SubScribe
  • Home
  • General Election 2019
    • Random thoughts
    • Guest blog
    • Daily Express
    • Daily Mail
    • Daily Mirror
    • Daily Telegraph
    • i
    • Metro
    • The Guardian
    • The Sun
    • The Times
  • Brexit
    • Whitetops immigration
    • Theresa's travels
    • Gove and Trump
    • Theresa May's trousers
    • Brexit blog
    • Events
    • Daily Express
    • Daily Mail
    • Daily Mirror
    • Daily Star
    • Daily Telegraph
    • i
    • The Guardian
    • The Sun
    • The Times
    • Daily Star Sunday
    • Mail on Sunday
    • The Observer
    • The People
    • Sunday Express
    • Sunday Mirror
    • Sunday Telegraph
    • Sunday Times
    • Sun on Sunday
  • The schedule
  • Blogs
    • Editor's blog
    • Gameoldgirl's Notebook
    • Pictures and spreads
    • Press box
    • General Election
    • Ukraine revolution and the threat to the West >
      • Putin wants more than Crimea, he wants half of Ukraine
      • Putin, the Man of Destiny, and dreams of a Eurasian empire
  • The industry
    • The nationals
    • Press freedom >
      • Attacks on the Press
      • Al Jazeera on trial: why should we care about journalists? >
        • Al Jazeera on trial: Peter Greste
        • Al Jazeera on trial: Abdullah Elshamy
        • Al Jazeera on trial: the court hearings
        • Al Jazeera on trial: the final session
      • RIPA
      • RIPA and the protection of sources
      • RIPA and the Press: guest blog
      • Journalists under surveillance
      • World Press Freedom Day
      • Surrendering press freedom: guest blog
      • Michael Wolff and the free Press
    • Press regulation >
      • From Milly Dowler to Sir Alan Moses
      • Letter to Murdoch
      • Leveson inquiry: an expensive hiding to nothing
      • Press regulation, history, hysteria and hyperbole
      • Parliament, Hacked Off and self-regulation of the Press
    • Journalists in the dock >
      • Too embarrassed to look in the mirror?
      • The tally
      • Operation Elveden
      • Phone hacking
      • Operation Tuleta
      • Journalists on trial 2014 archive
    • Local papers matter >
      • Local newspapers have to change
      • Monty's vision
      • The Full Monty: the Local World vision put into practice
    • Whistle-blowers
    • Journalism shouldn't be for the elite
    • A question of trust
    • News judgment >
      • Daily Star Hallowe'en special
      • Tesco profits scandal
      • Manchester kennels fire
      • Lambing Live
      • Lottery winners separate >
        • Love and the lottery winners, part 2
      • Give us news not puffs
      • April Fool >
        • The giant banjo
        • Deceived or deceptive, the paper must take the rap
      • The art of Sunday editing
    • Peter Oborne quits >
      • Guest blog: Why I resigned from the Telegraph
      • Peter Oborne: The Telegraph strikes back
      • advertising v editorial
    • Award winners >
      • Regional Press Awards 2013
    • Obituary
  • SubScribe commentary
    • Paris terror attacks
    • Mohammed Emwazi and Isis killings >
      • James Foley murdered
      • The murder of Steven Sotloff
      • David Haines and Isis propaganda
    • Charlie Hebdo massacre >
      • Charlie Hebdo aftermath
    • Kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls >
      • Nigeria's abducted girls and massacre
    • Ebola
    • Frontline reporting
    • Typhoon Haiyan
    • Obama's selfie
    • It takes all sorts to make a family >
      • This is what a flawed feminist campaign looks like
      • A level results day: bring on the token boys
      • Kellie Maloney faces the world
      • Women in trouble for getting ahead
      • Pregnant soldiers
    • Ashya King and the force of authority >
      • Stephen's story: did the Press help his cause or take over his life?
      • Colchester cancer scandal
    • Poppymania
    • Cameron's tax cut promise >
      • The blue-rinse bingo Budget
      • Politicians need their holidays too
      • Cameron's reshuffle: bring on the women
    • Brooks Newmark sting
    • Scottish referendum >
      • Scottish referendum: the final editions
      • Scottish referendum miscellany
      • The Queen speaks
    • The European elections audit >
      • Election audit: the last wordle
      • Election audit: Daily Mail
      • Election audit: The Times
      • Election audit: Daily Express
      • Election audit: Daily Mirror
      • Election audit: The Independent
      • Election audit: Guardian
      • Election audit: Daily Telegraph
      • Election audit: The Sun
    • Maria Miller
    • Harman, Hewitt and the paedophiles >
      • Hewitt apologises and the Sun picks up the cudgels
      • Mail v Labour trio, day 6: Harman capitulates and the bully wins
    • Immigration >
      • Katie Hopkins and drowned refugees
      • A year of xenophobia
      • The Express and immigration
    • Prince Charles and the floods >
      • Prince George
    • Food banks
    • Why is football more important than all the news? >
      • Cheerleading
      • Kelly Gallagher beats the world
      • Jenny Jones struggles against Kate and ManU
      • Reading Chronicle and football hooliganism
    • The weather
  • Odds and sods
  • OpEd
    • Oped December >
      • Politics 22-12-15
      • Brexit: 21-12-15
      • Politics 18-12-15
      • Politics 17-12-15
      • Politics 16-12-15
      • EU referendum: 15-12-15
      • Politics 14-12-15
      • Right-wing politicians 11-12-15
      • Donald Trump: 10-12-15
      • Donald Trump: 09-12-15
      • Politics: 08-12-15
      • Politics: 07-12-15
      • Syrian airstrikes 04-12-15
      • Syrian airstrikes: 03-12-15
      • Syrian airstrikes: 02-12-15
      • Labour and Syria: 01-12-15
    • OpEd November >
      • Syrian air strikes: 30-11-15
      • Autumn Statement: 27-11-15
      • Autumn Statement: 26-11-15
      • Russia in Syria: 25-11-15
      • Comment awards 24-11-15
      • Paris attacks: 23-11-15
      • Politics: 20-11-15
      • Paris attacks 19-11-15
      • Terrorism: 18-11-15
      • Paris attacks 17-11-15
      • Paris attacks 16-11-15
      • Politics: 13-11-15
      • Politics 12-11-15
      • Politics: 11-11-15
      • Britain and Europe: 10-11-15
      • Remembrance: 09-11-15
      • Sinai jet crash: 06-11-15
      • UK politics 05-11-15
      • UK politics: 04-11-15
      • State surveillance: 03-11-15
      • Poliitics: 02-11-15
    • OpEd October >
      • Politics: 30-10-15
      • Tax credits: 29-10-15
      • Tax credits: 28-10-15
      • Tax credits: 27-10-15
      • Lords v Commons: 26-10-15
      • UK politics: 23-10-15
      • Politics: 22-10-15
      • Xi Jinping: 21-10-15
      • Xi Jinping: 20-10-15
      • China visit: 19-10-15
      • Politics: 16-10-15
      • Politics 15-10-15
      • Politics: 14-10-15
      • EU referendum 13-10-15
      • Europe: 12-10-15
      • Politics 09-10-15
      • Cameron's speech: 08-10-15
      • Conservatives: 07-10-15
      • Conservatives: 06-10-15
      • Conservatives: 05-10-15
      • Politics 02-10-15
      • Labour conference 01-10-15
    • OpEd September >
      • Politics 01-09-15
      • Europe 02-09-15
      • Migrant crisis 03-09-15
      • Migrant crisis 04-09-15
      • Migrant crisis 07-09-15
      • Migrant crisis 08-09-15
      • OpEd: Drone strikes 09-09-15
      • OpEd: Migrant crisis 10-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 11-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 14-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 15-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 16-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 17-09-15
      • OpEd: Labour 18-09-15
      • OpEd: Politics 21-09-15
      • OpEd: "Pig-gate" 22-09-15
      • OpEd: Politics 23-09-15
      • OpEd: VW 24-09-15
      • OpEd: Volkswagen 28-09-15
      • OpEd: Politics 25-09-15
      • OpEd: Politics 29-09-15
      • Oped: Labour conference 30-09-15
    • OpEd August >
      • OpEd: Calais 03-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 04-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 05-08-15
      • OpEd: Kids Company 06-08-15
      • OpEd: Kids Company 07-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 10-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 11-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 12-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 13-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 14-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 17-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 18-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 19-08-15
      • OpEd: Student debt 20-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 21-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 24-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 25-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 26-08-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 27-08-15
