tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/guardian-newspaper-6804/articlesGuardian newspaper – The Conversation2019-03-01T14:20:00Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1093092019-03-01T14:20:00Z2019-03-01T14:20:00ZBrexit and migration: our new research highlights fact-free news coverage<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/254757/original/file-20190121-100273-h6j1sf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">shutterstock</span> </figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-of-concern/">Immigration anxieties</a> played <a href="http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-34/key-findings/brexit-and-immigration-a-country-divided.aspx">a significant role</a> in British people’s decision in June 2016 to vote to leave the EU. This has fuelled a debate over the quality of media reporting on migration issues. </p>
<p>In order to get a better idea of the role the media played, we examined nearly 1,000 news items, feature articles and editorials from six UK newspapers: the Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, the Sun, the Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian, published in 2006 and in 2013. </p>
<p>These were politically important years: 2006 was the year before Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU and the time when it was becoming clear that migration forecasts for the countries that joined the EU in 2004 had been way off. In 2013 David Cameron, delivered his <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg">Bloomberg speech</a> in which he promised the EU referendum.</p>
<p>One thing that quickly became apparent was that media coverage contained a selective mixture of statistics, reported comments from politicians and other public figures, academic studies, think-tank reports, and emotive polemics backed with no evidence at all. The practice of mentioning evidence in passing and then dismissing or overriding it was also present. </p>
<h2>Bolt the door</h2>
<p>The most prominent theme was that mobility within the EU damages British sovereignty. Newspapers from across the political spectrum suggested that intra-EU mobility was impossible to control and that the free movement principle overrides British sovereignty. The theme was also marked by growing scepticism towards migration data and evidence. </p>
<p>The language used to describe EU migration tended to emphasise quantity and scale (“mass”, “vast”, “large scale”). There were lots of “floods” and “waves” and extensive use of military metaphors (“army”, “war”, “battle”, “siege” or “hordes”) in the tabloid press. </p>
<p>When covering migration from Bulgaria and Romania, the press regularly trotted out the figure of <a href="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/reports/bulgarians-romanians-in-press/">29m migrants</a> – which, in fact, is the combined population of the two countries. Rather than reporting on actual migration of Bulgarians and Romanians, papers preferred hypothetical scenarios where they would migrate en masse simply because they could. </p>
<p>An <a href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/enhdocview.do?docLinkInd=true&ersKey=23_T28495996547&format=GNBFULL&startDocNo=0&resultsUrlKey=0_T28495996549&backKey=20_T28495996550&csi=234674&docNo=1&scrollToPosition=0">opinion piece</a> from the Sun, dated September 22 2006, claimed that “any Bulgarian or Romanian will be free to come here as they please – and come they will, because their own countries are very poor and there is no work”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/261651/original/file-20190301-110115-7ftqxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/261651/original/file-20190301-110115-7ftqxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261651/original/file-20190301-110115-7ftqxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261651/original/file-20190301-110115-7ftqxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261651/original/file-20190301-110115-7ftqxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261651/original/file-20190301-110115-7ftqxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261651/original/file-20190301-110115-7ftqxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Daily Mail, 2006.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Gideon via Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Overall, the Guardian did a better job than the other papers when it came to using evidence. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/29/rise-labour-migration-from-eurozone">An article</a> from 2013 used statistics form the Department of Work and Pensions to reveal that immigration to Britain from southern European member states had increased by 50% while using national insurance registrations to show that “data shows little evidence of any surge in Romanians or Bulgarians arriving”. </p>
<p>One article in the Sun covered the story <a href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/enhdocview.do?docLinkInd=true&ersKey=23_T28496006505&format=GNBFULL&startDocNo=0&resultsUrlKey=0_T28496006507&backKey=20_T28496006508&csi=234674&docNo=1&scrollToPosition=0">from a different angle</a>, arguing that because of the negative impact of the financial crisis on the building trade in Italy and Spain, migrant workers were bound to be laid off and flood into Britain. The article was centred on an interview with “jobless William Razval, 24” – who, it said, “is desperate to lead the exodus”. </p>
<h2>Benefits scroungers</h2>
<p>The topic of EU nationals abusing the welfare system was the second most popular theme. Despite official figures, newspapers often chose to ignore evidence and play on public fears that welfare abuse was all but inevitable. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"642285075871215617"}"></div></p>
<p>The press trotted out crude decontextualised comparisons between living standards in Britain and eastern Europe. Once again, newspapers focused on the hypothetical possibility of welfare abuse, rather than on specific instances where it has actually taking place. In 2006, <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/honestys-the-best-immigration-policy-634982">Tony Parsons</a>, then a columnist with the Daily Mirror, asked: “At what point does mass immigration, even if it’s good for the economy, push our social services to breaking point?” </p>
<p>Nothing much had changed by March 2013, when a news article from <a href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/enhdocview.do?docLinkInd=true&ersKey=23_T28496052119&format=GNBFULL&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=0_T28496052147&backKey=20_T28496052148&csi=10939&docNo=2&scrollToPosition=0">the Times</a> quoted Iain Duncan Smith, who claimed that it was “too easy for EU migrants to claim access to social housing, health care and tax credits” without providing any evidence as to show how many were actually doing so. In June of the same year, the <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2334550/Softer-benefit-rules-immigrants-Not-IDS-around.html">Daily Mail</a> sounded a familiar dog whistle, claiming: “It is easy to imagine how a public fed up with abuses of the welfare state would react.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"883020914295799808"}"></div></p>
<p>In light of <a href="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/reports/decade-immigration-british-press/">recent arguments</a> that journalists become increasing proactive in framing and reshaping migration debates instead of being content with reporting them, it is important to assess the relationship between news coverage and evidence. After all, anti-immigration, eurosceptic reporting did much of the grunt work for the Leave camp and put immigration anxieties in the centre of Brexit discussions and negotiations. </p>
<p>Now we are faced with the danger of race-to-the-bottom <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/11/immigration-regime-after-brexit-risks-new-windrush-scandal">post-Brexit immigration policies</a> where EU citizens could be downgraded to migrants overnight on the basis of unsupported anxieties and wild speculations.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/109309/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Denny Pencheva does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A close reading of news articles and editorials from 2006 and 2013 shows that UK newspapers have systematically ignored the evidence to influence the public against EU migrants.Denny Pencheva, Associate Teacher, UK and EU migration policies; Assistant Teacher, Comparative Politics, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1032432018-10-10T22:42:43Z2018-10-10T22:42:43ZMedia Files: Guardian Australia’s Katharine Murphy and former MP David Feeney on the digital disruption of media and politics<p>Today on Media Files, a podcast about the major issues in the media, we’re taking a close look at the role of the news media in politics.</p>
<p>As the Wentworth by-election looms, we’re asking: is digital disruption changing the rules of journalism and politics in Australia?</p>
<p>It is easy to miss how disorienting it can be to work in the always-on-at-fire-hydrant-strength world of political journalism these days, as Guardian Australia’s political editor Katharine Murphy recounts in her recent essay-book <a href="https://www.mup.com.au/books/on-disruption-paperback-softback">On Disruption</a>. Matthew Ricketson speaks with her to understand the media’s role (if any) in the political turmoil that cost Malcolm Turnbull the prime ministership, triggering this month’s hotly contested by-election.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/media-files-spotlights-walter-v-robinson-and-the-newcastle-heralds-chad-watson-on-covering-clergy-abuse-and-the-threats-that-followed-102564">Media Files: Spotlight's Walter V. Robinson and the Newcastle Herald's Chad Watson on covering clergy abuse - and the threats that followed</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>One person who’s seen up close the sometimes difficult relationship between reporters and politicians is former federal Labor MP David Feeney. </p>
<p>Speaking to Andrea Carson about falling media trust and increased political polarisation, he asks: “In today’s Australia, where do you have a public conversation? Because there are so many different filter bubbles, there are no agreed facts… we are losing the capacity to build a consensus.” </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/media-files-what-does-the-nine-fairfax-merger-mean-for-diversity-and-quality-journalism-102189">Media Files: What does the Nine Fairfax merger mean for diversity and quality journalism?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Media Files is produced by a team of journalists and academics who have spent decades working in and reporting on the media industry. They’re passionate about sharing their understanding of the media landscape, especially how journalists operate, how media policy is changing, and how commercial manoeuvres and digital disruption are affecting the kinds of media and journalism we consume.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/au/podcasts/mediafiles">Media Files</a> will be out every month, with occasional off-schedule episodes released when we’ve got fresh analysis we can’t wait to share with you. To make sure you don’t miss an episode, find us and <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/media-files/id1434250621">subscribe on Apple Podcasts</a>, in <a href="https://play.pocketcasts.com/">Pocket Casts</a> or wherever you find your podcasts. And while you’re there, please rate and review us - it really helps others to find us.</p>
<p>You can find more podcast episodes from The Conversation <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/podcast-3738">here</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Recorded at the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Advancing Journalism. Producer: Andy Hazel.</em></p>
<h2>Additional audio</h2>
<p>Theme music by Susie Wilkins.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103243/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrea Carson is part of a research group that receives funding from the Australian Research Council where she is a chief investigator using big data to study public policy making in Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Ricketson receives funding from the Australian Research Council for two projects on which he is a chief investigator. He is president of the Journalism Education and Research Association of Australia (JERAA) and is the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance's (MEAA) representative on the Australian Press Council.</span></em></p>Today on the podcast we're talking filter bubbles, fake news, opinion vs fact. Media Files asks two experts how the media and politics influence each other - and why that's causing concern.Andrea Carson, Incoming Associate Professor at LaTrobe University. Former Lecturer, Political Science, School of Social and Political Sciences; Honorary Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of MelbourneMatthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/759542017-04-12T12:42:38Z2017-04-12T12:42:38ZA more radical Channel 4 move really could break up Britain’s London-centric media<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165062/original/image-20170412-25878-1saj2v3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tom Morris</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>To say that people living around the UK think there is something of a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/21/bbc-radio-stations-failing-northern-listeners-report-says">London-centric bias</a> in the British media would be an understatement. Although the capital represents 13% of the UK population, all of the country’s national English-language newspapers and broadcasters are based there – a level of concentration that is hard to justify on either economic or cultural grounds.</p>
<p>The most obvious solution is to relocate a greater proportion of UK-wide media outside the capital. Following the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/bbc-salford-move">BBC’s decision to relocate</a> some of its operations to Media City in Salford, it might soon be Channel 4’s turn to venture out of the capital. The government will soon launch a consultation on the channel’s future which – <em>inter alia</em> – will explore whether some or all of its operations should be based outside London. </p>
<h2>Think outside the M25</h2>
<p>The lack of regional diversity in the UK media was acknowledged by the <a href="http://mediaed.org.uk/media-literacy/resources-2/the-2003-communications-act">2003 Communications Act</a>, which required that a proportion of programmes by the UK’s main broadcasters (excluding Sky) be made outside the M25 (a 117-mile motorway which runs in a ring around Greater London). But the ambitions here were modest – so, for example, BBC channels were asked to produce 25% of their programming hours and 30% of their spending outside London. For Channel 4 and Five, those figures were 30% and 10% respectively. </p>
<p>But the Act still assumed the great majority of programming would be <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/51278/tpsr.pdf">made in London</a> – and, according to <a href="http://www.pact.co.uk/">PACT</a>, the body that represents the UK’s 500 independent media companies, this remains true. Around three-fifths of the UK’s independent media producers are based in London – four times the number in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined.</p>
