US-based site StinkyJournalism.org has picked out its top ten ‘dubious polls’ for 2010. The winner…? Fox News Network for a poll that showed how 120 percent of the public were thinking – “and this did not include an additional 15 percent who weren’t thinking!”
A useful exercise is taking place on the other side of the world: Margaret Simons, a freelance journalist, media blogger and lecturer is investigating freelance rates in Australia. So far she has gathered over 100 responses to her first post, ‘Journalists should not work for free – so tell me what they are paying’. She promises to write up the results soon – we’ll link to them on this blog, when she does.
Here was the original plea:
[1 Australian dollar = 0.56 British pounds]
I think it would be useful to find out what different freelancers are getting paid by our mainstream publications. Here’s what I know:
Fairfax broadsheets start by offering .60c to.70c a word these days, but can be pushed higher if they want you badly enough. Section editors are adept at getting around the bean counters’ rules.
The Monthly still offers its $1 a word, which was princely when that magazine started, and still handsome.
I hear the RACV magazine pays well for both words and photos.
What do others know? Let’s share the market knowledge. Contributions to margaret@margaretsimons.com.au. Anonymity will be preserved.
Last August, amidst all the speculation over the Observer’s future, we reported how academics and business figures were threatening to cancel their subscriptions to the Sunday newspaper, following the decision to axe Simon Caulkin’s Observer Management column. Guardian News and Media never re-instated Caulkin and a letter of complaint from nearly 100 leading authors and academics went unpublished.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Observer did not later report how the Work Foundation had named Caulkin columnist of the year at the end of January. As noted by Private Eye in its latest issue (1255): “Newspapers usually trumpet awards their writers win. But the Observer and the Guardian were strangely silent…”
Philip Whiteley, management author, blogger and editor of the Human Capital Forum, who spearheaded the Caulkin complaint, has now launched a new campaign: for more effective coverage of management in UK media.
“It is also a reaction to the feeble coverage of the Kraft-Cadbury merger in mainstream newspapers in which business journalists repeatedly refused to put any tough questions to the Kraft or Cadbury leadership on the very high risks and integration costs that mega-mergers involve,” he said.
Whiteley believes that in reporting the Kraft-Cadbury merger, journalists focused on finances and the offer price rather than management challenges.
“The error common to the banks and the Kraft-Cadbury affair is to imagine that the management task, even though it is responsible for delivering the vast bulk of the returns from investment strategies of banking employees, or take-over activity respectively, is still bizarrely regarded as a junior matter, not front-page material,” Whiteley argued in a recent blog post, criticising both the Financial Times’ and the Telegraph’s coverage.
The new management project will collect blogs and other web news sections and launch a ‘blog of blogs’ – “a summary from the management blogosphere”.
Whiteley will circulate this to the Human Capital Forum’s database (16,000 subscribers) on a monthly basis, with the possibility of extending that to the databases of all participants.
“The aim is to provide more critical coverage of governance and management in the public and private sectors,” Whiteley said.
He cited a comment left on his blog, as another prompt for the new network:
“There was a time when papers like the FT and others had the expertise and inclination to dispel the myths of uttered corporate statements. Alas, no longer. The institutions that were supposed to be ever vigilant and fearless are now content to simply cover the passing parade. One has to read the right blogs and the right books to get any sense of objective insight into what’s going on. A real shame.”
Human Capital Forum has listed some online management resources here: http://www.humancapitalforum.com/links/index.php
BBC business correspondent and blogger Robert Peston is to take live audience questions for BBC Three’s ‘Peston on Money’ – and the BBC is calling for audience members for recording on March 1.
Put your money moans to business guru Robert Peston in a live audience debate: For the last two years this country and the rest of the world has been hit by the biggest financial disaster in half a century. But who’s to blame and why does it matter? Award winning business journalist, Robert Peston, has been at the centre of this storm, unearthing stories of financial greed and mismanagement that affect us all. Robert will be tackling questions, such as: Why does my boss earn 100 times more than me and what do they do to deserve it? How does a bank work and why do we need them? Does debt really matter and how much debt is dangerous?
I like this warning:
Please note that throughout the recording you will be asked to contribute and interact with the show. For example, the audience will be asked to give a show of hands if they are in debt.