      • OpEd: TV shootings 28-08-15
    • OpEd July >
      • OpEd: Grexit 01-07-15
      • OpEd: Heathrow 02-07-15
      • OpEd: Greece 03-07-15
      • OpEd: Taxation 06-07-15
      • OpEd: Greece 07-07-15
      • OpEd: Budget 08-07-15
      • OpEd: Budget 09-07-15
      • OpEd: Budget 10-07-15
      • OpEd: Greece 13-07-15
      • OpEd: Greece 14-07-15
      • OpEd: Iran 15-07-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 16-07-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 17-07-15
      • OpEd: Boris Johnson and Greece 20-07-15
      • OpEd: counter-terrorism 21-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 22-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 23-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 24-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 27-07-15
      • OpEd: Lord Sewel 28-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 29-07-15
      • OpEd: Calais 30-07-15
      • OpEd: Calais 31-07-15
    • OpEd June >
      • OpEd: Fifa 01-06-15
      • OpEd: British politics 02-06-15
      • OpEd: Charles Kennedy 03-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 04-06-15
      • OpEd: Fifa 05-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 08-06-15
      • OpEd: Europe 09-06-15
      • OpEd: politics 10-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 11-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 12-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 15-06-15
      • OpEd: Social mobility 16-06-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 17-06-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 18-06-15
      • OpEd: Greece 19-06-15
      • OpEd: Greece 22-06-15
      • OpEd: Greece 23-06-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 24-06-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 25-06-15
      • OpEd: Brexit 26-06-15
      • OpEd: Tunisia 29-06-15
      • OpEd: Grexit 30-06-15
    • OpEd May >
      • OpEd: Election 01-05-15
      • OpEd: Election 05-05-15
      • OpEd: Election 06-05-15
      • OpEd: Election 07-05-15
      • OpEd: Election 08-05-15
      • OpEd: Scotland 11-05-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 12-05-15
      • OpEd: The Labour party 13-05-15
      • OpEd: The Labour party 14-05-15
      • OpEd: Ukip and Labour 15-05-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 18-05-15
      • OpEd: The NHS 19-05-15
      • OpEd: The Labour party 20-05-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 21-05-15
      • Oped: UK politics 22-05-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 26-05-15
      • OpEd: Europe 27-05-15
      • OpEd: The Queen's Speech 28-05-15
      • OpEd: Fifa 29-05-15
    • OpEd April >
      • OpEd: Election 01-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 02-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 07-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 08-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 09-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 10-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 13-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 14-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 15-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 16-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 17-04-15
      • OpEd: SNP 20-04-15
      • OpEd: Refugees 21-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 22-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 23-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 24-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 27-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 28-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 29-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 30-04-15
    • OpEd March >
      • OpEd: Election 31-03-15
      • OpEd: Depression 30-03-15
      • OpEd: Prince Charles 27-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 26-03-15
      • OpEd: David Cameron 25-03-15
      • OpEd: Singapore 24-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 23-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 20-03-15
      • OpEd: the Budget 19-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 18-03-15
      • OpEd: race in Britain 17-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 16-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 13-03-15
      • OpEd Jeremy Clarkson 12-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 11-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 10-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 09-03-15
      • OpEd: Scotland 06-03-15
      • OpEd: Isis 05-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 04-03-15
      • OpEd: Radicalisation 03-03-15
      • OpEd: Russia 02-03-15
    • OpEd February >
      • OpEd: UK politics 27-02-15
      • OpEd: minority party leaders 26-02-15
      • OpEd: the Greens 25-02-15
      • OpEd: Rifkind and Straw 24-02-15
      • OpEd: world affairs 23-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 20-02-15
      • OpEd: Chelsea and racism 19-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 18-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 17-02-15
      • OpEd: Copenhagen 16-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 13-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 12-02-15
      • OpEd: politics 11-02-15
      • OpEd: politics 10-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 09-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 06-02-15
      • OpEd: Isis atrocity 05-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 04-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 03-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 02-02-15
    • OpEd January >
      • OpEd: rape law 30-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics, 29-01-15
      • OpEd: Greece 27-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 28-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 26-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 23-01-15
      • OpEd: Chilcot inquiry 22-01-15
      • OpEd: Page Three 21-01-15
      • OpEd: anti-semitism 20-01-15
      • OpEd: religion and freedom 19-01-15
      • OpEd: world politics 16-01-15
      • OpEd: election debates 15-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 14-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 13-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 12-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 08-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 09-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 07-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 05-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 06-01-15
  • You have to laugh
  • Backnumbers
    • Front pages December >
      • Front pages Dec 27-31
      • Front pages Dec 20-26
      • Front pages Dec 6-12
    • Front pages November >
      • Front pages Nov 29-Dec 5
      • Front pages Nov 22-28
      • front pages Nov 15-21
      • Front pages Nov 8-14
      • front pages Nov 1-7
    • Front pages October >
      • Front pages, Oct 25-31
      • Front pages Oct 18-25
      • front pages Oct 11-17
      • Front pages Oct 4-10
    • Front pages September >
      • Front pages Sept 27-Oct 3
      • Front pages Sept 20-26
      • Front pages Sept 13-19
      • Front pages Sept 6-12
      • Front pages Aug 30-Sept 5
    • Front pages August >
      • Front pages August 23-29
      • Front pages Aug 16-22
      • Front pages August 9-15
      • Front pages Aug 2-8
    • Front pages July >
      • Front pages July 26-Aug 1
      • Front pages July 19-25
      • Front pages July 12-18
      • Front pages July 5-11
      • Front pages June 28-July 4
    • Front pages June >
      • Front pages June 21-27
      • Front pages June 14-20
      • Front pages June 7-13
      • Front pages May 31-June 6
    • Front pages May >
      • Front pages May 24-30
      • Front pages May 17-23
      • Front pages May 10-16
    • Front pages April >
      • Front pages May 3-9
      • Front pages April 26-May 2
      • Front pages April 19-26
      • Front pages April 12-18
      • Front pages April 5-11
      • Front pages Mar 29-Apr 4
    • Front pages March >
      • Front pages Mar 22-28
      • Front pages Mar 15-21
      • Front pages Mar 8-14
      • Front pages Mar 1 - 7
    • Front pages February >
      • Front pages Feb 22-28
      • Front pages Feb 16-21
      • Front pages Feb 9-15
      • Front pages Feb 1-8
    • Front pages January >
      • Front pages Jan 25-31
      • Front pages Jan 18-24, 2015
      • Front pages Jan 11-17
      • front pages Jan 4-9, 2015
      • Front pages Dec 29-Jan 3
  • About SubScribe
  • Join the SubScribers
  • Contact us
  • Subscribe to SubScribe

