Wordblog

A pithy post, “Why most news doesn’t need journos” by Joanna Geary is re-igniting an old debate with a reworking of the old comment, attributed to Lord Northcliffe, that: “News is what somebody, somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.”

As Martin Stabe, who pointed me to this post, points out the comments should be read too.

Joanna writes:

Most of the news that comes out of media organisations on a daily basis is information that others either WANT people to know or HAVE to admit to. It is just re-written or re-presented in a format that fits that platform.

So, instead of journos, the world needs the generators of this information to communicate it better and to allow for redress to what they say.

This leads her to suggest that journalists should be finding the information that organisations don’t want people to know.

I can hardly disagree with her general thrust after my recent post about plans for a local news site where much of the content will come from people seeking publicity for reason or another”.

I suggested that support and training was needed to help the contributors write better, and redress is implicit in a web site that encourages comments.

The economics of local journalism seem to be forcing us in this direction. Yet I remain unconvinced by this narrow definition of news. There is good news too that everyone wants published and everyone wants to read. And is better written by journalists.

If journalists only sought the news someone wanted to suppress, they would be about as welcome on the doorstep as a policeman. It is through an involvement in a community (be it parliament or a town) and reflecting the good and the bad that a reporter gets stories.

The man or woman who writes the nice stories and simple information (a prelim on the fund raising event for a hospice, for example) is also the one who gets the tip-off on something someone would rather keep quiet. It is all a matter of building contacts.

I really don’t think a sort of news “Crimestoppers” call centre is going to do much to help provide journalism which provides a public service.

Anyway, Northcliffe’s definition of news is not quite so black and white as that quote suggests.  This is an extract from Tom Clarke’s “My Northcliffe Diary”:

As deputy to the News Editor at this time, I had occasionally to take charge of the news room. On one occasion when I was doing this duty the Chief rang up about 11 o’clock in the morning and said:

“Why are there so many people wearing silk hats in Hampstead this morning? Send a report to find out why.”

A few minutes later he rang me again.

“Have you found out about this silk hat display at Hampstead? Everybody is taking about it. I though you would have known the reason. I can tell you why it is, but I don’t think you know. It is the Jewish New Year, and none of the ilk is in the City. They are all wearing their best and going to the synagogue. Now that’s a good story for you, if it’s properly handled. It ought to be headed ‘Many Tall Hats at Hampstead.’ it’s no use heading it ‘Jewish New Year.’ People will be captured by the heading about the hats. The reporter should start his story by saying that many people wondered why so many tall hats were on view in Hampstead today… Be picturesque in treatment. These are the little, well-written, out-of-the-way stories of which we want more in the paper. Most of the other papers will miss it. They do no know it is the Jewish New Year. Don’t let the story be offensive. We have many Jewish readers, and should give them the new of all their festivals. Get a Jew to read the story through after it has been written to see that it does not contain any foolish mistakes.”

Next day he rang up to say that “the 1,500,000 Jews in London” found something to interest them in our paper.