No more who, what, where, when, why
Wales Business — By Duncan Higgitt on March 27, 2010 7:00 am
Almost 20 years after the switch from typewriters and hot metal, journalists are facing even greater challenges to the industry
SOMETIMES it’s easy to become wistful about that passing of communism.
Not the bread queues or the Gulag camps. Rather, the certainty of polarity. They were over there – you could even point in their direction – and we were over here. Some of us saw the Soviets as an implacable foe, some regarded America in the same way. But we always knew where they stood, and what they stood for.
There are some parallels in the story of journalism, and particularly in the ongoing chapter that is chronicling the rise of public relations. At one time, the divide was so discernible. A gap grown and maintained by one-sided utter disdain, one that was maintained well past its sell-by date, even though many knew that the game was up, that writers were being entreated in ever more sophisticated and irresistible ways. But still PR’s contribution couldn’t be acknowledged, just as a Scouser can’t admit the brilliance of Rooney. Just as a Catalan can’t clap on Cristiano Ronaldo.
When Cardiff University’s Dr Andrew Williams and Professor Bob Franklin published Turning Round the Tanker, a 2007 study into Trinity Mirror business strategies in the face of the growth of online content, they reported that “92% of survey respondents (journalists) claimed they now use more PR copy in stories than previously”. And we are not alone. Earlier this month, the University of Technology in Sydney found in a study that 55% of all newspapers stories were ‘placed’ – or in other words, began life as press releases.
The industry tut-tutted and asset-stripping bosses were blamed. As well they should be, because they have effectively robbed traditional media – and newspapers in particular – of the one selling point that was unique to them in this new world of content: the ability to tell a story really, really well.
Walk through any newsroom in the English (and possibly Welsh) speaking world, and you’ll find one or two time and care-worn hacks who have spent years perfecting their craft (along with, more often than not, some odd and occasionally anti-social habits). These are the shop stewards against churnalism, opposed to shovelling instead of digging.
They are generally believed to possess the most authoritative views on the matter. But it all rather misses the point. After all, why should it be journalists that provide and lead the debate on content? They are the producers, not the consumers. The rest of us have migrated on to YouTube, to Twitter and to other social media as a means of sating our media interests. Of course, journalists have moved with us. But they are essentially doing the same thing they always did – delivering news.
Yes, there has been some development, in online and streamed content particularly, just as many of them have developed an abiding interest in social networking, supplying endless stories of our time. Men leaving their wives for childhood sweethearts on Friends Reunited, workers sacked for smugly broadcasting across Facebook their duplicity in pulling a sickie. Cyber stalking, sex texts, Tweet trouble. It goes on and on, but the format remains exactly the same. Man in front of camera reporting at the scene for telly. Who, what, where, when why for dead trees media.
Instead, news organisations could be getting a whole lot more creative. They could invent new ways of telling stories. There are other ways of making a point. Instead, there remains a stiff, anachronistic rigidity in approach. The old battle lines are still drawn against the wily PR foe, a determination not to be taken for a ride – or, rather, not to be seen to be taken for a ride – by a silver tongue and a seductive tale, that informs the way they present. It is the media equivalent of the lone Japanese soldier marooned on a remote pacific atoll, still fighting imaginary GIs.
Why? Because news consumers have moved on. If you began in journalism in the 1990s, it was unlikely that you knew anyone outside of your own office who took their news from more than three sources, usually one a format. These days, grandfathers have the New Zealand Herald’s rugby coverage on their Google Readers. As the media has splintered, consumers have quietly kept up by growing ever more sophisticated. There is no longer the requirement or the demand for one-stop shops.
As a consequence, readers, visitors, listeners and viewers know just as well that they are being sold to as any journalist. Perhaps they always did. That means they make a choice in choosing to embrace a story, becoming mini-publishers of their own as they retweet and become moved to react on their own blogs. But something far more fundamental is going on here. In understanding and then disregarding any consideration as to where the story that interests them was sourced, they are rewriting the decades-old news/PR split. They are, in effect, saying that there is no longer any such thing. That all there is is good and bad content.
There are tell-tale signs that demonstrate how the old ways are falling. Proper spelling and grammar, the foundation stone of proper news presentation, is frequently absent in new media. Speed and reaction are valued more highly. Some journalists and commentators remain sniffy about all this, deciding that if someone can’t be bothered to spell a name properly, then they don’t deserve to be regarded as a part of the media, that all they do is piggyback on original content, sourced by undervalued horny hack hands.
But what of the 55% of Aussie news that didn’t come from its journalists? And of the reporters who, almost to a man and woman, think that more and more content begins in a PR agency? What about the reporters who used newswires to comment upon Wednesday’s Budget? Are they not also aggregators? Do they not take, filter and write in much the same way as the Welsh blogosphere?
It might seem odd to write yet another piece about the changes facing the media industry and not refer to Thursday’s announcement on the IFNC pilots. Even if we leave aside Tory infanticidal intentions towards the scheme, and Rob Williams‘ quite credible assertion that it will be killed off in the horse trading over the rest of the Digital Economy Bill, what was most disconcerting about bid winners’ announcement was the way it betrayed what the IFNC selection panel was looking for. Richard Hooper, chair of the independent selection panel, said: “In Wales and Scotland, in addition to strong proposals for regional, local and hyperlocal/community news, the bidders put forward credible ideas for quality news for those nations which is urgently needed as a result of devolution.” News, news and more news.
But instead of expecting the IFNCs to innovate, perhaps it might be the PR industry that breaks new media ground. Why not? It is the chief beneficiary of the shedding of experience, skill and talent from the newspaper industry that began with ‘efficiency’ redundancies and is now cutting jobs in order to survive (although there is a good argument – for another day – that all it is doing is managing decline). So while it has taken some time to cut the apron strings, PR has fast caught up, and there are serious discussions going on in a number of agencies across Cardiff as to how they are going to position themselves in this new media age. And, because they are more agile, can smell financial disaster more keenly, and often have creatives on board that encourage different ways of thinking, they are moving at a swifter pace of development than the industry they serve. One Welsh agency, at least, has already developed an iPhone app for a client.
It suggests a future where PR agencies no longer have need of traditional media. That they get bold, take heed of advanced consumer tastes and develop media organisations only for individual clients, producing a range of content that marries online and social networking with selected traditional output and marketing practice. A sort of an Ocean Finance TV, done properly.
Where does that leave skilled journalists? They can take the liar’s shilling, or they can develop entrepreneurial models of their own, as we are already witnessing in the US. Those that aren’t scared out of the industry (many journalists get into words as a means of escaping numbers and figures) will have to look at unique selling points. The first, and certainly the most important in this new content age, is their skill as story tellers. For too long, journalists have looked to their employers to do the promoting on their behalf. But that time is now passing. They must go out there and demonstrate that consumers can have Jeffrey Archer, or they can have JD Salinger.
It won’t be easy, and it probably won’t be lucrative. But it is imperative that, if any future help is to come from the outside, it must focus on retaining these skills, and looking after the journalists. The organisations they work for can go fry in Hell. They had their chance and they blew it. Even now, as the end draws near for business as they once knew it, they have no clue as to how to adapt. Dinosaurs after the meteor.
But it is important that this experience is retained in Wales, for a number of reasons. Not only is devolution likely to mean a separated polity that requires scrutiny, but it follows on from Ian Hargreaves’ Heart of Digital Wales report into Welsh creative industries – which found that they could make a far greater contribution to the country’s economy – that we need to be retaining writing talent. And we cannot trust to the industry – and perhaps to the journalists, too – to deliver that.
Tags: journalism, media, new media, social media, technology
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
13 Comments
“Tory infanticidal intentions “, come now Mr. Higgitt, for the less informed, explain please.
Nice language.
Independent sold for £1…not the paper but the business.
The Sun daily circulation per day in Feb 1010 2,972,763.
