It’s election time at the NUJ and my vote was long decided before the ballot papers were issued. At stake is the editorship of the union’s publication, the imaginatively titled The Journalist. Unlike most such jobs, where you fill in an application form, get through a couple of interviews then negotiate terms and conditions, this post is balloted by the membership rather than decided by a couple of senior executives. It’s an important job, because the magazine is a key way for the union to communicate with its members.

I must confess to being a somewhat lazy cardholder. I pay my subs but don’t really get involved. I’m one of those members that is glad the union is there when I need help but tend to ignore it the rest of the time. It’s partly because too often I see the executive putting effort into supporting causes abroad rather than working to improve our lot at home. Don’t get me wrong, supporting journalists overseas working in difficult conditions is vital but such official solidarity has often been given at the expense of helping members here. The NUJ has been slow to adapt to the rapidly changing face of British journalism. Gone are the days of huge chapels at every paper or magazine. And while the London Freelance branch has a thriving membership, us freelances outside the capital often feel ignored or forgotten about.

This is why I’m voting for Michael Cross. I’ve been privileged to know him as a colleague and occasional drinking buddy for a while and I was one of those who persuaded him to run for office (disclosure: I also helped set up his online campaign). Michael has many years experience under his belt – he’s been a staffer, worked abroad, done stints in broadcast and also has enjoyed a thriving freelance career of late. In short, his work record alone makes him someone who understands many of the different roles a journalist might perform. Indeed, as the number of freelances grows, Michael’s own experience should appeal to many.

Crucially, Michael’s vision for The Journalist is the most comprehensive. Although he has the smell of hot metal in his nostrils, he’s also very aware that our union mag needs to be fit for our multimedia, digital era. And despite being a former FoC, Michael’s no yes man – he will bring an independence to the job and know when it’s necessary to stand his ground against the union leadership, should the need arise.

Perhaps most importantly, Michael aims to turn The Journalist into a proper publication advocating journalism and reflecting our working lives, rather than being a union propaganda sheet – propaganda is all well and good at times, but I for one want a magazine I actually want to read and I know I’m not alone in that. The NUJ is full of lazy members like me but a properly produced The Journalist should be there to cover professional issues and not just workplace ones (especially for the hordes of us whose workplace is their front room). Being in a union isn’t just about standing on picket lines but also about feeling supported as a professional. Michael’s vision would mean The Journalist would be a publication non-members would want to read too, which could be crucial in halting and reversing the declining membership. And that vision also includes a wide-ranging online strategy, essential for attracting young journalists who won’t remember the pre-internet way of working.

Michael’s manifesto is openly available on the Facebook campaign group and you can also follow him on Twitter. There will also be a hustings in Manchester on 22 October if you want to hear him speak (the other candidates will be there too).

The ballot’s already underway and closes on 6 November. If you’re an NUJ member and you haven’t made your mind up yet who to vote for, I urge you to check out the manifesto and put a 1 in the box next to Michael’s name. You won’t regret it.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

As with a lot of these kind of events, the quality of the speakers and their presentations varied. I’m pleased that most of the TEDx Manchester panel was up to scratch. I was left disappointed by Dr Mariann Hardey’s presentation on social media etiquette, which focused largely on how to use platforms such as Facebook – given that probably almost everyone at TEDx is digitally savvy enough to have been using social media for some time (as evidenced by the heavy tweeting during the afternoon), it was surely a case of preaching to the long-converted. Likewise, Matthew Postgate’s (head of R&D at BBC Future Media and Technology) presentation on what the BBC are doing with social media left me with the impression that the BBC is desperate to be seen as up to speed when it comes to social media platforms but is still struggling to catch up with what ordinary people are doing digitally. This does raise some interesting issues – firstly, that the BBC seems very keen to grab user-generated content for its vast website without paying for it (and indeed that raises the further question of should it pay for it out of the licence fee?).

