Media Quotes of the Week: From Leveson attacked as 'disastrous' by Guardian legal chief to Daily Mail defends the BBC against politicial interference

Leveson: 'Worst of all worlds'

The Guardian’s director of editorial legal services Gill Phillips on the outcome of the Leveson Inquiry, as quoted by Press Gazette: “What Leveson has come up with is the worst of all worlds. His attempt to please everybody and avoid being a dusty footnote on a shelf somewhere has led him down a road that has proved to be pretty disastrous. We don’t have anything that could be perceived as effective or credible by either side of the debate.”

Peter Oborne praises Ed Miliband in the Telegraph: "For roughly three decades all senior British politicians had deferred in the most demeaning and improper way to the media tycoon Rupert Murdoch. Mr Miliband refused to go along with this, thus helping to remove a giant stench from the heart of British public life." 

Russell Brand in the Guardian on the GQ awards: "We witness that there is a relationship between government, media and industry that is evident even at this most spurious and superficial level. These three institutions support one another. We know that however cool a media outlet may purport to be, their primary loyalty is to their corporate backers. We know also that you cannot criticise the corporate backers openly without censorship and subsequent manipulation of this information."

NUJ general secretary Michelle Stanistreet in a statement on 75 more job cuts at the BBC: "We are in this position because of the former director general Mark Thompson's shabby, behind-closed-doors, deal with the government. His decision to agree to freeze the licence fee until 2017 and take on an extra £340 million in new financial responsibilities, such as the World Service and the provision of fast broadband, has proved a disaster for the corporation. Last week we watched Thompson and members of the BBC Trust defending £1 million pay-offs to former executives, this week we hear hard-working journalists committed to the BBC and public service broadcasting are to be shown the door."

Grey Cardigan on TheSpinAlley takes issue with the NUJ and general secretary Michelle Stanistreet's support for members to clock off at 5.30pm on September 25 [Go Home On Time Day]: "The day of inaction is planned for a Wednesday, which also happens to be deadline day for a whole host of weekly newspapers. The NUJ obviously doesn’t know this, but if Ms Stanistreet can point me to a single editorial employee of those titles who will be able to leave at a notional 5.30pm on that particular day, I’ll show my arse in Woolworth’s window." 

Roy Greenslade on his blog: "Suggestions that the 'new' Sun on Sunday (SoS) would move closer to the old News of the World proved to be unfounded.It was a damp squib that amounted to a succession of very average news page leads." 

Mike Harris of Index on Censorship, in the Guardian on proposals that libel litigants should only have to pay their own costs: "We are concerned about the implications for freedom of expression in that someone could sue a newspaper vexatiously because they know they don't have to pay the costs even if they lose." 

Sir Ray Tindle, quoted by HoldtheFrontPage: "One swallow doesn’t make a summer but I’m pleased to tell you that, for the first time for a considerable period, last week every one of our London titles went into profit.” 

Richard Sambrook in the Guardian on the BBC: "Newspaper editors should pause before rubbing their hands in glee. If the government can push the boundaries of interference under this guise of transparency and accountability, what hope for a truly independent post-Leveson settlement?" 

Daily Mail in a leader: "If politicians are given influence over the BBC’s output – as they would be, under this plan to transfer the Trust’s functions to Ofcom and the National Audit Office – this will fundamentally undermine the Corporation’s independence and, with it, the public’s right to know. Indeed, any scrutiny of Ofcom – that nest of politically-correct Blairites – should demonstrate how unsafe it would be to entrust it with rulings on what the BBC may and may not broadcast."

After Leveson: 'Hackademics and pundits more interested in doing something about the popular press than preserving the freedoms of all the press'

Many of  the meetings that followed the Leveson Report were "lofty" gatherings in which media academics and pundits were more interested in doing something about the popular press rather than preserving the freedom of all the press, according to Professor Peter Cole, the ex-editor of the Sunday Correspondent and former head of journalism at both Sheffield University and UCLAN.