<p>The BBC’s move to Salford was designed to address this. The move inevitably met with some resistance – London metropolitanism among parts of the creative establishment <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/26/peter-salmon-bbc-studios-salford-media-city">runs deep</a>. Reports that The Guardian is considering a return to its Manchester roots have also been greeted with scepticism, even within the paper’s own ranks – former editor, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/apr/09/guardian-manchester-move-rumour-london-media">Peter Preston concluding</a> that as far as the UK media goes, London is “where it’s at”.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165063/original/image-20170412-25882-1ldesx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165063/original/image-20170412-25882-1ldesx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165063/original/image-20170412-25882-1ldesx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165063/original/image-20170412-25882-1ldesx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165063/original/image-20170412-25882-1ldesx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165063/original/image-20170412-25882-1ldesx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165063/original/image-20170412-25882-1ldesx0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Radio Five Live at Media City, Salford.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">James Cridland</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are, of course, moments when this is true. But for most people, most of the time, London is not where it’s at. The BBC’s move of some of its operation to a northern hub recognises this. But even this is only a modest move on the road towards regional diversity.</p>
<h2>Forever England?</h2>
<p>The case to move more media out of London is compelling, and Channel 4 – with its reputation for freshness and originality – is an obvious candidate. An early frontrunner for host city is Birmingham, which has already offered the broadcaster a prime city centre location (although Karen Bradley – the minister for Culture, Media and Sport – represents nearby Staffordshire, a potential conflict of interest that might give rise to accusations of pork-barrel politics).</p>
<p>Hot on Birmingham’s heels is Manchester. Andy Burnham, Labour’s mayoral candidate for Greater Manchester, is busily making the case, arguing that the media infrastructure in Salford’s Media City makes “Greater Manchester the only viable alternative outside of London”. The other <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/apr/01/channel-4-move-location-location-location-manchester-leeds-birmingham">city being talked about</a> is Leeds, currently considered more of a long shot. </p>
<p>And all of this raises the question – why should we always assume that a UK broadcaster has to be based in England? The cultural bias of our broadcasters is not only London-centric, but England-centric.</p>
<p>Cardiff University has conducted four reviews for the BBC Trust looking at the UK broadcasters’ <a href="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/impartiality/2010/nations_impartiality_analysis.pdf">coverage of UK politics</a>. Despite the fact that a great deal of power and responsibility has now been devolved to the four nations, political coverage continues to be largely Westminster-based. Most stories about topics of devolved responsibility – in areas such as health and education – tend to ignore this, and focus only on England.</p>
<p>As former BBC Trustee and Chair of the Editorial Standards Committee Richard Ayre put it, devolution “<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2016/nations_news">represents a growing challenge to UK-wide broadcasters</a>”. But it is a challenge that it will be harder to meet if we assume that UK media must always be based in England. Imagine if Channel 4 moved to Edinburgh – which is after all – home to the UK’s premier cultural festival? This would be devo-max with a difference. It would send a powerful message that the UK union actually meant something – and that the Scottish capital has as much right to be at the centre of things as an English city.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165064/original/image-20170412-25898-1bx4u5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165064/original/image-20170412-25898-1bx4u5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165064/original/image-20170412-25898-1bx4u5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165064/original/image-20170412-25898-1bx4u5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165064/original/image-20170412-25898-1bx4u5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165064/original/image-20170412-25898-1bx4u5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165064/original/image-20170412-25898-1bx4u5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">BBC drama studios at Roath Lock in Cardiff.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Chris Sampson via Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A more plausible contender, perhaps, is Cardiff – the UK’s youngest capital city. The success of the <a href="http://www.walesonline.co.uk/lifestyle/showbiz/gallery/bbc-waless-drama-studios-cardiff-2002043">BBC’s drama studios in Cardiff Bay</a> – the base of production for Sherlock, Dr Who and Casualty, among others – has helped create one of the most impressive media infrastructures outside London, with a healthy supply chain of graduates from the City’s three universities (<a href="http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/students-make-up-20-cardiff-2028332">20% of Cardiff’s population are students</a>) including one of the world’s leading media schools.</p>
<p>As a resident of the Welsh capital – and as an employee of the aforesaid media school – I have to declare a bias. But how many other cities have hosted a NATO summit, the Champions League final and the Rugby World Cup, while <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30943255">developing a cultural reputation</a> for being edgy and innovative? In many ways, this <a href="https://www.cityoftheunexpected.wales/">City of the Unexpected</a> would make a perfect home for Channel 4. Oh – and its only two hours by train to central London.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75954/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>As the article states, I work in Cardiff. I have received funding from the BBC Trust - again referred to in the article - although there is no conflict of interest here.</span></em></p>But why stop at England? A ‘devo-max’ broadcasting hub would be more visionary.Justin Lewis, Professor of Communication, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/681072016-11-03T16:19:13Z2016-11-03T16:19:13ZGuardian interview finally brings an MI5 boss in from the cold – but why?<p>I cannot believe that a frisson did not pass through The Guardian’s offices when the paper’s executives had to balance the value of an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/01/andrew-parker-mi5-director-general-there-will-be-terrorist-attacks-in-britain-exclusive">exclusive interview with Andrew Parker</a>, the director-general of the security service MI5, against the fact that it meant giving front page space to the loudest and most unrepentant critic of the paper’s work with whistleblower Edward Snowden.</p>
<p>The Guardian made much of the exclusivity of it being the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/31/andrew-parker-increasingly-aggressive-russia-a-growing-threat-to-uk-says-mi5-head">first-ever interview</a> with a serving head of MI5 by a newspaper – but that was not the really significant point. MI5 chiefs have given speeches in the past that were targeted at the press and duly published and broadcast widely. What was significant was Parker’s choice of newspaper. By picking The Guardian, Parker was targeting readers of a paper that include some of the most ardent critics and active campaigners against the huge expansion of the – largely unaccountable – resources and powers of the UK intelligence community. </p>
<p>In the interview, which was <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/31/spy-chief-says-british-intelligence-has-foiled-12-terror-plots-s/">widely picked up</a> across the rest of the media, Parker made an erudite case for the value of MI5’s work in an unstable world – and identified numerous threats. From jihadists – notably 3,000 “violent Islamic extremist in the UK, mostly British”. From cyber and other dangers from the land of Putin – “Russia is at work across Europe and in the UK today. It is MI5’s job to get in the way of that.” And he cited a resurgence of Republican terrorism in Northern Ireland. Parker has taken his cogent if one-sided argument to his sternest critics.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144428/original/image-20161103-25359-9pcupv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144428/original/image-20161103-25359-9pcupv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144428/original/image-20161103-25359-9pcupv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=724&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144428/original/image-20161103-25359-9pcupv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=724&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144428/original/image-20161103-25359-9pcupv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=724&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144428/original/image-20161103-25359-9pcupv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=909&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144428/original/image-20161103-25359-9pcupv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=909&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144428/original/image-20161103-25359-9pcupv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=909&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Criticised: Edward Snowden.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Laura Poitras / Praxis Films</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Guardian reporters did tax him on his current position on the paper’s publication of the Snowden material from 2013 which <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/14/guardian-washington-post-pulitzer-nsa-revelations">won it a Pulitizer Prize</a> – but condemnation from the government, as well as the paper’s visceral Fleet Street enemies The Mail, The Sun, The Times and The Telegraph. And, of course, the intelligence lobby – notably <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mi5-chief-andrew-parker-edward-snowdens-gchq-leaks-gave-terrorists-the-gift-to-evade-us-and-strike-8867399.html">Parker himself</a>. </p>
<p>Has his opinion changed? Resolutely not. He held his own on a number of other questions with no further concessions to accountability or civil liberties. He said that MI5 has stopped 12 terrorist operations in the UK in the past three years but neither the Guardian reporters nor its readers are in any position to challenge that assertion. </p>
<h2>Public face of spying</h2>
<p>What this interview demonstrates is the increasing sophistication of the intelligence lobby and its media engagement. It is worth remembering that it was less than a quarter of a century ago that the government changed its policy of never revealing details of intelligence work or the names of intelligence chiefs.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144425/original/image-20161103-25349-r76hzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144425/original/image-20161103-25349-r76hzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=808&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144425/original/image-20161103-25349-r76hzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=808&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144425/original/image-20161103-25349-r76hzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=808&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144425/original/image-20161103-25349-r76hzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1016&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144425/original/image-20161103-25349-r76hzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1016&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144425/original/image-20161103-25349-r76hzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1016&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Stella Rimington was the first MI5 director-general to be publicly named.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">MI5</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Shortly after MI5 was acknowledged legally, the name of the director-general of MI5 – <a href="https://www.mi5.gov.uk/dame-stella-rimington">Stella Rimington</a> – <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1532221.stm">was revealed officially for the first time in 1993</a>. </p>
<p>Since then, the intelligence community, which had once had no official engagement with the public sphere, has learned to use it to effect. Sceptics may say that Parker agreed to the interview to influence the House of Lords’ vote on the <a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2016/june/lords-debates-investigatory-powers-bill/">Investigatory Powers Bill</a>. But the awful truth is that Parker does not need to lobby for the Bill. Backed by a prime minister who, as home secretary, made it her business to get an unadulterated version of the Investigatory Powers Bill into law, there is little danger of any changes being made. This is a <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2016/10/everything-you-need-know-about-terrifying-investigatory-powers-bill">draconian piece of legislation</a> the like of which we have not seen before, with too few safeguards and an accountability system that is still not independent enough. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"793217489668825089"}"></div></p>
<p>Whether the interview was a chance to fire a shot across the bows of the Russians or not, Parker’s interview for the Guardian was a complete publicity win for him. The Guardian “interrogation” produced nothing substantial. At one point, the reporters excitedly teased out of the lofty (“well over 6ft”) Parker new details of his Newcastle comprehensive school and Cambridge University background and then stated that MI5 has been traditionally drawn from the public school elite. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144424/original/image-20161103-25353-ch7j35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144424/original/image-20161103-25353-ch7j35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144424/original/image-20161103-25353-ch7j35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144424/original/image-20161103-25353-ch7j35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144424/original/image-20161103-25353-ch7j35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=948&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144424/original/image-20161103-25353-ch7j35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=948&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144424/original/image-20161103-25353-ch7j35.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=948&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former MI5 director-general, Eliza Manningham-Butler.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">MI5</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>That demonstrates a worrying lack of knowledge of MI5 ethnography which has tended to be different from <a href="https://www.sis.gov.uk/">MI6</a> and <a href="https://www.gchq.gov.uk/">GCHQ</a>. MI5 may have changed from the <a href="http://www.mi5.com/security/mi5org/spycatcher.htm">Spycatcher days</a> of being staffed by former British and colonial special branch and military people – but anyone who has had contact with MI5 staff in more recent years knows that recruits are diverse, often ex-teachers or ex-City types from redbrick or lesser universities who want a bit more purpose and excitement in their lives. </p>
<p>Aside from <a href="https://www.mi5.gov.uk/eliza-manningham-buller-baroness-manningham-buller">Eliza Manningham-Buller</a>, not many of the chiefs were “posh”. </p>
<p>This is a small but important point about the quality of national security reporting. We have very little information about how the intelligence community now operates as even the most up-to-date Snowden document is now four years old. So Parker was able to make a strong case for the imminent 25% increase in MI5 staffing and commensurate other resources – all underpinned by the IPB.</p>
