Author Archives: Judith Townend

Howard Kurtz: The media benefiting from non-profit investigations

Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz provides some more background on the New York Times / ProPublica Pulitzer win, as an example of a new way of funding serious journalism.

This is a glimpse of an unexpected future: a battered newspaper business, an idealistic start-up with a deep-pocketed liberal backer, and dogged reporters who otherwise might be out of work. If the Times was piggybacking on ProPublica – which covered about half the $400,000 cost of the investigation – the paper has plenty of company.

Full story at this link…

Pirkka Aunola: #ashtag ‘connects people, but media acts like an outsider’

We’ve seen how Facebook and Twitter users are helping people get back – or to – their destinations without flights in and out of the UK.

I first saw news of a rescue fleet of speed boats travelling to Calais, for example, via both these networks (follow @thehistoryguy for more details).

Meanwhile our mainstream media is full of flight news, but could they be doing more to help the community collaborative rescue effort?

I enjoyed this short post by Pirkka Aunola, who works for the Finnish Broadcasting Company as online strategist. Aunola suggests that the media sits outside the crisis relief effort:

In a moment of crisis people still come in masses to big media companies websites, and that’s right where media companies should take responsibility not just to inform, but to help people cope in current situations. Gather information, direct people to right sites and maybe put up a carpool site of your own.

Full post at this link…

Update: I should note that the blog post does praise one mainstream media site, however: Norway’s VG, for its Hitchhiker Central page. Kristine Lowe has also blogged about how she used it to great effect over the weekend.

FOLIO: RBI to close 23 magazines in US

Reed Business Information is to close 23 B2B magazine titles in the US. FOLIO reports:

About nine months after putting the brands published under the U.S. arm of Reed Business Information on the block again, Reed Elsevier announced today that it is closing down the magazines it has not been able to sell or does not intend to keep. In total, the number of magazines to be closed down is 23.

According to FOLIO, parent company Reed Elsevier declined to comment on the number of job losses as a result.

Full post at this link…

David Yelland: Nick Clegg is free of Murdoch’s ‘tentacles’

David Yelland, the former Sun editor now enjoying lifting the lid on the realities of tabloid newspapers since he saw the democratic light, comments on Nick Clegg’s rise – and how it could leave Cameronite press ‘floundering’. The article appeared in the Guardian today. An extract:

The fact is these papers, and others, decided months ago that Cameron was going to win. They are now invested in his victory in the most undemocratic fashion. They have gone after the prime minister in a deeply personal way and until last week they were certain he was in their sights.

I hold no brief for Nick Clegg. But now, thanks to him – an ingenue with no media links whatsoever – things look very different, because now the powerless have a voice as well as the powerful.

All of us who care about democracy must celebrate this over the coming weeks – even if Cameron wins in the end, at least some fault lines will have been exposed.

Full story at this link…

ComRes stats: Who’s to blame for misreported Lib Dem leap frog poll? ITV points finger at outside journalist

Earlier today [Friday] media news sites, bloggers and tweeters reported that Liberal Democrats had leap frogged Labour with supporting rising by 14 per cent in a ITV/ComRes poll, to 35 per cent.

For example:

But this figure was soon amended and given some context. ComRes actually reports in its “final analysis” that Liberal Democrats remain in third place, with a cut of 24 per cent.

How did the misunderstanding occur?

ITN claims, in a statement to Journalism.co.uk: “A headline figure of the ComRes/ITV News poll was overheard by a journalist outside of ITV News.”

“Other media outlets ran with this information without verifying. The full figures were released in their full context almost immediately by ComRes and ITV News to all media.”

If you read ComRes’ press statement – published on the Independent’s blog here – it states:

The final analysis of the ComRes instant poll for last night’s ITV News at Ten among those watching the First Election Debate, extrapolated across the GB adult population as a whole, puts the Conservatives on 35 per cent, Labour on 28 per cent and Liberal Democrats on 24 per cent.

(…)

Of the 4,000 viewers sampled, before the poll was weighted across the population, their voting intentions are now Conservative 36 per cent, Labour 24 cent and Lib Dems 35 per cent.

(…)

[T]he national vote share result takes into account ComRes’s latest voting intention figures published on Wednesday 14th April and the voting intention of respondents who watched the debate polled on 15th April.

But it was the latter unweighted sample that caught the headlines, before being quickly updated when the full results were release.

