Guardian group slash local press
Just heard the terrible news that local papers all around Greater Manchester are having their staff, particularly editors, slashed and are being centralised by their parent company – th Guardian Media Group/Scott Trust. Frankly, I think this is a terrible development – the Salford Advertiser is an important part of Salford life and a vital part of the democratic firmament.
I’ve not been a fan of the Guardian since their ridiculously uncritical reporting on Blair and his government – the MEN is, in my view, a better paper than its parent and so this bad, not just for democracy and for the identities of local communities, but also for journalism and the talented people who work for these papers as well.
According to the Guardian website: “The weekly titles will all be receiving new layout and design with a central section of common pages for the weeklies, drawn from the MEN’s leisure and entertainment content.” – sounds like a real step backward to me.
Given the attitude local Labour politicians toward the Advertiser I’m sure that there’ll be a little party up at the council to celebrate.
http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/533756.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7935737.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/mar/10/manchester-evening-news-publisher-job-cuts
Edit: The MEN are reporting cuts partly caused by loss of advertising revenue: “We’ve seen an alarming drop in revenue from our classified advertising business and what that has meant is there is real pressure on the profitability of the company.”
My word – the month in which Salford council publishes the first edition of their revamped council rag, which now carries the adverts that were once in the Advertiser and MEN, the MEN group is forced to slash 150 jobs due to loss of advertising revenue. Well done Salford council – your attempt to save money may just have contributed to the loss of 150 local jobs. Idiocy.
9:40 pm on March 10th, 2009
Cheers for the support Steve. As you can imagine, we are all a bit nervous and any support from the local community is much appreciated.
9:45 pm on March 10th, 2009
The support is there: politicians always complain that the media is biased against them but it’s funny that all parties complain about the same media outlets. I like the Advertiser and MEN, and I like and respect the people who work there – I hope that there’s more that I can do than simply offering support.
10:59 pm on March 10th, 2009
I think the most honest thing that I can say about the Salford Advertiser is that I love it and loathe it in equal measure!
Journalistically there is much to commend about the Advertiser in its extant form.
I’ve always despised the Advertiser’s claim to be apolitical. There is a definite worldview orthodoxy and socio-political agenda going on.
Given the Advertiser’s effective monopoly of overwhelmingly significant influence over most Salfordians in the reporting of local Salford news to the local populace, I have long held that the single most powerful manipulation tool of the Advertiser is omission. The news that the Advertiser doesn’t [and won't] report at all is very interesting news indeed! And make no mistake, the Advertiser is very handy at manipulation (and which is so easy when you’ve got an effective monopoly).
For example, I was genuinely appalled that the Advertiser wouldn’t give even so much as a nib [a couple of lines] before or after to the Commemoration Service held at Salford Cathedral on 27th October 2007 to mark the 40th anniversary of the passing of the Abortion Act 1967.
Accepting the populist (and occasionally sensationalist) written style of delivery of the news [perceived perhaps by the journalists as being culturally 'relevant' or 'accessible'], I must concede that the Advertiser generally covers those stories it does publish fairly well.
The Advertiser is frustrating to me – but then I guess it is frustrating in some measure to everybody who has strong political views in Salford, whatever those views may be. The Advertiser simply doesn’t do justice to what is going on politically in Salford. I suppose the frustration – especially if you’re one of the ‘frozen-outs’ – is that there is no comparable alternative forum to the Advertiser which affords the opportunity to get one’s message across credibly and consistently and from a platform of similar readership level.
But my gripes aside it would be a great shame to witness the deliberately inflicted demise of what has long been a significant part of Salford culture and one of the most ‘loved’ and best read local British newspapers. I hope the axe will not fall heavily in Church Street; it’d be a great shame to lose the current quality and scope of the Advertiser and written as it is by journalists with good local knowledge and that all essential ‘feel’ for the patch.
11:44 am on March 11th, 2009
The free press will always have my support. I undersatnd that newspapers are being hard hit in this economic climate, but for a democracy to work we need the free press to be an active member.
Similar to Steve’s comments I would like to offer more than symbolic support.
First the Salford Star, now the Advertiser, I suppose Councillor Merry might say thats ‘LIFE’.
1:19 pm on March 11th, 2009
This news is concerning. I know many comrades (some for valid reasons and others for irrational ones) don’t like the Advertiser, but I’ve always found it to be fairly good at accepting local political stories – depending on whether the material submitted was just that, a good story or not.
As a regular reader, I wish all staff the best in keeping their jobs. If the office does move out of Salford, it would be very damaging to the output of the newspaper.
On Steve’s point about the Guardian, many Labour people (myself included) avoid reading it because of a perceived bias towards the Lib Dems! Which just goes to show the perspective of the reader is always crucial when assessing whether a paper is politicised one way or another.
1:22 pm on March 11th, 2009
A Lib Dem bias in the Guardian? Now you really are taking the piss!
