The Media Blog

It shouldn't happen to a sports editor

Anybody on Twitter following Tony Evans, football editor of The Times, will know Evans was giving followers some insight today into what it takes to pull together the paper's supplement, The Game. But, as luck would have it, what Evans ended up sharing was an up close and personal account of the moment his supplement was torpedoed by the apparent announcement of a new England football manager at inconvenient o'clock on a Sunday. 

Winding the clock back, Evans started off by introducing the idea to followers...

So far, so unremarkable. But hindsight being what it is, things started warming up with the mention of a "huge exclusive" Evans had up his sleeve.

 

 

Then Evans discussed how much it would hurt him to have to spike good content because of his huge exclusive:

Then he had to pick the front page pic:

And then he had to rip the whole thing up:

We feel your pain Tony.

Ever the professionals The Times team turned the new supplement around in double quick time and sent it on its way just 15 minutes late (and those were probably the 15 minutes Evans spent tweeting about it).

And here's the front page, hot off the presses:

Daily Mail: Lost for words...?

The success of the Daily Mail's website has been well discussed. The incessant churn of picture stories, quirkies, celebrity gossip and photos of pandas and cats is clearly giving people what they want. But it seems the Daily Mail is becoming increasingly lost for words when it comes to explaining the deluge of photos it is flooding the web with. In fact, it seems barely an article goes by without the Mail using the ubiquitous "Write caption here" holding text, even when the protagonists are really quite well known. Here's a selection of recent examples:

Now, I definitely recognise the chap on the right in this next pic... don't tell me, don't me... oh you haven't:

Sometimes the Mail's sub editors might be as lost for words as the rest of us as to why they're running a particularly story, but when it comes to funny photos of globetrotting gnomes, there is a law which says you have to use "No place like gnome". But oh no:

It's easy to imagine the caption writer had passed out through a cuteness overdose while thinking of a caption for this picture, if only they'd collapsed on the 'w' key they could still have managed an 'awwwwwwwwwww':

Dannii Minogue isn't the easiest name to spell (I remember it by saying out loud, repeatedly: 'Dannii Minogue has two eyes') but they've not even tried here:

This picture also managed to eVader caption:

This one is an active Mount Etna - a tabloid certainty, you would think, for a caption such as "hot stuff" or "letting off steam"... but the Mail was having none of it:

To be fair, I have no idea who these two people are either:

And as for footballers, they're all the same aren't they. Who needs to worry what their names are:

The same is true of football managers, though Stoke boss Tony Pulis even displayed some handy initials to help them on their way:

And this is just the moon, we all know that without needing to be told:

Nice ass:

You could say the quality of captions is going downhill quickly:

And the rain this week has left us all speechless:

Political interview of the week...

Further proof that truth is stranger than fiction. If you saw this Australian interview in the guise of political satire you'd say it was a bit over the top:

Journalists: What's in your pray packet?

A lot is made about the use of unpaid interns in the media. Then there is the whole 'Huffington Post' model of expecting people to want to write for free, but there are few unpaid jobs in the media world whose non-cash rewards are justified quite like these editorial posts from Christian organisation WEC:  

Each ad includes the line:

"This position is non-salaried as all WEC personnel look to God to provide their personal needs."

There are probably a few freelance writers out there able to associate with the patience that might require. 

What do Olympians and the BBC have in common?

"The BBC is going to have a bigger team at the 2012 Olympics than Team GB", according to similar reports in The Independent, The Guardian and The Sun.

The Guardian's article tells us:

The BBC is to employ a staff of 765 people to cover the London 2012 Olympic Games, a larger team than the 550 athletes who will represent Team GB.

Clearly we're meant to think this comparison is somehow shocking, though having never been a major broadcaster at a London Olympics the numbers are all a little wasted on me. 

What we're not meant to think of course is "what does the size of Team GB have to do with how many people the BBC needs to broadcast the Olympics?"

The comparison is entirely arbitrary.

It is clearly intended to sound logical, at least long enough for us to get all outraged, as if the number of people running, jumping and throwing things at the Olympics should somehow bear some relation to the number of people it takes to put together round the clock multimedia broadcast, text and web coverage of the Olympics.