And secondly, with the BBC being funded by licence-fee payers, just how much should it be spending on investing in digital projects of whatever sort instead of on programming? Clearly, as technology moves forward at an astonishing pace and changes how the viewing and listening public want to receive their media, the BBC needs to keep up and it has indeed done some ground-breaking stuff, like iPlayer. But just where does that remit start and stop? This came to the fore later in the programme when Hugh Garry (senior content producer for BBC Radio 1 and 1xtra) showed us a film he’d created by handing out mobile phones to the crowd at a music festival and told them to just go and film whatever they fancied then hand the phones back. The clip we saw was extraordinary in its creativity and looked as good as anything shot on a proper film camera. But what does filmmaking have to do with radio?

There was also a third BBC staffer on the panel, Marc Goodchild (head of interactive and on demand at BBC Children) who talked about creating digital content for children. I tuned out a lot here, not having kids myself and not knowing any of the programmes he mentioned, but he did raise a couple of points that caught my attention, largely because they weren’t 100% accurate. Firstly, Goodchild said the QWERTY keyboard was basically not very good because it meant you had to learn how to type and they keys were all in a funny order, etc. I was quite staggered by this as I’ve never learned to touch-type – I basically get by with a couple of fingers, like many do – but it hasn’t hindered me in 30 years of earning a living using a QWERTY keyboard. You simply do not need to be able to type “properly” to use a keyboard to communicate digitally. The other point I perked up at was his mention of needing to rethink how they provided interactivity as, for example, a conventional mouse is too big for a child’s small hands – children are very active with technology from as young as 5 but are adapting themselves to deal with accessories designed for adults. His comment that technology design for children is not being driven forward because there’s no money in it (”small hands do not have big wallets”) is not really true because children don’t need to buy their own technology – their parents buy it for them and today’s parents have very deep wallets when it comes to spending on their kids.

Incidentally, as an aside, I’m pleased I was one among many who was very irritated when the floor was opened to questions and some people took the opportunity to not ask questions but instead rant about everything that’s wrong with the BBC. This was not why we were at TEDx and it was an appalling abuse of the limited chances to raise issues from the audience, depriving others who really did have questions of the possibility to ask them.

Only two of the presentations were non-digital. Architectural expert Phil Griffin gave a truly inspiring talk and slideshow on the built environment, with a very obvious local focus. As I’m relatively new to living in Manchester and still finding my way round, seeing the interiors of some amazing historic buildings that have been regenerated for different purposes was fascinating. A lot of Manchester’s mills have been turned into living accommodation, for example, or modern work spaces or even night clubs. Griffin made the strong point that while building new buildings can be important (illustrated neatly with a slide of the new BBC premises being constructed at Media City in Salford), it’s also vital to “bodge, make do and mend” as he put it – to reuse the many magnificent but decaying and boarded-up old buildings scattered by the hundreds across this wonderful city, which has turned the notion of recreating itself into an art form already in so many ways. Sustainability, in other words. Global Socialite’s blog on TEDx Manchester expands on Griffin’s contribution, picking up on the notion that the non-digital remains vitally important in the exchange of ideas.

Sustainability was an unspoken theme running through the presentation given by Sarah Hartley, digital editor at The Guardian, who spoke about the importance of local journalism and how communities provide the lifeblood for journalism at every level, as they are the source of so many stories as well as sustaining local media. She pointed out that much of what journalists do is now done by ordinary people, through blogs and online communities. She cited Help Me Investigate as one pertinent example of people coming together to investigate local issues with the help of journalists as a way to break important stories. Hartley noted news pioneers are often community activists, too, and that many local news blogs are popping up run by such activists to fill the gap left when local papers get closed. This merging of press and activism is leading to what her editor at The Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, has called the mutualisation of news. We can probably expect to hear this phrase a lot more in the near future as the Guardian goes head to head with News International and Rupert Murdoch: two very different news models are emerging with the kind of locally fed and supported, community-sustained mutualisation facing off Murdoch’s forthcoming paywalls. Seeing which one will ultimately dominate is going to preoccupy media commentators for the near future.

Ben Light, a professor at the University of Salford, turned the gathering into “TEDsex” with his illuminating presentation on how gay men brand themselves on dating websites. He used popular site Gaydar to illustrate his findings about online identities, stereotyping and fascinating market data, such as gay men being more likely to use all the obscure features on a mobile phone than straight people. It was clear that much of Light’s research about personal branding applies to non-gays who date online, too, and there was much laughter at a question from the floor about whether the professor had pursued his findings on other niche online dating websites, such as those for people who practise BDSM.