Professor Cole, one of the contributors to After Leveson? The Future of British Journalism, edited by John Mair, writes: "From the moment the Leveson Inquiry was set up there emerged a small industry of journalist navel-gazers, media pundits, columnists, broadcasters and reporters, editors with a reputation for playing a part in wider media debates, media lawyers and the journalism lecturers and researchers, with and without a professional journalism past (known as the ‘hackademics’!). Whither journalism? debates were held up and down the land.

Cole says: "There followed very many meetings organised by campaigning groups and university media and journalism departments. There were meetings of major media figures (some requiring payment from the public to attend), which tended to feature a regular repertory company of pundits some of whom appeared on a succession of platforms.

"The meetings were frequently lofty, seldom including representation (of advocates or views) from the popular press which was at the heart of the Leveson inquiry. The ‘hackademics’ seemed often to be the most detached from the real commercial world, some giving the impression that all would be well if the Guardian was the only newspaper on sale, distaste for the Daily Mail and all things Murdoch seemingly a badge of office.

Cole adds: "While there was an impressive core at the heart of the repertory company, mostly of former senior media executives (journalists and lawyers) who had had experience of and thought seriously about regulation and press freedom, too often those who spoke up in the debates appeared to have a low opinion of journalism in general rather than a respect for its watchdog role and its achievements in flushing out the corrupt and the abusers of power, not always the most straightforward or squeaky clean activity.

"And they did not like to pollute their idealism with commercial considerations, like the fact that newspapers need to make money to exist. Too often the emphasis at these meetings was doing something about the popular press rather than preserving the freedoms of all the press.

"After all, if the police investigations had uncovered the extent of illegal phone hacking when it was first brought to their attention there would have been no need for Leveson. As it is, those areas of the press that have behaved disreputably and despicably have been so shamed by the evidence given to the Inquiry that such behaviour should not recur."

Some other quotes from After Leveson?:

Leveson's impact on the Regional Press

Tor Clark, of De Montfort University: "The injustice of being kept behind after school because the naughty boys from the nationals misbehaved, the UK regional press has little to fear from tougher regulation because it is unlikely to be a major offender and if Leveson’s comments about the value of local journalism do hit home, as they appear to have done for some MPs already, Leveson’s impact is at worst neutral to the regional press and at best doubly positive in allowing it to be lauded as a responsible media while having overdue light shone on its positive role and current plight."

Paul Marsden, of Coventry University: "For the moment it appears pragmatism is the order of the day in government ranks. Looking forward to a difficult General Election in 2015 it appears the
Conservative Party is more pre-occupied with staying in bed with the national press than assisting their local relatives out of their hospices."

Why journalism should consider itself a profession

Richard Sambrook of the Cardiff University Centre for Journalism: "In rejecting the notion of 'professionalism' along with statutory regulation newspapers may do themselves a disservice. ‘Rat-like cunning a plausible manner and a little literary ability’ may have been sufficient fifty years ago. Today’s media, transformed in scale reach and influence, requires a different approach. A 24 hour global, converged media, undergoing rapid change, dealing with a constant deluge of information, and exerting huge influence over all our lives, should not be hesitant about calling itself a profession. It requires consistent editorial discipline and skills supported by industry-focused training and continuous development – to raise standards, establish an ethical culture, build public trust and raise morale. And perhaps in so doing, to secure a stronger long-term future."

Dave will do a deal

Media commentator Ray Snoddy:"However shrill the Hacked Off campaign gets, the political realities suggest a deal will be done by David Cameron, with the support of senior Cabinet ministers such as Education secretary Michael Gove, Foreign Secretary William Hague and the press barons."

• After Leveson?, The Future of British Journalism, edited by John Mair, is published today (February 26) by Abramis at £19:95.

Sambrook on churnalism: 'Not all PR is toxic'

Richard Sambrook, the former BBC news chief turned PR executive at Edelman, has posted on the churnalism debate - arguing not all PR is bad and suggesting many news organisations have hidden agendas.

