Archive | Press & publishing RSS feed for this section

Death of the Scottish press

Tim Luckhurst paints a depressing picture of the Scottish quality press in today’s Independent on Sunday:

"For the first time in 200 years, Scotland does not have its own
quality newspaper. Neither The Herald nor The Scotsman is a national
paper these days. They are both impoverished, eviscerated shadows of
their former selves."

It’s not just going wrong at the heavy end of the market. The Daily Record is also a pale imitation of its former self, and has been headed south for longer than Herald and Scotsman. All the titles appear to be caught between not being small enough to be indispensable, or big enough to be truly national – or international – in scope, in print or online.

There are strategies to pick themselves out that mess – just look to how big city dailies like the Washington Post are coping in the US, by moving to both be local and international. But that requires imagination and investment, and it appears both is in short supply.

Comments { 2 }

Calling it as your readers would

Here’s a gem from the Paisley Daily Express. You’ll want to read the whole thing, but especially the sixth paragraph. [Update 1: for shame! They killed the story. But you can still see the page thanks to the might of the Google cache]

Now, on first reading you might think this is a terrible journalistic lapse. The journo friend who sent me the link certainly thought so. But might it be a radical departure in style… a deliberate use of the kind of language many readers might use to describe the story? And might newspapers sell more if they dropped the standard bag of cliches, and started writing like this?

[Update 2: given they've whipped the story off their site, it appears that this was a lapse, or that a highup at Scottish and Universal newspapers - the paper's owners - took fright and demanded it be removed. If you know what happened, do let me know...]

Comments { 13 }

The 50,000th edition of the Guardian*

From Alan Rusbridger’s piece commemorating the paper’s milestone:

"In our times news is as saleable and merchantable a
commodity as soap … The world is
shrinking. Space is every day being bridged …
Physical boundaries are disappearing; moral boundaries must speedily
follow suit … What a change for the world! What a chance for the
newspaper!"

[It is] such a friendly thing … that quite an appreciable number of American
citizens should be interested in the life and development of a single
English newspaper."

He’s quoting CP Scott, of course, who was writing about the advent of the wireless telegraph in 1921. I wonder how many pamphleteers – bloggers of their day – were predicting the death of newspapers then?

* and a footnote about how other things come around again and again:

Talking about the wireless telegraph, do you think there might have been a health scare surrounding it – just as we saw in that bobbins Panorama report about Wifi recently? This, from 1880:

"George Beard, the founder of the diagnosis of neurasthenia, ascribed
the cause of this disorder to “wireless telegraphy, science, steam
power, newspapers and the education of women; in other words modern
civilisation.”

Found in the BMJ: Modern worries, new technology and medicine — new technologies mean new health complaints.

That is all.

Comments { 2 }

Death of Press Gazette is a glimpse of the future

I was very sorry to hear of the Press Gazette’s closure. Guardian Unlimited – through MediaGuardian.co.uk – is/was clearly a rival, but I was one of the few (2,776 of us) who had a subscription, kept running for years. It was always a place for us to turn to get a reasonably fair view on things we – or the competition – had done, and keep up with the moves of friends and former colleagues. New management, of which more in a second, had failings that proved to be terminal for the magazine, but they did help make it more gutsy.

The final edition, last week, led on the Telegraph’s claim (derived from Hitwise stats!) that it had more UK users than GU or TimesOnline. It wasn’t a great story, but a fitting one to close the doors to, given the net’s importance to the industry.

But a few other things were also fitting, in a less comfortable way, for the industry as a whole. There are, alas, lessons to be learnt here.

First, the magazine’s website (110,000 uniques a month) was much more popular than the printed version where, I suspect, all the effort went (4,639 sales).

Roy Greenslade, in his excellent obit today, suggests the web was where a lot of the readers went, but it seems like the PG always had an internet-style problem, even before the web existed. Readers – journalists – were used to getting it for free, as it turned up in newsrooms on a Thursday or Friday, and would then be passed around. Why pay when you could get it for nothing? Sound a familiar problem?

Second, classifieds went south – not because of Craigslist, but because regional newspapers (miffed, it’s said, at a hike in ad rates a few years ago) clubbed together to back holdthefrontpage.co.uk. When PG’s other cash cow – the UK Press Awards – were boycotted, the magazine was scrabbling around.

But, again as pointed out by Roy, even the revenues from that annual bunfight wouldn’t have necessarily helped. PG’s final, terminal problem was that new management took over PG and, instead of abandoning the high costs of traditional publication made them even higher, layering on new costs and moving to posh new offices (so the paper could “return” to Fleet Street, long since abandoned by its audience). [Update: someone who should know says the new offices, at £100k a year, were actually less posh than their previous ones. Blimey]. And look at the management costs: an MD on £133k, a finance director on £82k.

At a time when online publishing has found a very low-cost, high impact model of publication, PG went old school and bulked up. Had it embraced the new model – looking to Nick Denton, Rafat Ali or Ashley Norris rather than to the glory days of print – it might have survived.

