Blurred Keys

It is wrong gardai are lining up to pressure Evening Herald journalists to reveal the source of its story of a junior minster’s wrong doing. However, at the same time, the newspaper makes it very hard for people to take it seriously.

In a cover story yesterday afternoon, the newspaper highlighted how gardai are asking journalists for interviews, as well as requesting documents. It was a predictable move by the gardai.  There was also at least three comment articles on the issue.

The newspaper, however, makes it hard for people to take it seriously. The city final edition on Tuesday led with a story about an ex-lover’s argument on a street. The ex-lovers are a TV presenter and former model and high-profile developer, but the argument was nothing more than a noisy row. This is the kind of non-story with no possible public interest that the Evening Herald deems fit for its lead front-page story. How can this newspaper be taken seriously?

Entertainment or gossip stories also featured in all of the top four places on the paper’s website at different times when it was checked yesterday and today. What do I expect from the Herald? Is some solid Dublin news too much to ask for? Not too long ago the paper was at least good for that, you could over look it’s tone for some solid news not found elsewhere. This is not to say there is there is no place for entertainment stories, but rather a newspaper should be putting solid news first. And the paper’s editorialising and sensationalism seems to be getting worse.

This may all be viewed a ivory tower commentary. But the Evening Herald is losing circulation on a scale not seen at any other paper tracked by the ABC.  The downward trend at the Herald has also being more constant than most other. The average net circulation for the newspapers is down to 69,351  last year, compared to 104,137 just eight years ago in 2002. People may be reading the paper but fewer and fewer are willing to buy it. Furthermore, only an average of 61,438 people last year picked up the paper at its full price.

Within yesterday’s edition the paper covered the issue of a 30km/h speed limit in Dublin City Centre. The monthly Dublin City Council meeting was held on Monday. A Fine Gael councillor wanted the whole 30km/h zone scraped — even for small streets — so he tabled an emergency motion. Labour Party council members were willing to compromise reverting back to 50km/h on wider roads that were further away from the most pedestrian heavy areas. An amendment was attached to the Fine Gael motion. Both failed to reach the required amounts of votes.

Amazingly the first paragraph of the story covering this council vote in the Evening Herald, read: “A majority of city politicians want to revert the divisive 30kph speed limit — but it is here to stay because they can’t agree on how to change it”. This is nonsense, and clearly an inaccurate account of a highly contentious issue  (It should be noted that the online edition for some reason has a more accurate intro to the same article).

A comment article which appeared below the news story in the print edition was equally twisting of reality. It said: “The one bit of positivity last night was that Mr Slow finally bowed to public pressure when he tabled a motion for an amendment that would allow certain zones to revert to a 50kph limit. But it ended in failure when the number of votes fell short of the required majority.” No context or mention that those councillors who wanted the whole zone removed would not go along with the compromise. This is ill-informed or unbalanced commentary, it’s unclear which, maybe both.

Another thing you miss by not seeing the printed paper is the use of photos. One politician at the centre of the story is pictured, fine. One happy female journalist is shown in a byline photograph, fine. But then you have another female journalist (no byline on the page) in a photograph posing under a 30km/h sign, why? What’s the need for female journalists to be pictured like this? This practice is common at the Evening Herald, among others. How can a paper be taken seriously if it treats one section of its journalist like this?

Then there is also another woman pictured under a list of councillors voting — who is she? There’s no caption. But looking at the list of councillors, one name is followed by “(pictured)”. This councillor is not mentioned in the news or comment article on the page, and is has not being anyway notably vocal on this issue. Can anybody really take the Evening Herald seriously?

Gardai are very likely to have used current data retention laws to look at the phone records of the journalists in questions. Like the new wider Data Retention Bill which in its final stages before the Houses of the Oireachtas, no court order is need for this. So where do the paper stand on this? We were expecting to find nothing on the Evening Herald’s website about data retention, but there was a telling article about the paper’s position.