1:23 pm on March 11th, 2009
Salford Labour’s propaganda magazine ‘LIFE In Salford’, which masquerades as an apolitical council publication at no cost to Labour, is certainly not going to take over where the Advertiser might leave off!
Nobody takes LIFE In Salford seriously nor ever will do because it is so obviously Labour Party and public sector rubbish. I daresay Salford’s ‘fringe publications’ [the various political blogs on the internet and also indie printed mags and news-sheets] have a greater readership than LIFE – and all at no expense to the taxpayers of Salford.
If John Merry wants some brilliant advice…
Merry should make Stephen Kingston the Editor of LIFE.
If Kingston was Editor then people would read it!
I can see it now…
Merry: “This is what we want Stephen.”
Kingston: “Do one you muppet – I’m the Editor.”
Merry: “OK Boss.”
And everybody in Salford read LIFE and lived happily ever after.
1:35 pm on March 11th, 2009
I’m serious! The Guardian has in the recent past explicitly asked readers to vote Lib Dem in it’s editorial columns (Birmingham Hodge Hill by election 2004 being one example).
The paper is owned by the Scott Trust (Scott family politics – Liberal). In 1992, the one recent general election that can truly said to have potentially been ‘decided’ by the media, only the Financial Times and The Mirror backed Labour. Our ‘critical friend’ the Guardian sat on the fence (ie gave readers the green light to vote Liberal!).
1:35 pm on March 11th, 2009
I read The Guardian and it’s definitely ‘rubbed off’ on me (as you can probably tell from my liberal inclinations).
Never mind the Guardian: I don’t know whether you could hand-on-heart accuse this blog of having a liberal bias! But Iain Lindley on the other hand…
1:40 pm on March 11th, 2009
Well Tom, perhaps if the Labour Party rediscovers left-wing socialism then it’ll find that The Guardian never abandoned Labour (but rather the other way round).
1:50 pm on March 11th, 2009
Tom, I know the Guardian was founded by a Liberal, but really! The idea you have that the lack of the paper’s explicit backing was a way of giving its readers permission to vote Lib Dem is one that I find pretty shocking and troublesome. People do not need the permission of the journalistic or political classes to vote Lib Dem you know (however much you might wish it were so).
And Richard, I very much doubt the ‘fringe publications’ have a greater readership Richard. This blog for instance averages only around 2000+ visits per month (visits being the aggregate of how many unique visitors read each post). A popular post will attract around 300 unique visitors, many of whom are not Salfordians. So my 30-40,000 hits per month doesn’t translate into very many different people having a read. Given that this blog is probably one of the more successful ones in Salford that doesn’t equal a big enough online readership to come close to the printed media.
2:02 pm on March 11th, 2009
You misunderstand my point – by sitting on the fence the Guardian were acting like Lib Dems. Of course, I realise that may have been too subtle for you!
Their readership were free to vote how they chose to, as is every citizen at every election in this country. Permission is not granted by the papers, but every encouragement is given by them to vote in a specific direction. It would be nice if you could at least acknowledge that.
2:11 pm on March 11th, 2009
If I misunderstood your point (and I’m not sure that I did) – perhaps it is not because it was subtle, but because it was poorly expressed?
2:51 pm on March 11th, 2009
Perhaps! I will try to be more explicit in my Lib Dem/Guardian bashing contributions in future.
2:55 pm on March 11th, 2009
Must be frustrating Steve, putting in the hard work for a modest readership. Of course I’m getting well over half a million hits a week, and all from the Salford area [!] … but keep the Lib-Dem pecker up lad. For the record: though I don’t always agree with you I do appreciate reading your blog – so thanks.
P.S. Here’s a tip to make your readership rocket… get yourself banned from Lindley’s blog and watch your readership shoot up! You’ve always dreamed of a cult Tory following haven’t you?
3:05 pm on March 11th, 2009
Come on Steve the decision by the Council to get value for money from its Advertising did not lead to the closure of the paper. Or would you like to comment on the jobs lost by the Lib Dem budget proposals.
3:21 pm on March 11th, 2009
Just to confirm, the paper will NOT be closing. We are simply moving to Manchester.
7:36 pm on March 11th, 2009
John – I don’t believe I wrote that – a case of deliberately misreading something in order to make a point. I said ‘may have contributed’ – I stand by that and I suspect it’s extremely likely that the council’s decision had impact.
Richard – I’m sure you get so much traffic on your blog because it’s filled with porn…
8:47 pm on March 11th, 2009
Tom, your comments are interesting, given that in my experience the Councillor who pours the most irrational vitriol on the local press in our Council meetings is the sole remaining Labour member for Eccles ward…
8:48 pm on March 11th, 2009
In fact, if I remember correctly, Cllr Murphy declared in the Council Chamber that the Advertiser was so bad that we should publish LIFE in Salford on a weekly basis…!
8:56 pm on March 11th, 2009
What’s really interesting from our perspective is that since the news broke, we’ve had messages of support from lots of people. This blog, Iain’s blog, the council press office, Barbara Keeley, and lots of officers at the council who we’ve had relations with over the years.
