The future for British newspapers

As the Leveson inquiry continues and the fees Rupert Murdoch has paid out to lawyers run into the hundreds of millions, I wonder if it has occurred to him that the money would have been better spent establishing a crack team of investigative reporters working across all the News International titles - an A-Team of journalists if you like.

As I’ve said before, all the newspapers increased their circulations during the MPs expenses scandal. Clearly, there is a demand for proper stories - something most editors seem to have overlooked.  For example, the story about Virgin paying the police overtime to investigate fraud seems to have escaped major attention. Does this indicate Government plans to privatise parts of the police force? Twenty per cent of the Royal Bank of Scotland is still in private hands. Who owns the remaining shares? Were journalists monitoring Stock Market activity after the announcement was made about Hester’s bonus? And as the National Health Service is dismantled by stealth, how many of David Cameron’s cronies stand to benefit?

There’s a reason why newspaper circulation is falling and it doesn’t have anything to do with the internet. Newspaper proprietors should never have viewed the internet as a threat, but as an opportunity to focus on what newspapers do best - investigative stories.

When it comes to judging the public mood, editors in England have failed spectacularly. And newspaper managers have failed to ensure that they employ people who have their fingers on the nation’s pulse.

The British public deserves better.

The British Media in the Dock

As the Levenson Inquiry into press standards rumbles pointlessly on, I’m going to add my ten cents’ worth. First, it has to be said that David Cameron’s press officers must be dancing a jig right now. It’s the perfect time to bury any (more) bad news, as there’s nothing the British press likes better than gazing at its own navel. In England, we have the highest number of people under 25 unemployed in twenty years, and we are about to see changes to the state pension which will leave tens of thousands of women destitute in their old age. But never mind, we can listen to Sienna Miller talking about being made to feel that she was living in a video game.

The solution to the subject of press intrusion is really very simple. At present any fool who can afford a camera can call himself (and it’s always a him) a paparazzo.  If regulation is required, then that’s a good place to start. It’s clear also that the inquiry is talking to the wrong people. Picture editors should be in on the discussions. If editors can agree on set prices, then you wouldn’t get photographers risking their own necks as well as others to get the picture that will literally set them up for life. When newspapers and magazines pay £100,000 and more for the right celebrity shot, then clearly something has to be done. If there was an agreed ceiling on prices, this would go somewhere towards preventing paps from jumping out of bushes and bashing on car windows, as the McCanns described during the inquiry. And if editors can agree not to employ unlicensed photographers, that would be a step in the right direction. After all, we don’t allow just anyone to drive a black cab. Drivers have to pass a rigorous test.

Then there’s the subject of training. Many newspapers used to have apprenticeship schemes. These have largely been done away with, especially as local papers have been hit by the double whammy of the recession and the rise of the internet. The traditional route of starting off as a cub reporter on your local doesn’t really exist anymore. And believe me, it makes a difference. I’ve been a freelance journalist now for ten years and I keep coming across people who have little if any understanding of media law. In a situation like this, only the lawyers can win.