No news is bad news

Today’s newspapers are tomorrow’s chip paper. Wholly unhygienic, obviously, but you definitely can’t eat your greasy fried spuds off a website.

The problem is, the printed paper used to be a main source of news. Now, with the instant convenience of the internet and 24-hour rolling reports, the poor old printed format often seems hopelessly out of date by the time you unfold it.

Significantly, even if you’re willing to accept a notable time-delay by modern standards, why would you want to pay for something you can get free on the world wide web?

For national papers, the draw of expert journalism, in-depth analysis and insight can still win over readers who yearn for more than the instant short-form gratification of website articles.

For local papers, it’s that local – even hyper-local – news, which the regional sections of larger news organisations simply can’t keep up with. This isn’t about what’s happening in your ‘region’, it might not even be enough that it’s about your town. Sometimes you want to know why there was a police car outside that house down your road. Local papers cater for that, along with the smiley school fete photos, what the local councillor thinks about dog poo on the streets and all the glorious minutiae of precisely where you are.

But whilst this is a service no-one else can offer, the lure of the free, our increasing apathy towards the places we live, and the overwhelming volume of stuff vying for our attention means local newspaper circulations continue to dwindle.

So if the paper can’t sell enough copies, it can’t have as many local journalists, seeking out the latest story to delight, ignite or fright your sensibilities. Of course, almost all now offer an online version, but this has to be funded somehow. Hence, pop-ups, pleas for donations and contributions, background ads, and the need to scroll past the static and video ads interrupting your enjoyment of the article about the local library’s opening hours changing, or Mrs Smith being reunited with her cat.

You want local news? You’ll have to accept those “What this famous starlet looks like now will shock you” and “Incredibly awesome way to find out if you had PPI” things in the sidebar.

One day, we’ll look back and wonder where we used to get real, useful, news from, before returning to our Twitter and Facebook feeds, and attempting to work out if what we’re reading is just someone’s opinion, misinterpretation, or simply made up.

And where would all the witty, erudite, columnists call home? If I ever meet one, I’ll ask them, but personally I’m sure that having a newspaper column trumps having a blog any day of the week.

We seem increasingly happy to pay to watch our sport on satellite TV, or binge-watch a box-set via streaming services. Perhaps we should be more accepting that the price of good journalism and quality local news is, indeed, a price.
Free doesn’t always make you richer.

This post first appeared as my "Thank grumpy it's Friday" column, in The Mail, on the 29th of September, 2017. You can view the version published on their website here

Not much to add to this one, really. It was motivated in part by attempting to look at a news article related to my job at work on a local paper's website. Breaking up the article were several static ads and a video. As (presumably) these are automated and the article short, there were a couple of places where just one short paragraph appeared between the ads.

Not the paper's fault - they're desperately trying to monetise what they do to survive, but it got me thinking what a poorer place the world will be if local papers were to (ahem) fold.

(CD A-Z: That Sash! chap's "Encore Une Fois - Greatest Hits". Very nineties...)

"It's all gone quiet..." said Roobarb

If, like me, you grew up (and I’m aware of the irony in that) in the ‘70s, February was a tough month, with the sad news that Richard Briers and Bob Godfrey had died. Briers had a distinguished acting career and is, quite rightly, fondly remembered most for his character in ‘The Good Life’. Amongst his many roles, both serious and comedic, he also lent his voice to a startling bit of animation that burst it’s wobbly way on to our wooden-box-surrounded screens in 1974. The 1970s seemed to be largely hued in varying shades of beige, with hints of mustard yellow and burnt orange, and colour TV was a relatively new experience still, so the animated adventures of a daft dog and caustic cat who were the shades of dayglo green and pink normally reserved for highlighter pens, must have been a bit of a shock to the eyes at the time. It caused mine to open very wide indeed. Roobarb was written by Grange Calveley, and brought vividly into life by Godfrey, whose strange, shaky-looking sty...

Suffering from natural obsolescence

You know you’re getting old when it dawns on you that you’re outliving technological breakthroughs. You know the sort of thing – something revolutionary, that heralds a seismic shift it the way the modern world operates. Clever, time-saving, breathtaking and life-changing (and featuring a circuit board). It’s the future, baby! Until it isn’t any more. I got to pondering this when we laughed heartily in the office about someone asking if our camcorder used “tape”. Tape? Get with the times, Daddy-o! If it ain’t digital then for-get-it! I then attempted to explain to an impossibly young colleague that video tape in a camcorder was indeed once a “thing”, requiring the carrying of something the size of a briefcase around on your shoulder, containing batteries normally reserved for a bus, and a start-up time from pressing ‘Record’ so lengthy, couples were already getting divorced by the time it was ready to record them saying “I do”. After explaining what tape was, I realised I’d ...

Shouting in the social media mirror

It was always tricky to fit everything you wanted into the intentionally short character count of Twitter, especially when, like me, you tend to write ridiculously long sentences that keep going on and on, with no discernible end in sight, until you start wondering what the point was in the first place. The maximum length of a text message originally limited a tweet to 140 characters, due to it being a common way to post your ramblings in Twitter’s early days. Ten years later, we’ve largely consigned texting to the tech dustbin, and after a lot of angst, the social media platform’s bigwigs have finally opted to double your ranting capacity to 280. Responses ranged from “You’ve ruined it! Closing my account!” to the far more common “Meh” of modern disinterest. As someone rightly pointed out, just because you have twice as much capacity doesn’t mean you actually have to use it. It is, of course, and excellent opportunity to use the English language correctly and include punctuat...

grumpyf1

Search This Blog