An opinion article without a byline – possibly an editorial — is headlined “Cack-handed Greens have made themselves look wobbly on crime” (Thursday, July 16, 2009). It said: “Eamon Ryan then let it be known that he’d fought bravely with the minister for justice to secure “significant changes” to the crime legislation on data retention published earlier this week”. This type of law has being passed in recent years in the name of tackling gangland crime and terrorism.

Of course the problem with this cheerleading of the Data Retention Bill and the then criminal justice bill, which the article also mentions, is that these types of laws have too wide of a scope to be abused. The Herald said, “all the evidence suggests that this is a bill the public wants to see passed right away.” But it’s this kind of law which now allows gardai to look at journalists phone records without court orders. The cheerleaders of bad laws do not have the moral right to cry when the kind of laws they promote are turned on them. Should anybody have any sympathy for them now?

The Press Ombudsman said last night his role was to take both sides extremely seriously, but some complainants contacting his office about newspaper articles are unreasonable and should grow up a bit.

“I sometimes get the feeling that complainants are a little bit unreasonable, that they should grow up a bit. We live in a rough old world where things are not perfect, taste is not always exquisite, language is not always polite, and as grown up people we have to learn to live with that,” said Press Ombudsman John Horgan.

Speaking to the Journalism Society at Dublin City University, he said sometimes people have to be reminded that just because somebody is offended by a newspaper article does not mean a breach of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals has occurred.

“The newspaper that does not offend anybody ever is the newspaper that is probably not doing its job properly. But there’s a kind of feeling around that some people think that people who are offended feel that and offence has been created and somebody’s got to be punished for it. Preferably severally, preferably as soon as possibly,” said Mr Horgan.

The Office of the Ombudsman has received around 350 complaints in each of its first two years, 2008 and 2009. Mr Horgan said for every 100,000 people of the Irish population his office gets just over nine complaints, that compares to just over six complains per 100,000 people to the UK Press Complaints Commission.

“When you control for size you get a little bit more complaints than they do in Britain, but you can’t draw any great conclusions from that,” he said.

Defending the process where complainants first have to contact the newspaper directly, he said, “This sounds like passing the buck, but it’s not. Editors really want the chance to deal with complaints them self… and the newspapers do deal with them increasingly seriously because they know if they don’t satisfy them they can come back to us and then it goes up a notch.”

He said, “I’m an ombudsman, I’m not a consumer representative or consumer advocate. I may become so in certain cases, where I think that the complainant really has had a raw deal.”

In only one case so-far has the Ombudsman decided to take on a case without the complainant first talking to the newspaper. He said this was because the person was extremely upset, and really did not want direct contact with publication.

On if the Press Ombudsman was lacking “teeth” or effect sanctions, he said ask any editor or journalist and see what they say. The only sanction available is to get a publication to publish the Ombudsman’s decisions in full, without being edited.

“People say a slap on the wrist, it does not matter. Sitting where I sit it does not seem like that. And if you really think that it is a slap on the wrist ask editors and journalists who have been affected by it,” he said.

If more power was give to his office it would have have to be given in law, and he said that would be the “thin edge of a very big wedge” of government influence of the press.

He pointed to privacy as a big issue, saying that privacy was like an “ice cube, once melted it cannot be reconstituted.” But on the other hand, his office has received complaints about courts cases which are a matter of public record.

DCU’s Journalism Society are due to upload a video of the talk, we’ll link to that after it becomes available.

Just with reports of music, film, and game piracy “costing” businesses in ‘lost’ revenue and the State in tax ‘lost’ taxes, one cannot lose something you never had. Claims from the Irish Tobacco Manufactures Advisory Committee of ‘loses’ as reported by the Irish Independent and the Irish Examiner recently are likely to be on the high side.

With lower music sales being blamed on piracy, reports from the OECD and others have said a more significant impact is likely to be consumers not having money to spend on growing types of media. Other reports outline how people downloading large amounts of music illegally are often the best consumers of the music and buy large amounts of music, gig tickets, and merchandise.