It's 3-1 against the Star on Coldplay Chris

29/10/2014

0 Comments

 
Star
Jennifer Lawrence has been househunting in Islington and has told estate agents that she's eager to find a "cosy pad" with Chris Martin. 
She apparently loves England and can't wait to put down roots. She's also cleared all her stuff out of her former boyfriend's flat when she was in London earlier this month "to symbolise the start of her new life with Chris.  Buying a house together in London is the icing on the cake."
Awww, sweet. After the heartbreak of the conscious uncoupling with Gwyneth Paltrow, it's all going to turn out all right for Chris. 
Or so the Star told us in its showbiz lead yesterday.
Picture
But the Mail and Sun had different ideas. They spoilt the fun with news that the couple had split after a four-month romance.  Jen dumped Chris "a few days ago", after he had been out to a family dinner with Gwynnie, according to the Sun. They've gone their separate ways, said the Mail, attributing the report to the website E! News.
Today the Mirror's US Editor weighs in with a page 3 lead that adds flesh to yesterday's Mail and Sun stories.
He reports that Jen was fed up with Chris's continued closeness to Paltrow, who was apparently spotted tenderly stroking his face at that dinner, "while a glum Jennifer was pictured elsewhere in Los Angeles having dinner with a friend".
Sources close to the Hunger Games star said: "Jen felt there were three of them in the relationship and didn't feel comfortable..She is one of the most desirable women in Hollywood and quite rightly deserves to be leading lady for any man and not play second fiddle."
So what we'd really like to know now is...
How long had that estate agent story been sitting in the Star reporter's notebook? If only they had got it into print a day or two earlier...
0 Comments

How many buses equal one weather computer?

29/10/2014

0 Comments

 
Mirror puff
Express puff
The Mirror and Express made rare common cause yesterday with puffs predicting a Hallowe'en heatwave. 
A couple of days of warm weather and we can't help but start comparing ourselves with Benidorm or Benin. At this time of the year, it also means the arboretums are full of photographers competing for the half-page slots that will doubtless be devoted to trees with light streaming through golden foliage.
express
Sure enough, here's the Express's effort on page 11: a couple of children climbing a tree at Westonbirt,  sunrise over Tower Bridge and a 14-par weather forecast.
But what's that little single squeezed between the ads? 
A new £97m Met Office computer will be able to do 16,000 trillion calculations a second and give better warning of extreme weather. This will, the Express says, give a £2bn boost to the economy.
Here we have a development that is likely to influence the paper's newslist for years to come and it is written off in three pars.
And three not very meaningful pars. What does that number of calculations mean? It certainly sounds a lot, but how does it compare with other computers? What sort of calculations? Is it that special or so last century?
How will the economy benefit to the tune of £2bn - and will that be an annual boost or a one-off? 

Telegraph
The Telegraph was more enthusiastic about the story - to the extent of making it the splash - and so came up with a little more detail. The new computer would be able to carve the country into 300-metre chunks so that local variations in the weather could be predicted more accurately, a great help when councils need to know which roads to grit or where snow ploughs are going to be needed. 
The Met Office should also be able to predict the weather for the next 24 hours with 90% accuracy. Apparently at the moment it can do so only for the coming 12 hours and to be honest, most of us can do that by looking out of the window.
The Telegraph also tells us about those 16,000 trillion calculations, which seem to suggest that our supercomputer - which has mysteriously not been given an affectionate name yet -  it is going to do a lot of pondering, cross-checking and going through the files, since it is to be fed a mere 106 million observations a day.
The Telegraph also contributes to our collection of pointless comparisons by noting that the computer would weigh as much as 11 double-decker buses. Aren't double-decker buses supposed to be used for height comparison? Have you ever lifted one? No, neither have I. The only person in the country who might have half an idea of what this means is Geoff Capes. So where is he when you need him? Apparently breeding budgies in Lincolnshire.
The Times was also enthused by the October warmth as a source of pretty pictures and it cross-reffed from its Westonbirt picture on 19 to "Met Office supercomputer, page 57". 
Here, on the weather map page, we have a little gem from  Paul Simons. He gets the 16 trillion calculations fact into the first sentence and makes it a little more relevant in the next, saying that this is 13 times as many as the existing computer, making it one of the most powerful in the world. 
I'd still like to know who's at the top of the league. Nasa? Apple? Something in China?
But then comes the hidden treasure: the Met Office got its taste for computer forecasting from the old Lyons Corner House business:

Picture
After the war Lyons wanted to improve its operation and looked at the electronic computers being used by the military in the US. They were so impressed that in 1951 they made their own computer in the UK called Leo I, standing for the Lyons Electronic Office I. This was the world’s first business computer, and one of its early tasks was to collate daily orders phoned in each day from the teashops and calculate the overnight orders and delivery schedules. Lyons even factored in weather forecasts for the fresh produce carried by its delivery vans.
The Met Office showed an interest and Lyons let its forecasters use Leo. They liked it so much that in 1959 they bought their own, which was named Meteor. 
Given our new knowledge about how many trillions of calculations a computer should be expected to do today, we obviously want to know Meteor measured up. According to Simons it could do 30,000 a second.
Five lovely pars and fair play to Simons for keeping this material for his Weather Eye column - but did this story really belong tucked away on page 57?
The Guardian
The Guardian thought not, and gave the story the best show, combining its pretty autumn pictures (including the obligatory snap from Westonbirt) with a page lead that turned the 11 double-deckers into 14 tonnes. There's a nice little panel labelled "Cloud computing" that charts the history of Met Office computers, although it doesn't mention the Lyons Corner House connection. The Guardian also came up with the cutest heading, but it still didn't tell us its name. For that we had to turn to the Independent. 
And the answer is....
Cray@XC40.
I think that needs some work.

0 Comments

In the eye of the beholder...

28/10/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
Renee Zellwegger was back on the Mail front page this morning with the heading "Another new look for fresh-faced Renee". 
Good to know that the sarcasm machine is still well-oiled.
Obediently following the instruction to "See page 7", we found three more pictures of the actress and a story from the "Mail Foreign Service". 
Good to know that it wasn't too busy with ebola or Isis.
Picture
Hair swept up in a messy bun, Renee Zellweger’s fresh-faced appearance dispels any notion that her recent change of look was merely the result of make-up.
Spotted for the first time since her headline-grabbing transformation, the actress appeared somewhat tired and anxious as she ran errands over the weekend in Mississippi.
What is that first paragraph trying to say? Well, we're supposed to infer that she must have had surgery. But if Ms Z were to protest, the paper could argue that it was simply saying that last week's chiselled look was more than foundation, powder and blusher deep.
Headline-grabbing transformation? Ouch. Transformation, that is, from the "puffy rounded cheeks and pout" for which she was previously known. Double ouch.
The Express also ran into the actress out and about during breaks in filming a new movie, which both papers dutifully name. But Laura Holland saw her through differently tinted spectacles:
Picture
Bridget Jones actress Renee Zellwegger is looking more like her normal self after rumours she had cosmetic surgery...
The 45-year-old was much more recognisable...wearing casual clothes and her blonde hair stylishly scraped into a bun...
So far so good...suggestions of surgery were silly, says Zellwegger. "Perhaps I look different. Who doesn't when they get older. I'm happy."
Is Holland convinced?
Picture
Yet the Jerry Maguire actress was almost unrecognisable - with her super line-free forehead, altered brow and puffy face.
Ouch, ouch, ouch! So when the Express says she looks more like her normal self, it didn't mean that she looked like her normal self, just less unlike her normal self than last week? And while she was much more recognisable, she was still almost unrecognisable - so was she completely unrecognisable last week? 
Confused? You bet. So were the subs. The contradictory headlines play nicely against each other - but not with the copy underneath. And that's the general idea.
0 Comments

Why is it 'inevitable' that change equals job cuts?

23/10/2014

0 Comments

 

#463966413 / gettyimages.com
The Telegraph press room in Fleet Street, 1882


Telegraph journalists have been told that 55 of their number are about to lose their jobs. That is a tenth of the editorial strength and if the cuts are achieved, it will mean that the papers' journalistic staff will have been halved in nine years.
News of the redundancies comes less than a week after the announcement that Jason Seiken was to focus on strategy and finance, leaving the real business of editing to Chris Evans and his weekend sidekick Ian MacGregor. 
Seiken, who has not relinquished his titles chief content officer and editor in chief, has sent a letter to staff that begins:
Picture
I am writing to update you on changes we are making as part of the ongoing editorial transformation.

As I outlined in a letter to staff earlier this month, we must continue to meet the demands of resourcing our digital-first newsroom whilst also responding to the ongoing challenges within our industry.

As a result, there will inevitably be an impact on staff numbers in several editorial areas.
SubScribe would like to ask one question: why?
Why is it inevitable that there will be an impact on staff numbers - a euphemism for cuts - as part of an "ongoing editorial transformation"?
Journalists are known as a cynical bunch and they/we have come to recognise that any change is accompanied by staff cuts. But why is it inevitable? Why do proprietors and their senior lieutenants regard piling more work onto fewer people as an essential element in any reorganisation?
The one thing that traditional news organisations have to their advantage in this era of citizen journalism, blogging and tweeting is trust. The trust that has been built up through editorial expertise. Readers know where the information is coming from and have, over the years, drawn their own conclusions about whether a particular journalist knows what he or she is writing about.
Look at all the material that is shared on Facebook by people who have no idea of its provenance - from security hoaxes to spurious world records and apparently innocuous comments about British life from racist and extremist organisations. How many of us bother to check back on where this stuff comes from? We glance at the post, it's come from a "friend" we trust and if it seems reasonable, we click "like" or "share" to please the friend. 
When we share a link to the Telegraph, the Independent or the Mirror, we have a greater confidence than we do when we pass on a blogpost - even one by SubScribe. And so we should.
But how long will that be the case if experienced journalists are to be replaced by "digital" staff of indeterminate qualifications beyond a knowledge of SEO and social media. It's a dangerous strategy. How refreshing it would be if just one of these revolutions involved investment in journalism rather than in the nebulous "digital".
One thing's for sure, Will Lewis's revolutionary newsroom is going to look a lot emptier.


Telegraph newsroom
Returning to Seiken's letter, he continues:
Picture
As we reduce the overall number of editorial positions we will start the normal information and consultation process. Those who are likely to be most affected will receive further correspondence in the next few days. This will outline the next steps.

I realise this is a time of great uncertainty for you all. I do not want that to continue for any longer than is necessary, but I want the process we follow to be fair and allow time for sufficient consultation. I hope we can complete this initial assessment in just over a week.
A week to bring down the curtain on the careers of journalists who may have spent years with the paper. Yes, that should be fair and sufficient.
If only the Telegraph were a one-off case
0 Comments

Reporting violence against women

23/10/2014

0 Comments

 
June Churchill
The trial, partial conviction and eventual sentencing of Oscar Pistorius have used up a lot of the international supply of newsprint and ink. And the vast majority of it has been expended on Pistorius rather than the woman he killed. 
Would we in Britain have known or cared about Reeva Steenkamp if she had been shot by someone else? Given those front-page photographs immediately after her death, she might have made a candy shot somewhere, but there would never have been this international interest.
But when it came to the court case, shouldn't that have been about Steenkamp? How did we allow Pistorius to make it all about him, his histrionics, his vomiting in court, how he was a broken man? It was theatre.
And now that it's all over, bar the appeals, some commentators are seeking to draw conclusions from a single case about violence against women in South Africa and about the country's justice system.
What nonsense. 
Do we look at our own court cases and make such generalisations? Do we have any real notion of the levels of violence, particularly against women, in this country?
I was struck today by a small single-column photograph of a woman with a bandaged head at the foot of today's Daily Mirror. 
Inside was a first-person account of how a Liverpool taxi driver had attacked his wife with an axe and a Stanley knife last September, imprisoning her for three days before driving her to hospital and torching their family home. He admitted a number of offences, including causing grievous bodily harm, when he appeared in court by video link this week  and will be sentenced in December. The judge has told him that it is almost inevitable that he will go to jail for a long time.
The story, by John Stiggle, is told in detail on pages 6 and 7. It also appears on pages 4 and 5 of today's Liverpool Echo, which is part of the Trinity Mirror stable.
Mirror spread














Daily Mirror, 
pages 6-7

Echo spread











Liverpool Echo, 
pages 4-5

The troubling thing is that June Churchill's ordeal has reached the national press chiefly because of the link between the two newspapers. No other paper picked it up from the court hearing. 
June Churchill is not a frail old lady or a pretty teenager, so she isn't marketable. She doesn't fit the stereotype of a weak, cowed woman: even after the battering she suffered at the hands of her husband she was strong enough to see off raiders who went into her florists' shop and threatened her with a gun last December
The three-day siege may have been unusual, but there is sadly nothing unusual about women suffering this sort of treatment. The Churchills are a middle-aged white couple, but injuries inflicted on Asian women in particular in the name of family honour are equally - and often more -  horrendous.
Individual cases tend not to be reported because they are so common, and when something is common it isn't news - until someone comes along, as Andrew Norfolk of the Times did with the Rotherham sex abuse scandal - and starts joining the dots and produces statistics that appal.
Karen Ingala Smith has been joining dots on women murdered by men over the past three years. On average a woman is killed by a man every three days. 
Smith is a strident feminist who gives no quarter to those who say "what about 
men killed by men, men killed by women or women killed by women". 
Her beef is that male violence is so routine that it needs shouting from the rooftops. SubScribe has noted her work in the past, but the cases of Reeva Steenkamp and June Churchill make it feel timely to point it up again. 
Please look at her blog Counting Dead Women.
Counting Dead Women
0 Comments

Humble pie for breakfast with Brooks Newmark

13/10/2014

0 Comments

 
Embed from Getty Images

 
So, Mr Newmark joined us again for Sunday breakfast and Sir Alan Moses found plenty more on his plate to chew on.
The picture we have today of the MP for Braintree is rather different from that of two weeks ago. Then, courtesy of the Sunday Mirror, we were aware that he had sent a photograph of himself  not quite in his paisley pyjamas to a Twitter follower he believed to be a young, female party worker. 'Sophie', as he now knows to his cost, did not exist but was actually the Guido Fawkes reporter Alex Wickham.
The story was published on the first day of the Conservative conference, Newmark resigned as charities minister and the "scandal" almost completely overshadowed the defection of Mark Reckless to Ukip.
Over the following 24 hours it was reported that "Sophie" had sent flirtatious tweets to half a dozen Tory MPs, but that only Newmark had responded. The Sunday Mirror editor Alison Phillips and her boss Lloyd Embley both insisted the story was in the public interest, but declined to name the undercover freelance reporter who had brought them the story or to elaborate on the methods used. 
SubScribe, in common with some other commentators - but not this website's Style Counsel blogger Richard Dixon - felt that the sting had been a malicious fishing expedition, with the line cast into the Tory pond in the hope that someone, anyone, would bite. The justification for the enterprise had been reports that "MPs were using social media to meet women", which did not seem a particularly heinous crime. Lots of people do - and one of the "targets" was unmarried.
As the days went by, further details of the operation emerged - including Wickham's identity and the fact that "Sophie" had followed about a hundred Conservatives to make her Twitter account seem genuine. This was not, Guido insisted, a fishing expedition, but a carefully targeted operation with an agreed strategy. Newmark was apparently regarded as "a bit of a creep" by some Tory women. Was this enough to justify setting him up for a sting? Were the other MPS who had been mentioned also potential targets or were they just the only ones to come forward out of the 100 or so followed by Sophie? 
If Brooks Newmark had always been the target, was it luck that he took the bait? Or were the morsels on his hook tastier than those offered to others? Or was Wickham's information about the MP so accurate that there was never any doubt that he would succumb? Other MPs responded to "Sophie's" flattery in a professional manner but, as Susie Boniface pointed out on Question Time, Newmark took the conversation out of the public arena, swapping mobile numbers and "takiing things to the next level". 
By this time I was contemplating a "second thoughts" blog, but still felt some sympathy for my former MP. "Sophie" was supposed to be in her twenties, that's grown-up. "She" had made the running. Newmark was foolish, but not a criminal or corrupt.
Yesterday's Sun changed all that. Its splash seemed to confirm that he did, indeed, have form and that he had performed a selfie striptease for another woman he had "seduced" via Facebook. Newmark announced that he would not contest the next election and that he would be seeking residential psychiatric help. This last was reported in the Mirror and the Mail on Sunday, which ran a full-page mea culpa that talked about demons, anorexia, depression and the need to remove the stigma attached to mental health problems.
The Mirror's coverage was a combination of the Mail and Sun's, but does not - from a distance - appear to have been self-generated. (Having misinterpreted the earlier story, I am aware that this may not be the case.)
This is where it becomes interesting, particularly for Sir Alan. The Sun and the Mail on Sunday both rejected the Wickham story. It has been surmised that this is because they were concerned about the subterfuge used to obtain it. The enthusiasm with which they have followed it up this weekend suggests that Wickham judged his market right, but got the sale pitch wrong. 
Could it be that the Sun was already working along the same lines? Perhaps it didn't want to publish on Tory conference weekend - both it and the Mail were gushing about Cameron's speech later in the week. Perhaps it hadn't quite joined up the dots of its own inquiries. Or perhaps its position as market leader brought in the "single mum" who has now put the cap on Newmark's career.
This is relevant. The emergence of the second woman, Newmark's departure from political life and his admission that he needs psychiatric help probably confirm the public interest. But if the Sun had been on the same trail without the subterfuge, the Mirror would find it hard to argue that that was the only way to get the story.
This morning's further revelations about a "two-year affair" with the Facebook mum don't really take the ethical/public interest arguments much further. MPs do have affairs and people tend not to take much notice these days unless they involve Chelsea football shirts, airport phone calls from Alastair Campbell or Glenn Mulcaire's hacking skills.
One element of today's story troubles me, though. The woman at the centre of it told the Sun that she did not regard herself as having an affair, but that she was in a "full-on" relationship. She says she had no idea that Newmark was married and didn't question him because "I thought 'he's an MP, he's not going to lie'." Right.
But if you were embarking on a relationship with someone you knew to be in public life wouldn't you google them? Not in a sneaky, checking-up-on-them sort of way, but to find out what they'd achieved, to learn more about their interests, to see what other people said about them. 
Mistresses have argued through the ages that they didn't know their lovers were married, but to have a two-year "full-on relationship" with an MP and remain in ignorance? I think not.
Malicious and misconceived: SubScribe's earlier thoughts on the subject

