping Off Wikipedia’

Similar Posts: