Great headline in the Sun today over story on Alan Duncan's ill judged remarks that MPs' are having to live on rations following the expenses scandal.
Thursday, 13 August 2009
Backlash over council plan to withdraw ads from local press and put them in own paper
North East Lincolnshire Council proposals to withdraw all council advertisements from local media and instead place them in its own monthly newspaper have sparked heavy criticism from local residents, the Newspaper Society claims today.
It says the Grimsby Telegraph has published more than 20 letters from residents angry about the plans since reporting that the council was to review its advertising and marketing budget and consider removing all its advertising from independent local media.
The council had initially decided to shift all its advertising, largely recruitment, into its monthly Linc Up newspaper, which costs £86,000 annually to print and distribute, but the plans were called in by Conservative chief whip Martin Vickers.
As a result, the Liberal Democrat-controlled council decided that a select committee would review the local authority’s advertising and marketing budget in a bid to determine the best value for taxpayers.
In a letter published in the Telegraph Mark Price, managing director of Grimsby and Scunthorpe Media Group which publishes the Telegraph and associated titles, said the publisher was “very concerned” about proposals to remove council ads which would add to the “severe strain” caused by the recession.
He added: “We believe that, in print and on the internet, we offer the local authority the widest audience for their recruitment advertising. We also believe it is important that organisations such as North East Lincolnshire Council support independent local media. As local newspaper publishers, we have a deep commitment to and passion for the community we serve.”
The NS also says that South London Press has revealed that Lambeth Council’s fortnightly newspaper Lambeth Life was costing more than £500,000 a year to produce prompting an angry backlash from opposition councillors.
It says the Grimsby Telegraph has published more than 20 letters from residents angry about the plans since reporting that the council was to review its advertising and marketing budget and consider removing all its advertising from independent local media.
The council had initially decided to shift all its advertising, largely recruitment, into its monthly Linc Up newspaper, which costs £86,000 annually to print and distribute, but the plans were called in by Conservative chief whip Martin Vickers.
As a result, the Liberal Democrat-controlled council decided that a select committee would review the local authority’s advertising and marketing budget in a bid to determine the best value for taxpayers.
In a letter published in the Telegraph Mark Price, managing director of Grimsby and Scunthorpe Media Group which publishes the Telegraph and associated titles, said the publisher was “very concerned” about proposals to remove council ads which would add to the “severe strain” caused by the recession.
He added: “We believe that, in print and on the internet, we offer the local authority the widest audience for their recruitment advertising. We also believe it is important that organisations such as North East Lincolnshire Council support independent local media. As local newspaper publishers, we have a deep commitment to and passion for the community we serve.”
The NS also says that South London Press has revealed that Lambeth Council’s fortnightly newspaper Lambeth Life was costing more than £500,000 a year to produce prompting an angry backlash from opposition councillors.
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
Photojournalist bailed in Iran
The Committee to Protect Journalists has welcomed the news that photojournalist Majid Saeedi has been released on bail in Iran, but said it remains concerned that he still faces charges.
Saeedi, a well-known freelance photographer who has worked for photo agency Getty Images, was released on bail on Tuesday. Getty Images co-founder and CEO Jonathan Klein said that Saeedi "is set to face trial on the charges set by Iranian prosecutors, and is possibly facing several years in prison if convicted."
"We are relieved by Majid Saeedi's release from prison today, but call on authorities to drop all charges against him," said CPJ Middle East and North Africa Program Coordinator Mohamed Abdel Dayem. "Saeedi was simply doing his job in documenting post-election events. We appeal to the government to release all remaining imprisoned journalists."
On July 10, security agents arrested Saeedi at his home and took him to an unknown location, according to Getty Images.
Saeedi, a well-known freelance photographer who has worked for photo agency Getty Images, was released on bail on Tuesday. Getty Images co-founder and CEO Jonathan Klein said that Saeedi "is set to face trial on the charges set by Iranian prosecutors, and is possibly facing several years in prison if convicted."
"We are relieved by Majid Saeedi's release from prison today, but call on authorities to drop all charges against him," said CPJ Middle East and North Africa Program Coordinator Mohamed Abdel Dayem. "Saeedi was simply doing his job in documenting post-election events. We appeal to the government to release all remaining imprisoned journalists."
On July 10, security agents arrested Saeedi at his home and took him to an unknown location, according to Getty Images.
Why BBC challenged Baby P restrictions
BBC head of newsgathering Fran Unsworth put up a strong case for why the BBC was one of the media organisations that successfuly contested the anonymity order stopping the naming of Baby Peter Connelly's mother and stepfather.
She told Radio 4's The Media Show today that the local authority had wanted the anonymity order to continue until 2026 and the BBC had contested it in the interests of open justice and open reporting.
Asked by Ed Stourton what the benefit of having the order lifted was, Unsworth said the BBC had been able to tell the full story of the backgrounds of Tracey Connelly and Steven Barker, including the fact that Connelly's father was a paedophile and that Barker had been accused of assaulting his grandmother.
She said it was in the public interest to show the "cycles of abuse" behind the perpetrators of the crimes against Baby Peter and give some insight and add to the debate about how legislators can act to protect children.
Charlie Beckett, director of POLIS, said the public had not understood why the names were freely available on the internet but were not being published in the mainstream media.