According to the Telegraph’s Robert Colvile it was a case of “egg on pollster face”. But ComRes told Journalism.co.uk it only ever released the full results – with context and weighting.

ConservativeHome’s Jonathan Isaby blamed a tweet from ITV correspondent Lucy Manning (@lucymanning).

But she denied she was the first, and tweeted (in an open message to Guardian political journalist Andrew Sparrow): “Not true many more tweeted them before me. thought id clarify!”

Sparrow justifies sharing the initial poll results, acquired via Twitter, on Guardian.co.uk. He writes:

“Twitter is a wonderful source of information (if we didn’t use it, this blog would be slower and far less information) and the figures were released by journalists who are normally reliable. But on this occasion the information was misleading. I should have waited until I had spoken to ComRes before going into overdrive. I’m sorry about that.”

But weighting or no weighting, is the poll’s methodology sound? Journalist James Ball tweets that weighting a poll like that is “very problematic”.

“Not only is direct audience for debate small, it’s untypical of general population,” he claims. He says it’s “staggeringly poor methodology” for ComRes, “at a time rife for misinterpretation.”

Full ComRes press release:

The final analysis of the ComRes instant poll for last night’s ITV News at Ten among those watching the First Election Debate, extrapolated across the GB adult population as a whole, puts the Conservatives on 35 per cent, Labour on 28 per cent and Liberal Democrats on 24 per cent. This compares to the ComRes poll broadcast on ITV News at Ten on 14th April showing Conservatives on 35 per cent, Labour on 29 per cent and Liberal Democrats on 21 per cent.

Of the 4,000 sample of viewers who watched the debate, their voting intentions are now Conservative 36 per cent, Labour 24 per cent and Lib Dems 35 per cent. This compares to their stated voting intentions prior to the debate which stood at Conservative 39 per cent, Labour at 27 per cent and Liberal Democrat 21 per cent.

Methodology statement:

Instant Poll
ComRes interviewed 4032 GB adults on 15th April by an automated telephone survey immediately after the ITV1 Leaders’ Debate. Data were weighted to be demographically representative of all GB adults and weighted by past vote recall. Respondents were selected from a pre-recruited panel of people who agreed to be contacted by telephone following the leaders’ debates to give their views. ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Full data tables will be available shortly at www.comres.co.uk.

National Voting Intention
To extrapolate the impact of the change in voting intention figures for viewers of the debates the national voting intention is modelled taking into account: (i) viewing figures for the debate (Peak of 10 million – approximately 21 per cent of the population); (ii) projected turnout –nationally and among viewers.  Therefore, the national vote share result takes into account ComRes’s latest voting intention figures published on Wednesday 14th April and the voting intention of respondents who watched the debate polled on 15th April.

Cameron’s fear that TV debates might be ‘slow and sluggish’ (video)

Conservative leader David Cameron has expressed concern that the televised leader debates, the first of which will be aired on ITV at 8.30pm tonight, could be “slow and sluggish”. He’s worried, he told ITN News, that the public might feel “short-changed.”

We’ll see. But if he prefers fast-paced and high pressure television, why has he refused to appear on a Panorama Special – an election tradition – with Jeremy Paxman?

NUJ Scotland launches campaign against ‘amateur’ sport journalists

Via AllMediaScotland we learn that NUJ Scotland is launching a campaign against the non-professional sports reporters the organisation considers a “creeping menace”.

According to the NUJ Scotland Campaigns site, the campaign – ‘Kick the amateurs into touch!’ – will “target sports desks who regularly hire teachers, policemen and other non-journalists to report on sports events across Scotland”.

It continues:

When freelances are losing work because of cut-backs and staff journalists are being made redundant it is a scandal that sports editors are using their own version of “fans with lap-tops” without the journalistic skills and traditions that help maintain standards and ethics in the industry.

The union is writing to sports editors, the SPL and Scottish League for support as well as the Sports Ministers in Holyrood and Westminster to help us reclaim ground for the professional writers and photographers.

Regular freelances who are still fortunate to hang onto their work are fed up sitting beside this gang of “citizen journalists” who are queering our pitch. They are concerned at falling standards and rates of shift payments driven down by cheap labour.

But the first respondents on the AMS site are sceptical. One commenter remarks:

“What matters is the quality of the report. If an enthusiastic amateur is better than an NUJ hack then tough. As usual protectionism is the way an industry goes down. The newspaper trade is on a downward slope look at the figures. The internet is going to wipe newspapers out, even TV is being hit. It is called change and progress. The costs of the internet are much less than newspapers. When new technology appears things change and there is nothing the NUJ can do about it.