<p>Those who seek more transparency and accountability for intelligence may feel a little chagrined at the emergence of a lobby so able to dominate the public sphere. Never before have government and its intelligence services had such powers and techniques of invasive mass surveillance available – and thus the potential to control the population as a whole and those who dissent in particular – yet with so <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/8507818/MI5-will-have-to-be-more-accountable.html">little accountability</a> by parliament or the fourth estate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68107/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Lashmar is part of a research group that is funded by ESRC but this article has not been funded.</span></em></p>By choosing to talk to MI5’s most outspoken press critics, the spy boss has made a very shrewd move.Paul Lashmar, Senior Lecturer in Journalism, University of SussexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/547542016-02-25T14:13:14Z2016-02-25T14:13:14ZWill people club together to ensure the survival of quality journalism?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111480/original/image-20160215-22563-1jzucc4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Leo U</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Journalism is in an existential crisis: revenue to news organisations has fallen off a cliff over the past two decades and no clear business model is emerging to sustain news in the digital era.</em></p>
<p><em>In the latest in our series on <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/media-business-models">business models for the news media</a>, Caroline Cheetham and Paul Broster look at exclusive memberships.</em></p>
<p>The shock announcement that the last printed version of the Independent will be published next month was <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-independent-newspaper-dies-as-it-was-born-in-the-white-heat-of-technology-54690">met with real sadness</a>. The 30-year-old newspaper has remained journalistically innovative since its launch in 1986, despite facing the increasing challenges of making print pay in a digital world. Indy co-founder, Andreas Whittam Smith, admitted it was a “painful day” but he reportedly said the printed paper was no longer economically viable: “The Independent’s journalism has never been more loved or respected but the costs cannot be sustained.”</p>
<p>And of course he is right. Our journalism and media students never come into university clutching an armful of newspapers. And the newspapers we provide in the newsroom at our high-tech MediaCityUK campus, are practically untouched. But our students – and young people generally – are arguably consuming more news and content than ever before. It simply doesn’t occur to them that they might have to pay for it. And that’s the problem for those of us who write and produce the news. If this industry doesn’t find a viable business model, the very jobs our aspiring, talented and creative students are seeking will not exist.</p>
<p>Many newspapers, including The Times, have resorted to paywalls (stablemate The Sun raised a paywall of its own but returning News UK boss Rebekah Brooks <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/30/sun-website-to-scrap-paywall">scrapped the idea</a> after little more than two years saying that the priority was to grow the paper’s audience). Others such as the Mail and <a href="http://www.themediabriefing.com/article/shift-simon-fox-trinity">Trinity Mirror</a> titles, have stuck with the advertising-led model, rationalising that the more readers they have, the more paying advertisers will be attracted. While the Mail Online has rapidly grown revenue from its site, it <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/21/mail-online-dmgt">has not offset losses from the decline in print advertising</a> as the circulation of its printed papers continues to decline.</p>
<p>The Guardian has been the most proactive of the UK’s newspaper groups when it comes to experiments with alternative future models. Under longtime editor Alan Rusbridger the paper was a steadfast opponent of paywalls, preferring to champion the notion of “open journalism”. And, editorially at least, it has led the way: the paper was a pioneer of the “digital first” approach, publishing first to its site then in the printed form the following morning. In terms of readership this has paid dividends – the <a href="http://www.poynter.org/2015/pew-report-portends-difficult-digital-slog-for-newspapers/340733/">Guardian is second most visited newspaper site in Britain</a> – just behind the Mail – and is in the top five most-read newspaper websites in the world.</p>
<p>But the Guardian’s <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/12152763/Guardian-braces-for-job-cuts-as-it-looks-to-slash-costs-by-20pc.html">business model is failing</a>. Early this year the Guardian announced it would be making cuts of 20% – around £50m – in an attempt to break even within three years. Executives admitted that annual operating costs had reached £268m, up 23% over a five-year period, compared with a 10% growth in revenues. It’s likely around 100 jobs could go in this round of cuts. The would follow more than 70 editorial jobs which were cut in 2012 to offset a pre-tax loss of £75.6m.</p>
<h2>Friends with benefits</h2>
<p>So how does the paper resolve the dilemma of providing innovative content for free, while continuing to survive as a business? <a href="https://membership.theguardian.com/">Persuading its readers to become Guardian members</a> could be the answer. The Guardian insists the scheme is not simply a paywall by another name. Day-to-day content will remain free online but members, paying between £15 to £60 a month, will get a lot more – from specialist pieces from correspondents, to access to hundreds of Guardian Live events, which will include masterclasses and Q&A sessions with correspondents and editors. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111495/original/image-20160215-6548-nbkkfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111495/original/image-20160215-6548-nbkkfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111495/original/image-20160215-6548-nbkkfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111495/original/image-20160215-6548-nbkkfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111495/original/image-20160215-6548-nbkkfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111495/original/image-20160215-6548-nbkkfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111495/original/image-20160215-6548-nbkkfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111495/original/image-20160215-6548-nbkkfh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Failed to boost the newspaper’s bottom line.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Esther Vargas</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s also anticipated that the membership scheme will eventually have global possibilities for the organisation, with events across the US and Australia. It relies on Guardian’s audience having a level of ownership of the paper, literally buying into its culture. And some argue that the Guardian, possibly more than any other news organisation, already has the brand loyalty to pull this off. <a href="https://twitter.com/JaspJackson">Jasper Jackson</a>, a media analyst for The Media Briefing, said: “It’s an appeal to the emotions of those who identify with the Guardian brand.” </p>
<p>The Guardian isn’t the first to try this approach. <a href="http://www.slate.com/">Slate</a>, one of the pioneers in digital-only news and media, <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/slate_plus/slate_plus/2015/04/happy_birthday_slate_plus_what_s_working_and_what_s_next_for_slate_s_membership.html">launched a similar programme</a> in April 2014. This membership offered allows loyal Slate readers a chance to actively contribute to the Slate newsroom by offering special access to writers and editors.</p>
<p><a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/">TPM</a>, another American online-only example, launched a similar scheme at the end of 2012, once again focusing on reader interest in the journalistic process and assuring all readers that this new approach <a href="https://gigaom.com/2012/10/03/talking-points-memo-and-why-membership-is-better-than-a-paywall/">was not a “paywall” and never would be</a>.</p>
<h2>Backstage passes</h2>
<p>As the new editor-in-chief of the Guardian, Katharine Viner, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/paul-blanchard/what-does-katharine-viners-appointment-mean_b_6956954.html">said recently</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>New techniques mean readers can share expertise, help us find stories and make decisions. We host big communities and engaging conversations, whether below the line, with our professional audiences such as teachers, or between Guardian members at live events - we should build on these relationships and invite readers into our journalism at an early stage.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ultimately, The Guardian’s new membership scheme represents a business model for media brands that have built up a loyal community of interest around their content. Whether it will be the model that solves the digital problem for news producers, is yet to be seen.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"698209243418255360"}"></div></p>
<p>So while the demise of the printed Independent is a sad day, many will also say it was inevitable – and it is a matter of time before other mastheads follow in the same way. As the Indy’s owner Evgeny Lebedev acknowledged in a letter to his staff:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The newspaper industry is changing, and that change is being driven by readers. They’re showing us that the future is digital.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We’ll have to wait and hope that this digital future is sustainable – the alternatives are too ghastly to contemplate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54754/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Guardian is hoping the membership model for newspapers will help it survive.Caroline Cheetham, Lecturer and Visiting Fellow in Journalism, University of SalfordPaul Broster, Director of Journalism, University of SalfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/385632015-03-09T18:52:46Z2015-03-09T18:52:46ZGuardian fortunes appear revived as leadership contest enters home straight<p>For a terrible moment last week, it seemed that the biggest talking point in the world of newspapers was going to be the frankly <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/sir-elton-john-shaves-off-evening-standard-owners-eyebrows-and-beard-for-comic-relief-10079450.html">bizarre spectacle</a> of Elton John shaving off Evgeny Lebedev‘s beard. </p>
<p>Lebedev is owner of The Independent and London Evening Standard, lest we forget, and even though the event was for Comic Relief, this did little to alleviate feelings of astonishment that a) anyone would own up to thinking of such a ruse and b) who on earth, outside of those au fait with the toxic world of media ownership, would find the process remotely interesting enough to donate any money? Now, if Justin Bieber were to give Rupert Murdoch a pedicure …</p>
<p>So it was very welcome news that Katharine Viner had been <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/05/katharine-viner-wins-staff-ballot-for-guardian-editor%2520">overwhelmingly successful</a> in a ballot to determine who might succeed Alan Rusbridger as editor-in-chief of the Guardian. Indeed, 53% of the 964 staff at the Guardian and Observer eligible to vote chose Viner, currently heading up the US Guardian, over three other candidates. </p>
<p>She is not a certainty for the job – the only thing actually guaranteed is that Viner’s name will be on a shortlist of three people from which the Scott Trust, which owns the Guardian group, will choose Rusbridger’s heir later this month. Nonetheless, it’s a great democratic gesture to allow journalists and editors such a voice. </p>
<p>As <a href="http://mediamanagersclub.org/guardian-and-observer-journalists-get-vote-next-editor-chief">Brian Williams</a>, father of the chapel of the National Union of Journalists, said: “Ultimately if you are going to be an effective editor here, of all places, you need the backing of the majority of journalists. Without any shareholders the staff are probably the biggest stakeholder in the organisation.”</p>
<p>And Viner is very much a Guardian woman, as her <a href="http://www.jomec.co.uk/blog/wp-admin/%25C2%25A0http:/gonuj.org/public/ballot/candidates/katharine_viner.html%2520">candidate statement</a> demonstrates. She has worked for the paper for 18 years, editing a variety of “flagship sections” and before her move to New York she was instrumental in launching the highly successful <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/insideguardian/2013/may/26/welcome-to-guardian-australia%2520">Guardian Australia</a> enterprise. As editor-in-chief at the Guardian US, she has been very impressive. </p>
<p>According to the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/guardian-website-moves-to-new-global-domain">Guardian’s own figures</a>, US traffic is up nearly 55% year-on-year. Hugely significant when one considers that now represents a third of the Guardian’s total digital audience.</p>
<p>Viner writes of being “liberated” by digital while keeping mindful of the need to safeguard the future of print – something that needs urgent attention. The <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sun-sales-are-unharmed-first-month-without-topless-photos-page-three%2520">latest ABC figures</a> show that Guardian sales fell by 10.34% year-on-year in February to 176,124 sales a day on average, which leaves it some distance behind its quality rivals, the Times and the Telegraph. </p>
<p>It could even be that in the near future the print version of the Guardian ceases to be. In 2012, Adam Freeman, then its commercial chief <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/9614953/Guardian-seriously-discussing-end-to-print-edition.html">was quoted</a> as saying the paper was on a “mission” to be able to stand alone as a digital-only publication, and was mixing its stable of traditional journalists with enthusiastic citizens who would work for free.</p>
<p>Well, that may become a reality sooner rather than later if one considers the most recent Guardian News and Media full year trading update. Jasper Jackson in the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/09/guardian-observer-publisher-guardian-news-media">Media Guardian</a> reported: “A 20% increase in digital sales over the year has more than compensated for declines in print circulation and advertising.”</p>
<p>Print aside, much seems in fine fettle – as the <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-claims-more-us-uk-unique-browsers-gmg-reports-20-cent-rise-digital-revenue-%25C2%25A380m">Press Gazette</a> points out, GMG has a cash and investment fund of more than £800m, its Australian unique browser audience has grown by 60% year-on-year and overall its digital revenue is up by 20% to more than £80m. </p>