The articles are based on a blog post by Roger Mosey, Director of London 2012 at the BBC, which lifts the lid on what a mammoth operation the BBC's coverage will require. Responding to the inevitable criticism and inexplicable comparison, Mosey tweeted:

It's a fair point.

Nobody can be right all of the time...

On 27 February 2012 The Express bullishly told us in a leader article:

"THE way the economy is bouncing back is great news for Britain and bad news for the Labour Party... Britain still has a long way to go but it is obvious now that those who talk of us sliding into a double dip recession are simply scaremongering."

Wind the clock forward less than two months and The Express tells us:

(Hat tip George Eaton)

James Murdoch: Hunt saboteur

It was hard to ignore Tuesday's big news story...

Hard. But not impossible:

Still, where else in the newspaper were they going to put a football report? And with a new judge on Strictly they were always going to have to drop something.

(Hat tip to Nick Sutton for the front pages.)

Ad placement of the day...

If you look carefully you might just spot a little bit of advertising from Sky (39 per cent owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp) around The Guardian's double page spread on Murdoch's entry in the Leveson fray this week (hat tip Scott Bryan):

Is this a defensive measure by Sky - an undaunted attempt to capitalise on one of the week's big media stories or a cheeky attempt to drown out potentially negative coverage? Or is it simply unfortunate sheduling? 

More 'exclusive' nonsense

No sooner had this blog pointed out some slight liberties taken with the definition of 'exclusive' over at the Express than its sister paper the Daily Star went one better - claiming an 'exclusive' on something seen by millions on the BBC.

For those of you who missed it, here's Prince Harry attempting to stitch up his brother and sister-in-law by joking with the BBC that the royal pair will run next year's marathon. As jokes go it wasn't bad, not least because it was included in BBC 1's main broadcast of the event, watched by millions worldwide - leading to Clarence House having to confirm it was indeed said "in jest".

Yet here's the Daily Star claiming it as an "EXCLUSIVE" and today's front page lead, with a little embellishment (Harry "blurted out" "secret plans" etc...):

Social TV: The Voice shouts loudest

Social TV - or "people tweeting about what they're watching on telly" - has done much to arrest the decline in scheduled programming in recent years. After all if viewers want to join in the online conversation they really need to watch live.

And if you're interested in such things, an app and website called Tellybug lets you track the movers and shakers in the world of social TV. For example, here's last night's top 10 which shows BBC 1's The Voice clearly dominating in the online 'talkability' stakes (as well as in actual viewing figures). In other news, who knew Beavis and Butthead were still going?

For the record, the full week's figures looked like this (below), with perennial social favourites such as The Apprentice making a strong showing:

Reality TV shows such as The Only Way Is Essex and Made In Chelsea also defy relatively small audiences to rank in the top 10, suggesting such formats will only increase in number as producers - particularly those in the commercial sphere - look to harness the ability of social TV to keep people glued to scheduled TV.

So Twitter isn't all good then.

Express 'exclusive' not that exclusive

As well as a tribute to the Queen from none other than Alan Titchmarsh - and a free pair of gardening gloves from the very same - today's Sunday Express leads with a front page "EXCLUSIVE" lifting the lid on why now is a good time for Brits to go on holiday - or rather why it's a good time to buy some euros due to a favourable exchange rate (a fact surely available to all journalists):

In its lead quote,the Express introduces us to David Swann from Travelex, who tells us:

"With the Easter peak over, now is a great time for Brits to grab a bargain in Europe."

The Express also tells us:

"Last night currency specialist Travelex reported that someone changing £500 into euros will get the equivalent of nearly £50 more in the single currency than this time last year."

But is this nice bit of PR for Travelex really "exclusive"?

Last Wednesday (18 April), the ThisIsMoney.co.uk website - owned by Associated Newspapers and part of the same family as the Express's rival, the Daily Mail - carried a very similar story, also quoting David Swann from Travelex:

"With the Easter peak over, now is a great time for Brits to grab a bargain in Europe."

The ThisIsMoney.co.uk story added:

"...if you exchanged £500 at currency exchange firm Travelex this week, you would have received €595... That is ...£50 more than you would have got at the same time last year."

Will Twitter spat Dent PR's career?

