Out With A Bang

Courtesy of Martin Moore and those fine people at the Media Standards Trust, I forayed up into the big, bad Smoke yesterday afternoon to sit and listen to Alan Rusbridger’s lecture on ‘Why Journalism Matters…’ at the British Academy.

It was, as you might expect, an interesting experience.

Not least for the manner in which it was reported and the emphasis that was missing from the written word.

This was The Guardian’s report of their illustrious leader in action…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/22/local-news-scrutiny-future-journalism

The ‘offending’ passage is this one…

“This bit of journalism is going to have to be done by somebody,” Rusbridger said. “It makes me worry about all of those public authorities and courts which will in future operate without any kind of systematic public scrutiny.

“I don’t think our legislators have begun to wake up to this imminent problem as we face the collapse of the infrastructure of local news in the press and broadcasting.”

Because Rusbridger didn’t say that.

Or rather, he did. But he said one line twice.

As if to underline a point.

Perhaps it was stumble; I don’t think so.

For in delivering this line… ‘I don’t think our legislators have begun to wake up to this imminent problem as we face the collapse of the infrastructure of local news in the press and broadcasting…’ he actually went over a phrase again.

‘I don’t think our legislators have begun to wake up to this imminent problem – even begun to wake up to this problem – as we face the collapse of the infrastructure of local news…’

He put it in twice; he went back and under-scored it; under-lined it for the hard of hearing and understanding; that for all their Select Committees and Digital Britain reports, their teas in Claridges with the LMAs, our esteemed Lords and Masters haven’t even begun to wake up to this imminent problem….

And he’s right. What, actually, has anyone done to alleviate the suffering out there in local news land?

I’m biased. Clearly.

But I can now point to at least one elected Member of Parliament who has actually made a physical difference to the local news landscape in this country… which is why Michael Fabricant MP, the Right Honourable Tory MP for Lichfield, deserves to take a bow.

Because he’s put his money where his Digital Britain mouth is and has actually digitally engaged with his constituents by taking out an ad for his surgery on www.TheLichfieldBlog.co.uk … and, in so doing, has helped Ross and Philip to cover their monthly hosting costs.

OK, so www.addiply.com provided the mechanism by which he can do it – and we even knocked him up an official invoice to show exactly where his money went – but there is a bigger point here; Michael Fabricant MP has delivered exactly the kind of practical and, above all, immediate help that is required at this particular moment in media time.

Not only that, but he has done it to his own benefit; that if he now recognises that 11,500 of his constituents are now digitally engaging with www.TheLichfieldBlog.co.uk then hadn’t he better follow the crowd…?

To put his name, his ‘brand’ and his surgery details – http://www.michael.fabricant.mp.co.uk/contact.ihtml – somewhere where a growing bulk of his constituents were now starting to live their lives…

Or at least for a few minutes every day as the Last Post started to sound for the Lichfield Post.

For me, that’s smart, joined-up thinking from someone in Westminster.

Smart, joined-up thinking that is making a difference; one, small step in the right direction.

Another would be for the Dept of Health to mine their way through the GP surgery data for Lichfield and target some appropriate advertising into www.TheLichfieldBlog.co.uk; to follow Michael Fabricant’s lead and make a difference…

They could do that tomorrow. The data is all there, after all…

http://outwithabang.rickwaghorn.co.uk/?p=309

There was, however, another point to emerge from Rusbridger’s speech last night that demands attention. Lengthier than I’ve allowed for now, in fairness.

It was the role of a publicly-funded Press Association in supplying court and council copy to future news organisations; that it would – for the right price – take on the mantle of being this ‘public utility’ of news gathering and distribution.

And, in many ways, it has much merit.

I would, however, have one slight concern. Who, exactly, would ‘qualify’ to carry the content.

‘He said the Press Association, in which most of the big British media firms including the Guardian Media Group are shareholders, should be the recipient of public money to provide local news as other providers such as newspapers and ITV regional news disappear.

‘In return, PA would contract out the reporting of public authorities and courts to local papers, with the content then shared with other outlets…’

Now if said ‘other outlets’ included the likes of www.TheLichfieldBlog.co.uk then I think Mr Rusbridger might have a plan; if ‘other outlets’ meant existing PA stake-holders only and that publically-funded court copy would be reserved only for those news distributors who arrived at your door-step on a bike, then we’d have a problem…