<p>Throw into the mix the global significance of the NSA revelations recognised by the <a href="http://www.gmgannualreview2014.com/uploads/overview_press_release.pdf%2520">2014 Pulitzer prize</a>, the 2014 Newspaper of the Year accolade at the UK Press awards and the launch of Guardian Labs, its branded content and innovation agency, and you appear to have the makings of a healthy beast. </p>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/09/guardian-observer-publisher-guardian-news-media">Alan Rusbridger</a> further global expansion is on the horizon. He said: “Thanks to our balance sheet transformation, we can look forward to a period of targeted investment in the world-class journalism, digital excellence and increasingly international readership that is now the hallmark of the Guardian.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74211/original/image-20150309-13550-paqbel.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/74211/original/image-20150309-13550-paqbel.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74211/original/image-20150309-13550-paqbel.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74211/original/image-20150309-13550-paqbel.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74211/original/image-20150309-13550-paqbel.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74211/original/image-20150309-13550-paqbel.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/74211/original/image-20150309-13550-paqbel.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alan Rusbridger is going out with a bang.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Rusbridger#mediaviewer/File:Alan_Rusbridger_by_Alessio_Jacona_-_International_Journalism_Festival_2014.jpg">Jaqen</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As Rusbridger moves into the end phase of his role as editor of the Guardian he aims to leave his mark with a major reporting and coverage initiative dedicated to, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/climate-change-guardian-threat-to-earth-alan-rusbridger">in his words</a>, “events that have yet to materialise [which] may dwarf anything journalists have had to cover over the past troubled century”.</p>
<p>Referring to climate change and what governments can do to fight inexorable impending disaster, the Guardian’s new campaign will attempt to halt the progress of states and corporations involved in the plundering of planetary resources.</p>
<p>This is quite a task to undertake; not least because some of the companies and corporations that will no doubt be offended by the Guardian’s rigorous new approach will be those advertisers upon which all media operations depend.</p>
<p>But let’s not be churlish, and let’s hope that the integrity of Rusbridger’s crusade is maintained whoever takes over at the top. Katharine Viner clearly has the support of her colleagues, a commitment to journalism and vision for the future. </p>
<p>As she sums up in her candidate statement: “We should focus everything on why we are determined to sustain the Guardian: to report, inform, debate, entertain and reflect our values on a global scale.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38563/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
For a terrible moment last week, it seemed that the biggest talking point in the world of newspapers was going to be the frankly bizarre spectacle of Elton John shaving off Evgeny Lebedev‘s beard. Lebedev…John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/354392014-12-12T14:10:54Z2014-12-12T14:10:54ZMaking the news: how Alan Rusbridger became a story<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67085/original/image-20141212-6042-18zfufq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Digital native.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/31/alan-rusbridger-reddit-ama-best-answers">The Guardian</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>At 16.38 on December 10th 2014, the casual viewer of BBC News24 may been forgiven for thinking that news had finally eaten itself. For there, on the screen, was the breaking news announcement: GUARDIAN EDITOR QUITS. Alan Rusbridger to step down as editor-in-chief in 2015.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/alan-rusbridger-stand-down-editor-guardian-after-20-years-job.">Rusbridger had announced to staff</a> that in the summer of next year he would stand down from the newspaper he has edited for 20 years to take up the role of chair of the Scott Trust, which owns the group to which the Guardian belongs. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67084/original/image-20141212-6060-1jnp3hr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67084/original/image-20141212-6060-1jnp3hr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67084/original/image-20141212-6060-1jnp3hr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67084/original/image-20141212-6060-1jnp3hr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67084/original/image-20141212-6060-1jnp3hr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67084/original/image-20141212-6060-1jnp3hr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67084/original/image-20141212-6060-1jnp3hr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67084/original/image-20141212-6060-1jnp3hr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Because news….</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Twitter</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As Guardian journalist James Ball tweeted, it was: “Rolling news with the news about who edits some of the news. Because news.”</p>
<p>The Spectator gave the event the gravitas it deserved with <a href="http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/12/where-were-you-when-rusbridger-quit/">Steerpike</a> asking: “Where were you when Rusbridger resigned?”</p>
<p>Healthy – and much warranted – sarcasm aside though, the Rusbridger summer departure will mark the end of an era for British journalism. He has been, in Professor <a href="https://theconversation.com/alan-rusbridger-leaves-big-shoes-to-fill-at-the-guardian-35383">Brian McNair’s</a> view, ahead of the game in keeping The Guardian “vital and relevant” and is, according to <a href="http://bjr.org.uk/data/2014/no1_fletcher">Kim Fletcher</a> in the British Journalism review, one of the last “old-style” editors who “wields total power inside the papers they edit”.</p>
<h2>Power and the glory?</h2>
<p>It is that last point which is most interesting. To outsiders, such as myself, Rusbridger’s demeanour suggests donnish detachment and intellectual security – a placid counterpoint to the supposedly dominating approach of rivals such as the Mail’s Paul Dacre. The reality is somewhat different according to those in the know. Peter Wilby, the much-respected former editor of the New Statesman and Independent describes the level of influence Rusbridger enjoys. </p>
<p>He is editor of the Guardian newspaper, sits on the board of Guardian News & Media (which encompasses the Guardian, Observer and digital operations) and already sits on Scott Trust boards. “What Alan wants, Alan gets,” <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/media/media/2012/05/guardian-editor-alan-rusbridger-peter-wilby">writes Wilby</a> of a man who has, “extraordinary power and freedom”.</p>
<p>It’s against this background then, that we should view Rusbridger’s most notable achievements. The bringing down of the News of the World and the setting in process a series of events, including the Leveson enquiry and the phone hacking trials, which have altered the <a href="http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/leveson-inquiry-must-never-stand-2050700">fabric and structure</a> of the traditional press, depended on his willingness to support the tenacious journalism of his employee and friend Nick Davies. </p>
<p>The Guardian’s stance over phone hacking earned them few friends in some sections of the press. Tweeting about Rusbridger’s resignation Piers Morgan wrote on Wednesday: I actually like <a href="https://twitter.com/arusbridger">@arusbridger</a> & he’s been a good editor. But he’s tried to jail more journalists than Putin/Mao/Stalin put together.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"542724446063452160"}"></div></p>
<h2>Taking a stand</h2>
<p>Incidentally, it was Morgan’s current employer, The Daily Mail, which <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2451557/Daily-Mail-Comment-The-Guardian-paper-helps-Britains-enemies.html">editorialised </a>in 2013 that the Guardian was “the paper that helped Britain’s enemies”. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We believe the Guardian, with lethal irresponsibility, has crossed that line by printing tens of thousands of words describing the secret techniques used to monitor terrorists.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this sense and others, Rusbridger made many judgement calls which made the Guardian unpopular and placed it into direct conflict with government. </p>
<p>It was his newspaper which from August 2012 printed the journalism of Glenn Greenwald who worked closely with Edward Snowden, the computer specialist employed by the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA) who leaked details of numerous <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23721818%5D(http:/www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23721818">secret mass surveillance operations</a> to the press. </p>
<p>Writing of the Guardian’s association with Greenwald in 2013, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters">Rusbridger told</a> of a visit to The Guardian’s offices by two GCHQ experts who stood and watched while two of the newspaper’s hard drives were destroyed. In one of these meetings officials confirmed to him that if they did not get what they wanted then the government would move to close down the Guardian’s reporting through a legal route. </p>
<p>In the same column, Rusbridger argued that the state was building a surveillance system where, before too long, it would be impossible for journalists to maintain the confidentiality of sources and that governments, while paying lip service to the need for public debate, are making a concerted effort to silence whistle-blowers. Who could now doubt this to be true?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67086/original/image-20141212-6042-1letskc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67086/original/image-20141212-6042-1letskc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/67086/original/image-20141212-6042-1letskc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67086/original/image-20141212-6042-1letskc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67086/original/image-20141212-6042-1letskc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67086/original/image-20141212-6042-1letskc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67086/original/image-20141212-6042-1letskc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/67086/original/image-20141212-6042-1letskc.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Who’ll be next in the driving seat?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian#mediaviewer/File:The_Guardian_Building_Window_in_London.JPG">Bryantbob CC BY-SA 3.0</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Ironically, given the Mail’s comments, the quality and importance of this type of journalism was recognised in the US, when in April the Guardian and the Washington Post were jointly awarded a Pulitzer prize for articles on NSA activities. The awarding committee <a href="http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2014-Public-Service">praised the Guardian</a> for its:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>revelation of widespread secret surveillance by the National Security Agency, helping through aggressive reporting to spark a debate about the relationship between the government and the public over issues of security and privacy.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Digital steps</h2>
<p>Quality journalism aside, Peter Wilby also contends that Rusbridger’s achievements in establishing the success of Guardian online are worthy of praise. It’s common knowledge that the movement from print to online consumption of news continues apace and the Guardian brand’s success has come without having to resort to a paywall. </p>
<p>Remarkably, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/theguardian">The Guardian</a> website topped 100m monthly browsers for the first time in March and according to recent <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/17/guardian-website-100-million-users-abc">Audit Bureau of Circulations</a> multi-platform figures, average daily unique browsers have also reached highs of 5.67 million. </p>
<p>Expansions into the US and Australia have been successfully charted and, according to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/guardian-website-moves-to-new-global-domain">Guardian figures</a>, US traffic is up nearly 55% year-on-year. US traffic now represents a third of the Guardian’s total digital audience.</p>
<p>There is no need for this article to become hagiographic, though and there are many responsible for the Guardian’s global success. Hundreds of journalists who write responsibly, thoughtfully, provokingly, entertainingly, infuriatingly and consistently across the huge range of subject areas the Guardian covers.</p>
<p>There are many critics, too, of Rusbridger and the Guardian’s journalism. Davids Edwards and Cromwell of Media Lens regularly <a href="http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=662:silence-of-the-lambs-&catid=25:alerts-2012.">accuse </a>the Guardian of producing: “news propaganda, complacent ‘journalism’ and supine commentary” while relentlessly marketing itself as “a supposedly open and power-scrutinising flagship newspaper of fearless journalism”. </p>
<p>As they note, reading their <a href="http://medialens.org/index.php/bookshop/newspeak-sp-893004228.html">Guardians of Power</a> and <a href="http://medialens.org/index.php/bookshop/newspeak.html">Newspeak</a> books and hundreds of <a href="http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive.html">media alerts</a> might persuade us that the Guardian is far from the frontline of truth and democracy.</p>
<h2>Runners and riders</h2>
<p>All this notwithstanding, the key point is that Rusbridger is to leave the post that he held for 20 years. An event so momentous that the BBC chose to present it as “breaking news”. </p>
<p>Who will be his successor? The early money is on Janine Gibson, former editor in chief of Guardian US and now one of Rusbridger’s deputies, to succeed. Another deputy being tipped is Katharine Viner, currently running Guardian US.</p>
<p>And how might the Guardian change? It’s my guess, given Rusbridger’s track record and the fact that his migration is across the office rather than across the pond, so to speak: not very much at all.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35439/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
At 16.38 on December 10th 2014, the casual viewer of BBC News24 may been forgiven for thinking that news had finally eaten itself. For there, on the screen, was the breaking news announcement: GUARDIAN…John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/338162014-11-07T06:10:53Z2014-11-07T06:10:53ZLove them or hate them, BTL comments have changed journalism forever<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/63723/original/hh8xzhhp-1415181739.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Take that! Are trolls ruining journalism? </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Interviewed <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/nov/02/david-mitchell-interview-observer-column-lessons-modern-life-victoria-coren">recently in The Observer</a>, comedian David Mitchell revealed that he never reads the below the line comments on his online articles any more. He said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The presence of that community of commenters and the attitude that the Guardian website takes – which is that that’s as valid almost as the initial contribution that they’ve commissioned – is, I think, very dangerous to interesting writing. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Although Mitchell hasn’t been pushed on what constituted “interesting writing”, what was clear was how personally he took the criticism. To remain sane, he said, you had to hope that if “you were really as shit as people say you are, you would be fired” and that continued employment is evidence that “you are not absolutely loathsome”.</p>