The final presentation was by Paul Coulton, who undertakes mobile research at the University of Lancaster, who gave a very entertaining talk on mobile gaming. I’m not much of a gamer at all and certainly not on my phone, but he held my attention with his wit and some startling statistics, such as that for every four babies born, 27 mobile phones hit the market and that with more than 4 billion owning a cellphone we have truly become cyborgs. Coulton breaks down games and gamers into different types, such as pre-Raphaelite (the Wii apparently being one of these – I’ll take his word for it as I don’t own one). I’m not convinced by his statement that gaming can change the world but I’m happy to accept that gaming has changed the way people interact with each other.

All in all, Tedx Manchester probably raised far more questions than the panel could ever attempt to answer. There was a feeling the surface had barely been scratched on some discussions while it was great to have new topics (such as the gay research) thrown open for our perusal. The TED concept is spreading so we can expect to see more of these events popping up around the UK. I certainly hope it will return to Manchester before too long. Thanks are due to the BBC for hosting and to the huge team who worked hard to pull it all together (details of whom are on the TEDx Manchester website).

The Twitter stream for #tedxman can be seen here and here if you are interested.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

At present, the scheme is only available within the M25, but it could serve as a useful model across the UK for boosting newspaper sales, which have been in decline for a long time. Despite being a journalist, I rarely buy newspapers any more. I purchased the Guardian twice last week as I was out of the house both days, but being on the move is the only time I buy a physical copy unless I have had something published in the press. Otherwise I do what so many others do these days – I read the papers online, for free.

I have little incentive to buy a paper when my nearest newsagent is a good 8 minutes walk away but my PC is in my front room. But I do buy a lot of magazines and my local newsagents stock a very limited selection of titles, so I usually have to head into Manchester city centre to buy the mags I want. And I’ve just purchased a year’s subscription to the Radio Times because I struggle to find even that locally.

The beauty of the NI scheme, apart from free delivery, is you don’t need to spend masses of cash in advance on a lengthy subscription. You can buy what you want, for as long as you want, and top it up to suit. You can change your order the night before and you can do it all online. Just as well, when it’s increasingly difficult to find a newsagent that will deliver.

Rolling out this kind of option further afield and offering more magazines alongside could be a winner when it comes to encouraging readers to return to a paper. I know that such a scheme within the boundaries of the M60 and offering a good selection of magazines alongside would certainly get my vote – and my cash. I’d love to hear the sound of my favourite paper and magazines gently plopping onto my doormat at 7am, ready to be pored over with my breakfast cuppa.

News International has failed to convince me so far that paywalls on its newspaper websites are the answer. I’ll simply stop dipping into the News of the World for a free skim of the celebrity gossip once I have to pay. But this plan, which seems to be doing well so far or why else increase the range of magazines you can buy alongside the Times, could just do the trick in helping up sales of print editions. No doubt NI is already planning its next move for this scheme. I for one will be keeping a keen eye on its development.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I’m not a huge fan of reality TV. It is occasionally interesting in a curiosity sense and its forerunner, the docusoap, offered enlightening glimpses into other worlds and other peoples’ lives. But mostly reality TV seems to me about serving people up as entertainment and, increasingly over the last decade that has been about pushing things to the very limits of acceptability in the name of entertainment.

Big Brother pioneered this, featuring disabled or unstable contestants who were either on display for their freakishness or otherness, or should have been taken care of off-screen instead. As cash-strapped TV companies have chased a shrinking advertising market and a viewing demographic that probably prefers to be out clubbing, the boundaries have been tested ever further. You only need to look at the programme titles on the terrestrials’ Freeview channels to see this – “Underage and Pregnant”, “Freaky Eaters”, “Xtreme Teen Drivers” (and that’s just on BBC3). Reality TV is becoming increasingly voyeuristic as it probes into the lives of people who are barely old enough to understand the implications of letting it all hang out in front of the cameras. And then there’s the vulnerable. Susan Boyle’s public meltdown on Britain’s Got Talent identified a very real question about the wisdom of putting certain people in the spotlight. So, it was with a sinking feeling that I read in The Sun earlier today that a TV production company plans to serve up the Chawner family for our amusement.