A graduate trainee at a London PR agency has guaranteed himself some shortlived notoriety and a brief stint in the Twitter hall of shame after he went online to hurl abuse at Guardian journalist Grace Dent: 

Why would Dent ask such a question of her abuser? Because, as Mufadel's rapidly evaporating luck would have it Dent was willing to use her media muscle to make life as difficult as possible for the self-confessed horse-botherer:

It's unclear if Dent actually has the power to fire PR people but it would certainly teach him a worthwhile lesson about not being so rude.

However, many on Twitter have been quick to point out that Dent is no stranger to firing random unsolicited abuse at a TV celebrity herself:

Newspaper page layout of the day...

The Metro's shot of the so-called Battleship doesn't look very impressive...  

...just looks like boyband One Direction in a dinghy, or as The Metro calls them, in a wonderfully apt typo:

It should probably also be pointed out the caption is wrong. As the top picture shows, there are clearly four men in a boat.

Are we set for an Olympic silly season?

It seems almost inevitable that the annual summer silly season will be sponsored this year by the London Olympics. 

Indeed some stories may already be filtering through. 

Take the claims of a Cambridge Professor of Mathematical Sciences who, according to The Telegraph has highlighted a way for sprinter Usain Bolt to run even faster based, we are told, "on concrete mathematical evidence". 

Sounds interesting, doesn't it? So what is this secret formula?

"Firstly, Bolt's reaction time is surprisingly poor... By responding to the gun as quickly as possible …he would shave 0.05s..."

OK, so he should be a bit quicker out of the blocks. 

"Secondly, advantageous wind conditions can help athletes improve their times…"

So a strong tail wind.

What's third?

"Thirdly, running at altitude reduces the air density in the wind drag calculation…"

So to recap for those who aren't as up on their mathematical sciences, Bolt could run faster if he was:

1. Quicker
2. Running with a tail wind
3. Running at altitude 

We await a Professor of Engineering - or possibly a spokesman from Kwik Fit - pointing out Bolt could go even faster if he used a car.

Christ alive on a ...fish?

When they're not bringing down evil companies, holding the governments of the world to account, or discussing their own beauty, there is nothing journalists like more than reporting on Jesus making an appearance on Earth. Whether he has turned up on a sock, a crisp or a dog's bottom (the apple doesn't fall far from the tree in the 'moving in mysterious ways' stakes) the media love a good sighting of Jesus.

The Daily Mail today is reporting that in the run-up to Easter Jesus has appeared to humanity on the back of a stingray:

Samantha Brick: Daily Mail cannon fodder?

The Daily Mail has done well over the years unearthing predominantly female writers who are inexplicably willing to skewer themselves on a sword of public derision and ridicule for the entertainment of its readers and the benefit of its web impressions. 

The latest such example is occasional Mail contributor Samantha Brick, who, as you may be well aware, this week told us:

"On a recent flight to New York, I was delighted when a stewardess came over and gave me a bottle of champagne. "This is from the captain...'. You're probably thinking 'what a lovely surprise'. But while it was lovely, it wasn't a surprise. At least, not for me."

This is because full time champagne magnet Brick is always being offered such things. Because, she told us, she is apparently very attractive.

But being blessed with such beauty isn't all free drinks and compliments. Brick has never been a bridesmaid, she told us. Not because she's the kind of person who would write such an awful, self-absorbed article, but because other women feel threatened by her beauty.

Brick

In fact, Brick outlines a series of examples where people have realised they don't like her (a pattern is emerging here) and in each instance she tells us it's all their fault for being jealous of her beauty.

Cue Twitterstorm.

But what is darkly fascinating isn't what Brick wrote, but why she wrote it. Why would anybody volunteer to troll for page impressions by making such a grotesque spectacle of themself?

Contributors may hunger for the notoriety of churning out cheap controversy for the world's most popular newspaper website, and they may reassure themselves the joke is actually on the millions of people clicking on the story (and for the Mail, it certainly is), but ultimately people like Brick are little more than cannon fodder in the Mail's ceaseless campaign for traffic at almost any cost.