What is the sound of whistling in the wind?
And what is the sound of money talks?
How many people will pay the £104 per year to access the Times web sites?
We will get the journalism we are prepared to pay for…and many want it for free.
That is the answer.
As someone who works at The Independent it’s been hard to avoid the degree to which the industry has changed this week. It screams at you. Overall I agree with your assertion in this excellent piece that the PR industry has reacted better than journalists to the changes in the industry.
I would, however, be reluctant to lay the blame for this at the feet of the hacks themselves. As I pointed out in a article for WH a couple of months ago it’s my contention that media owners, not journalists are the ones who have failed to respond. They have run their product into the ground by failing to innovate and invest in the future. Hardly the fault of the hacks.
It’s also notable that the effect of PR is one that inspires a large degree of debate. I for one see the rise of PR and the demise of journalism as being inextricably linked. After all there would be no churnalism without the press releases.
What is fascinating about this is how the PR industry now completely outstrips journalism in its printed and digital form. This is outlined quite brilliantly here: http://tinyurl.com/ykbdnwd – in an article which asks whether the PR industry has grown too big for journalism.
PR folk no longer need to be pushing press releases in the world of Twitter and Facebook. They can create a buzz without us. Maybe that’ll put an end to the pointless, badly written, press release and allow journalists to get on with doing what they are best at. Finding out the truth, and telling it.
Sorry, John – the Tories have said on a number of occasions that they’ll kill off the IFNC pilots should they win the General Election. The pilots – if they are off the ground by then – would be very young.
Rob – I can’t disagree with anything you’ve said. But my hope is that more and more journalists become entrepreneurial in order to retain the writing skills that we could lose – are losing? – as a consequence of the actions of the companies they work for. What is surprising is how complacent consumers are about the disappearance of large numbers of journalists. After all, it is their work, not the advertising, that attracts consumers. Yet they are the most affected by these changes. They are, in effect, taking the bullet.
Len – it’s difficult to understate the attention the media industry is focusing on News International at present. Murdoch is a key figure in these changes, not because of his organisation’s size and sway, but because his outlets, including Sky, are built on paid content and stand to lose the most through this trend towards a free online world. Don’t underestimate the aggression he will apply to defending his market position.
Duncan Higgitt
The problem is, including News Corp, you get what you pay for.
People aren’t willing to pay for something they can currently get for free.
The only practical way is by advertising – in the past the physical production and distribution has been covered by the cover price and advertising has paid for the journalism.
Google has shown that clickpay advertising works.
There is no need for a cover price as there is no production or distribution cost.
The market always gravitates from a diversity of supply to a few, normally three and eventually two with one dominant. The classic example is the cola business. The supply concentrated to three and then one fell by the wayside and then Coca Cola almost obliterated Pepsi. Pepsi remains at 9% because people want a choice. This is happening in the news provision. People are altering their supply provider. News Corp have a strong position and could and may be are the media equivalent of Coca Cola. Its strategy may be to force people to the Times by requiring a subscription. Once people pay they are unlikely to jump around looking at other suppliers. If News Corp commands enough guaranteed viewers then their advertising rates will increase. It’s an interesting stragegy.
The competition in the UK is the BBC who do not carry advertising and this gives Sky (News Corp) a huge advantage as they command the majority of the advertising. The Telegraph may remain free on the web but unless they can attract the revenue from advertising they will either go the way of News Corp, or if they leave it to late, go the way of the Independant.
The Sun will probably give a three line one inch column to the referendum.
That’s democracy!
Just considering current affairs and hard news;
For some time now I have seldom bought a daily paper, and given up trying to get News from the Papers, as you suggest most of it is PR pap or one sided biased political (mostly left wing) spin.
Online newspapers and the hard copy are notoriously inaccurate.
They have become simply a platform for personal prejudice, or scandal of dubious accuracy.
