Journalism.co.uk Editors' Blog » The Guardian

Paul Foot’s stories were not tomorrow’s fish and chip paper

Judith Townend — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:10:49 +0000

Yesterday saw journalists rewarded in memory of the campaigning journalist Paul Foot, with the Guardian’s Ian Cobain taking the first prize for his investigation into Britain’s involvement in the torture of terror suspects detained overseas.

But as Private Eye editor Ian Hislop reminded the audience, it was a night to remember Private Eye journalist Paul Foot, who died in 2004. Foot’s stories live on and influence today’s news, Hislop said: “There is a sense in which five years on, we’re still doing this award and Paul remains extraordinarily alive. People say journalism is fish and chip paper the next day. Well, that isn’t always true.

The Lockerbie story is a prime example, said Hislop. Foot provided the foundations for the ongoing journalistic investigation into the 1988 bombing of Pan-Am 103, uncovering evidence which throws uncertainty over the Scottish judges’ sentencing of Libyan Abdelbaset Al Megrahi to life imprisonment in 2001.

“Paul’s investigation from five, six years ago is the starting point for a story that’s still going on,” said Hislop.

“The ludicrous detail. I love the idea of Paul’s reaction [that] the man [Al Megrahi] was freed for compassionate reason; that would have amused him.”

Foot’s story on the solicitor Michael Napier, was another of his investigations that resurfaced this year, when Private Eye was threatened with an injunction courtesy of lawyers Carter-Ruck.

“In came the injunction, we weren’t allowed to say who it was (…) We won a case in front of Justice Eady – now you can imagine how crap their [the claimant's] case must have been. That we won in front of Eady, unbelievable,” joked Hislop.

Once past Eady, the Eye finally won in the Court of Appeal, but he wasn’t just crowing over his Carter-Ruck victory, Hislop said, rather emphasising ‘that even a story Paul wrote 10 years ago (…) never quite finishes and he’s still there’.

And now, investigative journalism needs more help than ever, he added: “[Investigative reporting] needs encouraging for obvious reasons, particularly in a recession: it’s difficult; it’s slow; it’s expensive; it’s risky. There’s no advertising. There are very few local newspapers. People are more interested in the death of the dinner party as a subject to fill a paper.

“This year has seen quite a lot of threats to investigative journalism.

“This year the editor of the Guardian and I were called to talk to the parliamentary select committee about the problems of libel and injunctions. I said there was a chill wind of libel blowing, particularly for these secret injunctions. And Alan [Rusbridger] said it wasn’t a big problem for the Guardian. That was pre-Trafigura so we had a good laugh later, when the Guardian was hit by it.

“These are the injunctions that are served on you and you’re not allowed to say what was in the injunction and you’re not allowed to say there was an injunction.”

Hislop, at this point, directed the audience’s eyes to the wall: “A charming portrait of Mr Marr – and we take that thought home…” [last year the BBC political correspondent won an injunction to stop the media revealing 'private information' about him, only recently reported; details remain undisclosed].

Foot would have loved this year’s short and long-list, continued Hislop. Stories about MPs’ expenses, for example, he said. “Again Carter-Ruck involved trying to stop that! Not that they’re in all the stories, but they are…” he added, as his last jibe to the firm for which the Eye has such a fond nickname.

But not the last time he stuck his tongue out at the legal profession. As he reached the nomination for Mail reporters, Stephen Wright and Richard Pendlebury, he waved two letters in the air; attempts sent today, Hislop claimed, to try and prevent him reading out the prize citation – a copy of which is available on the Private Eye website of course.

Similar Posts:

BBC denies ‘radical’ overhaul of websites

Judith Townend — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:14:03 +0000

What’s the difference between a refresh and a re-launch? We’ll leave that for the Guardian and the BBC to fight out…

The Guardian today reported that a ‘radical redesign’ and re-launch of BBC websites is planned for March 2010, with a focus on social media – according to the paper’s sources.

Among the changes outlined were a ‘a new homepage and underlying hosting platform,’ radical changes to news navigation, commenting facilities on programmes, the launch of the Open iPlayer and new connections to third party platforms.

The BBC, however, denied such a ‘radical overhaul’ to Journalism.co.uk, although it said ‘a refresh of the BBC News site’ will take place in due course – as previously reported.