If that means a woman being abused by the whole western world for insulting other women and appearing to be a shallow, vain fool then the Mail is clearly happy with that. The fact all this happened in the Mail's Femail section adds to the sense we are well beyond parody here.

It's easy to imagine Brick's editor read the article, perhaps spiced it up a little and thought: "She is going to get absolutely crucified for this! Better get it on the website quick." 

But Brick says she doesn't feel as though she was hung out to dry, telling the Independent that the Mail has been very supportive:

"The Mail have been amazingly supportive, they've been on the phone asking if I’m OK, making sure not too many people are getting in touch with me." 

They would be of course. The Mail knows when it's onto a good thing. A gloating article on its website boasts that 1.5 million people read Brick's article yesterday and 4,500 commented upon it - most of them savaging her. The Mail boasts about Brick trending worldwide as the ridicule and scorn reached a peak and talks of 50,000 people sharing her article on Facebook.

Incredibly, a fourth article about this debacle on the Mail's site is now revelling in the derision aimed at Brick, even reproducing some of the gentler mockery - describing her as a "spoof sensation". It's tempting to wonder if that's what Brick really got into journalism for.

A real dead ringer for 'Loaf...

It seems nobody on the Evening Standard spotted their picture of Meatloaf in tonight's paper is actually Barry from Eastenders, performing on a celebrity edition of Stars In Their Eyes:

This isn't the first time in recent weeks Meatloaf has been the subject of confusion on the picture desk of a major news outlet. 

Pastygate: Why MPs are their own worst enemies

If you believed everything you'd read this week then for a while you'd have believed the government is out of touch with the rest of us because they don't eat at Greggs - the high street retailer of cheap sausage rolls, steak bakes and pasties.

Asked when he'd last eaten at Greggs, the Chancellor George Osborne was stumped. Asked about pasties, David Cameron chose to weave an unconvincing story about buying a large pasty from a West Cornwall Pasty Co. at Leeds station. His suspiciously detailed answer stopped short of naming the employee who served him, or recollecting the slight chill in the air that morning but all the same it was over-egged to the point of implausibility:

Does this prove both men are out of touch with the majority of society? Maybe. But we knew that already of course. More worryingly though it suggests both men are very uncomfortable with the truth.

It seems years of bad media training, poorly identified photo opportunities and an emphasis on spoonfed soundbites have conditioned them to believe that whatever they say, under no circumstances could a simple truth ever come out.

The truth

If Osborne had told the truth, it might have gone something like this:

"I can honestly say I've never eaten at Greggs."

Would that really have dented Osborne's standing with the electorate, given nobody really thought for a minute he might ever have set foot in a Greggs? After all, he wasn't really being asked about Greggs at all, he was being challenged with a loaded question - seized upon by the media - aimed at exposing his awkward need to think not what the answer is but what it should be. The ability to flush out that awkwardness, the unnecessary embarrassment, is what makes the story of 'us and them' come to life.

This obsession with assuming all interaction with - or in front of - the media is some kind of strategic joust means politicians are incapable of seeing straightforward questions as just that.

Osborne and Cameron aren't the first of course. Far from it.

When hassled by the media about his favourite biscuit in 2009 (after a Q&A session with Mumsnet where the question had come up but wasn't actually put to the PM), Gordon Brown appeared to react as though he'd been asked which major British city he'd drop a nuclear bomb on if he absolutely had to.

This cautious, unnatural approach MPs adopt when faced with any issue in the media tends to be their undoing more than their saving grace. You only had to endure the awful spectacle of Ed Balls and Ed Miliband acting out an excruciating photo opportunity in Greggs themselves this week to realise that MPs are entirely obsessed with pleasing or at least placating the media yet almost frighteningly unaware of how it works.

Cameron got bad headlines not because he doesn't eat at Greggs but because the papers were looking for ways to bring to life their current grievances and grudges against the PM.

This was not Miliband's crisis, yet his hapless advisers didn't see this or couldn't suggest a less trite platform. So off they went to Greggs to buy some sausage rolls (pasties would have looked a bit obvious, right?).

"Look natural" was obviously the advice, so Ed Balls took his jacket off. The whole sorry shambles looked about at natural as three fourteen year olds trying to procure alcohol or pornography for the first time - Ed Miliband cowering uncomfortably and giggling nervously behind Ed Balls, hoping the bigger boy would ask for the goods.

