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.

Libel law in Britain is confusing and, it can be argued, unfairly skewed towards the claimant. Libel law in Russia, on the other hand, is now completely batshit. From an AP report, available everywhere:

MOSCOW, Russia (AP) — Russia's lower house of parliament voted Friday to widen the definition of slander and libel and give regulators the authority to shut down media outlets found guilty of publishing such material.

The bill's passage comes just days after a scandal involving a tabloid newspaper that reported Putin had divorced his wife and planned to marry a champion gymnast.

The legislation, passed by the State Duma 339-1, is the latest attempt by the government to squeeze the country's increasingly embattled news media.

The bill allows authorities to suspend and close down media outlets for libel and slander — punishment that is identical to that for news media found to be promoting terrorism, extremism and racial hatred.

It also expands the definition of slander and libel to "dissemination of deliberately false information damaging individual honor and dignity."

I can't find out the name of the one MP who decided to vote against the bill, but I hope he or she survives without any repercussions of the kind that have been seen to crop up when one criticises the Putin government.

Was more than a little surprised when I spotted this button on a blog today, so I went to have a look on the website. It promises that bloggers can "earn hundreds or thousands of dollars writing reviews"*, and encouragingly "disclosure that the review is sponsored is mandatory". On the other hand, I'd be wary of the terms that "reviews must be written according to the terms set by the advertiser" and that "rude or hateful reviews will be declined" - which rather depends on who decides what is "hateful" as opposed to "a fair review of a hateful product". All in all, the whole thing makes me feel rather old-fashioned and likely to start rambling about "journalistic principles" or somesuch. Humbug.

Anyhow, back in the familiar world of paper publishing where writers are paid with money earned from magazine sales and advertising, my former employer Felix Dennis has told the Times that he killed a man by pushing him off a cliff. Quite a remarkable interview, and I particularly like his choice of retraction: "It's a load of hogwash - I was drunk".

* Actually, if one were searching for proof that writing sponsored reviews isn't journalism, this is probably it.

Found this article on how to become a technology journalist. Brilliantly, "good writing skills" and an "interest in technology" are listed under the "what else helps?" section. Interest in bunny rabbits, caffeine and sarcasm: vital.

This kind of thing is why I hate December. Example:

"The letter was a reaction to an alleged attempt by Birmingham City Council to re-name the festive celebrations 'Winterval' and allegations that Luton was trying to re-fashion Christmas as a winter Harry Potter festival by changing the name of its lights to 'Luminos'."

It's a rather late reaction, though, as Luminos was held in 2001. And it wasn't a replacement for the town's Christmas celebrations, either. As for Winterval, it was held in 1997 and 1998.

In fact, this is just a regurgitation of the same old nonsense that appears every year. The Guardian wrote a rather good article explaining the phenomenon - complete with Winterval and Luminos - back in 2006.