But the piracy line by these industries is still been reported as fact or claims without any mention of independent reports from groups such as the OECD which take a different line.

In the same vain, cigarette smokers who buy illegally imported cigarettes most likely could not afforded the same amount of cigarettes at the very high legal cigarette prices in Ireland. And it’s more complex than the cigarette industry claim, or what at least what is the result or their claims to newspapers.

There’s a lot to consider. Cost-benefit analysis for strict, strict control by the State would show a drop off of any possible benefit at some point –- it becomes more costly to control illegal imports than any possible tax take would generate. Even levered against health spend benefit, the benefit drops off. So, very strict controls would not be worth the cost. Control measures at ports can also damage other business by slowing down goods movements.

Furthermore, somebody is getting their figures messed up, the Irish Independent reported last month that:

“The manufacturers said last night the figures showed the geographic spread of the market for the smuggled cigarettes, which were estimated by the authorities to cost the Exchequer €500m every year in lost revenue”

But just at the start of the year the same reporter in the same newspaper said the following:

“In 2007, the Irish Government lost some €352m in taxes because of smuggling”

So, the most recent report claims that the cost to the Exchequer is “€500m every year”, but the same paper about five months before reported the Exchequer only lost “some €352m” in 2007? It get worse, the earlier reports says:

“CIGARETTE smuggling is predicted to cost the country more than €500m in lost revenue within a year”

So, what was first reported to maybe happen within a year, the second report tells the reader this is happening “every year.” Amazing stuff. Something which is predicted to happen “within a year” is then apparently happening “every year”. But the Indo’s Sunday paper, the Sunday Independent, said only in April:

“Cost to State of EUR2-per-pack price rise could have been as much as EUR500m in lost revenue”

So, get this. What is reported as something which only “could have” happened just back in April is already happening “every year.” Fault can often be found with this type of reportage based on reports and figures –- which rarely have an explained source or author — released by groups for one or another industry or cause. And often the PR people behind the apparent facts and figures are good enough at their jobs that blunders won’t be as obvious in reports just month apart, or figures will look realistic. However, in this case, the Examiner said on Saturday that:

“The illegal trade is reaching epidemic proportions and one estimate, for the losses to the exchequer per year by the end of 2010 of excise duties and VAT, has been put at 750 million”

Even if larger demand for illegal supply in a recession is taken into account, this is quite a jump from the claim of “€500m every year” printed in the Irish Independent last month – and even the €500m figure is in doubt given the record of reporting on the issue.

In The Irish Times today, Peter Murtagh writes (’Journalists are supposed to be against abuses‘) about Monica Leech being awarded €1.87 million in her libel case against the Evening Herald / Independent News & Media.

He says journalists should not be standing “shoulder to shoulder” with those who abuse power — in this case the Herald.

The argument on the other side is the large sum awarded will deter serious journalism. But is it not the Herald which is at fault here rather than the jury? Beside money, what else does Independent News and Media understand? What else would make them think twice?

A round-up of news, comment and other info from news sites blogs, and message boards etc…

‘Irish Times’ readership up 1,000 a day, JNRS shows
State of our union as Village magazine closes
Minister criticises media’s coverage of parole decisions
Big increase in newspaper recycling
Irish media now more Eurosceptic, warns EC report
Changing media landscape in Ireland between 2002-2008 and its implications for public opinion about the EU (PDF)
Celtic Media goes freesheet as local newspapers slump
Job cuts loom at regional paper
Star on the rise but ‘market in for tough time’ 
TV3 to invest €10m in Irish-made programmes 
Media world: Silly season’s order of merit 
Taoiseach to scrap his ‘Big Brother’ media monitoring unit
INM show of strength
Video Content On Irish Media Websites

Following rumours of closure and then a very strange statement, the high quality Irish music magazine is to drop its cover price.

And you apparently don’t have to worry if your outside large distribution areas, State will post the magazine to you for "no more than the real price of postage and packing".

