He’s right. Big tech and big media have done untold damage to the fabric of society. Martin even took Meta to court and won over his face and name being widely used to scam people and guess what? Still happening. See it all the time. I don’t know how we fix any of this. But Viva LondonCentric. Brilliant piece
Thanks Nick - I think the thing that amazes me is how the government still prioritises financial support for major local newspaper groups when the better journalism is often being done by hyperlocals on tiny budgets by people who just care. And that’s been the case for years! People are noticing.
Jim, I'm a journalist for the major local newspaper group that everyone hates so much. I care about the people and the communities I write about more than pretty much anyone I know and am so glad to work with people who feel the same. The condescending tone of so many independent and national journalists at the moment towards those of us who work in the mass audience spaces - directly or by association - is utterly demoralising but I guess twas ever thus. I'm aware that the model we work within is deeply flawed but the constant clamour for Reach's demise - and with it the hundreds of journalists it employs - is getting really really wearisome.
Thanks Jayne and I appreciate you commenting, especially if you find this sort of coverage wearisome.
Your coverage of the Cheryl Bennett case was extraordinary and I read it all and thought it showed what having someone on the ground who cared could do.
Equally I spent years as Guardian media editor getting unsolicited and miserable messages from Reach reporters, including at your title, who felt they had got into journalism to be close to these communities and tell their stories but just felt worn down by a click-first corporate culture.
My real fear for social cohesion (which DCMS are obsessed with) and none of us have an answer is… how do you bring communities together and inform them about their local politics/community if the social media algorithms don’t push your reporting over the slop?
None of us working inside Reach are blind to the problems. We are not stupid and we care about journalism, and this city, and the democratic deficit. But contrary to popular belief the 'journalism' we write that is about important and weighty topics does also have reach and a platform. That's why politicians and communities still listen to us, despite all the naysayers highlighting what we do wrong not what we do right. There are many families living in Birmingham who have directly been affected by the journalism we do - the hotel that lost its public contracts after we exposed its dire conditions, the racist councillor forced to quit, the MP exposed over LGBT teaching in schools who ended up losing selection as a result, the families rehoused because we shamed the council. My stories (and I don't write a huge number) had half a million views last month. None of them are 'clickbait'. They included a story about a school still segregating boys and girls, a row about a Katie Hopkins gig at a multi cultural centre, a councillor exposed for 'stolen valour' over claiming he was a Royal Marine. A colleague published a full investigation into knife crime in the city. Right now 100k people are viewing/following our team's live coverage of the Black Sabbath gig. We'll also be across the second stabbing in a week that's just happened in a part of the city that's having major issues, so will be out there tomorrow and speaking to youth workers and politicians and the police about what the hell is going on. We need to do better but we are doing a bloody good job and it's annoying to keep hearing the same version of events. PS if you want an ad free experience and to only read the news/writers you value on any Reach publication you can download their app. Free to a point, or £2.99 a month for tailored content. Give it a go maybe. PPS I absolutely do not excuse any of the inaccurate or poorly written content that is highlighted in your post, and am definitely not a Reach shill...as I'm sure any of my bosses would testify. But criticism is easy - solutions are hard.
An excellent piece of journalism by London centric. Most people don't understand how advertising works and clickbait. There should be enough information in the headline or social media post to know what where and when. if there isn't then don't bother because you'll be searching the whole article, wading through masses of adverts to try and find the relevant information.
Ah yes, that one hack my dentist doesn't want me to know to have better, cleaner teeth. I'm old enough to remember when hacking meant urban exploration, exploring places like the old Vogan Mill by slithering around the ducts in nylons. The last few years however, have seen the word degenerate into shorthand as lazy as the reader hoping to save a few minutes learning how to 'pack their suitcases like a pro'.
The current model exists because people are quite willing to compromise for convenience. People genuinely believe they are so time-poor that they need to resort to modern living delivered in ready-made pieces, the human experience via microtransaction.
This will only be the way forward as long as it remains profitable, so for now it is better to decouple and retain some independence rather than rail from within. Small changes like subscribing to this sub, paying for search via Kagi {do try it and compare the experience to Google), and paying annually for email with an EU-hosted service. I see it as a small investment in my mental wellbeing, as well as a sotto-voce 'up yours' to modern life.