X Factor viewers and readers of the tabloid press will know who the Chawners are. Emma Chawner has auditioned three times for the X Factor. She is very overweight and can’t sing. It’s also patently obvious that the reason her auditions have been aired three years in a row is precisely because she’s overweight and can’t sing. She has been served up purely for our amusement, in the same way Susan Boyle was (although at least Boyle had the redeeming factor of talent). Emma Chawner and the rest of her family were then splashed all over the tabloids as “the Teletubbies”, the fat family who sat watching TV all day while living off benefits. Entertainment for the reading public, public humiliation for them. It was clear then that the Chawners are a family with massive problems who need a lot of help.

But instead they are going to be once again dished up as on-screen entertainment  for the nation. TV producer Paul Stead even admits it: “excellent entertainment”, he is quoted as saying, even while trying to convince us that he’s really just trying to help them, honest. Putting their enforced attempts to diet on the TV is not going to help them, only humiliate them further. Hiring Lorraine Kelly as host in an attempt to give this modern equivalent of a Victorian freak show a respectable veneer should not fool anyone. Just how low does reality TV have to go before someone, somewhere says “Enough!” and draws a line under this hideous genre? The only saving grace I can see here is that it will be broadcast on an obscure channel that, with any luck, hardly anyone will watch.

And who will be around to pick up the pieces when the cameras leave and the Chawners have had their carcasses picked over by the popular press? Answer me that, Paul Stead…

*This article was first published on Screenjabber, where I write a TV blog and DVD reviews.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Which words do you use too much in your writing?

I probably swear too much, certainly when blogging, tweeting or posting in forums. I try and keep commissioned pieces clean, though! I’m probably more guilty of writing over-long sentences, scattered liberally with commas to break them up. And I definitely overuse the ellipsis…

Which words do you consider overused in stuff you read?

Most tabloidese. The word “star” seems to be applied to anyone who’s come within sniffing distance of a TV studio and is guaranteed to get my back up.

What’s your favourite piece of writing by you?

I covered the trial of Paul Touvier when he was in the dock for crimes against humanity, as I was living in France at the time. I was the only foreign freelance journalist to get a press pass (and they were very scarce). My feature’s not available online but I’ll dig it out one day, scan it and post it on my website.

What blog post do you wish you’d written?

Lots! I follow so many fantastic blogs that are brimming with great writing, I’m not sure I could choose. I’m a massive fan of Benefit Scrounging Scum – her posts always resonate with me because she writes about the realities of living with a disability in such an accessible way. I wish I could laugh about my own, comparatively minor, disability in the same way she does about hers even while letting you know the seriousness of her situation.

Regrets, do you have a few? Is there anything you wish you hadn’t written?

I wish I’d never written for Fabulous (the magazine of News of the World). It was a very unhappy experience for me and I’ll never sell out for a high word rate again. I felt grubby afterwards and I learned the lesson that selling my personal experience for shekels is not worth it when the subs distort everything you wrote. Otherwise I try not to regret things. I’d rather learn from my mistakes and move on than dwell on them.

How has your writing made a difference? What do you consider your most important piece of writing?

Most of the stuff I’ve done over the years is not that important in the great scheme of things. I started out as a music journalist and I’ve also done a fair bit of TV reviewing. There have been ranty columns galore, too – amusing to read but hardly world-changing.

I’m really pleased with the stuff I’ve done on disability benefits as I know I’ve helped people directly by exposing some of the system’s anomalies. Around 20 years ago, I wrote regularly for foreign magazines on the rise of the far right in a post-Communist Europe – I’m a little bit proud that I helped expose a small bit of that to a wider audience. And, of course, my Touvier piece is the one that I consider my most important (see above).

Name three favourite words

Yikes! Wordsmith. Brandy.

…And three words you’re not so keen on

British National Party.

Do you have a writing mentor, role model or inspiration?

I’ve never had a mentor but thanks are due to my old friend Fritz, who first published me in his fanzine, Wrong Image, when I was a 15-year-old punk in the mid-1970s. I’d already decided I wanted to be a journalist but seeing my first articles sealed the deal for me. A huge nod also goes to Mel Young, who gave me my first proper break in 1978 at Edinburgh City Lynx.