In a statement it said:

“We’re always looking to improve the BBC experience for our users but contrary to reports, we are not planning a radical overhaul of the BBC’s websites.

“We are looking at how we can genuinely make BBC Online part of the web and meet our users growing expectations that they can contribute in different ways to our web site, and more broadly how we can share our technologies with other media companies.

“The website for Strictly Come Dancing as well as the Open iPlayer are examples – and as previously announced, we are planning a refresh of the BBC News site in the new year. Any investment in BBC Online is tightly assessed for market impact and public value before we commit to it.”

Further explanation will be given further down the line, a spokesperson told Journalism.co.uk.

In March 2009 director-general Mark Thompson announced that the BBC must cut £400 million from its budget within the next three years to avoid going over its statutory borrowing limit. Thompson said the corporation was targeting a five per cent cost reduction for television programme cost, year-on-year, for the next five years, a cumulative saving of 20 per cent.

This month he has talked of a ‘radical’ review of a different kind, one which will not necessarily dismiss the notion that the BBC has reached its limit of expansion (a suggestion originally made by culture secretary Ben Bradshaw).

Speaking at the BBC Open Day in August journalism controller of BBC Future Media & Technology, Nic Newman, said there will be no new editorial launches; rather users would see a ‘re-arrangement’ of content in the new year.

Similar Posts:

#FollowJourn @charlesarthur/technology editor

Helen Quinn — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:34:38 +0000

#FollowJourn: Charles Arthur

Who? Technology editor at the Guardian.

What? Arthur was previously technology editor at the Independent, writing about technology, science and the environment before going freelance. Now he edits the Guardian’s weekly technology supplement and site.

Where? @charlesarthur and www.charlesarthur.com

Contact? Via Twitter or his blog.

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:

Labour conference wearies political hack (and it’s only day one) #lab09

John Thompson — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:17:19 +0000

The Guardian’s assistant editor and esteemed political pundit Michael White was spotted taking a well-timed, and no doubt well-earned, nap during the opening proceedings of the Labour party conference in Brighton today. Shame he couldn’t have spent the day lazing in the sun in a deckchair with a knotted handkerchief on his head…

Similar Posts:

#FollowJourn: @martinstabe/online editor

Donna Goddard — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:30:44 +0000

#FollowJourn: Martin Stabe

Who? Online editor at Retail Week

What? Former new media editor at Press Gazette; currently online editor for Retail Week magazine. He tracks developments in digital media on his personal blog.

Where? @martinstabe and www.martinstabe.com/blog

Contact? blog [at] martinstabe.com and martin.stabe [at] emap.com

Similar Posts:

#datajourn: Simon Willison’s ‘hack day’ tools for non-developers

Judith Townend — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:37:27 +0000

The Guardian’s second (internal) hack day is imminent; the development team, members of the tech department and even journalists get together to play and build.

Read about the first one here. Remember this effort by guest hacker, Matthew Somerville: http://charlian.dracos.co.uk/?

In preparation for the second, Simon Willison (@simonw), the lead developer behind the Guardian’s MPs’ expenses crowdsourcing application, has helpfully put together an (external) list of tools for non-developers: “sites, services and software that could be used for hacking without programming knowledge as a pre-requisite. “

Full list at this link…

Similar Posts:

Independent.co.uk: Is Martin Newland stepping down as the National’s editor already?

Judith Townend — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:50:26 +0000

Update 2 9/07/09: Jen Gerson’s update: Newland is ‘up’ not ‘out’ she says. Here’s the National’s report on the changes. Newland ‘has left the editorship for a more business-focused role overseeing the newspaper as its editorial director,’ it said.

Update 8/07/09: (via @SpotonPR) AdNation Middle East reports, following speculation, (see example below) that ‘Martin Newland has stepped aside as editor of The National, he officially announced today at a newsroom meeting at the Abu Dhabi paper, according to posts on Twitter by journalists at the paper’. The article states:

“The former Telegraph editor will remain at the paper as editorial director. Hassan Fattah, currently deputy editor, will take on the Big Chair, and Bob Cowan will become deputy in his place.”

Jen Gerson (@jengerson), a tourism reporter at the paper, tweeted one hour ago:

“Newland standing aside as editor in ‘worst kept secret in Abu Dhabi.’ Wants to move into business side.”

