Bad for journalism, perhaps, but good for journalists
THERE HAS been much debate about the merits or otherwise of council-run newspapers. It has been interesting to see well-paid commentators rush to condemn the council-funded paper while leaping to defend such beacons of journalistic ethics as Newsquest, Johnston Press and Archant.
Never mind that they have thrown hundreds of journalists onto the scrap heap just because they have not been able to maintain their stonking 30 per cent profit margins. A little historical amnesia always comes in handy when seeking to portray big media companies as bastions of the journalistic art.
There would be more value in the criticisms of council papers if the traditional local paper had not given up on scrutinising councils long ago. The days of reporters sitting in council meetings are long since gone. For the most part, local papers get their council news from council press officers — many of whom used to work for local papers of course, before moving on to the better pay and conditions in local government.
There are no doubt plenty of journalistic objections to council-run papers. They do tend to be “good news” papers. They don’t scrutinise the council that closely. They are funded by the council taxpayer.
However, from a purely journalistic viewpoint they are probably good news. Journalists crossing from local papers to council run papers substitute badly paid work with poor terms and conditions for the more secure world of local government employment contracts. In short, council-run papers may not be good news for journalism but they probably are good news for journalists.
Paul Donovan
London E11