There is little unbiased investigation, as McBride found and No 10 is still relying on, whatever is said in politics is true, just put it out and journalists will print it as if its true, leaving the libeled party to sort it out, and as we all know there is no smoke without fire.
The recent brilliant Telegraph exposure of the Expense Scandal was a rarity.
While there are some good articles and able wordsmiths. They simply regurgitate the same politics and biased view, – they do not give information on which to form opinion, they offer opinion ready prepared and packaged.
For real accurate balanced news the Google news search is a start point, followed by trawling the net for details and attempt to get a balance.
Blogs are useful often with useful links and a range of opinion and ideas.
As for the IFNC pilots – they will just be more of the same probably worse – most of us now surely treat BBC and ITV news and political output with great scepticism and in some cases contempt.
The IFNC pilot schemes have been selected and the operating guidelines set by politicians – they will not reflect popular need, – they will reflect a political requirement for people in an area to be given some particular World or local view.
I will not pay to be told what to think – however to help me make a judgement – I may pay to get accurate balanced information.
Almost every survey I have ever read states that people will not pay for news online – they may pay for star columnists, like Charlie Brooker or David Mitchell, but not for news. The only reasonable position would seem to be to charge for some content and leave other content free.
Doesn’t seem particularly complex to me. However.
The Times may pick up 20 million uniques a month but as James Harding says, these people are by-and-large window-shoppers. They are not regular readers, and the click-through rate in terms of advertising will be very low. They are not brand loyal. The other thing about those readers is that The Times has virtually no information about them. This will change thanks to subscription detail which will allow The Times to give advertisers more information about the readers visiting the site.
Advertisers will pay premium for space providing they are given this sort of information – and let’s be frank, the problem with the online business model at the moment is that advertisers won’t pay at anywhere near the rate they would for print publications.
The Times online will doubtless haemorrhage vast amounts of traffic, but what is that traffic worth? If people aren’t clicking through, buying products or reading your articles it makes no odds if your getting 20 million clicks or 50 million. The days of CPM advertising are gone.
Advertisers have wised up – they want click-through and follow-up. The Times could make more money with five million monthly readers on a £2 subscription than The Guardian will with 30 million paying nowt.
The Times they are a changing.
Excellent . This and earlier articles on the same theme, the demise of ‘traditional’ journalism and the impact of new media, are important contributions to the debate. Wales Home is providing a valuable forum for this.
Personally, I think we will maybe see more niche markets with journalists who want to stay in the game becoming ‘specialists’ in providing coverage of politics, sport, military, crime, fishing etc. The days of a print or online newspaper covering many aspects of the news are over. I and I imagine many others will read Times Online for their columnists and commentators some of whom (like Mathew Parris or Michael Portillo) are worth paying to read. So I think Maxwell’s migration to a paid for content model may well work even though he will inevitably shed loads of traffic. However, the resulting core of subscribers could be a much more attractive audience for online advertisers because (like facebook advertising) they will know alot more about the page viewer.
Even though I believe that people are interested in reading about ‘local’ news it is unlikely they will pay a subcription for this whereas they might for specialist expert ‘news’ on sport or finance or other niche ‘interest’ market. Local news, by definition, cannot deliver the number of eyeballs required to generate sufficient ad revenue (except in the larger cities), therefore, local news provision may end up almost exclusively with the BBC.
Local advertising and classifieds currently make up the bulk of local newspaper revenues but increasingly people are getting used to selling their cars, bikes, boats, nik naks etc on eBay or specialist sites so this source of revenue is slowly drying up. Why advertise locally when you can advertise globally and still get a local sale, cheaper? I recently sold my mountain bike through the local paper, I got four enquirers who kept badgering me to halve my price and asking me what my best price was. Duh? The ad cost me £25. I sold an outboard motor on eBay and it cost me a listing fee of £1 but I got over 300 watchers. It sold for a price well over what I was hoping for and sold to a man who lived 10 miles away. So who do you think my next advert will be placed with? It’s a no brainer and when it comes to money people aren’t that stupid any more.