As Jim Carroll points out: "Oh and that line about ‘the first Quality National Music Monthly
available completely free of charge’? Surely, the lads and lasses at
State also read Analogue magazine which happens to be a quality national music monthly available completely free of charge?"

Here’s the press release…

Read the rest of this entry »

- Press Ombudsman says plagiarism is covered
- We get legal threats from an Irish Independent journalist

As examples of plagiarism are mounting against newspapers in the group, Independent News & Media seem to be unable to keep their hands off the copy and paste function of their PCs.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Broadcasting Complaints Commission has said ‘Biffo’, the nick name for the Taoiseach Brian Cowen, does not insult him and was "highly unlikely to cause widespread offence”.

Complainant, Charlie McGrory, objected on the grounds of fairness, objectivity and impartiality, and taste and decency, after presenter of RTE Radio 1 News at One, Sean O’Rourke (pictured), said "did Biffo blink?".

According to the BCI: "McGrory states he is not a Fianna Fáil member or activist but finds this reference to the office of Taoiseach disrespectful, lacking objectivity and in poor taste.  He wonders how we can encourage our young people to become active in politics when the national broadcaster refers to the Taoiseach as ‘Biffo’"

The acronym, depending on your point of view, can mean ‘Big Intelligent Fellow From Offaly’ or ‘Big Ignorant Fucker From Offaly’. RTE said it "has as much to do with a boy’s comic character from the 1950’s as it has to do with any reference to people from County Offaly. Indeed, the term has been used by Mr Cowen himself in a humorous context".

The broadcaster added that, generally speaking, it does not and will not use the term ‘Biffo’ when referring to the Taoiseach and this was used as a ‘headline’ to attract listeners to stayed tuned in before an ad break.

MORE: Decision in full (MS Word doc)
MORE: List of decisions of July 2008

A round-up of news, comment and other info from news sites blogs, and message boards etc…

Cardinal challenges the media’s ‘dominant’ secular view
Sunday World top of the pops as it avoids musical marketing
Ireland’s papers defy downward trends
JNLR July 07-June 08 Survey results issued (PDF)
ABC IofI report (PDF, link replaced when new report released)
Tom Dunne to Newstalk
Today FM to preserve Pet Sounds
Ray of sunshine
Muzu makes music pa
Media world: Too Late Late for Pat Kenny?
RTE promises ’spectacular’ first Late Late Show despite Kenny’s delay in signing up
Lung cancer under reported in Irish media - report
Sunday Times to launch monthly Irish edition of Style magazine
South Ossetian man angered by Irish media coverage
MediaBite Email Re: The €11m ‘gas bill’
Media ought to beware groups bearing surveys
Belfast Telegraph relaunched website sees huge traffic spike
Myers and Nigerians
RTE Television unveils new season
Sponsors fail to check in to Failte Towers
The Big Switch over
BCI National Conference Asks ‘Does the Medium Matter?’
O’Brien group told January DTT launch is a ‘fantasy’
Digital terrestrial TV available from autumn next year
Adverts rate alert for Channel 6
TV3 to buy Channel 6 for €10m
Is RTE Radio 1 being dumbed down?
Mandy and the Irish Media

At the end of a blog post, ‘Privacy 3 - 0 Press‘, cearta.ie writes:

"Finally, eagle-eyed readers might have noticed that the sources linked
for the two Irish cases are media reports, while the source linked for
the English case is the text of the judgment itself on Bailii. If
English judges and the courts’ administration can ensure the rapid
electronic publication of judgments, why oh why oh why oh why can Irish judges and the Courts’ Service not be able to do the same?"

Our first thoughts are: it may not be positive. Less journalists being sent to the courts or less newspapers willing to pay for court agency copy?… but such isn’t too likely as there is a reliance, at least in the daily  or breaking news cycles, for a number of articles/reports on many cases. And the judgements would not provide for this.

On the positive front, wouldn’t it allow journalists greater/quicker access to more case judgements, many of which would otherwise go unreported?

« Older Entries