Best wishes to its staff, not least the excellent Martin Stabe, who blogs over here.

Comments Off

LA Times: I’m confused

Latimes It would be glib, not to say wrong, to say that all the US newspaper industry’s woes are encapsulated in the astonishing LA Times front page, right. But at least some of them are on show, no?

The amazing thing about this page, grabbed from the wonderful newsdesigner.com, is that it’s a redesign, first unveiled yesterday. And yet it still looks like something from a bygone age. Or the New York Times, which gets away with it just because you kinda assume it hasn’t redesigned since 1938 and there’s Tradition surrounding it, or a union agreement, or something.

Now, I know we have cultural differences ‘n’ all, and that US newspaper readers probably wouldn’t stand for something looking like the Guardian or Marca hitting their driveways in the morning. But I’m still amazed that this, as far as the designers on this respected, big city daily, with aspirations (I’m told) to be a big national, is as good as it gets.

Click on the image to get a better look. Go on. A cacophony of typefaces. Some in caps, some not. A huge number of headlines – although, unlike many US papers, at least they seem to be giving up on the Up Down Caps On Every Initial Letter style. Why’s the main pic so small?

Look inside the paper, and the Sunday and weekend editions sport an easier, more European look. But British eyes would be astonished by the number of ads on any given inside page, the lack of colour, and the huge top to bottom runs of close type, unbroken by so much as a pickout quote. The impression: this is Serious Reading, and they’re going to make damn sure you know it. To my eyes, it’s the encapsulation of all that’s wrong with Big Media: impenetrable, a bit stuck up, bound by rules, fussy, uninterested in helping you digest the day’s news.

Is the grammar of US newspaper design so different to here that American readers find this readable, easily digested, attractive, in a way we couldn’t here? Maybe so, judging by some complaints that there are fewer front page stories now. Although I’m not sure if some of the comments on a Washington Monthly blog post are being sarcastic, either…

“And headlines, in the main section no less, where most of the words aren’t even capitalized? That’s the very essence of second-rate.”

Jings. What? Seriously? But maybe this is not entirely an American thing… take a look at the same site’s snaps of the St Petersburg Times and you see a much more modern looking paper, with bolder use of pictures and a sane approach to headlines.

American friends: help me, I am confused. Is the new LA Times front page sucky, or are my lazy European eyes just not used to having to work so hard?

Comments { 2 }

Charles finally gets his InDesign

I laughed when I saw this post from Charles. All true, although I’m afraid, Charles, that it was more than three years ago when we were sat in that hall in Berlin.

Comments Off

What’s wrong with the Scottish media?

The Scottish media are in crisis, reports Iain MacWhirter. From downsizing at BBC Scotland to the imposition of a Portsmouth’s local newspaper editor as boss at the Scotsman – a role that “used to be one of the pillars of Edinburgh society”, notes MacWhirter – things are looking bad.

“The decline of great national papers is a matter of crucial importance to Scotland. The national media are disintegrating before our eyes, to be replaced by editionised English titles – Times, Daily Mail, Sun. This has real effects on Scottish civil society. Speak to Scottish MPs and MSPs right now and many will say that their constituents are preoccupied with immigration and the “swamping of Scotland”. This has nothing to do with demographic reality and everything to do with the prominence given to immigration in the English titles, like the Mail and the Sun, which Scots increasingly read.”

The immigration angle is worrying – very worrying – but even the Scottish press has been accused of scare-mongering on the issue. The Edinburgh Evening News website has an entire category devoted to immigration. Who’s leading who? We already know that England, where the obsession supposedly comes from, is not exactly being “swamped” either.

So, that argument aside for the moment, I daresay that if I was a globalist with the faith of Thomas Friedman, I’d argue that in an increasingly interlinked world we should hardly be surprised that Scotland is looking outward, demanding a bigger worldview from publications better resourced to deliver it. Scottish newspapers have long been reducing the resources spent on covering the wider world – anywhere beyond Gretna, frankly – so, through this lens, it’s no shock that readers see the sparseness and look for something more. The only people shedding tears are the “local” politicians and other bigwigs who find their stage is no longer lit.

And, if I were a net new ager of the confidence of Jeff Jarvis, I’d probably say it doesn’t really matter anyway; newspapers, especially “local” ones (Scots hate having their national papers described thus, but that’s clearly what they’re becoming) are dying off, to be replaced by better things online. And, indeed, look online and you find a rare, genuine bright spot: Scotsman.com – 2.5m users and growing, on a tight budget but innovating away and winning a lot of admiration. And if it, or the other titles, don’t grow to meet a need, either geographical or philosophical, the bloggers will go online and do it instead.

Trouble is, while I’ve got some sympathy for both views, I can’t subscribe to either fully (although I do think Scotsman.com is splendid, and use it every day). Neither seems to quite cut it… many Scots friends complain the nation’s becoming more introverted, and Scottish blogging seems no more healthy than the rest of British blogging, which is to say there are one or two standouts, but nothing like the activity seen in other parts of Europe, or the US.