Many people, including me, get the local newspaper for the obituraries and to see who has died in their street or village. Also, it traditionally has been the place for recording announcements of births, deaths and marriages plus county council business, planning applications, court appearances, society gigs etc. All this shouldn’t require the skills of a journalist – so this function/role/service of the newspaper needs to find an online outlet staffed essentially by ‘typesetters’. I am not sure how this will evolve although I suppose it could be monetised by people paying for the ‘announcement’ .
We realise, here at Cambria magazine, that to survive we have to concentrate on delivering the highest quality content written by ‘good writers’ to our niche market. A proportion of this content will be delivered online as our clientele become accustomed to using the web (at the moment this is only a small minority). People will pay for content they cannot get anywhere else. Unfortunately, they won’t pay a decent amount so it still remains a numbers game. Moreover, as Duncan has pointed out, online advertisers are much more sophisticated in their demands for traffic, placement and conversion stats so although some will buy online ads it is a constant hard sell for our small sales resources. Difficult times.
An excellent and thought provoking piece – together with Rob’s piece and comments, you’ve both made a very welcome contribution to an issue of vital importance to the future of Wales.
Duncan – you talk about the skills of writing and telling a story. While I agree with what you say and that this may be very important for the commercial success of the product of journalism Ialso think it’s not the most essential, irreplaceable aspect.
For me, that is what Rob so succinctly stated as “Finding out the truth, and telling it”. We can deceive ourselves that a chorus of tweets received from ground zero at the latest newsworthy ‘event’ can just as easily provide this, but in the face of oppression, obfuscation or the distractions of ‘infotainment’ we need the skills and dedication of the trained journalist, who also keeps to a code of ethics.
Willfully mixing my metaphors, this is the ultimate gold standard of reporting, the ‘acid test’ for democracy, the threshing floor that sorts the wheat from the chaff of puffery.
I write as a senior PR practitioner: I want to know that when writing a press release, I must write to meet the exacting standards of journalists who will ask their own questions in response. I may have as my aim to make the best case, but I must anticipate robust enquiry and not hide from it.
If journalists use my copy verbatim (and it concerns me if they do) it must be as good as the best their sub-editors will pass un-altered.
I want to know that only writing of quality, written by press officers who understand the process and requirements of good journalism will stand the best chance of getting published.
But most importantly, the best PR (in my book, the only kind of PR that deserves the name) will also respect the same ethics that inspire the best journalism. PR that does not respect truth and honesty will ultimately fail the client and society.
Finally, I want to know that when I insist clients be transparent and honest and take trouble to ensure that they are neither misleading me nor deceiving themselves, I have good reason.
This may seem a bit of an aside to the main argument here – but I think it’s relevant to the direction journalism is taking in response to the decisions of media owners and the failure of regulators. It also raises questions about education – does the audience know the difference and care when it gets globally sourced, pre-packaged pap?
It’s been my experience that the history of Wales is not taught often or well enough from our own perspective but it has been said well that ‘journalism is the first draft of history’. In this context, the lack of ‘Y Byd’ or similar venture is all the more telling, not just for journalism but for Wales. I see no indication in these proposals that we will get the diversity of robust, comprehensive and independent journalism we need – but are they perhaps better than nothing?
A couple more excellent contributions. Thanks very much to everyone who’s posted their thoughts.
CP makes some very valid points about revenue, casting further doubt (certainly in my mind) as to the viability of ultra-local if it is to be supported by advertising. It rather confirms (along with Rob’s earlier piece – http://bit.ly/dvVCyg – for this site on the same subject) that ultra-locals are likely to be the preserve of enthusiasts rather than professionals, although that’s not to say that it might not be mutually beneficial to involve trained journos in UL sites.
Marc raises a fascinating issue, that PR practitioners have a responsibility to the quality of the media along with journalists. I think he’s right, and I don’t think its a modern development. After all, as Daran’s piece for today argues, if you derive your living from politics, you have a responsibility and an interest to uphold its standards, so why should that not be applicable in other sectors? We may find ourselves in the novel position of having a media industry where many of its commercial leaders have abdicated their responsibilities to its well being, while journalists and – yes – PR people take it upon themselves to ensure it has a meaningful future.