Sambrook, writing about the new churnalism detecting website Churnalism.com , launched by the Media Standards Trust, says: "As an exercise by the Trust to support the independence of news and highlight lazy journalism it is entirely a Good Thing. That it has a use at all is a reflection of the shrinking of staff and resources in newsrooms and the growth of PR.

"However, it does encourage a dated view of PR as a Bad Thing – that PR and press releases must be a toxic influence on the pure well of journalism. The truth is rather different. There is of course Good PR and Bad PR just as there is Good Journalism and Bad Journalism. So far so obvious.

"Good PR is less about spin and cover ups and more about advocacy and transparency- from which some news organisations could learn. I’m asked by old colleagues, 'So what terrible deeds have you had to cover up then?'. The truth of course is that 'covering-up' or deceit is the worst advice to offer anyone, with a high probablilty of discovery and consequent reputational damage proven time and again."

Sambrook adds: "There may be criticism that corporate content is unlikely to to be critical of its parent – the same is also true of most news organisations.

"You will look long and hard to find much coverage of the phone hacking scandal in any News International paper. Or many pro-European Union stories in the Daily Mail. Those reporters are not paid to write those stories. Equally, Fox News will not offer much criticism of the Republicans, Al Jazeera is unlikely to report negatively about Qatar or Russia Today to investigate corruption in Russian politics. They all have positions and agendas – often far from openly declared."

He ends: "If Churnalism.com helps identify what can be trusted, let’s people better understand what they are reading, and makes news organisations reflect on their own (lack of) transparency, good luck to it."

Via Gordon MacMillan on Twitter

• Watch out journalists new churnalism detector aims to expose lazy PR-fed journalism
  
• So who came up with the word churnalism?
  

Richard Sambrook: BBC World Service cuts are a 'major blow' to serious journalism

Richard Sambrook, former head of sport, news and most recently director of global news at the BBC before leaving the Corporation to join the Edelman PR company, has described the job cuts to be announced at the World Service today as a "major blow to serious journalism."

Sambrook said on Twitter: "Thinking of former colleagues in BBC World Service - a quarter of organisation to be axed. Major blow to serious journalism."

A Facebook group SOS BBC World Service has been set up by supporters.

• Members of the NUJ will attend a protest today (Wednesday January 26) at 1.00 pm at the Aldwych entrance to the World Service Bush House building in London.

The Independent: How PRs are circumventing the traditional media and creating their own content

Interesting article in the Independent today by media editor Ian Burrell about how PRs are by-passing journalists and creating their own content.
Burrell writes: "Public relations, to some the business of puff and fluff, is flexing its media muscles like never before and strong- arming its way into areas once considered the exclusive domains of advertising agencies, broadcasters and publishers.
"PRs, who once had to go through the prism of journalism to convey their messages to a mass audience, are increasingly confident in circumventing traditional media altogether. In generating their own video and text-based digital content on behalf of clients, they are not only taking the bread from the table of a weakened advertising sector but encroaching onto the old territory of television and press companies."
Burell says at the forefront of this change is Edelman, the American-owned PR firm with 51 offices around the world, who has hired Richard Sambrook, the former head of BBC News.
He adds: "The path between journalism and public relations is a well beaten one. But whereas most who previously crossed to "the other side" were hired because of their industry contacts or because their poacher-turned-gamekeeper insight made them effective crisis management "flaks", Edelman's strategy is altogether different.
Burrell says Sambrook is convinced that Edelman's clients must take their message directly to the consumer. Sambrook is quoted as saying: "The mantra is that every company has to be a media company in their own right, telling their own stories not just through websites but through branded entertainment, video, iPad and mobile applications."
Burrell also notes: "Company president Richard Edelman points to the fragmentation of traditional media, with shrinking audiences and a decline in trust. Sambrook, he believes, can help the company's clients express themselves in a way that has credibility and reach."

• The article quotes Alan Edwards, founder of the entertainment specialist Outside Organisation, which has recently hired Neil Wallis, former editor of The People, saying: "We have got more PRs than journalists in the UK now and something is changing fundamentally."