I’m inspired by many, many writers – every journalist I admire is a far better writer than I could ever hope to be.

I did want Julie Burchill’s job when she was at the NME, though. And her subsequent salary. But I never actually wanted to be her.

What’s your writing ambition?

I’ve never been terribly ambitious, which is probably why I never replaced Burchill at the NME. I’m fairly sure I had the talent but I lacked the drive and still do. So as long as I can somehow keep making a reasonable living as a wordsmith, that’ll do me nicely. I may even sling another book together at some point…

Plug alert!  List any work you would like to tell your readers about:

I published my first book, Epilepsy The Essential Guide, in May 2009. I’ve had epilepsy myself since 1996 and I basically wrote the book I wanted to read when I was diagnosed but it wasn’t available. It’s selling well, has had good reviews and I know it’s already helped a few people, which is what I wanted to achieve with it.

In spring 2009, I collaborated with Linda Jones on TwitterTitters, which we did to raise money for Comic Relief while seeing if it was possible to a) create a book through Twitter and b) do it from scratch within a month. It was, but it gave me extra grey hairs. And sod it, I’d do it again!

Forthcoming this autumn, I’m one co-author (of around 250) of QFinance The Ultimate Resource, which is an encyclopedia on one of my specialist subjects – finance. It’s not dull, honest!

Tag time. Some colleagues I hope will also do the meme:

Dave Lee

Allie Dickinson

Sarah Hartley

Alison Gow

BendyGirl

The rules: If you have time to do this meme, then please link to my original, then link to three to five other bloggers and pass it on, asking them to answer your questions and link to you. You can add, remove or change one question as you go. You absolutely do not have to be what you may think of as a “published” or “successful” writer to respond to this meme, I hope people can take the time to reflect on what their blogging has brought them and how it has been useful to others.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I have news for Stephen. The expenses culture for journalists ended a long time ago – at least 10 years ago – when the accountants moved in and put an end to it. The scandal at the Houses of Parliament, however, has been going on a long time – only MPs can vote on their expense allowances and they just keep voting to continue. The broadsheets, especially the Telegraph – have done a fantastic job of uncovering just how much MPs are ripping off the tax-payers – to the average tune of £200,000 a year.

Compare that to journalists. Freelances cannot claim any expenses from a publication at all, unless approved in advance by the commissioning editor. If I go to a meeting with an editor in a café, I can’t claim even the cost of two cups of coffee – under Inland Revenue rules, that counts as “entertainment” and I’m not permitted to put it through my books as a tax-deductible expense. I can’t even claim for a solo sandwich unless I’m away overnight, and only then is it permissible as “subsistence”.

Staff journalists find it incredibly difficult to claim anything these days. Buy a beer for a contact who’s giving you a possible story? Probably – if you get a receipt from the pub. Anything beyond such petty claims is vetoed by a paper’s management now. So for Stephen Fry to call us “venal and disgusting” is a bit much.

Stephen Fry served a prison sentence for credit card fraud as a teenager. I’m not judging him for that – I did things as a teenager that broke the law (although not quite as badly as that). He’s done his time and moved on, as is right.

But he of all people should understand that taking other people’s money is wrong. And taking the piss in these straitened times – when we’ve just saddled ourselves with trillions of debt that will take until our grandchildren are adults before it’s paid off – is even worse.

Remember that most journalists are on low salaries that haven’t really changed much in 20 years or longer (average salary for a mid-level reporter on a regional paper is £18k). It’s almost understandable that, until the mid-90s, hacks would fiddle their claims to stretch their wages. MPs, on the other hand, earn a basic salary of £64,766. Plus allowances. A canny politician can easily rake in £250,000 a year or more simply by using the system “in good faith”.

Fry has got it badly wrong this time.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Twelve months on and the journalism universe looks very different now. A year ago, we were just seeing the start of the recessionary effects on our industry – job cuts, papers closing, freelance budgets being slashed. Since then, literally thousands of jobs have gone and the changes are not over yet. Give it another 12 months and the landscape will look different again. None of us knows what it might look like, but it will be radically different to the traditional model of print media funded by advertising. The online revolution has already meant massive changes in how we work – in the future, online is almost certainly where pretty much everything will be happening, whether it’s the tools we use or the content we publish. Journalists are going to have be enterprising and create their own opportunities to take advantage of irrevocable changes.