Marc’s ‘ground zero’ argument is also compelling. However, I don’t think it applies just to social media. Charlie Brooker, on Newswipe, is very good on what 24-hour rolling news has done to news quality (“And we go now to a bloke standing outside a building where nothing is happening. Again.”) It goes back to ‘first draft of history’ argument. Just because we can relay something immediately, that doesn’t mean we should. Why not wait and see how it develops? This is a reason why I think Sunday newspapers have a future in which they can fulfil a review function and tell a story in its entirety.
One last point on IFNCs. I’m not in any position to judge which bid was best, as the winner was the only one I didn’t get to meet (owing to diary constraints). I understand people’s point, both here and in private emails I’ve had on this, that we have to give it a chance. I certainly will. My argument was that the selection panel appeared to place much stock in news delivery, given its new media remit. I was raising the question as to whether journalism needs to break some moulds in order to keep pace – or even help to direct – our developing tastes. The Yes Men link I added was a perfect example of how two guys are delivering an activist message in a way that is innovative, makes full use of new media and blurs the lines between reportage and, I suppose, art.
Marc makes an excellent point about the responsibility the PR industry has to provide information that is of a high standard and is factually accurate.
This is increasingly important in an age where journalists can easily be embarrased by experts who are quick to identify mendacity in a story. Ben Goldacre has provided a couple of classic examples of this lately, highlighting a story dervied from a Rentokill press release (http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/rentokil/) as well as one from derived from an NHS trust (http://tinyurl.com/y9j97th).
In both cases the information provided to the journalist was questionable.
Now, although the responsibility should ultimately lie with the hack or sub-editor publishing the story (me, in the case of the NHS trust Facebook/Syphilis story on independent.co.uk) to check the facts, the PR staff have a responsibility not to provide false or spun information.
As it happens, with the likes of Goldacre knocking about the ‘gold-standard’ in PR is going to have to be attained more regularly as the publicity disasters that follow being found out can be catastrophic.
And that’s not good for anyone’s business.
Public Relations is about creating a positive opinion about an individual, company, product, cause, or activities.
Its about ensuring that portal convinces the target audience of the merits of the case, that this – whatever it is – is good.
While not advertising, it is aimed at opinion forming, presenting cleverly crafted ideas, – however skilled practitioners can and do turn reality on its head.
There is seldom balance, especially in the political arena – opposing ideas misrepresented, or edited, to help reinforce the required message.
The big problem is that deep pockets not only win the day, but exclude alternative ideas. Other views are not explored, and sometimes seriously ridiculed without proper exposure or consideration.
On the UK political scene it seems to work, the Westminster Legislature faces an array of hostile media, lobbyists and pressure groups, everything it does is not only subject to rigorous political scrutiny in both houses, but also close examination and often hostile pressure from a well informed public.
Here in Wales do we hold our Assembly to the same level of accounting? are the public as well informed about the pro’s and con’s of the various issues, in general are they interested?.
Newspapers and serious journalism used to be about investigative reporting, researching and finding establishing the facts. – if they bought a story, they checked it out and wrote it up.
The checking involved establishing the view point of all involved. Both sides.
How often do reporters these days leave the office – I don’t know, asking!.
The issues here seems to be;
We have the individual columnist who writes skillfully and interestingly about a subject whether biased or not, and may well be worth paying to read.
Then having paid we get the full range of news stories, from scandal through disaster to politics (which is often all three) – Now its here honesty, objectivity, and BALANCE, (to ask for “unbiased” is perhaps a bridge too far), is important.
Does PR have a part to play in this latter area, – IMHO not unless the journalist/reporter is prepared to unspin the message and deliver an objective review.
How the Americans are meeting PSB demand/requirement: http://bit.ly/9o8HKe