But not one Labour councillor has contacted us to offer support or condolences. Given that most of our staff live in Salford and are constituents of the Labour members (I live in Eccles) I think it is odd that no-one has realised that many jobs could be lost in the city.
Incidentally, Cllr Murphy was contacted by me before Christmas. We had a good chat where she outlined her problems with the paper, and I tried to explain the reasons behind them. We were trying to organise a meeting to discuss them further, but communication has since dried up on Cllr Murphy’s part.
Make no mistake, this post is not about politics. I have no desire to reveal my political allegiances and believe that it is not only unethical but totally irrelevant to how I do my job.
However, we work closely with these councillors and it’s about humanity and relationships. No doubt they’ll be glad we’re not hounding them anymore, but it’s still sad that jobs will be lost.
10:07 pm on March 11th, 2009
God my blog swinton south liberal democrats got four people reading it last week and i was over the moon. And i read it twice, On a serious note i will have got to give up reading the sun and start reading the Guardian. What page is the sport on?
11:48 pm on March 11th, 2009
Snide remark Steve. And very misleading. Does my anti-pornography stance rub you up the wrong way?
8:20 am on March 12th, 2009
Attempted expression of humour on my part; no snideness meant.
Having just spent my week’s political philosophy tutorials getting my students to discuss the relationships between pornography, freedom and equality I can see that it’s probably a subject worthy of a considered post some time in the future (but not now).
2:25 pm on March 12th, 2009
Iain,
Jane Murphy is more than capable of speaking for herself – but I will say that in all the years I’ve known her ‘irrational vitriol’ is not something I can imagine her pouring forth about anything or anybody, publicly or privately.
In fact, I’d go as far as to say some aspects of your blog’s analysis are more likely to fall under this description than anything she’s ever said!
Pamela,
Next time I see Cllr Murphy I will be sure to ask her to give you a phone call to arrange a meeting. Or maybe a chase up phone call is required from the Advertiser’s end?
Either way, I’m certain a more positive tone in the Advertiser’s coverage of what the Council does for Salford is going to be very welcome.
One further question; if your post wasn’t meant to be political, why make the inherently political point about Labour councillors being the only ones not to have contacted you? That one could easily have been penned by Mr Declan ‘all Labour councillors are rubbish’ O’Brien of Reader’s Letters page fame!
Tom.
2:59 pm on March 12th, 2009
Tom,
Cant but help casting my mind to the Salford Labour website which posted its less than flattering comments on the Advertiser and then took them down.
We need the free press, if anything as an essential part of the checks and balances needed in a democracy. Perhaps the Advertiser could promote more good news stories in Salford, but it should not become a mouth piece for the Council or its political opponents.
If you look at the work it has done
http://www.salfordadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/1100520_thank_you
I personally prefer this to ‘Life’ in Salford.
4:49 pm on March 12th, 2009
Martin,
I cannot see anything in what you have written above that I would contradict.
The example you give is certainly one of the Advertiser operating at it’s campaigning journalistic best.
Tom.
5:27 pm on March 12th, 2009
Tom, forgive me, I’ve had a tough couple of days, as one might imagine.
I certainly didn’t mean to include any political overtones in my post – I try to shy away from that entirely, though understand that this may be misconstrued, as I didn’t really make myself clear.
It was simply an observation that Labour councillors, not Labour totally (if you remember, I did say that Barbara Keeley had called) had not spoken to us since the news broke.
However, this morning, I had a really lovely conversation with Cllr Merry, who seemed genuinely interested in our situation and was very sympathetic.
I’m writing this with my personal head on, not my professional one, but I would like to add that of the staff that I have spoken to, we are all very touched by the messages of support we have received from the local community – across all political allegiances. Thank you.
8:37 pm on March 12th, 2009
However, this morning, I had a really lovely conversation with Cllr Merry, who seemed genuinely interested in our situation and was very sympathetic.
Funny this from the same man i know?i got the same line over city west rents. Think you might be wrong pamela, it concerns me over the ruling groups attitude to our local press. I have spoken only today over the issues relating to this and there are some serious worries. How much as your paper lost in advertisments from the council? how have other councils reacted in agma over this situation
are Manchester backing there local paper? people will lose Jobs and i think we all no who to blame
1:16 pm on March 13th, 2009
Pamela,
No worries, I appreciate you must be facing a very stressful time at present. I did notice you had mentioned Barbara, so perhaps was being a bit pedantic.
I also spoke to Cllr Jane Murphy last night who should be back in touch with you again very soon.
Tom.
4:23 pm on March 29th, 2009
Steve,
Further to the 24th comment (by you) on this thread (and other quips that have passed between us recently on your blog) about pornography… I know you’re a busy chap but if you can spare a mo I’d be interested to hear your opinion about the following story of a pornographic DvD currently on sale at Asda (and displayed and accessible to young children):
http://richardcarvath.blogspot.com/2009/03/depraved-pornography-on-sale-at-asda.html