Every fibre of their being knew what they were doing was wrong but they thought it was what the media wanted to see. If bad headlines are about not eating baked goods, then surely eating baked goods would results in positive headlines. Not so.

Much of the power struggle playing out right now for David Cameron is clearly linked to the Leveson Inquiry. If anything, those drawn out hearings should be clipping the wings of the media but politicians appear intent on doing everything they can, at every turn to hand ever more power right back.

April Fools: Who got taken in?

April Fool has been and gone, yet as it does each year it has left in its wake some bruised egos and embarrassed media types.

One of the best stories circulating currently in media circles is a very well substantiated rumour that one tabloid newspaper with a penchant for picture stories on its popular website (ok, we're talking about the Daily Mail), was so taken in by the Mirror's excellent spoof story of a blossoming 'bromance' between Simon Cowell and David Walliams the picture desk actually made the Mirror an offer for the pictures:

Another April Fool story which did some damage this year was the Observer's tale of Shaun Ryder from the Happy Monday's joining forces with David Cameron to help the Tories bridge the class divide. ITV News certainly fell for it. Not for long, but Google has a nasty habit of preserving such mistakes:

However, ITV News were in good company as it seems Ryder's own band mates thought it seemed possible. And, as they rightly asked, how were they supposed to know it was April?

(Have you spotted any more more media falling for April Fool stories? Tweet @themediatweets.)

Cameron v the right-wing press

Some say it started with the budget. Others suggested the damage was done when David Cameron stood by and watched the Leveson enquiry drag News International further into the mire. But whatever the reason, David Cameron and the Conservatives appear not only to have lost the support of the right-wing media but they have actually become their prey.

Following the budget the front pages were full of highly charged talk of a "raid on pensioners". And these weren't just the Murdoch attack dogs - even the Daily Mail accused George Osborne of picking the pockets of pensioners:

Some suggested this was a token mid-term kicking of the kind which proves of little consequence when the right-wing press rally behind the Conservatives in time for any important election. Perhaps for the Mail and The Telegraph it was meant to be. But it didn't stop with the budget or with stories out of the media's control. 

Next came a timely and clearly orchestrated Sunday Times sting exposing David Cameron's £250,000 dinners for Tory party donors, for anybody who thought this might not be a personal and deliberate campaign:

That sparked a fresh wave of criticism across the wider right-wing media. And the ink was hardly wet on those damaging headlines when two fresh crises hit Cameron - petrol panic and pasty tax. The latter may seem a trivial story on the surface but it provided a perfect, bite-sized 'us and them' story for the papers to tell in one headline, one picture or one cartoon. It set a trap for the Tories which they blundered into, inviting ridicule and scorn alongside the more damning headlines about dangerous scaremongering and panic on the forecourts:

These stories would be classic tabloid fodder at any time of course but the blood lust with which the Murdoch press in particular were telling them has been hard to ignore by anybody who believes the press can still make or break a general election.

Writing on Twitter, Charlie Beckett, director of Polis, wondered how the Tories had engineered their worst headlines in 38 years. The Sun's political editor Tom Newton Dunn went less far, though suggested these were still Cameron's darkest days in the media since coming to power. The PR man was finally being unravelled by the headline writers and picture editors he once courted so eagerly. 

Other commentators struggled to see the way back for the beleaguered Tories:

Some of the most interesting Tweets however came early in this bleak chapter for Cameron, from the puppetmaster pulling the strings behind at least three of Cameron's biggests detractors. Rupert Murdoch was clearly revelling in catching Cameron upon the Sunday Times' hook. His pointed reference to a "full independent inquiry" removed any doubt this might be Leveson related:

So how long will it last? Until Murdoch has unseated Cameron, until he has caused the Tories some election misery in early May or until he is happy that Cameron has received a suitable reminder as to who is boss? 

Certainly there is more to come. The Sunday Times this weekend is coming back for a second bite of the 'Cash for Cameron' story which will likely spill over into next week's papers:

The most obvious problem with a 'fight to the death' between Cameron and Murdoch is that once it is over, we'll still be left with Murdoch.