Speculation from the ‘Feral Beast’ column in yesterday’s Independent on Sunday:

“Just a year after the launch of The National in Abu Dhabi, rumours swirl that Martin Newland is to step down. The former Daily Telegraph editor set up the English-language paper, recruiting several ex-Telegraph hacks to join him.

“(…) My mole says Newland will continue to work for the paper but not as editor. I’m told his replacement will need to be pro the Emirates government and royal family, its proprietors. Newland did not return my calls.”

Full column at this link… (Hat tip: @PaulMcNally for Press Gazette)

What appeared to be details of the National’s salaries, including Martin Newland’s, were leaked earlier this year, as reported by the Guardian’s Media Monkey. Monkey suggested that, if ‘figures are believed’, Newland took home ‘a cool tax-free annual take home of about £320,000 a year’.

Similar Posts:

FT’s Gapper’s response to Guardian’s Emily Bell’s response to John Gapper’s ‘cut-and-pasting’ (or aggregating) comment

Judith Townend — Fri, 15 May 2009 18:21:05 +0000

John Gapper’s column on FT.com asks whether it is time for the Ochs-Sulzberger family to sell the New York Times. No, Gapper says: “They would be crazy to cap their run of poorly timed transactions by selling in the trough of the recession, amid mayhem in the industry.”

As part of the commentary he also makes this claim:

“Meanwhile, it [the New York Times] produces more original stories than most rivals put together. The UK’s Guardian is another paper that has built a global brand from what was a regional paper, but it relies more on cut-and-pasting (or aggregating) from others.”

Emily Bell, director of digital content at Guardian.co.uk responds in the comments: “It is a pity an interesting piece was spoiled by such a sloppy and inaccurate piece of reporting,” she says. We have reproduced an extract from her lengthy comment below (yes, cut and pasted):

“John, in your column you asset [sic] that the Guardian has grown its online audience primarily by aggregating and cutting and pasting other people’s stories. This is demonstrably not true. If you look at our site on any given day (www.guardian.co.uk), you will I am sure find stories which are either from a wire feed (rather as the FT uses) or which reporters have picked up from other sources, again as does the BBC, FT, Times , even sometime the hallowed NYT. But this is not the core of what we do and it is certainly not how we have grown our audience…”

“(…)We have built our traffic on a higher investment in original multimedia journalism than most if not all of our peers. We have an active policy NOT to routinely aggregate high-grossing showbusiness, celebrity or ‘weird’ stories from elsewhere, which is common practice among some newspaper websites.”

And Gapper quickly responds (Journalism.co.uk wonders what is happening to journalism: shouldn’t they be in the pub by now on a Friday evening?):

“In fact, I don’t assert that. What I wrote was:

“”Meanwhile, it [the NYT] produces more original stories than most rivals put together. The UK’s Guardian is another paper that has built a global brand from what was a regional paper, but it relies more on cut-and-pasting (or aggregating) from others.”

“So I am comparing the Guardian’s ratio with that of the NYT, not claiming that the Guardian contains more aggregated than original content. I do not believe the latter, and would not write it.”

Similar Posts:

MPs applaud Polly Toynbee for declaring £106,000 salary and urge journalists to follow her lead

Judith Townend — Fri, 08 May 2009 13:10:52 +0000

At the time of writing, there are 33 signatures for this Early Day Motion, submitted by Gordon Prentice on May 5, 2009, which urges journalists, broadcasters, commentators and politicians to declare their own income before commenting on pay levels in the public sector:

“That this House applauds Polly Toynbee, the Guardian journalist and co-author of the book Unjust Rewards for volunteering details of her salary to the Public Administration Select Committee in its first evidence session on Executive Pay in the Public Sector; notes that she receives £106,000 per annum; and urges journalists, broadcasters, commentators, politicians and others to follow her example before pronouncing on pay levels in the public sector by first disclosing their own income, earned and unearned.”

(via PA MediaPoint at Press Gazette.co.uk)

Similar Posts:

Tip of the day from Journalism.co.uk – making the most of data

Judith Townend — Tue, 05 May 2009 08:41:44 +0000

Make the most of open content online from leading publishers: the Guardian's DataStore and Al Jazeera's content <a href="http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/533212.php"released under Creative Commons are good places to start. Tipster: Judith Townend.

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