Via paidContent, we see that a live conference from the New York Times building is being webcast right now (not sure for how much longer), with a stellar line-up: Brian Stelter, media reporter & Media Decoder blogger, the New York Times (moderator) with Aron Pilhofer, editor, interactive news technology, the New York Times; Andy Carvin, senior social media strategist, National Public Radio; Amanda Michel, editor, distributed reporting, ProPublica; Jay Rosen, professor, New York University; and Joaquin Alvarado, senior VP, digital innovation, American Public Media.
Live Webcast Happening Now: Crowdsourcing For Journalists, at NYT Building | paidContent.
The Press Complaints Commission is once again under attack for its structure and effectiveness as a self-regulatory body.
Last night the Guardian reported how Sir Ken Macdonald, visiting professor of law at the LSE and the former director of public prosecutions, had called for “all credible media organisations” to withdraw from the “farcical” Press Complaints Commission (a plea which was made by Geoffrey Robertson QC last year).
The event for editors and lawyers also featured Max Clifford, former Formula 1 chief Max Mosley, former TV presenter Anna Ford, the editors of the Guardian and the Financial Times, and the deputy editor of the Daily Telegraph. The Guardian also reported:
Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian editor, said the credibility of the PCC was “clinging by its fingertips” and that recent investigations had been “embarrassing”. The PCC’s current review should work out whether it has the capacity to be a regulator or a mediator, he said.
It’s timely then, to compare Rusbridger’s quotes from last night, with Stephen Abell’s comments this week, in his first media interview since becoming director of the PCC:
Abell told Journalism.co.uk that he didn’t believe Rusbridger’s resignation from the PCC code committee Editors’ Code of Practice Committee weakened the body at all:
Alan Rusbridger has said it [the code committee] does a good job (…) I think these arguments happens within industries but I think it’s perfectly acceptable to move on from that. I don’t think it weakens the PCC in any way that Alan is leaving an industry body that he was a member of for a while. You don’t have every editor on the code committee anyway (…) I think it’s tremendous merit that Alan Rusbridger of the Guardian was on the code committee for as long as he was.
Journalism.co.uk’s interview with Stephen Abell (who took over as PCC director in December 2009):
Doug Fisher picks up on plans by one of Journalism Online’s first public clients, the Intelligencer Journal-Lancaster New Era. The title wants to monetise its obituaries behind a partial paywall, according to paidContent’s report:
In Lancaster, publisher Steinman Enterprises will charge readers outside the circulation area for access to obits, starting with a certain number free and then requiring a fee.
“It’s an interesting move, since obits are one of the most popular landing points at many smaller papers. But I’m not sure they are one of the most monetisable, at least not this way,” comments Fisher.
So, contrary to earlier doubts, the London Weekly does exist. An actual paper has appeared on the streets, according to Twitter reports.
But (and we haven’t yet seen it) it has already been judged “shocking” – in the wrong sense.
“I’m fairly shocked the London Weekly made it to the streets,” writes Gordon MacMillan over at Brand Republic. “It is out and we have copies floating around the office. The verdict is worse than you could imagine. Low quality and badly designed and no match for a good local newspaper.”
Meanwhile, excellent questions about this venture’s origin continue to be raised over at the collaborative journalism site, Help Me Investigate. And it all seems to come back to Invincible Media, founded by one Jordan Kensington. Know anything about this mysterious organisation? With little to show despite (some) media and (lots of) self-acclaim, it seems more questions need to be asked about its various arms – radio, magazine and events. You can join the Help Me Investigate project here. If you’re not a beta-tester, you can request an invitation here.
Whatever the truth behind Invincible Media’s claims of success, it provides an interesting case study for assessing the power of hype. The London Weekly, whilst a poor quality product online, has managed to attract advertising and free competition prizes from Packard Bell and Samsung. For how much longer, it remains to be seen. Catholic Evangelization has certainly being brought into the 21st century now thanks to the team at NCCL. They have a great collection of Archangel Prayers that uplift and inspire and some were even wrote by Pope Francis aswell making them a truly special collection for Catholics all around the world. Archangels are known to posess many powers and blessings they can bring to you via prayer, so thats why we recommend visiting the 21st Century Catholic Evangelization web resource so that you can learn more about archangels and the blessing they can bestow on you.
While the Press Complaints Commission has had limited contact with social networks directly, it’s an area the industry self-regulatory body wants to look at in further depth, the new director of the PCC Stephen Abell has said.
