Due to cuts there will be no Part 4.
Destroy the Free
This article was originally only going to be two parts, but the ideas started flying like fists at a drunken wedding party – so here are some more solutions to the right old mess we find ourselves in.
It’s clear from Part 1 and Part 2 that offering media for free is not working well. In most cases.
The free paper Metro is an exception and is doing nicely for someone, somewhere. It’s a popular sight on the snail-like and grotty London train network.
This proves that people will read a newspaper in its traditional form. But how to get them to pay for it?
Ideally there would be no free papers, so the public would be forced to buy them. That looks unlikely, but the i has proved that a concise and cheap paper (only 20p) is relatively popular.
People are now looking for a quick read in small chunks. The human attention span is almost at the level of a gnat and the industry could learn from how the i has prospered.
I’m surprised that the Times, Telegraph or Guardian haven’t tried out the i model. If people have a short commute or a busy day, they may welcome a slimmer paper that would be reasonably priced and less intimidating (in terms of length).
It’s an opportunity to experiment and see if readership can be restored to something less pathetic.
Another more drastic solution is to try and destroy the free papers. This has worked before, but not in the UK… to my knowledge.
Radicalism is an anathema to the British reactionary sensibilities, as the country is happy to wallow in complacency and mediocrity. However, there are times in life when revolution is to be relished.
When I lived in Köln, Germany, about 13 years ago, the main paid-for city papers were threatened by a free version which had been introduced in 1999. It was found on the rail network – a bit like the Metro paper.
The old guard’s reaction was swift, merciless and very effective. The paid-for papers offered a free slimline version of their own product, which was conveniently placed next to the newsstand of the new free paper.
After a battle the free paper was not getting enough readers to satisfy the advertisers and/or backers. And it disappeared without a trace.
Once this audacious upstart had been eliminated, the big boys (one of them the Kölner Stadtanzeiger) removed their free version and started charging again.
The status quo had been restored and quality papers were back on the menu.
It’s an option the British media could at least try.
The Gentle Touch
On my Twitter profile it says: “Twitter is a condiment to life, not the main course.” And that’s how I treat all these social media sites – Facebook, LinkedIn, Pinterest, etc.
The industry could benefit from this approach.
I’ve already discussed in the Dark Age of Journalism how “some journalists could use social media with a bit more finesse. We all know about the crisis in Egypt, so if all the papers tweet that news and many journalists tweet that exact same news again – it’s word pollution.”
Newspapers could also use celebrities’ or other people’s tweets considerably better. There’s no need to tell me everything.
Good journalism is choosing what to say and what to omit. That’s the point of having editors.
An example of this endless stream of dross was found during work experience on a national paper’s news desk. I was tasked to find tweets relating to a possible feud between Lady Gaga’s and Adele’s fans.
Yes, you read that right. What a phenomenal waste of time and energy. A small group of teenage girls mouthing off on Twitter were dictating the latest news report on a British newspaper.
Is this how the industry intends to use social media? A brave new world of banalities and blather? This will not restore the public’s faith in what we print. They’ll be laughing at us. I was working on a news desk, not a gossip column for Take a Break.
Social media is a tool that needs to be used wisely and sparingly. The industry is in danger of becoming addicted to its predominantly puerile content. Let’s avoid that trap.
First Among Equals
The Leveson Inquiry was set up in July 2011 to investigate “the role of the press and police in the phone-hacking scandal”.
Part 1 was published on 29 November 2012 and Part 2 cannot begin until police investigations and any criminal proceedings end.
(Leveson recommended the existing Press Complaints Commission be replaced by a new independent body – which could impose fines and ensure better apologies and corrections.)
Well, not a lot has changed since then. There’s been some talking behind the scenes and the canny media have kept it out of the public eye.
I believe it was a missed chance to get the public on our side.
Think about it – less people vote because they don’t trust politicians. So perhaps less people buy papers as they don’t trust what’s inside. They may think we all bribe and hack into phones.
If the national newspaper editors had took the initiative and made some changes to show greater transparency within this industry – it would have restored some trust to our words and deeds. That opportunity has gone.
The role of journalism is to scrutinise and bring to account those in power. This is a hallmark of a true democracy. A press free from state control.
There’s no real danger of state intervention and we are lucky in the UK to have such freedom.
However, prior to Leveson some of the newspaper owners and editors conducted affairs like warlords of a corrupt fiefdom.
If we expect politicians or celebrities to be clean, we need to demonstrate such qualities as well.
Who Dares Wins
The issue of content was examined in Part 1, but there is still more that can be done.
With so many jobs cuts it’s difficult for local news editors to focus on the bigger picture. The rush to meet daily deadlines means our glorious leaders believe they can’t allocate reporters to finding better stories.
Any old trite and tepid report has to be filed quickly. Dull press release comes in – turgid news item comes out. Repeat to fade.
This is a missed opportunity to show some editorial courage, and the solution could be simple.
Take one reporter off that tedious treadmill for a week – they were only producing a constant stream of crappy 150-300 word reports anyway. A junior reporter could find the time to write those reports at a reduced word count.
For that week away from producing rubbish – the reporter will focus on investigation and finding a bigger feature or exposé.
There are so many problems in our country that need attention – crime, racism, sexism, gangs, rip offs, etc. Take the latter and easiest option as an example.
We all know there are many stories about garages, builders, plumbers, taxi drivers, newsagents, etc., who are fleecing customers. The paper could investigate these prats and expose their deceit.
There would be plenty of material to print. The public would appreciate it – highlighting those who ruin the local community. Papers need to be more abrasive and inquisitive.
If we want people to buy local papers – champion causes they care about. Get out there and find hard news, don’t wait for it to come along.
And if you needed more proof of how local papers are making themselves look expendable and ludicrous, here’s a waste of print space from 28 September and the Dundalk Democrat in Ireland: “Relief as Kenny jumper safely returned”
Why even bother printing it?
Summon the Streetwise
On a recent freelance reporting stint I noticed some of the young reporters were very nice, but a little bit dull.
Was floppy hair and a plummy voice a job requirement? Did I just enter a charisma-free zone? Are editors only looking for yes men and women?
If that’s how the industry wants to be, then count me out. We need a good mix of journalists from all walks of life.
We also need them to be pushy and aggressive at times. I had to chase a few stories up, and a meek voice and milquetoast attitude would get me nowhere.
However, that same paper did have have one young lady doing an apprenticeship. She was straight out of school, not going to university and not doing the NCTJ diploma.
Instead, the paper were giving her training on the job (as in the old days). It’s a chink of light and hopefully more papers will bring this style back.
Otherwise we’ll be left with a sanitised and watered down industry that is only the preserve of the rich and privileged.
Exit… Stage Left
All these possibilities written about could be ripped to shreds by experienced journalists and media analysts, but right now I don’t believe the industry is in a good place.
In fact, some of the changes carried out by editors and publishers seem to make it worse.
Believe it or not my internal editor kicked in and cut a lot out. There’s plenty more to say and that may come in separate posts in the future.
Whatever is said, we all know the journalism industry will survive. But it’s becoming a diminished world of less opportunities and energy… and yet there is no need for us to be resigned to that fate.
If new ideas are tried out, at least we could say it went down fighting.