0 Comments

Press freedom, Hacked Off and credit where it's due

7/10/2014

0 Comments

 

#163938228 / gettyimages.com
SubScribe is not a fan of Hacked Off. This website does not believe that the Leveson inquiry was a good idea, that statutory involvement in Press regulation was desirable or necessary, or that people who believe themselves to be aggrieved should have any role in determining the fate of those they perceive to be at fault - in either the civil or criminal courts.
SubScribe is even less of a fan of newspapers with entrenched ideas. An open mind is an essential part of a journalist's make-up. Approaching any subject with preconceived ideas is likely to lead to important nuances being missed or overlooked.
The Daily Mail has ranted loud and long about Leveson, the royal charter, the Guardian's role in unearthing the hacking scandal and about Hacked Off.
On Sunday, its sister paper splashed on the fact that Kent Police had used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) to trawl through phone records and uncover the identity of the source of the Chris Huhne speeding ticket story. This was even though a judge had ordered that the source should remain anonymous.
Press Gazette has for more than a month been seeking signatures on a petition to stop police using this act to spy on journalists. The Save Our Sources campaign began after the disclosure that the Met had gone through the Sun political editor's phone records to discover whose leak started the Plebgate scandal.
littlejohn
Today Richard Littlejohn jumps on the bandwagon with a blast at both forces, a quick jibe at Leveson and a reminder that many journalists have been arrested since the phone hacking scandal broke in 2011 and that some are still "languishing" on police bail after three years. The headline on the piece is reproduced above.
SubScribe would hazard a guess that Littlejohn is no supporter of Hacked Off. But he doesn't mention the organisation in this column. It's appearance in the heading is hardly likely to have been the work of a lowly sub, rather to have been dictated from above. As it happens, Hacked Off is standing four square alongside the Mail on this. 
Dr Evan Harris, associate director of the organisation, stood up at the Liberal Democrats' conference in Glasgow yesterday and persuaded his party to adopt a policy of creating public interest defences in law to protect responsible journalism.
Harris, a former LibDem MP, said that his party's ministers should do more to enhance, improve and protect press freedom, particularly in relation to investigative and public interest journalism. He pointed to various examples where this might work:
Picture
First is RIPA, and the lack of safeguards for journalistic material, including confidential sources and indeed for legally privileged material. The report of Operation Alice into the Plebgate affair 
revealed...that the police had got the phone records, both the mobile phone and the desk phone, from Tom Newton-Dunn, the political editor at The Sun... 
There is no judicial oversight or indeed any oversight for 
the police for that decision. The police authorised themselves to do that, something they...should not be allowed to do. There must be greater safeguards. 
Harris endorsed Press Gazette's SOS campaign and even went on to suggest that hacking by journalists might be acceptable in the right circumstances:
Picture
The second area dealt with in this amendment are public interest defences. For example in the Computer Misuse Act, which would mean that when Sky News hacked into the computer of the "canoe man", who you may remember faked his death to get insurance money, they would not 
have been threatened with the chilling impact of a police investigation. 
Similarly with the Bribery Act. The Sun...ran an operation to expose fraud at a magistrates' court where a clerk was letting people off speeding tickets. And they ran the risk of a police investigation because they were effectively breaking the Bribery Act and had no statutory defence. 
If the News of the World, instead of their thousands of innocent victims of hacking, had hacked the phone of Jimmy Savile to expose him when the police were failing to do so, then they should not have faced for that example the threat of a police investigation. But there is no public interest defence.
The Sun, which has made a formal complaint about the Met's use of Ripa to track Tom Newton Dunn's phone calls, reported Harris's speech, but not his association with Hacked Off. A deliberate omission?
This is not the first time Harris's addresses to conference have attracted the Sun's attention. Three years ago it wrote:
Picture
A women's think-tank yesterday blasted the Lib Dems for plotting war on Page 3 — and hailed The Sun’s curvy babes as role models.The party’s po-faced conference motion this week to stop shopkeepers selling The Sun before a 9pm “watershed” was condemned by the organisation WomenOn.
The group said of the crusade led by Evan Harris: “Where should it stop? Should we ban all photos of people lest someone somewhere finds them attractive?”
Ex-MP Dr Harris brandished photos of topless Page 3 models on Monday as he ranted against “sexualised images” in newspapers and lads’ mags.
His potty idea for a TV-style watershed to restrict when publications can be sold is now official Lib Dem policy. WomenOn said it “smacks of desperation”.
It's good to know that at least one paper doesn't hold grudges.
Or maybe it's a case of "my enemy's enemy is my friend"?
0 Comments
    Liz Gerard

    Liz Gerard

    New year, new face: it's time to come out from behind that Beryl Cook mask. 
    I'm Liz Gerard, and after four decades dedicated to hard news, I now live by the motto "Those who can do, those who can't write blogs". 
    These are my musings on our national newspapers. Some of them may have value.