Unsworth suggested the way forward may be for judges to tell juries to be "sensible" and put information they may have seen on the internet out of their minds when considering the evidence in a trial.
She told Radio 4's The Media Show today that the local authority had wanted the anonymity order to continue until 2026 and the BBC had contested it in the interests of open justice and open reporting.
Asked by Ed Stourton what the benefit of having the order lifted was, Unsworth said the BBC had been able to tell the full story of the backgrounds of Tracey Connelly and Steven Barker, including the fact that Connelly's father was a paedophile and that Barker had been accused of assaulting his grandmother.
She said it was in the public interest to show the "cycles of abuse" behind the perpetrators of the crimes against Baby Peter and give some insight and add to the debate about how legislators can act to protect children.
Charlie Beckett, director of POLIS, said the public had not understood why the names were freely available on the internet but were not being published in the mainstream media.
Unsworth suggested the way forward may be for judges to tell juries to be "sensible" and put information they may have seen on the internet out of their minds when considering the evidence in a trial.
Conrad Black bail plea rejected
Editor & Publisher is reporting that Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has turned down former Daily Telegraph owner Conrad Black's request to be freed from a Florida prison while he appeals his fraud conviction to the high court.
Lord Black has served nearly 17 months of a 6 and-a-half-year prison term. In May the court agreed to consider overturning Black's conviction in July 2007 on charges he siphoned off millions of dollars belonging to Hollinger International when he was chief executive. The case will be heard in the autumn.
Lord Black has served nearly 17 months of a 6 and-a-half-year prison term. In May the court agreed to consider overturning Black's conviction in July 2007 on charges he siphoned off millions of dollars belonging to Hollinger International when he was chief executive. The case will be heard in the autumn.
Mandelson on Today
Another masterclass from Lord Mandelson on the Today programme this morning on how not to answer an interviewer's questions. He turned every question asked by Evan Davis into an attack on George Osborne and the Tories. And then accused Davis of "interviewing himself". Unbelievable.
Baby P reporting restrictions in an online world
Steve Herrmann, editor of the BBC News website has posted on the Editors Blog about the lifting of the reporting restrictions in the Baby Peter Connelly case and what it means online.
He notes of the restrictions: "These were ordered because the defendants were the subject of another trial, for the rape of a two-year-old girl, which could have been compromised if the jury were prejudiced by information from the earlier case, and also because there were children who were still in the process of being placed with alternative carers.
"Now that Steven Barker has been found guilty and sentenced in the rape trial, and all the children are being cared for, the guilty trio's anonymity has ceased and we along with the rest of the media have been able to name them.
"This sounds deceptively simple, but when you look at what this means online it is more complicated. A news website like the BBC's will have a huge archive of stories, some of which may contain information which only later becomes the subject of legal restriction.
"On this occasion, there were indeed two stories in our own archive relating to the very early stages of the Baby Peter case which, if you searched for them, did give the names of the defendants. We did not republish or link to them from new stories, but on this occasion plenty of other people chose to do so.
"There were vigilante-style websites, blogs and individual e-mailers who were determined to make the names public and who were making a point of linking to our archived stories.
"We removed the stories from our archive even though in practice the details were easy to find, and the information had already been reproduced and cached elsewhere on the internet. Now that the restrictions have been lifted we've reinstated the stories in the archive. Not, incidentally, a very practical or easy way of doing things if we had to do it very often.
"But it has raised again a wider question as to how useful or effective such restrictions can be, given the ease with which the web allows information to be shared, stored and duplicated on other sites, blogs or in search engine caches."
One thing I'm not clear about is why did the BBC name Connelly and Barker on its website and on Newsnight just after 11pm on Monday? It had been reported that the court order was due to end at midnight. Was it because the first editions of the national newspapers had splashed on the story?
He notes of the restrictions: "These were ordered because the defendants were the subject of another trial, for the rape of a two-year-old girl, which could have been compromised if the jury were prejudiced by information from the earlier case, and also because there were children who were still in the process of being placed with alternative carers.
"Now that Steven Barker has been found guilty and sentenced in the rape trial, and all the children are being cared for, the guilty trio's anonymity has ceased and we along with the rest of the media have been able to name them.
"This sounds deceptively simple, but when you look at what this means online it is more complicated. A news website like the BBC's will have a huge archive of stories, some of which may contain information which only later becomes the subject of legal restriction.
"On this occasion, there were indeed two stories in our own archive relating to the very early stages of the Baby Peter case which, if you searched for them, did give the names of the defendants. We did not republish or link to them from new stories, but on this occasion plenty of other people chose to do so.
"There were vigilante-style websites, blogs and individual e-mailers who were determined to make the names public and who were making a point of linking to our archived stories.
"We removed the stories from our archive even though in practice the details were easy to find, and the information had already been reproduced and cached elsewhere on the internet. Now that the restrictions have been lifted we've reinstated the stories in the archive. Not, incidentally, a very practical or easy way of doing things if we had to do it very often.
"But it has raised again a wider question as to how useful or effective such restrictions can be, given the ease with which the web allows information to be shared, stored and duplicated on other sites, blogs or in search engine caches."
One thing I'm not clear about is why did the BBC name Connelly and Barker on its website and on Newsnight just after 11pm on Monday? It had been reported that the court order was due to end at midnight. Was it because the first editions of the national newspapers had splashed on the story?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
