Two things. The New Statesman can get in the bin with that garbage take. The job of a journalist should be checking facts, not regurgitating without consideration something they’ve come across. If the model has broken that requirement, the model is broken. Anything that highlights it and takes us closer to change is good.
Secondly, instant coffee in the break room? What does the subscription model look like for you to get some proper beans and brewing equipment from one of our esteemed local establishments like Under Pressure, Faculty, Quarter Horse, Ngopi et al? I want my local journalists flavourfully caffeinated
The New Statesman’s response is just plain dumb. The stories were planted by a comedian making a point. They could have easily been planted by someone a lot more sinister. I’m not a journalist but surely one of the golden rules is check your facts before publishing.
What might be an interesting piece of research for somebody might be something like the history of ‘the death of local journalism’ in the format most of us grew up with. The town I grew up in, Southport, had two genuinely local papers, the Visiter (being the local paper I wrote for as a teenager in the 1980s, doing semi-regular computer games reviews) which was the paid-for paper people bought in shops, and the Champion, the free sheet posted through people’s letterboxes. Both had their offices in the town centre, both were locally independent titles, and like the Post and Mail the Visiter was printed in the town centre offices too. I *think* (it’s too long ago to be sure I’m remembering correctly) both were weekly.
The answer to the question has to be more complicated than simply ‘the internet made everybody think news should be free so they stopped buying newspapers’, not least because free newspapers existed since long before the internet.
Could it be the quantity dimension? Could it be that for the most part, except in cities where the local title was essentially a regional title, there was rarely enough interesting news to fill a daily paper, so most titles being weeklies, and maybe a weekly format works less well on the Internet than in print?
At the time when hyperlocal blogging was becoming a Thing in the early 2010s, the established newspapers were quick to describe them as existential threats to the established titles, but the hyperlocals by nature were covering stories which weren’t covered by the establisheds anyway — the Evening Mail *never was* interested in the litter problem in Cotteridge Park, etc.
The answer to the question isn’t just a matter of academic interest — it could be crucial information which might help The Mill group survive into the long term.
Right then, since I said it might be an interesting piece of research for ‘somebody’, I’ve started that piece of research myself by rustling up a survey! It’s at https://www.bigtown.star-one.org.uk/local-news-habits-survey — feel free to share widely
Two things. The New Statesman can get in the bin with that garbage take. The job of a journalist should be checking facts, not regurgitating without consideration something they’ve come across. If the model has broken that requirement, the model is broken. Anything that highlights it and takes us closer to change is good.
Secondly, instant coffee in the break room? What does the subscription model look like for you to get some proper beans and brewing equipment from one of our esteemed local establishments like Under Pressure, Faculty, Quarter Horse, Ngopi et al? I want my local journalists flavourfully caffeinated
The New Statesman’s response is just plain dumb. The stories were planted by a comedian making a point. They could have easily been planted by someone a lot more sinister. I’m not a journalist but surely one of the golden rules is check your facts before publishing.
What might be an interesting piece of research for somebody might be something like the history of ‘the death of local journalism’ in the format most of us grew up with. The town I grew up in, Southport, had two genuinely local papers, the Visiter (being the local paper I wrote for as a teenager in the 1980s, doing semi-regular computer games reviews) which was the paid-for paper people bought in shops, and the Champion, the free sheet posted through people’s letterboxes. Both had their offices in the town centre, both were locally independent titles, and like the Post and Mail the Visiter was printed in the town centre offices too. I *think* (it’s too long ago to be sure I’m remembering correctly) both were weekly.
The answer to the question has to be more complicated than simply ‘the internet made everybody think news should be free so they stopped buying newspapers’, not least because free newspapers existed since long before the internet.
Could it be the quantity dimension? Could it be that for the most part, except in cities where the local title was essentially a regional title, there was rarely enough interesting news to fill a daily paper, so most titles being weeklies, and maybe a weekly format works less well on the Internet than in print?
At the time when hyperlocal blogging was becoming a Thing in the early 2010s, the established newspapers were quick to describe them as existential threats to the established titles, but the hyperlocals by nature were covering stories which weren’t covered by the establisheds anyway — the Evening Mail *never was* interested in the litter problem in Cotteridge Park, etc.
The answer to the question isn’t just a matter of academic interest — it could be crucial information which might help The Mill group survive into the long term.
Right then, since I said it might be an interesting piece of research for ‘somebody’, I’ve started that piece of research myself by rustling up a survey! It’s at https://www.bigtown.star-one.org.uk/local-news-habits-survey — feel free to share widely
All of that!