So what’s going on? As MacWhirter points out, it does seem odd that, less than a year out from Scottish elections, the BBC is pushing through a 25% cut in its budget. You’d think a lively national discussion would break out over the cuts… but apparently not.

Perhaps it’s because the places you’d be expecting that debate to happen – Record, Herald, Scotsman – have been too busy coping with their own internal battles. Perhaps it’s because those places have no clear idea of what kind of Scotland they want – the traditionally left-wing Record, after all, supported the “Keep the clause” campaign of bus mogul Brian Souter, while the once-nationalist(ish) Scotsman came out hard against the Scottish parliament, even after devolution, under Andrew Neil.

So… trouble is, if the Scottish media is so uncertain that it has lost even a view on its own place in Scottish society, and that uncertainty gets reflected on air and in print in a variety of ways, the new thing is that Scottish consumers get to choose. Once, it was that or nothing. Now there are better offerings from London, online and through the air.

So is that what’s going on – weak Scottish media being punished by market forces for being weak? Or is there something else at play? Does it even really matter? (I think it does… but, hey, I’m a hack) Anyone any thoughts?

Comments { 1 }

This is an April fool, right? Oh.

Probably not, as it turns out. In yet another example of how US big media is being firmly hoisted on the petard of its own insistence on impartiality, an ABC News producer has been suspended for expressing his private thoughts in an email.

ABC News suspended the executive producer of the weekend edition of “Good Morning America” yesterday over a pair of leaked e-mails in which he used inflammatory language to slam President Bush and Madeleine Albright.

John Green, whose unpaid suspension will last one month, apologized to the White House in a call to communications director Nicolle Wallace, while two ABC executives called the former secretary of state to apologize.

And if you want to see how, exactly, the impartiality thing is nothing more than a big stick the media is handing to its critics, just after it’s taped a “hit me” sign to its back, do read this… um… analysis from rightwinged.com.

“This is a top ABC News Producer, using an ABC BlackBerry device, using his ABC email address, and sending it to others at ABC like it’s something they do everyday, because it probably is. Do you get what’s wrong with this?! The larger picture!? For anyone who works in an office, you know it’s not okay to be sending this sort of thing around, and you could get in trouble for it. But the liberalism at ABC News is so widespread, they think nothing of sending Bush hate emails. It’s what they talk about around the water cooler anyway!

But anyway, this is supposed to be a leading organization where we get unbiased news from top journalism professionals, but this email reveals they’re like a bunch of whiny Fahrenheit 911 watching KOS kids. Why should anyone trust them?! I won’t be surprised if he’s not, but to save face ABC should fire him immediately.

I’m assuming this kind of thing couldn’t happen in Britain – certainly, at any newspaper I’m sure the reaction to a rude email about Blair or Bush would be a “so what?”. Broadcasters are different, of course… come to think of it, there may be some BBC producers and managers who might feel their send mail file contains a bomb or two too. Or maybe, post Hutton, they’re all wise to the dangers of email. But, even there, would we see a reaction like this to a similar story?

Comments { 2 }

Planet Hearts

CoverI’m gatecrashing someone else’s launch today, writing from the cosy offices of Planet Hearts. It’s a new launch from my old mucker Shaun Milne; an unofficial, fan-powered newspaper for fans of Hearts, the Edinburgh football team doing rather well in the Scottish Premierleague at the moment.

Happily, and unlike some club newspapers that have gone before, it looks – and reads – the business. Full colour, heat set printing on decent paper, and with real wit; a million times more fun than the dull official programme, and much edgier than traditional football reporting.

Edgy is good fun, as I discovered yesterday at Tynecastle sat among Hearts fans while I watched them draw with my first footballing love, Rangers. Edgy sells well too, as I’d discovered helping Shaun and team sell a few copies in the street before the match. Despite the early kick-off, with fans scurrying up Gorgie Road to make the match on time, it sold out quite easily. And, sat opposite the promotions staffer this morning, it sounds like the newsagents are selling out too.

It’s a good start. With fans of Hibs (the big Edinburgh rival to Hearts) outraged at some of the chippier bits of piss-taking in its pages, some cunning ideas for the website, and a huge Scottish Cup semi final between Hearts and Hibs in two weeks’ time, things look like they’re going well.

Comments { 4 }

Tabloid price war

Express_1
Mediaguardian.co.uk (reg required) reports:

Four daily newspapers slashed their cover price today, heralding the unexpected return of a price war.

Richard
Desmond cut the cover price of his Daily Express tabloid by 10p to 30p
and reduced the price of the Daily Star to 30p, down from 35p.

Rival Associated Newspapers slashed the cost of the Daily Mail by 10p
to 30p, boasting on its front page that it was "real value for money".

All of which means, of course, that the Express is now sold for just 50p more than it’s actually worth.

I thank you.

Comments { 3 }