<p>Mitchell isn’t the only journalist to feel this way. His sometimes television colleague and fellow Guardian writer Charlie Brooker <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/feb/06/charlie-brooker-answers-your-questions">said in 2013</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I keep wanting to ask to have all comments turned off. I think every columnist in the country would then applaud me … I’d say that enabling reader comments is the worst thing to have happened to newspapers since … since the last worst thing that happened to newspapers. I think there’s a Letters page for a reason. There’s plenty of room on the internet for people to say what they want, and where that isn’t is tacked on the end of something somebody else has written.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is no doubt that “below-the-line comments” as a form of participatory journalism have transformed the relationship between reader and journalist. As Alfred Hermida <a href="http://www.academia.edu/8563742/Participatory_Journalism">has pointed out</a>: “Journalists who have long cultivated a professional distance from their readers and sources find themselves integrated into a network into which the distances have collapsed.” </p>
<h2>No more captive audience</h2>
<p>For most of the 20th century, the journalist’s position was unassailable: he or she collected and distributed information to the audience largely unchallenged. Now, the developments in technology mean that readers, either singularly or collectively, have the agency to comment upon stories and writers and to determine the flow of discussion. Put simply, the reader’s role is no longer necessarily passive. The opportunity has emerged for the audience to engage with the traditional opinion makers and this engagement has clearly had both a positive and negative impact. </p>
<p>On the plus side, we can see that journalists are held to account. The once-omniscient columnist, so confident in his opinions and judgements, may have his arguments roundly supported, disputed, or critically examined by commenters.</p>
<p>They may expand upon a thread of the narrative: offer links which corroborate or contradict. Below the line we can see evidence of intellectual stimulation and the discussion of ideas: online posters do on occasion debate directly with authors, connecting and communicating in a constructive manner.</p>
<p>On the flipside of this are the spiteful, ill-considered and vindictive personal attacks that so many journalists face on a daily basis. Women such as <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/unspeakable-things-feminist-author-laurie-penny-subjected-to-vile-sexist-and-antisemitic-abuse-over-her-book-9617744.html">Laurie Penny</a> and <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-a-very-modern-form-of-menace-6268913.html">Yasmin Alibhai Brown</a>, who have written about their horrific experiences online, are the targets of sustained, it seems to me organised, abuse which appears below the line on almost every article to which they put their name.</p>
<p>Studies <a href="http://www.nickdiakopoulos.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/pr220-diakopoulos.pdf">are beginning to emerge</a> offering theories as to why people are capable of behaving in such a way. In the New York Times in March 2013, professors <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/opinion/sunday/this-story-stinks.html?_r=0">Dominique Brossard and Dietram Scheufele</a> argued that our emerging online media landscape has created a new public forum without the traditional social norms and self-regulation that typically govern our in-person exchanges. </p>
<p>This fits in with the “<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15257832">online disinhibition effect</a>” developed by US-based psychology professor John Suler. This is a detachment from reality that some people achieve online that they consider to be distinct and separated from their obligations in their offline world. This “dissociative identity” is an enabler for people to go online and behave in a way that completely contrasts with their “real lives”.</p>
<h2>Avalanche of vitriol</h2>
<p>So how do the editors cope with the avalanche of vitriol that seems to meet the publication of anything written by women or about feminism? Chris Elliot, the Guardian’s reader’s editor <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/10/readers-editor-online-abuse-women-issues">says</a> that moderators spend a lot of time “weeding out” either off-topic or offensive comments in threads attached to any article loosely related to feminism or women’s issues. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>There seems to be a huge backlash against the Guardian’s increasing coverage of feminist issues, from more frivolous pieces (body hair, sunbathing topless, anything to do with Beyoncé) to pieces on domestic violence, FGM etc. WATM (what about the men) is now something we look out for on any piece about women as standard.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To be fair to the Guardian, the terms and conditions to register for comments are spelled out quite clearly. Each commenter must: “warrant that the content you submit to us is not obscene, threatening, harassing, libellous, deceptive, fraudulent, invasive of another’s privacy, offensive, defamatory of any person or illegal”.</p>
<p>This being the case, what to make of this comment (posted during the writing of this article) concerned with an article arguing the killer of Ann Maguire should never have been named in the media?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Somedays i think the Guardian can’t sink any lower then a young man kills a woman in a savage knife attack and planned to kill two others including an unborn child and they are on the side of the killer. He should just be thrown in a dungeon and left to rot. </p>
<p>The woman who wrote this piss poor article would soon change her mind if her mother was stabbed to death. It’s easy for these pathetic woolly minded Guardinistas to pretend how liberal they are by taking the side of a murderer but in real life he is nothing but a piece of shit to be forgotten by everyone.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Whatever the debates about commenters and how best to ensure fair and balanced discussion, the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. For one thing is certain – while newspaper sales in hard copy continue to fall, visits to online news sources such as the Guardian and the Mail Online continue to rise. The latter has an average <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/mail-online-stays-top-11m-daily-browsers-national-newspaper-website-abc-figures-may">daily unique browser figure of nearly 11.8m</a> and in 2013 it overtook the New York Times as the web’s most visited newspaper. </p>
<p>The point is, the more traffic which can be drawn to an article the more likely it is to attract advertisers and therefore generate revenue. The amount of reader’s comments on any given article is a great (but not the only) indicator of audience interest and of what is going to attract advertisers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33816/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Interviewed recently in The Observer, comedian David Mitchell revealed that he never reads the below the line comments on his online articles any more. He said: The presence of that community of commenters…John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/336962014-10-31T13:33:18Z2014-10-31T13:33:18ZBBC flexes its money-making muscles as Guardian calls foul<p>The BBC has put the cat among the pigeons with the <a href="http://www.marketingmag.com.au/news/bbc-global-news-ramps-up-australian-team-and-native-offerings-ahead-of-g20-summit-in-brisbane-57166/#.VE4hwvnkfYh">news</a> that its commercial arm, <a href="http://www.bbcworldwide.com/">BBC Worldwide</a>, will <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/medianews/article4246017.ece">beef up its presence in Australia</a> by hiring local journalists and launching a dedicated news service on BBC.com. </p>
<p>The news went down particularly badly at The Guardian, which has – of course – recently beefed up its own presence in Australia, taking advantage of the newsroom carnage which has seen hundreds of journalists laid off in recent years to hire some of the country’s most experienced and credentialed reporters and editors.</p>
<p>The Guardian says it has more than doubled its market share in Australia since launching its local edition in May 2013, and that it now reaches more than 1.9m unique visitors a month.</p>
<p>What’s really bugging The Guardian, of course, is that BBC Worldwide will sell advertising into its Australian operation, thereby cramping a market that the executives at Kings Place had earmarked for expansion.</p>
<p>In his Polis public lecture at the London School of Economics recently, Guardian Media Group chief executive <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/gnm-press-office/2014/oct/23/andrew-miller-global-news-media-the-next-horizon">Andrew Miller</a> said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Australia is already a diverse and highly competitive market. The BBC’s expansion into Australia goes beyond its public service remit. More than that, it does not benefit UK licence fee payers or meet the requirement of the BBC to provide news in parts of the world where there are limited alternatives.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Echoes there of James Murdoch’s now-infamous <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/aug/28/james-murdoch-bbc-mactaggart-edinburgh-tv-festival">McTaggart lecture</a> in 2009, when he delivered a fierce “Get your tanks of our lawn” message to the BBC about the public broadcaster’s digital ambitions:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is a land-grab, pure and simple, going on - and in the interests of a free society it should be sternly resisted. The land grab is spear-headed by the BBC. The scale and scope of its current activities and future ambitions is chilling. Being funded by a universal hypothecated tax, the BBC feels empowered and obliged to try and offer something for everyone, even in areas well served by the market.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Given the way The Guardian likes to trumpet its difference from the Murdochs and News Corp in terms of its moral ethos and value set, it was interesting to hear Miller making almost exactly the same point as Murdoch, five years on. Being supported by the licence fee, he said, the BBC “doesn’t have to worry about its funding.” Its role, therefore, should be to “constructively support those British news brands that do.”</p>
<p>Miller’s comments on the BBC were interesting, constructive and not limited to the Australian venture, though. He has some workable ideas on how the BBC might ‘constructively support ‘its commercial counterparts. </p>
<p>What if, he posits, the Guardian, the Mail and such like had access to the raw news feeds coming in from court cases, Royal weddings, key Select Committee hearings and other global breaking news events? What if the BBC released its back catalogue to content providers “to create new content that the BBC doesn’t have the time, inclination or expertise to create”?</p>
<p>To be fair to Miller, he doesn’t imagine that the BBC do all this for free out of the goodness of its heart. He states that in territories where BBC Worldwide had a commercial interest, the content could be chargeable along the same lines as the agreement the BBC currently has with its own commercial news service. But in situations where no such commercial value exists, “content should be made freely available for national, local and hyper-local organisations to explore.”</p>
<h2>Major player</h2>
<p>Some of what Miller said is easily challenged. It’s worth noting, for example, that <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-boss-bbc-distorting-news-market-australia-google-needs-take-editorial-responsibility%20-">BBC Worldwide</a> is the corporation’s commercial arm and its operations overseas are not funded by the licence fee. But his description of the BBC as a truly “dominant world player” is undoubtedly bang on the money.</p>
<p>In its 2013/14 <a href="http://www.bbcworldwide.com/annual-review/annual-review-2013/ceo-review.aspx%20,">annual review</a>, BBC Worldwide chief executive Tim Davie stated that the public broadcaster’s commercial arm was a fully-integrated global content company doing business in over 200 territories, expanding into areas as diverse as Cambodia and Romania. </p>
<p>Far from not benefiting the licence payer, the continued expansion means that in <a href="http://www.bbcworldwide.com/annual-review/annual-review-2014.aspx">2013/14</a> £173.8m was paid to the Corporation in dividends and investments, while £88.9m was invested in BBC in-house productions. Light entertainment formulas are sold all over the world: think of The Great British Bake Off, which, as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/13/tv-shows-overseas-great-british-bake-off-downton-abbey">The Guardian</a> reported, has been successfully adapted in a whole host of other territories. The modern adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, meanwhile was licensed to 224 territories in 2013 and the third series attracted more than <a href="http://www.mediaweek.co.uk/article/1304803/benedict-cumberbatchs-sherlock-helps-bbc-worldwide-return-1738m-bbc">67 million hits on China’s digital platform YouKu</a>.</p>
<h2>Business plan</h2>
<p>While BBC Worldwide operates under the BBC’s <a href="http://www.bbcworldwide.com/about-us.aspx">Charter and Agreement</a>, it actually has a commitment to be commercially efficient. In the US, where revenue is close to US$600m, Tim Davie is mapping further growth. For him, BBC America is “<a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bbc-worldwide-ceo-targets-us-674423.">a small big business, which needs to grow</a>.” It’s this logic which is behind the most recent developments. </p>
<p>American Movie Classics (AMC) Cable Company has bought a 49.9% stake in BBC America for $200m (£125m). Under the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/worldwide/2014/amc-networks-bbc-worldwide-partnership">terms of the deal</a>, AMC will take over operational control and advertising sales of BBC America. </p>
<p>BBC director-general, <a href="http://www.jomec.co.uk/blog/wp-admin/%E2%80%99http:/www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/23/amc-networks-share-acquisition-bbc-america">Tony Hall</a> (who is also chairman of BBC Worldwide) has clearly signalled that the US is a huge target for BBC growth. One can assume the same to territories such as Australia.</p>
<p>So this is the problem for Andrew Miller, James Murdoch and others: the BBC’s international power is clearly growing and it is forging alliances with major global players. It is expanding in areas where its interests will collide with other news providers. The case for co-operation and collaboration made by Miller in his LSE speech may be persuasive from a public service, utilitarian perspective. </p>
<p>Whether the business plan makes sense to BBC worldwide, though, remains to be seen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33696/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The BBC has put the cat among the pigeons with the news that its commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, will beef up its presence in Australia by hiring local journalists and launching a dedicated news service…John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/304912014-08-14T13:34:00Z2014-08-14T13:34:00ZHack Attack: brickbats and bouquets for reporter who broke hacking scandal<p>Nick Davies is a hero for my generation of journalists and <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/press-gazettes-top-ten-investigative-journalists-brave-and-unstoppable-nick-davies-tops-list">many generations of younger reporters</a>. He can be fairly characterised as <a href="http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/web/woodstein/">a Woodward or Bernstein</a> of British “quality” journalism. </p>
<p>Davies decided to turn on his own tribe in recent years and has taken a lot of flak for it. Fortunately the vitriol has been metaphorical sticks and stones. Perhaps the worst he’s had to deal with is a sense that <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/nick-davies-bad-guys-hate-me-most-journalists-are-decent-people-and-are-glad-i-exposed-phone-hacking">the “bad guys” hate him</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.flatearthnews.net/">Flat Earth News</a>, and now <a href="http://www.randomhouse.co.uk/editions/hack-attack/9781448114344">Hack Attack</a> are blockbuster 400-page-plus denunciations of journalistic corruption, abuse of power, criminality and immorality.</p>
