tomroyal.com

On a note related to Si's thoughts on journalism, I came across this piece when attempting to find out who on earth the Taxpayers' Alliance might be or represent. From Paul Lashmar, a lecturer in journalism:

"What you see now is journalists who are grateful for news which is almost perfectly packaged to go into the paper with a ready top line. In that sense, journalism is becoming very passive. It is a processor of other people's information rather than being engaged in actively seeking out and determining what the truth of a situation is in an energetic and inquisitive way."

And more, from one of the Alliance's founders:

"What we've tried to do since 2004 is understand how the media works, so we've tried to give news stories to journalists on a plate. Journalists have 101 things to do in their day and don't often have time to read long and dry reports from think-thanks. So we use the Freedom of Information Act and a team of researchers to get fresh figures from government and local councils, which we package up into brief, media-friendly research papers, complete with eye-catching headline figures to give reporters a ready-made top line".

It's both an interesting and disturbing read: how a relatively small organisation (no figures given on site, but the BBC says 18,000 members) with private funding from "generous people we know" (Telegraph) can generate huge amounts of coverage, much in the broadsheets, by spoonfeeding research. One wonders how often, and how, thoroughly said research is checked.

You have to wonder also how much the pressure of an online publishing environment has an effect on this - I've just spent the best part of five days trying to pull together a story but many would, I imagine, be glad of so much time. And poor reporting from one outlet also makes it harder for everyone else: it's going to be hard to check, for example, FOI data in time if there's another, lazier writer happy to take the release, rewrite it without checking, hit the top of Google News first and watch the clicks roll in.

Also, it should be said: loathsome as you may or may not consider its aims, the TPA has a great name; one that screams "you pay tax, so we represent you" rather than "we want flat rate tax that'll entail a massive cut in in the public services that you, but not I, rely on, peasant". It also, when scanned in a newspaper, gives absolutely no clue as to the organisation's political allegiance (check the founders' employment histories). After all, people of all political persuasions pay tax - unless they're right wing enough to want to, and rich enough to be able to, practice tax avoidance.

And, credit where it's due, they do get the apostrophe in the right place (Taxpayers'). I suppose that counts for something.

.. but still, "mushrooms trigger jet emergency" is the finest Evening Standard board headline in ages. Side note: it seems that planes make uneventful journeys, but jets get involved in calamities.

I know, it's not really a newspaper, and this is not really news. But still, this could be the single laziest way to fact check anything, ever:

I've found people on Google and Youtube who think they've invented a perpetual motion machine and create videos titled "DAVID ICKE: TOP BRITISH HERO". I guess it's all true.

This is very old news, but I only found out yesterday: in 2004 the Lexington Herald Leader printed a formal correction notice:

"It has come to the editor's attention that the Herald-Leader neglected to cover the civil rights movement. We regret the omission."

My first reaction was to blow coffee all over the papers (all 17 tedious pages of the Apple / Psystar lawsuit, as it happens) on my desk - after all there are surely times when, as elegant and traditional as this much-used format may be, something a little more detailed and, well, more apologetic may be required. Reading on, though, it appears that the H-L did a commendable job of its apology - this correction notice was run front and centre on page one, right under a matching headline, and above a full page of coverage that included previously unpublished photos of civil rights protests in the city.

Full info on the WP site here, and on the brilliant regrettheerror.com. Coincidentally, I visited Lexington last year - photos here.

Screaming capital letters in a statement from the usually sombre Bank of England? Really? The complete statement presumably read: "There's NOTHING we can do to stop prices rising!!!111!!!!!eleven OMGFGPONIES". Muppets.

Journalism 101 from the Daily Mail today. Here's the lede paragraph:

Children as young as four are set to be given compulsory sex education in primary school classes, it has been revealed.

So far, so straightforward. Kids will be given compulsory lessons about sex from the age of four. Second para:

They will be taught about the names of body parts and basic ideas about different relationships.

So it's not really the kind of sex education suggested in the lede at all, then, because the four year olds won't actually be taught about, you know, sex. In fact, reading on, it transpires that the classes are to be "sex and relationship education". Third para:

Government advisors claim that 'gradual education' from such a young age would help children not rush into sex when they are older.

But who are these "government advisors" - given that the lessons are "set to be" given, they are presumably commenting on some new policy? No. As the ninth paragraph reveals:

But the fpa (formerly the Family Planning Association), Brook and the Sex Education Forum are recommending the introduction of compulsory lessons.

So in fact this is a recommendation from three charities during a consultation, not government policy of any kind and therefore not something that's going to necessarily be implemented. This is drummed home in the (er, extremely prominent) 21st paragraph:

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families insisted that no final decision has been made by Ministers on the subject yet.

So the lessons aren't necessarily about sex, and they may yet not happen. All in all, a more accurate lede would be: Charities have recommended that the Government should introduce sex and relationship education into the national curriculum gradually from primary school onwards.

But then that sounds so, you know, reasonable.

I'm constantly amazed by that small, relatively ancient group of magazines that manage to include both the most vapid celebrity-fetishism (Hollywood's New Wave, anyone?) and really quite useful journalism, all bound up in the same (high gloss, splattered with lovely metallic inks that us mortals seldom get to use) covers. In any case, Vanity Fair has made space between the above noted actress related drivel and a spread of beach fashion for this article by Christopher Hitchens in which everyone's favourite drink-soaked Trotskyite popinjay gets subjected to waterboarding, a particularly nasty method of torture currently used by the US. It's well worth reading.

Received this from Si this morning: (link):

.. and found on the Times website, reviewing the original game in 2004 (link):

These things happen, I suppose. Also, a ninja garden sounds quite nice, if a little dangerous.

From the BBC:

Answer: via a glass, for fuck's sake.

All you need to know about today's big UK technology news, courtesy of one sentence from the press release:

"Further details about pricing and rate plans will be announced at a later date."

You are welcome. Wonder how much space this gets in tomorrow's papers.