The keynote presentation at JEEcamp 2009 came from Kyle Macrae, who gave a really interesting account of his attempt to set up a picture agency (Scoopt.com) trading in citizen journalists’ photos and what happened when it all went horribly wrong after partnering with Getty Images. The Q&A that followed was also enlightening, with lots of questions about venture-capital funding, business models and exit strategies.

I missed most of the breakout sessions, using the time to network instead with some people I wanted to talk to. There were a couple of really good panel discussions, to wrap it all up, about the future of journalism, particularly about paid-for content models (Rupert Murdoch had just annnounced his own thoughts on this), the problems with council-funded newspapers and the kinds of enterprises journalists might want to engage in.

Andy Dickinson, who teaches journalism at UCLAN, was bang on the nail when he said we can’t exist in isolation. For all we network on Twitter, Facebook and elsewhere, there’s no substitute for getting together face to face to exchange ideas and find new ways of working. Next year’s JEEcamp should be charting progress in that direction.

Me, I have no plans yet to develop a new online enterprise, after abandoning the last one. I’m still settling down after all the upheaval of the last 12 months in my personal life. One thing’s certain, though, I will be starting something online at some point. I just need to figure out what it might be..

Thanks to Paul Bradshaw again for organising such a creative and useful event.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The benefits issue is particularly distressing. Most people with a disability rely on benefits as their sole means of income, meaning they struggle to get by and are forced to live below the poverty line. The few non-disabled who milk the system to claim money they are not entitled to are the ones used by the tabloids to splash “benefit cheats” headlines and used by the government as an excuse to tighten the rules further each time it wants to make savings. The reality is that around 80% of those claiming Disability Living Allowance will be refused on initial application even though they fit all the criteria for a claim.

As for “bravery”, it’s just part of the often patronising, often ignorant language used by the press, as well as the public at large. Just this week, someone described me as “suffering from” epilepsy while someone said my latest seizure must have been “traumatic” – neither of these terms are particularly accurate for the vast majority of people with epilepsy. Language is so often used carelessly to describe the disabled, with little thought given to how the disabled might prefer to be described. I’m not talking just about PC language, although quite the daftest thing I ever heard some years ago was about a memo circulating at a local council instructing workers to use the term “thought shower” instead of “brainstorm” for fear of offending those with epilepsy. The origins of this PC term may well be apocryphal, but it did spread far and wide into common usage. You know what’s really offensive? No one actually asked the 450,000 people in the UK who have epilepsy if they were offended by the term brainstorm. And you know what? We’re not. Probably because we’re too busy fighting for access to decent neurological services.

Today is Blogging Against Disablism Day – I invite you to click on the link and read what hundreds of disabled bloggers have to say about the reality of living with a disability. Read, and listen. And remember, you might know one of the one in six, or live next door to one of us.

I’m also really proud that Blogging Against Disablism Day coincides with the publication of my book, Epilepsy: The Essential Guide. If you’re very quick, you can hear me live on BBC Radio Manchester this morning at 11am, talking about epilepsy and living with a disability. It’s live-streamed on the internet.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I’m going to stick my neck out here and say I’m not that bothered. Yes, PG’s passing is a reflection on the parlous state of the media right now. With papers and magazines closing down in increasing numbers and those still going slashing their staff, it’s no great surprise that Press Gazette has gone the same way. With fewer journalists around, that means fewer readers.

But Wilmington must have been mad to think last summer that turning PG from a weekly to a monthly would help it survive. The huge mistakes it made included firstly, withdrawing newsstand availability and turning it into a subscription-only publication, at a stroke making it less easy for those in the industry to pick up a copy, and secondly, not adjusting the subscription level. As a weekly, PG cost around £115 a year, working out at around £2.70 a copy (I’m doing these figures off the top of my head so they are very rough). It was pretty good value at that price – lots of news, some great features (especially The Knowledge section, aimed at freelances), plus industry gossip.