<p>Sources for Hack Attack include a large number of former News of the World journalists willing to help because of their shame and anger at what was going on.</p>
<p>It is written with novelistic characterisation and the language of a potential screenplay. He says of former managing editor Stuart Kuttner: “He had served half a dozen editors in a role like that of the Harvey Keitel character in Pulp Fiction – he cleaned up the mess.” </p>
<p>He talks of another senior editorial figure as somebody known as the “the rasping fuckwit” who was, he writes, “the kind of cynic who gives cynics a bad name”.</p>
<p>The News of the World is depicted as a cauldron of tabloid raptors. Davies unpacks the legend of this story with Vladimir Propp’s grasp of the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Morphology-Folktale-Publications-American-Folklore/dp/0292783760">Morphology of the Folk Tale</a> and <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-poe/">Aristotle’s Poetics</a>. </p>
<h2>Opening Pandora’s box</h2>
<p>The story has all the elements of an unfolding Greek tragedy. He casts as his Watergate Deep Throat equivalent a man called “Mr Apollo”. This is code for the source holding the key to Pandora’s box. Open the box and the true extent of Glenn Mulcaire’s phone hacking targeting thousands over many years would burst open.</p>
<p>The person or persons leaking here could well have been breaking the law. Davies received documents at the heart of a confidentially settled breach of privacy action brought against News International by the chief executive of the Professional Footballers Association, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/jul/08/murdoch-papers-phone-hacking">Gordon Taylor</a>. </p>
<p>The damages and legal costs deal of nearly £750,000 have been described as <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8705902/Phone-hacking-James-Murdoch-admits-hush-money-payout.html">News of the World hush money</a>.</p>
<p>Hack Attack is also a narrative of struggle. The Guardian’s assertion that News of the World phone hacking was rife was trashed and ignored by rival papers, the Metropolitan Police and <a href="http://pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NjAyOA==">Press Complaints Commission.</a></p>
<p>Davies says the Guardian’s editor since 1995, Alan Rusbridger, is a man of backbone who stood by him in the eye of a storm of derision and castigation. </p>
<p>Rusbridger’s befuddled Erik Satie of Hampstead appearance is beguiling. He has been mocked as <a href="http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/culture/books/non_fiction/article1199570.ece">an aging Harry Potter adult look-alike and lapsed amateur pianist</a>. But his appearances <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/nov/16/alan-rusbridger-statement-leveson-inquiry">before Leveson</a> and House of Commons <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/dec/03/keith-vaz-alan-rusbridger-love-country-nsa">select committees</a> have been steely. </p>
<p>The book and its associated promotion do provide some clues as to why Davies and the Guardian may indeed be “hated” not necessarily by just “the bad guys” of tabloid land. </p>
<p>The book seeks to rationalise the wretched damage, destruction and mess ignited by the scandal. Davies is defensive and sanitising about <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2650205/News-World-journalists-did-not-delete-Milly-Dowlers-voicemails-parents-false-hope-alive-hacking-trial-told.html">the blood libel</a> that News of the World hacks had deleted Milly Dowler’s messages giving false hope to her parents that she was still alive. </p>
<p>It is argued this was “an honest mistake” and that any examination of media coverage at the time shows it is the phone hacking of a murdered teenager’s phone that focused public outrage. </p>
<p>Davies says he and the Guardian were not responsible for the loss of hundreds of jobs through the News of the World’s closure. This was a cynical move by Murdoch to bring forward a plan for the Sunday Sun and offer up a sacrificial lamb to save the bid for BSkyB. </p>
<h2>Political agenda</h2>
<p>I suspect the ambiguity and paradox of deserved admiration and undeserved loathing derive from his political agenda. </p>
<p>There is a very strange ranting epilogue against neo-liberalism at the end. Speaking as an orthodox broadcast journalist who believes politics and attitudes need to be locked at home, I find Davies editorialises as much as he reports. He comes across as the veritable Oliver Cromwell of media ethics reform. He put his name, along with John Pilger, to the demand from “200 leading cultural figures” for the press to <a href="http://hackinginquiry.org/mediareleases/declarationmarch18/">surrender to Royal Charter approved regulation</a>. </p>
<p>He aims to eradicate cruel tabloid journalism that ruins people’s lives yet the unintended irony is that Davies’ greatest story has led to the ruin of many journalists’ lives, their sources and police media relations. The families of journalists and sources going to jail may not appreciate the tone of his speech at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEG1elQ311Q">Hack Attack’s book launch</a>. </p>
<p>This is the story that not only led to the Leveson Inquiry, criticised by some as <a href="http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/12004">a political show-trial</a>, but panicked News International into handing over computer hard-disks that may turn out to be the most <a href="http://www.exaronews.com/articles/4824/commentary-why-i-gave-evidence-in-trial-of-senior-police-officer">catastrophic betrayal of reporters’ sources in journalism history</a>. </p>
<p>No other country in the western world has been criminally <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2100664/Scotland-Yard-Stasi-sinister-assault-free-Press.html">investigating and prosecuting so many journalists</a>. An industry shedding circulation, titles and jobs has lost up to £1 billion <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/former-news-int-chief-exec-tom-mockridge-said-news-world-hacking-scandal-costs-could-rise-%C2%A31bn">compensating privacy claimants and paying lawyers’ fees</a>. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9">Article 10 of the Human Rights Act</a> states that freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas must exist without interference by public authority. Existing criminal and civil law already cover the necessary exceptions. This is something the News of the World’s former chief reporter and newly released jailbird Neville Thurlbeck explained with some insight <a href="http://www.nevillethurlbeck.com/2014/08/oxford-union-debate.html">at the Oxford Union</a> prior to his Old Bailey sentencing. </p>
<p>Davies was indeed only the messenger who sowed the wind – and, as such, he should not be held responsible for reaping the whirlwind that has devastated some tabloid careers. But if there are people out there – other than what he calls “the bad guys” who regard him as a traitor to journalism, it may have more to do with his support for a form of press regulation which I and many others think may devastate the craft as a whole.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/30491/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Crook is a member of the Chartered Institute of Journalists and serves on its Professional Practices Board.</span></em></p>Nick Davies is a hero for my generation of journalists and many generations of younger reporters. He can be fairly characterised as a Woodward or Bernstein of British “quality” journalism. Davies decided…Tim Crook, Reader in Media and Communication (Goldsmiths), Visiting Professor of Broadcast Journalism (Birmingham City University), Goldsmiths, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/243632014-03-17T13:36:24Z2014-03-17T13:36:24ZExplainer: what political clout does Prince Charles have?<p>A matter concerning Prince Charles, letters written to government ministers and a bid by the Guardian to make them public has been playing out in British courts and the media for the past few years. It highlights an interesting and important aspect of constitutional law namely, what, if any, political power does the monarch, or members of her family, wield?</p>
<p>We all know that a constitutional monarch should be “politically neutral”. What that actually means in practice is more difficult to define. We can safely assume that the Queen has political views of her own. Constitutionally, she is perfectly entitled to make those views known to her ministers. <a href="http://www.economist.com/topics/walter-bagehot">Walter Bagehot</a>, who provided the British with the closest they have to a <a href="http://cakeofcustom.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/rights-to-be-consulted-to-encourage-and.html">working definition of constitutional monarchy</a>, famously claimed that the sovereign had three rights in relation to ministers: to be consulted, to encourage and to warn. This offers ample scope for the implicit expression of political views.</p>
<p>The notion of political neutrality, therefore, rests not on an expectation that the Queen is “apolitical”, but on three other things: the doctrine of ministerial “advice”, a strict code of secrecy, and the personal discretion of the monarch. The Queen only speaks and acts publicly in any significant sense on the advice of her ministers. This both maintains the power of elected representatives and shields the Queen from personal criticism. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, British prime ministers strictly adhere to the convention that the substance of their conversations with her in their weekly meeting should be treated as confidential. In this, as in many other aspects of Britain’s unwritten constitution, much depends on everyone behaving well. No amount of secrecy will maintain an impression of political neutrality if the monarch gives any impression of being partisan or determined to promote their own political agenda. Luckily, the Queen has been a model of good behaviour.</p>
<p>The expectations placed upon other members of the royal family are less clear, particularly if they are not directly in line to the throne. Prince Philip never seems to have felt much obligation to conceal his views or render them anodyne (Harold Macmillan <a href="http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/books/2011/06/supermac-in-eight-anecdotes/">dismissed</a> one of his interventions as being “too like that of a clever undergraduate who has just discovered Socialism”). On the whole, however, his comments have been treated indulgently, both because they tend to enliven otherwise rather stilted royal occasions and because they generally steer clear of party political issues. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the recent decision of princes William and Harry to join their father in support of a public campaign against elephant poaching will probably be seen less as a political intervention than a continuation of the tradition Frank Prochaska <a href="http://www.frankprochaska.com/books/royal-bounty/">has described</a> as “welfare monarchy”, by which members of the royal family have sought to associate themselves with “good causes”.</p>
<p>Prince Charles, however, is a very special case, and not simply because he is the heir apparent. Rather than simply slipping out in casual conversation, his firmly-held and sometimes controversial views have formed the basis for a number of set-piece speeches. We also know that he is in fairly regular contact with ministers. Putting the two together, it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that Charles may be exploiting his special access to Whitehall in order to lobby for his pet causes in ways that might undermine confidence in his ability to act as a politically neutral sovereign. His supporters claim his contacts with ministers are merely a way of <a href="http://www.academia.edu/3589443/Constitutional_Conventions_and_the_Prince_of_Wales">preparing him for kingship</a>. Prevented, however, by official secrecy from learning about the precise nature of these contacts, we are in no better position to assess whether a troubling constitutional line has been crossed than we are to know whether the fridge light goes off when we close the door.</p>
<h2>Guardian FoI request</h2>
<p>Soon however, we may be able to make just such a judgement. In April 2005, the Guardian journalist Rob Evans applied under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act to obtain the release of 27 letters written by Charles to various government departments since the previous September. The departments refused to release the papers and their decision was upheld by the information commissioner. Evans’ appeal against this ruling was then considered by a special tribunal. During the course of an exhaustive six-day hearing, it considered evidence from all sides and even went into closed session when examining the documents themselves. </p>
<p>In September 2012, the tribunal upheld Evans’ right to see “advocacy correspondence” from the Prince of Wales on the grounds that “it will generally be in the overall public interest for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government”. </p>
<p>The judgement was, however, almost immediately <a href="http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/49610/prince-charles-letters-outrage-attorney-generals-cover">overturned by a certificate issued by the attorney-general</a>, Dominic Grieve, who claimed the release of the documents would undermine Charles’s political neutrality and inhibit his ability to correspond frankly with ministers. Last week, in the latest twist to this story, the Court of Appeal <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26544124">overturned Grieve’s decision</a>, pointing out that he had been unable to point to any error of law or fact behind the tribunal’s conclusion.</p>
<p>So where does that leave us? Unless the Supreme Court overturns this latest judgement, Charles’s “advocacy correspondence” will have to be released. Even if it is not, we know the tribunal believed its contents to be of such political significance that it was in the public interest to release it. In the process, the tribunal demonstrated the need for a public watchdog to prevent members of the royal family using official secrecy to conceal actions that many of us would consider improper and unconstitutional. </p>
<p>The tragic irony, however, is that any similar request made today under FOI would almost certainly fail. In a change introduced in the dying days of the last Labour government, and which came into effect in January 2011, the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/25/contents">law was revised</a> so that there is now no public interest appeal against any decision to withhold correspondence relating to the Queen and Prince Charles. This, it was explained, was so that “the constitutional and political impartiality of the Monarchy is not undermined”. </p>
<p>The change clearly came in response to pressure from the palace, keen to ensure that no similar attempt could be made to investigate royal activities. The government was cowardly in surrendering to this, and as the letters themselves may vividly reveal, the public interest was very poorly served. The notion that secrecy alone can maintain the political neutrality of the monarch is dangerous and wrong.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/24363/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Philip Murphy receives funding from the AHRC.</span></em></p>A matter concerning Prince Charles, letters written to government ministers and a bid by the Guardian to make them public has been playing out in British courts and the media for the past few years. It…Philip Murphy, Director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies and Professor of British and Commonwealth History, School of Advanced Study, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/229702014-02-10T14:38:22Z2014-02-10T14:38:22ZWhy journalists should rally in defence of the D-notice<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41159/original/hh6d47dq-1392032203.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Until Ed, spooks and hacks have always rubbed along well.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the wake of Edward Snowden affair, the government is holding a <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/da-notice-committee-which-advises-editors-national-security-risks-could-be-scrapped-wake">review</a> of the operations of the Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC) and what is generally known as the “<a href="http://www.dnotice.org.uk/">D-Notice</a>” system.</p>