    Archives

    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    May 2013

    Virtual cat

    Categories

    All
    Adam Ward
    Adoption
    Advertising
    Ageism
    Alan Rusbridger
    Alison Parker
    Amol Rajan
    Andreas Lubitz
    Andy Coulson
    Andy Murray
    Angelina Jolie
    Anglo American
    Anthony France
    Armistice Day
    Art
    Assad
    Australian Maddie
    Baftas
    Baher Mohamed
    Bank Holiday
    Battle Of Britain
    Beatles
    Benedict Cumberbatch
    Big Brother
    Bill Gates
    Birmingham
    BMDs
    Bob Bird
    Booker Prize
    Brazil V Germany
    Brooks Newmark
    Business News
    Cambridge News
    Carla Powell
    Charlie Hebdo
    Chloe Campbell
    Chris Martin
    Christian Horner
    Christmas Appeal
    Christopher Columbus
    Climate Change
    Counting Dead Women
    CPJ
    Daily Express
    Daily Mail
    Daily Mirror
    Daily Star
    Daily Telegraph
    David Mitchell
    David Montgomery
    David Moyes
    Depression
    Digital
    Domestic Violence
    Dominic Ponsford
    Duchess Of Cambridge
    Duke Of York
    Eddie Adams
    Eddie Redmayne
    Ed Miliband
    Edward Snowden
    Elveden
    Evan Harris
    Family Court
    First World War
    Floods
    Flower Memorial
    Foreign Reporting
    Fossil Fuels
    Front Pages
    Gates Foundation
    GCHQ
    Gemma Aldridge
    General Election
    George Clooney
    George Osborne
    Geri Halliwell
    Germanwings
    Gillian Wearing
    Google
    Grammar
    Grammar Schools
    Grandparents
    Graphic Images
    Guardian
    Guy Adams
    Hacked Off
    Handling Stolen Goods
    Harriet Green
    Headlines
    Headline Writing
    Helen McCrory
    HSBC
    Immigration
    Independent
    Independent On Sunday
    INSI
    Internet
    Iraq
    Isis
    James Foley
    James Harding
    James Murdoch
    Jason Seiken
    Jeffrey Epstein
    Jennifer Lawrence
    Jeremy Corbyn
    Jeremy Farrar
    Jessica Ennis-Hill
    John Cantlie
    John Oliver
    Jonathan Krohn
    Jon Swaine
    Jon Venables
    Josie Cunningham
    Journalists In Danger
    Journalists On Trial
    Justice
    Karen Ingala Smith
    Keep It In The Ground
    Kenji Goto
    Killing The Messenger
    Labour
    Leveson
    Liverpool Echo
    Local Papers
    Local World
    Lufthansa
    Luis Suarez
    Madeleine Mccann
    Mail On Sunday
    Manchester United
    Maria Miller
    Mental Health
    Mercury Prize
    Michael Foot
    Middle Class
    Mike Darcey
    Miliband
    Milly Dowler
    Miracles
    Mirror
    Misconduct In Public Office
    Missing Children
    Mohamed Fahmy
    MPs' Expenses
    National Anthem
    Native Advertising
    News International
    News Judgment
    News Of The World
    News UK
    Nick Parker
    Nigel Evans
    North
    NSA Files
    Operation Elveden
    Operation Golding
    Operation Rubicon
    Oscar Pistorius
    Paddington Bear
    Page 3
    Parliament
    Paul McCartney
    Paying Contacts
    Peaches Geldof
    Peter Greste
    Peter Oborne
    Phone Hacking
    Photography
    Picture Editing
    Police
    Police Corruption
    Poppies
    Press Freedom
    Press Gazette
    Press Regulation
    Press Uncuffed
    Prince William
    Privacy
    Protecting Sources
    Puffs
    Pulitzer Prize
    Real Birmingham Family
    Rebekah Brooks
    Redundancies
    Reeva Steenkamp
    Remembrance
    Renee Zellwegger
    Richard Attenborough
    Richard Desmond
    Richard Littlejohn
    RIPA
    Roy Greenslade
    Rupert Murdoch
    Russell Brand
    Saigon Execution
    Santa Maria
    Scottish Referendum
    Sex Abuse
    Shakespeare
    Simon Cowell
    Socialist Worker
    Southend Council
    Southend Echo
    Sport
    Statins
    Subs
    Suicide
    Sunday Mirror
    Sunday People
    Sunday Telegraph
    Surveillance Laws
    Syria
    The Arts
    The Guardian
    The I
    The Sun
    The Times
    Thomas Cook
    Tiffanie Darke
    Tommy Sheridan
    Tower Of London
    Tower Of London Poppies
    Victoria Coren
    Virginia Roberts
    Virginia Shootings
    Weather
    Wellcome Trust
    Wimbledon
    Women In The Boardroom
    Working Mothers
    World Cup

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.