You Are Viewing media

This Friday supposedly heralds the launch of a new London freesheet, The London Weekly. Each Friday and Saturday, the ambitious new venture will distribute 250,000 copies to eager Londoners.

Coming just weeks after the closure of The London Paper and London Lite, the publication - which says it has a 50-strong editorial staff - has certainly attracted attention: its launch was covered in Media Guardian, Press Gazette, Brand Republic, and The Independent.

But commenters on almost all the sites, were skeptical to say the least. After spending a few minutes in more-or-less idle discussion of the venture with @martinstabe and @paulmcnally, it was easy to see why.

There’s nothing to suggest The London Weekly is anything other than what it seems - but the site throws up plenty of questions.

Updates have been sporadic, based largely on press release material - with all the front page content written by two users, and comments from Guardian readers on the design have been uncomplimentary at best. For a company claiming £10.5m investment, it’s certainly basic.

But there’s more. The staff page throws up questions. Despite listing over 50 staff, there are no contact numbers and just one email address.

The “chief of reporters” is listed in the library department. Many of the staff throw up virtually no results on google (“Leah Fogerty” is a good example). Others do have some journalistic presence.

Curiously, no-one I asked this evening saw any form of advertisement for these jobs on any of the popular forums. Given there’s hardly a surfeit of journalistic jobs at present, that’s a bit on an unusual situation. How was the team hired? Where are they based?

They’re certainly not based at the address given on the website’s whois record. That gives a registered address of 2 Old Brompton Rd. Google Street View shows this is a FedEx PO Box site.

Even that’s not the biggest question mark The London Weekly throws up. The next one’s a doozy: London Weekly claims to be owned by a five-strong partnership called Global Publishing Group. There’s no record of this company on UK Companies House, either as a limited company or a limited liability partnership.

Odd.

The highest google match for Global Publishing Group is gpg.com. This site has been registered for 15 years to one Anoosh Hosseini, resident in California. The state’s register of businesses has no records of a company bearing that name. Given London Weekly says GPG was founded in 2008, my summation would be that gpg.com is entirely unrelated, leaving a mystery: who on earth actually owns TLW?

Despite covering the site themselves, journalism.co.uk did some substantive digging. Reporter Judith Townend did notice that The London Weekly Limited was incorporated on 17 December 2009.

Unfortunately, if anything, this only serves to muddy the waters even further. The London Weekly Ltd appears to operate thelondonweekly.net, a site which (somewhat oddly given the company’s incorporation date) says it has operated since 2005. The site is registered, once again, to a PO box.

The sole director of TLW Ltd is Oleg Kozerod, based from a residential address in Urmston. Kozerod has a Wikipedia page claiming he is a “well-known journalist, history researcher and Doctor of Historical Sciences…and co-owner of The London Weekly (2007)”.

This wikipedia page was first created just days ago, on 23 January, by a user named “Marina bauer”. This user has never made any other contributions to the site.

Search results for Kozerod on Google Scholar are astonishingly scarce, despite his apparent status as a well-published academic.

Whether The London Weekly Ltd is a strange sideshow or (as Judith townend wondered) somehow related to the Global Publishing Group enigma is for now immaterial - there’s certainly no decent answers now.

Instead, we appear to have a situation in which two national papers and several trade websites received a press release from an unknown group claiming to have raised millions of pounds, recruited dozens of staff, and collected the apparatus to publish a London freesheet within weeks (a venture at which both News International and Associated failed).

The outlets then appear to have taken all these claims - to greater or lesser degrees - on trust.

And whether The London Weekly turns out to be all that it claims to be or not, that’s bad journalism.

At a time when journalists are constantly having to state and prove the case for professional reporting, the outlets nearest that front line were utterly beaten by their readers - many of whom found some of these key details within minutes of the news posts.

Others found even more details, and even speculated whether TLW was some elaborate SEO ploy.

Media hacks know better than any of us how vehement the arguments around the future of news are getting. They know how much trouble the industry is in. It’s why more than anyone else, they need to show what reporters can offer than unpaid enthusiasts can’t.

On this occasion, I’m far from sure they did.

As to The London Weekly, personally, I’ll be surprised if I see a copy come Friday. But in an ideal world, someone will have found out whether I will or not well before then.

Finding the questions was easy. Answering them might prove a bit trickier. There’s time to pull this one out of the bag yet - here’s hoping.

Gathered the below information for the excellent - and newly out of beta - helpmeinvestigate.com . Unfortunately, a gremlin in the system stopped this post appearing over there. So it’s here.

Right, here’s a round up of what’s out there through FOI so far - this is a frequently-FOI’d topic. Here’s what’re released - and what they’ve refused to release to previous requesters.

First up:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/classes/disclosure_logs/rfi20080397_percentage_of_london_households_without_tv_licence.pdf

In which we learn:

Nationally, 2% of households don’t own a TV and an estimated 5.1% dodge their licenses. Only 4.3% of english household evade, while 11.1% in Northern Ireland dodge - interesting quirk, no?

The beeb refuses to release more detailed regional breakdowns in case it affects compliance rates (they suggest high levels of evaders might persuade others to dodge).

HOWEVER - An Information Commision ruling from this year (March) ordered the BBC to release some regional data - number of households with TV license and number of prosecution notices issued in each region - to the requester within 72 days. Presumably they’ve done that, but they haven’t put it on the log. Worth asking their press office/FOI officer to send to us too?

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/classes/disclosure_logs/rfi20080243_tv_licence_evasion_2007.pdf

Here we see how many evaders were caught in 2006 - 413,000 or so - but no mention of fines, prosecutions or otherwise. This is refused under the extremely obstructive grounds of being already published (Section 21(1)). Under Section 16 - duty to assist - they should link to, or attach, that information, and haven’t. Bad form, BBC. Number of enforcement officers is refused on the grounds of prejudicing prosecution of crime (s31 I think).

This one is fairly helpful:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/foi/classes/disclosure_logs/rfi20080008_enforcement_and_collection_costs.pdf

This is the enforcement costs etc as a percentage of income over a period of years.

Some figures from a pressure group here: http://www.itsmummy.com/tv_scabs_1.htm

There is also a rather comprehensive set of 141 FOI requests (including requests for detection equipment etc) here: http://www.onebillionpageviews.org/foi.html

An ICO ruling on the detection equipment is here: http://www.onebillionpageviews.org/downloads/FS50154106.pdf

Hope all that is helpful. I am trying like the blazes to find this home office stuff on the number of successful prosecutions (I can find reposts, which is useful but unreliable, but not the originals.)

If the prosecution numbers were accessible, we could maybe couple those with the numbers from the ICO appeal mentioned earlier, and try to infer whether areas have higher prosecutions due to higher delinquency or (over?) zealous enforcement in some regions.

The debate around Adrian Monck’s forthcoming book, Can You Trust the Media? (hence: CYTTM. I’m not typing that out every time) is starting to get going, ahead of the launch event this Wednesday. Stephen Pritchard (The Observer’s Readers Editor) is not a fan. Charlie Beckett, of POLIS, is more positive. Time for me to pitch in, methinks.
(more…)

Thanks to the new facebook lexicon, now we know:

Blue line is Obama, yellow line’s Clinton, green is McCain

Obama most popular among the young folk of facebook - shock horror. More interesting to see when he shot ahead, and how much it’s closed up.

More interesting to see just how much everyone’s stopped caring -not a good sign for those on the democratic side claiming a long race is helping keep people’s attention democrat.

Anyway, nice new tool from facebook there. Less sure about chat - do we have to do everything through facebook, man? There are other sites out there, guys.

Adrian Monck generously shared a PDF copy of his forthcoming book - “Can You Trust The Media?” with me, obviously in the hope that I’d direct some of my many thousands of unique blog visitors* towards purchase. I’ll be posting my thoughts, for what they’re worth, in the next few days.

For now, though, Monck’s book reminded me (i.e. directly referenced) an idea on information from Hal Varian - who, incidentally, is the author of the textbook which saved my bacon when learning information economics.

The idea is based on Malthus. The amount of information presented through media outlets grows exponentially, but the time available to consume it grows (at best) linearly. As such, more and more information is produced but not consumed.

To quote:

“The supply of information (in virtually every medium) grows exponentially whereas the amount that is consumed grows at best linearly. This is ultimately due to the fact that our mental powers and time available to process information is constrained.

This has the uncomfortable consequence that the fraction of the information produced that is actually consumed is asymptoting towards zero.”

The theory is that as more news is produced, especially rolling TV and internet news services vastly expanding quantity of output, fewer people follow each particular outlet, and less content is actually seen. When news is competing with other forms of media too, the effect is compounded. There are only so many hours in the day, after all.

Of course, the classic malthusian catastrophe - that exponential population group coupled with linear growth in agriculture would lead to eventual starvation for all - turned out to be (thus far) a fallacy. The Malthus model underestimated productivity increases in farming, which have greatly increased crop yields over given areas. Population growth also didn’t continue quite as modelled - birth rates fall in developed countries. Agriculture growth is more-than-linear, population not-quite-exponential.

Is this the case for information too? To a certain extent, almost certainly.

Look back 30 years. The time available to watch television (for example) would be rather limited - evenings, when the family is gathered round. Radio, books and newspaper were less constricted in terms of time, but in terms of efficiency of gathering media, not great.

New technology is allowing media to be accessed more quickly: RSS readers allow users to pull in content from a variety of sources extremely quickly and efficiently. Mobile internet and video increase the time available to consume multimedia content.

Many users now multi-task media consumption: as I write this blog post, I have new RSS posts appearing in the bottom left of my screen, and the Today programme playing through the radio.

Software such as iPlayer and 4od - plus Sky+ - allow output to be watched at a variety of times, giving users more flexibility and access to media than ever before.

Enough waffle: the profileration of media is coupled with a variety of tools (and a change in usage patterns) to make consumption easier and more efficient. Talking about constraints of time as fixed and immutable is an over-simplification. The malthusian situation is a worst-case scenario, which in any case would not necessarily make the case for the influence of any given media source diminishing in influence.

Of course, it doesn’t quite sweep the problem away - media does seem to be fragmenting, and news channels seem to have pretty small audiences, relatively speaking. But Varian’s theory, elegant though it is, is unlikely to be the sole, or even primary, driving force behind it.

That said, he’s still an ace economist…

*Note well: The truth of this statement depends on how one defines “many”. And note the absence of time frame in the statement.

Bad news for trust in the media - even the weather forecast is unreliable. This blog post - “How valid are TV weather forecasts?” - shows the results of one man’s 7 month project. The general rule seems to be not to bother with the weather reports: your guess is as good as your meteorologist’s. Well worth a read. And good (if nerdy) work that man.

Laptops have never seemed to deliver all they should for journalists. In theory, a laptop allows any journalist to write copy, produce and edit audio and video, and send it to the office from almost anywhere. In reality, this has rarely proved to be the case.

The spread of wireless internet and mobile broadband has started to fix communications problems, but most shortcomings have stayed the same – laptops are too heavy, expensive and fragile to be everyday kit for many journalists. When battery life on most models is, at most, around three hours, no laptop can get through a day without power. Models coming on to the market are starting to signal a major shift, however. Following the publicity generated by the One Laptop Per Child scheme, which aims to deliver basic, bright-green machines to third-world schools for under $100, a new breed of small, light and cheap ultra-portable computers (UMPCs) is surfacing.

The first of these to generate real attention is the Asus Eee PC. Though not nearly as powerful as high-end machines, it packs a webcam, microphone, wireless internet, and full office and internet functionality in a unit about the size and weight of a hardback book. Better still, it’s cheap: Units start at around £220.

The Eee is one of the first laptops that’s good to grab-and-go – small enough to fit in a normal bag or satchel, and not heavy enough to be a noticeable burden. It’s also unusually sturdy. Most laptops need to be treated with care because of their fragile hard disks. The Eee comes with flash memory – fast, solid-state storage that is not sensitive to vibration or knocks. The downside is that these drives are much smaller, with current models having no more than 8GB, which is not nearly enough to store anyone’s music or video libraries.

A laptop like the Eee can be treated as a tool, rather than a piece of expensive technology to be coveted and handled with care. Operations running on a tight budget – and that’s most newsrooms – may not have the resources to equip all reporters with a laptop, especially if it may only be used for blogging, or on occasions when copy is needed rapidly from the scene of an event.

Allowing each reporter to have their own UMPC would give them a new degree of flexibility. Staff who maintain blogs can use travelling time to upload content more frequently and rapidly. The camera and microphone allow reporters to attach basic multimedia content to their copy. The ability to file from out of the office might allow more time to report from the scene.

Such low cost units obviously have some failings. The small chassis of the Eee PC means that the keyboard is far smaller than a typical laptop’s keyboard – and it takes a good deal of getting used to. An external adapter is needed to connect to mobile (3G) broadband, which means that out of the box the Eee relies on nearby wireless networks.

To save on cost, the Eee ships with a customised version of the open-source operating system, Linux, rather than Windows. While Asus has been careful to make the computer easy to use, and include almost every application a typical user will need, many will miss the familiar Windows interface.

Many of these issues will be fixed as UMPCs become more popular. Within a few years, cheap, powerful, always-online units will be the norm. When that happens, the notepad and pen could finally be put out to pasture.

Originally posted in this week’s Press Gazette

The New York Times have teamed up with Google Earth to offer localised news. Anyone browsing the latest version of google earth can choose to view stories (or just headlines) from the last month - where they happened. News by geography might not be the most practical way to catch the day’s headlines, but it’s got some great potential.

Strange that the NYT is so far ahead of the curve on this one - it’s one of few truly national US papers. The real potential for tagged news is for the locals. Browsing news by street is largely a gimmick - though imagine being able to easily look at the headlines around an area you’re about to move in to, or near your child’s potential school - but such tagging is great for hyper-local news.

With GPS chips slipping in to ever more mobile handsets, delivering the news quite literally where you are should be a breeze. Tracking local news on other outlets on the desktop or laptop will get easier, too. Local papers are struggling right across the UK - this could be the start of them being able to really work online - especially if they consider syndicating to larger outlets. Fingers crossed, eh?

Still kicking myself over this one - Prince Harry’s Arghanistan deployment was revealed, somewhat cryptically, in a Popbitch mailout last year:

>> Big Questions <<
What people are asking this week

Which well-connected public school boy is
finally flying off for his gap year travels,
after having to abandon his previous plans for
a trip to the sun with his mates? He's no longer
so keen on exploring the desert in a tank; his
old narcotic enthusiasm may be much better
served cleaning up the poppy fields.

How obvious is that, with hindsight? At least someone broke what must be the most needless and depressing media embargo in recent history..

HT: Adam Macqueen

The row over “Flat Earth News”, Nick Davies’ polemic on the state of journalism rumbles on, and it’s been noted that I’ve been suspiciously quiet on the issue. The reason’s not all that sinister – it’s simply that I haven’t spent the last twenty years working in a newsroom, or the last year talking to people who have. As such, I haven’t got much to add, so kept schtum. Clearly, I’m a little new to this blogging business.

The furore the book’s caused in print is impressive – vitriolic and adoring reviews abound, extracts in the Eye and Press Gazette, and columns and blogposts all over the shop. One of the book’s subjects has even engaged his lawyers over his portrayal in the book. Fun times ahoy, and the debate looks set to trundle on for some while yet.

There’s much less evidence of outrage or scandal among the public at large. The reason, methinks, is that a sizable chunk of the UK’s population already though we were up to much worse.

Take the Sharia row as an example. My friends and I re in the habit of talking current affairs down at the pub. One guy had gone to the trouble of reading the full text of the speech made by the Archbishop of Canterbury (hence ABC). His view was that “The Media” has distorted the ABC’s meaning by picking out only the most sensational chunks.

Asked whether public discourse would be much improved were newspapers to print huge verbatim chunks of politicians’ speeches, which almost no-one would read, he responded: “I always wondered how journalists lose touch with reality. I think you’re showing me how.”

My anecdote is barely needed – other than to show I have cynical friends - the figures back up the lack of public faith and affection for journalists. Reuters reports that just 16 per cent of UK adults trust journalists to tell the truth - even fewer than trust politicians. Doctors are lucky enough to by trusted by 91 per cent, judges by 76 per cent and priests 73 per cent. Make of that what you will - assuming you trust Reuters enough to believe the figures, of course. Broadcasters no longer rise above this disdain, after last year’s string of “trust” scandals.

This lack of trust in journalists is corrosive, and leaves us wide open for manipulation. A politician (and I count the ABC in this group) can make a hugely controversial point in extremely guarded, academic language, with stacks of qualification, in the knowledge that the media will pick up on his key point. It’s the job of journalists to simplify dense, dry data and text into ’stories’ people will engage with – so much of the qualification is lost. This is not going to come as a shock to anyone.

The result? If an idea goes down well, the politician has the credit. If not, he can blame the media for distorting an academic speech at an obscure function, knowing a good chunk of the population will at least partially accept this.

The lack of trust erodes the media’s position in other ways – the media is easier to manipulate if they have a weak hand. If a paper has a negative story about the Government, the Government can more confidently slam it (even if true) knowing that it will at least weaken the story.

At the face of things, Nick Davies’ book is only going to make things worse, by showing up all the flaws and faults of journalists and journalism. I don’t think that would be a fair reading. We were lucky enough at City to have Davies come and speak to us last week. He was interesting, engaging and enthusiastic (and very patient in the face of a torrent of questions).

While I may not agree with all of his conclusions, he seemed to be a committed journalist hoping to improve the quality of journalism – and the esteem in which it’s held (I also suspect on one level he’s rather enjoying his sudden notoriety in some sectors of the media). Alas, he admitted he had few ideas about how to manage this.

Davies has started a debate and a period of slightly indignant introspection in certain corners of the media, and that can only be a good thing. Most journalists want to produce decent news stories that are honest and accurate (yes, yes, call me naive, if you must). Numerous factors make this bloody difficult, but until we look at how to do this – and why we’re so reviled, it won’t change.

Part of the theory of, and reason for, journalism is that scrutiny of people in power is essential to keep ’society’ honest and fair. To condemn anyone for occasionally turning that scrutiny onto journalism itself risks hypocrisy. We’re taught not let cliche into our copy, so trotting out “dog does not eat dog” doesn’t really pass muster.

Still, lest we get ahead of ourselves here, we must remember the other reason for journalism: to fill those annoying spaces between the adverts. And hey, someone’s gotta do it.