<p>This is a very agreeable early-warning system whereby any journalist covering a defence, security, or intelligence story can reliably check on the risks of putting lives at risk, or clumsily blundering into any operation that could save the country from terrorist attack or even the investigation of global organised crime, something in which spooks are now very much involved.</p>
<p>The D-Notice is a very modern system. Risk areas can be checked online in terms of standing <a href="http://www.dnotice.org.uk/index.htm">Defence Advisory Notices</a>. If you want advice 24 hours a day, you can ring the DPBAC secretary or deputies. Anything you say and any advice you get will be confidential, so there is no risk of your exclusive stories being spilled or spoiled by spin-doctors and media rivals.</p>
<p>The current secretary, Air Vice-Marshall Andrew Vallance and his predecessor Rear Admiral Nicholas Wilkinson, have always impressed me. They have gone out of their way to visit media publishers to brief, explain, and indeed educate. They have visited universities to talk to journalism students.</p>
<p>Andrew Vallance presented a multimedia lecture to 120 undergraduate and postgraduates at <a href="http://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/journalism/">Goldsmiths just before Christmas</a> that drew overwhelming appreciation and interest from tomorrow’s journalists. Vallance is totally clued up on social media, new digital platforms of communication and briefed with impartiality and understanding about the tensions and conflicting needs of the media in a democratic state that also has to be protected through arms and intelligence. </p>
<p>The committee that advises Vallance and his two deputies has a <a href="http://www.dnotice.org.uk/committee.htm">majority of media representatives</a> from print, broadcasting, online and publishing. The culture encourages dialogue and understanding, tolerates disagreement and debate and is infinitely better than any alternative.</p>
<p>Speculation that it <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/02/d-notice-mod-very-british-secrets">should be scrapped</a> and replaced with direct MOD press office and government directed media relations is rife. This would be another disaster to add to the accelerated decline of media freedom in recent times. DPBAC is probably the last state and media liaison body constituted by agreement, effective in operation – and bereft of pomposity and the discombobulated arrogance of government by propaganda.</p>
<h2>Press freedom under attack</h2>
<p>When controlling the message, manipulating the news agenda, burying bad news and massaging the Fleet Street diaspora and 24-hour rolling news tower of Babel does not work, we risk a descent into authoritarianism; persecuting and jailing sources, arresting journalists at dawn and questioning them under caution in some kind of stop-and-search for hacks.</p>
<p>Perhaps there is a new rule emerging for the Monopoly board of risks in British journalism. Legislature, executive, academia and judiciary appear to be licking their lips at the prospect of hacks doing porridge after failing to land on the brown of Whitechapel or blue of Mayfair. Oh what it is to ask the wrong question and write the wrong answer: do not pass, go directly to jail.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41160/original/64vw3nvv-1392032257.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41160/original/64vw3nvv-1392032257.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/41160/original/64vw3nvv-1392032257.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41160/original/64vw3nvv-1392032257.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41160/original/64vw3nvv-1392032257.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41160/original/64vw3nvv-1392032257.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41160/original/64vw3nvv-1392032257.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/41160/original/64vw3nvv-1392032257.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=469&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alan Rusbridger feared The Guardian’s stories would be suppressed.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source"> PA Wire</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Back in the 1970s, the left-wing chattering comrades in the “alternative press” talked of D-Notices as though they were secret umbrella dart guns, with radioactive Polonium-210 tipped pellets fired by Cold War spooks in bowler hats and gas masks. The reality was always more prosaic. DPBAC is a peculiarly British method of discussion, mediation, conciliation and confidential consultation.</p>
<p>According to a <a href="http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/content/guardian-g8-spying-revelations-were-breach-da-notice-guidance-doesnt-explain-lack-follow">report in the Press Gazette</a>, the system’s potential demise arises from a Guardian story about how British security services spied on foreign powers when the UK hosted a G20 summit in 2009. Despite signing up to the Defence Advisory Notice system, the Guardian’s editor Alan Rusbridger <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/03/guardian-not-intimidated-nsa-leaks-alan-rusbridger-surveillance">decided not use it</a>. Subsequently he did. At the beginning, Rusbridger and his experienced and veteran specialists on security matters feared prior-restraint injunction. What subsequently happened in The Guardian’s basement with <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-released-guardian-editors-snowden-hard-drives-gchq">electric saws and hard disks</a> and the paper’s “courier” David Miranda being detained at Heathrow Airport and having all his personal electronic equipment confiscated, suggests they may have had good reason.</p>
<p>But intelligence and policing have a much more limited portfolio of technologies, techniques and devices than is generally imagined. Exposing without any checking on <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/16/gchq-intercepted-communications-g20-summits">various of these techniques</a> has pushed the boundaries.</p>
<h2>Spooks and hacks</h2>
<p>The history of the D-Notice system since 1912 has been punctuated with all kinds of national security and so-called media irresponsibility crises. It would not be needed if that were not the norm. As <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZIB8AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA441&lpg=PA441&dq=John+Wilson,+the+former+controller+of+BBC+editorial+policy+civilised+bureaucracy&source=bl&ots=RDvuFGbXUG&sig=A1DM4-yPCqmhxdd94bt_aJu9ans&hl=en&sa=X&ei=grH4UtS5MKOs7QbfqoDABQ&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=John%20Wilson%2C%20the%20former%20controller%20of%20BBC%20editorial%20policy%20civilised%20bureaucracy&f=false">John Wilson, the former controller of BBC editorial policy</a>, said in 1993: “Civilised bureaucracy rubbing up against decent journalism … an honourable way of tackling a problem that has no truly satisfactory solution.”</p>
<p>But I am convinced it has saved lives and media freedom. Going over to a freeze in government national security/media relations would be as disastrous as the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/20/police-crime-reporters-leveson-inquiry">current froideur between the police and media</a> generated by the Leveson and Filkin reports. </p>
<p>I have been used to the sublime and ridiculous in my near 40 years of journalism, but I am so sorry to say to the very distinguished Dame Elizabeth Filkin, that her <a href="http://content.met.police.uk/News/Elizabeth-Filkin-report-published/1400005701012/1257246745756">report’s exhortations</a> on the risks of police officers and journalists talking to each other privately, confidentially and unofficially were absurd: “Late-night carousing, long sessions, yet another bottle of wine at lunch – these are all long-standing media tactics to get you to spill the beans. Avoid.” </p>
<p>Any contact I may have had with Britain’s intelligence and defence services I would deny and you can consider any effusions on this matter as complete fiction. But Daniel Craig and Angelina Jolie they are certainly not. Serious and dedicated to preserving everything good about the British way of liberty, democracy, culture and fairness for the greatest number has been my perception of what motivates those with whom I may or may not have had contact.</p>
<p>If their operations are out of proportion and diminish the rights they are employed to protect that is where I and my fellow journalists come in. The poet and dramatist Friedrich Schiller once said: “It is wise to disclose what cannot be concealed.” When we are denied the chance to meet, discuss and negotiate on our own terms, the result is caricature, ignorance, and a level of misunderstanding that will generate negligence on a grand scale; then lives will not be saved and media freedom will be lost.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22970/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Crook is a member of the Professional Practices Board of the Chartered Institute
of Journalists.</span></em></p>In the wake of Edward Snowden affair, the government is holding a review of the operations of the Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC) and what is generally known as the “D-Notice…Tim Crook, Reader in Media and Communication (Goldsmiths), Visiting Professor of Broadcast Journalism (Birmingham City University), Goldsmiths, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/225072014-01-28T16:10:35Z2014-01-28T16:10:35ZDigital labs are re-inventing journalism on the run<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40015/original/mtq98rpq-1390908908.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Can you handle the digital revolution?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It was something of a moment in the evolution of news in this country. Last week, while we were still digesting the revelation that The Independent, which had been acquired by its current owner for just £1, was once more <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jan/16/theindependent-alexander-lebedev">looking for a buyer</a>, we heard The Daily Telegraph had sacked its editor – an old-style newsman – and then on the same day, The Guardian Media Group had sold off its remaining stake in its cash cow Auto Trader to help keep its operation afloat.</p>
<p>Three “quality” newspapers with illustrious track records, all facing up, in their own way, to the challenges presented by the digital revolution – which has turned the news industry on its head.</p>
<p>For the past 15 years, an argument has been reverberating in and around journalism. The digital era, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-jarvis/can-ezra-klein-tear-apart_b_4675309.html">argued one school of thought</a>, is a total re-set: nothing will – or can – survive of the old news media dominated by print and terrestrial broadcast. Rubbish, argued the other school: <a href="http://reconsideringdigital.com/10-reasons-why-newspapers-are-still-better-than-the-internet/">digital journalism can’t do original reporting</a> and when the world clocks that fraud, mainstream media will revive.</p>
<p>I parody the opposing positions, but not by much. The quarrel was static and often sterile. I’ve argued (<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/28560140/George-Brock-Is-News-Over">here</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Print-Newspapers-Journalism-Business/dp/0749466510/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372008803&sr=1-1&keywords=brock+out+print">here</a>) that the task of journalists in the digital era is to adapt old values and ideals to new circumstances and possibilities. In other words, a lot needs to change to renew an old ideal: telling people useful truth.</p>
<p>This stale dispute from the past is now being rendered irrelevant by new online news businesses which have the experimental drive, technological confidence and resources to try new ways of doing things – and which have already won a sizeable audience to try them on.</p>
<h2>Shock of the new</h2>
<p>Experiments small and large with everything from how long the ideal list should be to the ideal width for pictures to the right tone for long-form reporting are conducted on the run, at speed and with a wealth of data about what is shared and how much. Failed experiments are dumped and forgotten. Online sites are not inhibited by caution about their reputation; they have won millions of users but not yet prestige and respect. Such sites are run as laboratories for the next news.</p>
<p>This does not mean that each of these experiments will succeed – by definition, the majority don’t – and it does not mean that any business pumped full of cash by over-excitable venture capital firms will succeed. Some will flame out or fizzle out.</p>
<p>But the readiness of young digital consumers of news to look at what companies such as Vox and Buzzfeed are doing is accelerating the rate of experiment and discovery. </p>
<p>The traditional way of reporting a major international story, such as the increasingly violent protests in Ukraine, would be with words (for print) or in reportage led by a questing reporter on radio or television. The print version might be accompanied by still picture or two. Words traditionally dominated pictures because they could convey more complex ideas – and space for pictures was short.</p>
<p>But in the digital age, words and pictures can be both transmitted at low cost and at the same speed; the space constraint has gone. So Buzzfeed tried telling <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/protest-against-dictatorship-in-ukraine-turns-violent">the story of one recent day in pictures</a>. There were more than 30 images, four or five were video clips. Each had at least a two or three line caption. Although delivered in fragments, the total word count for that day’s despatch would have added up to as many words (between 600 and 800) as a newspaper foreign correspondent would expect to land on a page.</p>
<p>This wouldn’t be the ideal way to tell any story, but it was quite a good way to tell this particular day in Kiev. Because it was on Buzzfeed, you can suppose that the editor-geeks there will be looking at user-generated data to see what number of pictures plays best. Do readers get bored after 25? Or do they prefer more depth at around 30 or even 40 images? There will be data to provide clues. (For more on Buzzfeed’s philosophy, science and speed of growth, see <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2014/02/features/buzzfeed/viewgallery/331449">here</a>).</p>
<p>The presentation or organisation of news gets turned upside down like this at intervals. The driver of change is usually technology opening new opportunities or the readers and viewers getting fed up with what they see as mannered, formal or simply un-illuminating ways of producing news. Those ways of doing news haven’t been rethought because no one is paying enough attention to readers – and particularly to young readers – as they adjust to digital news.</p>
<p>To repeat: not all these new attempts will work. Will <a href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2014/01/vice-news-wants-to-take-documentary-style-storytelling-to-hot-spots-around-the-globe/">Vice TV’s</a> energetic and quirky reporters actually judge the situation they report correctly? Perhaps, but quite possibly naivety will undermine them. Will Ezra Klein’s new site for giving context to the news backed by <a href="http://voxmedia.com/">Vox Media</a> find <a href="http://gigaom.com/2014/01/27/vox-media-doesnt-just-have-to-reinvent-the-news-it-has-to-reinvent-advertising-too/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter">a business model</a> even if his intentions are good?</p>