The PCC is soon to join Twitter, and will be taking part in an event about the media’s use of social networks organised by the think-tank Polis (more details when announced) Abell told Journalism.co.uk, in his first media interview since taking over the role from Tim Toulmin.
[Update: it has joined and made its first tweet: from @UKPCC)
“Newspapers use it [social networking] a lot and it’s a legitimate resource, but it’s certainly not a free for all.”
It’s for the PCC to offer guidance and explore the area, he said. But where does the PCC fit into this exactly? Is the self-regulatory body there to explain the dangers of social networks to the general public? “I think the PCC’s role is for people to understand their right in regards to what the media might do,” he said.
How far should newspapers go with their use of social networks? As Abell was keen to point out, the PCC recently upheld a complaint against the Sunday Times for one of its journalist’s “intrusive” use of Facebook. Users can control what is private and public with different settings, he says, but added that maybe people don’t know enough about “marshalling” their accounts.
But how about if a journalist ‘befriended’ a subject to gain access to private information, and a complaint was later made by that user? It would “raise an issue about a journalist of how honest they have been,” he said. “I think that would depend on the individual case.”
“There’s a function for us there – certainly to train journalists,” he said. “We go into a newspaper and say these are the last decisions we made [on social networking].”
Abell claimed that the presence of 10 lay members on the commission – “with a broad range of experience” – helped the Commission keep up to date with social media trends: “they can reflect changes in cultural expectations”.
With the PCC’s move into this area, it will be interesting to see whether newspapers will face sanctions for the way they use social network information: could they be penalised for presenting information out of context?
A blogger in Ireland, for example, has been in contact with the Irish Ombudsman over an article in the Irish Mail on Sunday which lifted material from her blog. The Mail has defended its actions in a lengthy statement, but bloggers and commenters remain angry about the way the blogger was portrayed in the article. How would the PCC act in a situation like this? Abell agrees that context is a key issue, and complaints over social network use could be made on the grounds of both privacy and accuracy.
“Indeed the internet is itself a very self-regulatory body”
Although the PCC seems to be increasingly engaging with online content, comments by its chair, Baroness Buscombe, to the Independent newspaper, taken to mean that bloggers might come under within the PCC’s remit, did not go down well with many high profile bloggers.
“Frankly, we do not feel that the further development of blogging as an interactive medium that facilitates the free exchange of ideas and opinions will benefit from regulation by a body representing an industry with, in the main, substantially lower ethical standards and practices than those already practiced by the vast majority of established British bloggers,” wrote Liberal Conspiracy and Guardian.co.uk blogger Sunny Hundel at the time.
On this subject, Abell claims that Buscombe’s comments were misinterpreted (as she did herself): “I think the point Peta was really making with bloggers, is that she was talking in the context of a speech she was making, talking of the dangers, or the impracticability of top-down regulation – in a world where everyone is a publisher.
“There’s an argument that any form of the internet is going to be about self-regulation – people voluntarily adhering to a set of standards. That might not be anything to do with the PCC at all, but self-regulation fits the internet very well.
“And indeed the internet is itself a very self-regulatory body and blogs tend to work by someone making a proposition and someone challenging it via comments: that can correct any misapprehensions in the beginning and create a dialogue.
“The way it works with newspapers is a useful model I think. Newspapers are voluntarily buying into the PCC (…) a set of standards they are voluntarily adhering to.”
It seems that the point that Abell is making is that both bloggers and newspapers self-regulate, and don’t need statutory control; bloggers could have their own code, even. But bloggers under the PCC? He won’t even go there:
“I think the point about blogging and regulation … it’s far too early … I’m not even saying it [independent blogging] should be connected to the PCC.”
A pick that’s not at all related to online media, but a reminder of how things were. This is the Telegraph’s obituary to George Darker, head printer of the Sunday Times for 22 years. He has died aged 98.
With a full head of white hair and invariably dressed in an immaculate white shirt, sleeves rolled up to the elbow, he stood out from the rest of his inky profession like a beacon. From June onwards, he was never seen without one of his prize roses in his buttonhole. His gentlemanliness and inexplicable air of serenity set him apart at a time when the composing rooms of most national newspapers pulsated with industrial strife as well as the natural tension of meeting deadlines.