As a monthly, it became too expensive – the subscription remained the same, so the cover price suddenly became nearly £10. Granted there were more pages, but the two copies I saw were not special enough to justify the price. Why Wilmington failed to offer more subscription options I’ll never understand. Most journalists, especially those on consumer magazines and regional/local papers, are on low salaries and forking out £115 in one go was probably beyond most of them. Offering a 3 or 6-month subscription and cutting the price might have attracted more readers.

Me, I decided to cut my losses. I cancelled my subscription almost immediately after the announcement that PG would go monthly. (And I was mighty pissed off that it took me nearly 12 weeks to get my money back from Wilmington, but that’s another story.) I’ve never regretted it – I kept up with PG’s news feed on RSS and Twitter, but my honest view is that much of PG’s breaking news was also available on the Media Guardian, Journalism.co.uk and Hold the Front Page websites and feeds.

Press Gazette became a publication that no longer had much to distinguish it from the competition, and that’s why I can’t shed a tear at its loss.

I’m sorry the staff are going to lose their jobs, of course I am. And I still believe there is room for a dedicated industry publication in print format. But it was never going to be PG in the form it’s had since last September. I’ll be interested to see what, if anything, happens next – will someone buy it? Will a new publication launch to fill the gap? Or will Media Guardian and co expand their existing coverage to include more features, particularly on freelancing?

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Just over 2 weeks ago, it was announced that 150 jobs are to be slashed at Manchester Evening News and the 22 weeklies in and around Greater Manchester, that are all owned Guardian Media Group. Of those job losses, 78 will be journalists – 39 journalists at MEN will lose their jobs (that’s half the journalists there), the remaining 39 cuts will be spread across the 22 local titles. Some local weeklies will see their premises shut and staff transferred to MEN in central Manchester. So this really does mean that much local scrutiny will no longer happen. The reporters from the Accrington Observer, for example, will need an hour to get to Accrington from the MEN office and an hour back again to write up their stories. So it’s not unreasonable to assume that many meetings of Accrington Council will simply not be covered. And people living in Accrington won’t know from reading their paper just what their elected representatives may or may not be doing.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that this is an unhealthy situation, or to work out that local communities will lose a lot of their history as it will no longer be preserved in the local newspaper archives.

I’m not going to blog here about national job losses or the future of newspapers. Others have already done it very eloquently elsewhere in the national newspapers and on media blogs.

I spent two hours this evening at an NUJ meeting called to discuss the cuts and see what can be done to try and save these jobs. More than 100 people crammed into an overheated room at Manchester Town Hall – people were sat on the floor and side tables when the chairs ran out, and at least 20 were forced to stand. We had a round of speeches from various local and national union reps, chapel heads from outside the region fighting similar cuts and some stirring support from Manchester City Council’s deputy leader. Then the floor was opened.

This is where it got very interesting. Most of the union speeches were not the usual hot air but basic setting out of the facts of what’s happening. So it was really gratifying to discover that many on the floor were local councillors from across Greater Manchester, local community activists doing great things in their neighbourhoods, ordinary locals who just really care that they might no longer have a local newspaper covering their area. Even the Tory prospective parliamentary candidate for Cheadle turned up to stand shoulder to shoulder with self-declared union Marxists because he recognised the importance of having a local paper. Sure, there were quite a few journalists crammed into the room, but I suspect they were outnumbered by the ordinary public.

These are the people who will go home to spread the word about why local papers matter. What they may achieve is likely to be far more important than the forthcoming ballot on strike action at MEN. Because they will be the ones writing to the letters page of their local paper asking awkward questions about cuts and closures, among other things. The next few weeks will be crucial for local journalism in Greater Manchester and that grassroots support for these 23 papers may be a tipping point. We’ll see. I’m usually quite cynical about union meetings but I left tonight’s feeling a little more hopeful that all may not be lost. The only downside was the pair of Socialist Workers trying to flog their own paper outside before the meeting, who then had the cheek to come in and sit through it for 2 hours without saying a word before a second attempt to sell the party rag as people left. Parasites.

* This will be the first in a series of sporadic posts about Manchester media. Despite the shockwave across the city when the MEN cuts were annnounced, Manchester is the UK’s biggest media hub outside London and new publications are still launching here. Only lack of time has stopped me blogging sooner about some of these initiatives, but watch this space…

Bookmark It

Hide Sites