I feel very privileged to have entered journalism in the days before social media; some of my best reporting was done as a cub reporter while I was still at school. By the time I got proper paid work, the newspaper business was in decline and I actually gave up journalism for a while because I couldn't make a living at it. When I got a big break (a good contract) I took it, and enthusiastically set about doing journalism the old-fashioned way, only to find that my best leads were derailed (passed on to people who developed niches - eg crime) - or (in the case of the controversial stores) killed; to keep my contract (which was renewable every year) and still enjoy journalism, I had to find a niche of my own, and I somehow ended up a "roving reporter" covering "wacky" stories around Ireland. Then my contract was cancelled. I tried to hang onto journalism for a few years, but noticed I was up against the brain-rot that passes for "news"; my real stories were sidelined in favour of "click-bait" and "content". AI was just a twinkle in the eye of an algorithmic editor somewhere out in cyberspace, but it should have been obvious to anyone as observant as an old-school journalist that "the writing was on the wall" (as a bot would say - they tend to use cliches at lot, being totally reliant on other people's "content"). I would advise anyone thinking of journalism as a career to channel that enthusiasm, that urge to find the truth, into science or charity work or volunteering - anything rather than the soul-sucking, frustrating experience of seeing all your energy and experience dismissed as "legacy". Geraldine Comiskey
I’m glad you are covering the horrid state of affairs that online news has become. At work Edge is our default browser - each time you open a new window you get a page that is pure click-bait- fear mongering, shaming, vacuous stories. Apart from the story this week from the Oxford Mail saying Diogo Jota was dead, which obviously I assumed to be fake news:(
2. AI -assisted journalism can be a very good thing - if it does the boring routine journalism more efficiently then it frees up time for 'real' journalism - see the Newsquest scheme
Churnalism - yes, I remember that. I was around in the days before it! The first time I noticed it was when press releases were handed to journalists and they were expected to rewrite them. I always insisted on by-passing the PRs and questioning their clients.
He’s right. Big tech and big media have done untold damage to the fabric of society. Martin even took Meta to court and won over his face and name being widely used to scam people and guess what? Still happening. See it all the time. I don’t know how we fix any of this. But Viva LondonCentric. Brilliant piece
Thanks Nick - I think the thing that amazes me is how the government still prioritises financial support for major local newspaper groups when the better journalism is often being done by hyperlocals on tiny budgets by people who just care. And that’s been the case for years! People are noticing.
Long overdue. Keep fighting the good fight
Jim, I'm a journalist for the major local newspaper group that everyone hates so much. I care about the people and the communities I write about more than pretty much anyone I know and am so glad to work with people who feel the same. The condescending tone of so many independent and national journalists at the moment towards those of us who work in the mass audience spaces - directly or by association - is utterly demoralising but I guess twas ever thus. I'm aware that the model we work within is deeply flawed but the constant clamour for Reach's demise - and with it the hundreds of journalists it employs - is getting really really wearisome.
Thanks Jayne and I appreciate you commenting, especially if you find this sort of coverage wearisome.
Your coverage of the Cheryl Bennett case was extraordinary and I read it all and thought it showed what having someone on the ground who cared could do.
Equally I spent years as Guardian media editor getting unsolicited and miserable messages from Reach reporters, including at your title, who felt they had got into journalism to be close to these communities and tell their stories but just felt worn down by a click-first corporate culture.
My real fear for social cohesion (which DCMS are obsessed with) and none of us have an answer is… how do you bring communities together and inform them about their local politics/community if the social media algorithms don’t push your reporting over the slop?
None of us working inside Reach are blind to the problems. We are not stupid and we care about journalism, and this city, and the democratic deficit. But contrary to popular belief the 'journalism' we write that is about important and weighty topics does also have reach and a platform. That's why politicians and communities still listen to us, despite all the naysayers highlighting what we do wrong not what we do right. There are many families living in Birmingham who have directly been affected by the journalism we do - the hotel that lost its public contracts after we exposed its dire conditions, the racist councillor forced to quit, the MP exposed over LGBT teaching in schools who ended up losing selection as a result, the families rehoused because we shamed the council. My stories (and I don't write a huge number) had half a million views last month. None of them are 'clickbait'. They included a story about a school still segregating boys and girls, a row about a Katie Hopkins gig at a multi cultural centre, a councillor exposed for 'stolen valour' over claiming he was a Royal Marine. A colleague published a full investigation into knife crime in the city. Right now 100k people are viewing/following our team's live coverage of the Black Sabbath gig. We'll also be across the second stabbing in a week that's just happened in a part of the city that's having major issues, so will be out there tomorrow and speaking to youth workers and politicians and the police about what the hell is going on. We need to do better but we are doing a bloody good job and it's annoying to keep hearing the same version of events. PS if you want an ad free experience and to only read the news/writers you value on any Reach publication you can download their app. Free to a point, or £2.99 a month for tailored content. Give it a go maybe. PPS I absolutely do not excuse any of the inaccurate or poorly written content that is highlighted in your post, and am definitely not a Reach shill...as I'm sure any of my bosses would testify. But criticism is easy - solutions are hard.