(Hat-tip: Jon Slattery)

#SinghBCA: BCA speaks – why the ‘time is right’ to drop libel case against Simon Singh

Following this morning’s breaking news that the British Chiropractic Association has abandoned its libel case against Simon Singh after he won an appeal on meaning in the Court of Appeal in early April, we have received this statement from the BCA:

Having carefully considered its position in the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (1st April 2010), the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has decided to discontinue its libel action against Simon Singh.

As previously made clear, the BCA brought the claim because it considered that Simon Singh had made a serious allegation against its reputation, namely, that the BCA promoted treatments that it knew to be “bogus”.

The Honourable Mr Justice Eady, the UK’s most experienced defamation judge, agreed with the BCA’s interpretation of the article and ruled that it made a serious factual allegation of dishonesty.

The Court of Appeal, in its recent judgement, has taken a very different view of the article. On its interpretation, the article did not make any factual allegation against the BCA at all; it was no more than an expression of ‘honest opinion’ by Simon Singh.

While it still considers that the article was defamatory of the BCA, the decision provides Dr Singh with a defence such that the BCA has taken the view that it should withdraw to avoid further legal costs being incurred by either side.

As those who have followed the publicity surrounding this case will know, Simon Singh has said publicly that he had never intended to suggest that the BCA had been dishonest. The BCA accepts this statement, which goes some way to vindicating its position.

The BCA takes seriously its duty and responsibilities to members and to chiropractic patients. The BCA has considered seeking leave to take this matter to the Supreme Court and has been advised there are strong grounds for appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment. However, while it was right to bring this claim at the outset, the BCA now feels that the time is right for the matter to draw to a close.

#SinghBCA: British Chiropractic Association drops libel case against Simon Singh

Breaking news: The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has dropped its libel case against science writer Simon Singh.

From the Ely Place Chambers site:

The BCA today served a Notice of Discontinuance bringing to an end its ill-fated libel claim against Dr Simon Singh arising out of criticisms he made of its promotion of treatments for childhood ailments.

Dr Singh’s predicament as the sole defendant in an action brought in respect of a comment piece in the Guardian newspaper (to which the BCA  never directed any complaint) was seen as a rallying point for those concerned about the abuse of UK libel laws in connection with scientific debate.

Interest intensified when Eady J ruled that his words were not comment and that in order to defend himself he would have to prove the objective truth of what he wrote.

Earlier this month the Court of Appeal overturned that ruling and this has lead the BCA to abandon its claim.

#ozleak: Australian journalist live tweets newspaper’s legal battle

Back in August 2009, Australian police arrested four people in terror raids – a planned operation reported exclusively by the Australian newspaper.  But the police claimed copies of the newspaper were available in Melbourne before the operation had taken place, citing that an “unacceptable risk”. We noted on this blog:

Australian police have attacked the way the Australian newspaper reported its planned terror raids, claiming that the newspaper’s exclusive was available before the operation had actually taken place early this morning.

It was a stunning scoop, which won journalist Cameron Stewart a prestigious press prize. But the legal implications continue. In brief, the Australian newspaper (part of Murdoch’s News Limited) has acquired an order prohibiting publication of a report into the source of the leak by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI). Crikey.com.au reports that the report is “apparently highly critical of Stewart and the newspaper” and identifies a possible source.

This organisation, as the excellent Crikey explains, “is responsible for countering corruption in the Australian Federal Police and the Victorian Office of Police Integrity”. The Victorian Office of Police Integrity now seeks to overturn the order.

Today [Thursday] Crikey.com.au’s Margaret Simons has been tweeting live from the Australian Federal Court using the hashtag #ozleak: “OPI is seeking a court order to issue an edited report giving details of Oz articles, opi investigation. oz opposes”.

Before reading the tweets, look at her comprehensive back story here: The murky legal battle behind The Oz’s terror raids scoop. An extract:

The aftermath of [Cameron’s] story, which won a Gold Quill in the recent Melbourne Press Club awards, is shaping to be one of the most sensitive and controversial episodes in recent journalistic history, as well as a case study in relationships between journalists and their sources and the rivalries between police forces.

Good background can also be found in the MediaWatch report: ‘The Australian v Victoria Police’.