An excellent piece of journalism by London centric. Most people don't understand how advertising works and clickbait. There should be enough information in the headline or social media post to know what where and when. if there isn't then don't bother because you'll be searching the whole article, wading through masses of adverts to try and find the relevant information.
Ah yes, that one hack my dentist doesn't want me to know to have better, cleaner teeth. I'm old enough to remember when hacking meant urban exploration, exploring places like the old Vogan Mill by slithering around the ducts in nylons. The last few years however, have seen the word degenerate into shorthand as lazy as the reader hoping to save a few minutes learning how to 'pack their suitcases like a pro'.
The current model exists because people are quite willing to compromise for convenience. People genuinely believe they are so time-poor that they need to resort to modern living delivered in ready-made pieces, the human experience via microtransaction.
This will only be the way forward as long as it remains profitable, so for now it is better to decouple and retain some independence rather than rail from within. Small changes like subscribing to this sub, paying for search via Kagi {do try it and compare the experience to Google), and paying annually for email with an EU-hosted service. I see it as a small investment in my mental wellbeing, as well as a sotto-voce 'up yours' to modern life.
Powerful indictment of clickbait from Martin Lewis. Sobering.
I feel very privileged to have entered journalism in the days before social media; some of my best reporting was done as a cub reporter while I was still at school. By the time I got proper paid work, the newspaper business was in decline and I actually gave up journalism for a while because I couldn't make a living at it. When I got a big break (a good contract) I took it, and enthusiastically set about doing journalism the old-fashioned way, only to find that my best leads were derailed (passed on to people who developed niches - eg crime) - or (in the case of the controversial stores) killed; to keep my contract (which was renewable every year) and still enjoy journalism, I had to find a niche of my own, and I somehow ended up a "roving reporter" covering "wacky" stories around Ireland. Then my contract was cancelled. I tried to hang onto journalism for a few years, but noticed I was up against the brain-rot that passes for "news"; my real stories were sidelined in favour of "click-bait" and "content". AI was just a twinkle in the eye of an algorithmic editor somewhere out in cyberspace, but it should have been obvious to anyone as observant as an old-school journalist that "the writing was on the wall" (as a bot would say - they tend to use cliches at lot, being totally reliant on other people's "content"). I would advise anyone thinking of journalism as a career to channel that enthusiasm, that urge to find the truth, into science or charity work or volunteering - anything rather than the soul-sucking, frustrating experience of seeing all your energy and experience dismissed as "legacy". Geraldine Comiskey
I’m glad you are covering the horrid state of affairs that online news has become. At work Edge is our default browser - each time you open a new window you get a page that is pure click-bait- fear mongering, shaming, vacuous stories. Apart from the story this week from the Oxford Mail saying Diogo Jota was dead, which obviously I assumed to be fake news:(
I don't think Andy Lord knows what the hell he's doing.
Sure I still have my old “Vote McAsh” badge from the Edinburgh uni elections kicking around. Interesting as always! Thanks
A collector’s item!
SlopWorld™️: Making Everything Worse ad infinitum
1. Obviously the Martin Lewis is dreadful (and surely self harming from a brand POV?) but
Clickbait journalism existed way before social media etc Remember 'churnalism'? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/feb/04/comment.pressandpublishing?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
2. AI -assisted journalism can be a very good thing - if it does the boring routine journalism more efficiently then it frees up time for 'real' journalism - see the Newsquest scheme
Churnalism - yes, I remember that. I was around in the days before it! The first time I noticed it was when press releases were handed to journalists and they were expected to rewrite them. I always insisted on by-passing the PRs and questioning their clients.