<p>But failures won’t obscure the fact that these new players are starting to make the weather. David Carr of the New York Times caught this very well <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/business/media/ezra-klein-joining-vox-media-as-web-journalism-asserts-itself.html?_r=3&referrer=&utm_content=bufferdb692&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer">in a column at the weekend</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>More and more, it’s becoming apparent that digital publishing is its own thing, not an additional platform for established news companies. They can buy their way into it, but their historical advantages are often offset by legacy costs and bureaucracy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Carr quotes Henry Blodget of Business Insider: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Digital journalism is as different from print and TV journalism as print and TV are from each other … Few people expect great print news organizations to also win in TV. Similarly, few should expect great TV or print organizations to win in digital. The news-gathering, storytelling and distribution approaches are just very different.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The clearer this becomes, the tougher the strains on established media trying to manage both print and digital in the right combination. The Guardian’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25830592">sale of its lucrative Auto Trader stake</a> raised enough, we’re told, to soak up its losses for almost 20 years. The Daily Telegraph’s <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/after-tony-gallaghers-sacking-from-the-telegraph-last-week-theres-a-big-question-mark-hanging-over-the-organisations-guru-jason-seiken-9086249.html">abrupt dismissal of Tony Gallagher</a> leaves the editorial operation now effectively run by someone from a digital tradition. The Independent has lost circulation and revenue for as long as anyone can remember.</p>
<p>All these papers have extensive online operations. But despite their advantages of accumulated reputation and wisdom, they find the agility and experimental inventiveness of their new rivals hard to match.</p>
<p><em>This article is an edited version of a blog post that first appeared on <a href="http://georgebrock.net/">georgebrock.net</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22507/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>George Brock does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It was something of a moment in the evolution of news in this country. Last week, while we were still digesting the revelation that The Independent, which had been acquired by its current owner for just…George Brock, Head of Journalism, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/211292013-12-04T16:23:31Z2013-12-04T16:23:31ZAlan Rusbridger evokes First Amendment to backward UK<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36936/original/6j3rhmhs-1386166349.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger shows the UK's legal system for what it really is.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">internaz</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger’s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/03/guardian-not-intimidated-nsa-leaks-alan-rusbridger-surveillance">appearance</a> at the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee this week has proved revelatory in more than one sense of the word.</p>
<p>We have heard about the events surrounding the Guardian’s battle with the UK government over its decision to publish the NSA files leaked by Edward Snowden and we have seen the newspapers paint very different pictures of what went on at the committee. But most importantly, we have been given the chance to reflect on the UK’s approach to handling national security and freedom of speech.</p>
<h2>What the papers said</h2>
<p>Responses to the showdown have been divided along political lines, as indeed was the tenor, gentility and hostility of the questions that came from the cross-party group of MPs on the committee.</p>
<p>On the right, The Daily Mail, shrieked about Rusbridger’s protestations that the people working on the story <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517561/Alan-Rusbridger-says-love-Britain-defends-Snowden-leaks.html">“love” Britain</a>. On the left, Rusbridger’s friend and City University Professor Roy Greenslade swooned over the way Rusbridger <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/dec/03/alan-rusbridger-batted-away-mps-bluster">“batted away MPs’ bluster without raising a sweat”</a>.</p>
<p>Media squawking aside, Rusbridger made an authoritative impression at the Leveson Inquiry and has done so again in his evidence to MPs. In quiet and subtle terms, he is neither a lapdog for <a href="http://hackinginquiry.org/">Hacked Off</a> and the Media Standards Trust, nor a warrior for the devil-may-care global Wikileakers who perceive multinational corporations and nation states as 21st century dystopian Beelzebubs. In a confusing, ambiguous, and paradoxical world he has his eye, mind and heart focused on some strange and bracing realities.</p>
<h2>First Amendment journalism</h2>
<p>The digital dimension of communications and citizenship has rendered old laws and societal and political values anachronistic. The Guardian is no longer an ex-provincial national print title serving centre-left liberal chattering classes. It is a global multimedia publisher. As such, it no longer needs to answer to an English judiciary that tends to bow to the mantra of “national security without question”. It clearly does not see itself as compelled to give up leaked documents to the state.</p>
<p>Rusbridger has been working with the New York Times on the Snowden affair, and has been defining international public interest in democracy and liberty as he goes. And when he appeared before the committee, he spoke not of Parliament Square in London but of the legacy of the <a href="http://www.archives.gov/research/pentagon-papers/">Pentagon Papers</a> case of 1971. He also spoke eloquently about the US First Amendment and blocking prior restraint injunctions on the grounds they would be unconstitutional.</p>
<p>He may just have been transformed into one of the few British media editors who actually gets the First Amendment. Through bitter personal experience, Rusbridger appears to have realised that culturally, socially and politically, the UK is a backward and inferior member of the post-industrialised liberal democracies.</p>
<p>Everything he has described about his experience with GCHQ officials in the Guardian’s basement in July this year confirms this view. </p>
<p>The Guardian editor said he had diligently engaged with the uniquely British process of confidentially checking every article that hinged on a Snowden file, bar the first one, with Air-Vice Marshall Andrew Vallance, Secretary of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee.</p>
<p>The first story revealed GCHQ had been <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/16/gchq-intercepted-communications-g20-summits">monitoring foreign diplomats at a British G20 summit</a>. It was politically embarrassing and was not D-Notice checked precisely because of the British state’s penchant for prior estate injunction first and judicial questions later.</p>
<p>The state made it clear that it had no interest in debating the ins and outs of press freedom at other points in the affair, such as when it took a chainsaw to The Guardian’s hard discs in a symbolic destruction of copies of the Snowden files. And while Rusbridger saw the files confiscated from David Miranda, partner of Guardian US writer Glenn Greenwald, as excluded confidential journalistic material, the UK government took them to be evidence of crime and detained Miranda under the Terrorism Act.</p>
<h2>Backed up by big names</h2>
<p>Rusbridger entered the House of Commons committee room with the backing of the world’s most respected democratic news publishers, legendary Watergate reporter <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/dec/03/open-letter-carl-bernstein-alan-rusbridger">Carl Bernstein</a> and the UN’s special rapporteur on counter terrorism Ben Emmerson QC, who said it is <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/02/guardian-terrorism-snowden-alan-rusbridger-free-press">“outrageous to accuse the Guardian of aiding terrorism by publishing Snowden’s revelations”</a>.</p>
<p>Guardian heavyweights Nick Davies and Richard Norton-Taylor sat behind him along with Liberty’s Shami Chakrabarti, indicating that his back is being covered by a liberal and constitutional conscience that should survive the banal grinding of another police inquiry into alleged journalistic criminality by the Metropolitan Police.</p>
<p>They appear to have majority public and political opinion on their side unlike the grubby ambiguity of tabloid sensationalism.</p>
<p>The next stage of this affair will probably be a stalemate stand-off followed by the declaration of an honourable draw. That is, provided UK spooks cannot prove that anything published by the Guardian has either risked or cost any human lives and if the Guardian fails to demonstrate that the government has outraged and annihilated any innocent individual’s private space.</p>
<p>The Guardian’s story is undoubtedly huge, but until it can bring it down to a personal level and strike a chord similar to the public shock that greeted the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone, the Snowden affair is doomed to remain politically abstract.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21129/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Crook is Tim Crook is a member of the Chartered Institute of Journalists and is also a member of its Professional Practices Board.</span></em></p>Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger’s appearance at the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee this week has proved revelatory in more than one sense of the word. We have heard about the events surrounding…Tim Crook, Reader in Media and Communication (Goldsmiths), Visiting Professor of Broadcast Journalism (Birmingham City University), Goldsmiths, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/211332013-12-04T14:48:10Z2013-12-04T14:48:10ZIt’s all about cryptography as Rusbridger faces parliament<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/36937/original/vt59wrzh-1386166702.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The big questions in the Snowden saga hinge on who knows what about encryption.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bob Lord</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Despite all the political blustering that has surrounded Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger’s meeting with the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee this week, the real story in the Snowden affair is cryptography.</p>
<p>In some ways, it seemed as though UK security agency GCHQ had been hit by the notorious CryptoLocker virus. CryptoLocker holds computer users to ransom by encrypting all their files and can cause serious headaches for the victim. Some of the answers given by Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger at the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee on 3 December paint a picture similar to what happens when the virus strikes.</p>
<p>Rusbridger admitted that David Miranda, the partner of Guardian US columnist Glenn Greenwald, had been carrying some of the Snowden files in encrypted form when he was held under the Terrorism Act in August. But, so far, neither the police nor GCHQ have been able to decrypt them.</p>
<p>So, just like CryptoLocker victims, GCHQ is in possession of some of its own files but cannot get into them, as much as it would like to. The contents of the files won’t be a surprise, but GCHQ would very much like to know what it is that Snowden and the journalists know about its work.</p>
<p>Encryption lay at the heart of some of the most important exchanges during Rusbridger’s hour-long appearance in front of MPs. There were some odd interventions at the start of the session, including committee chairman Keith Vaz’s questioning of Rusbridger over whether or not he loved Britain, but from then on, one issue dominated proceedings. This was the transfer of a copy of the Snowden files by the Guardian to the New York Times.</p>
<p>Rusbridger made it clear that the Guardian had indeed shared its entire collection of Snowden files with its American partner. This had been done for journalistic collaboration, and as a safeguard after the pressure put on the Guardian by the UK government over the project.</p>
<p>These files had not been redacted to remove the names of intelligence staff but had largely been transferred in a way that Rusbridger considered fully secure. He reiterated both these points repeatedly in response to near-identical questions from the Committee. Some of the MPs argued that the Guardian might have committed an offence by transporting secret materials to a foreign country, especially if it had not encrypted them securely.</p>
<h2>A cryptographic contradiction</h2>
<p>A contradiction remains after Rusbridger’s evidence session relating to cryptography, and it’s one that is crucial when we think about whether or not The Guardian overstepped the mark in the Snowden affair.</p>
<p>When pressed for details of the security arrangements for the Guardian’s Snowden files, Rusbridger was reluctant to provide an on-the-spot answer and offered to provide written details to the committee later.</p>
<p>This seemed somewhat unusual. It is well accepted in information security circles that it is undesirable to provide “security through obscurity”. This is where your security depends on outsiders not knowing what methods you used – rather than proving security by revealing known strong methods.</p>
<p>Faced with an audience of security specialists, Rusbridger might have inspired some confidence by stating, say, that they used <a href="https://www.enisa.europa.eu/activities/identity-and-trust/library/deliverables/algorithms-key-sizes-and-parameters-report">AES with 256-bit keys</a>. But that kind of tech-talk doesn’t play well with a parliamentary committee, which isn’t equipped with the specialist knowledge required to appreciate it. Thus, all he said on this was that the files were protected with “military-grade” encryption, and that his newspaper had fully acknowledged and acted upon the unique level of sensitivity of these documents.</p>
<p>However, The MPs’ questions appeared at times to be based on the assumption that the transfer and storage of the Snowden documents had indeed been insecure. A Cabinet Office spokesman was also <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10492749/Guardian-journalists-could-face-criminal-charges-over-Edward-Snowden-leaks.html">reported as stating</a> after the meeting that “The Guardian’s publication and non-secure storage of secret documents has had a damaging effect on our national security capabilities.”.</p>
<p>This “fact” of non-secure storage was not established in the House of Commons meeting, and in any case the committee did not appear to have the competence to make such a judgement. So why is it still assumed?</p>
<p>Very speculatively, it may be that the data seized from David Miranda have revealed more to GCHQ about the security arrangements taken by the Guardian than Rusbridger thinks. If this is the case, perhaps Rusbridger has overestimated the ability of the security arrangements used to protect the data. This may even undermine the confidence previously expressed in encryption by <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-security">Snowden</a>, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/08/19/glenn-greenwald-not-at-all-worried-about-britain-getting-info-from-his-partners-seized-electronics/">Greenwald</a> and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-how-to-remain-secure-surveillance">security experts</a>.</p>
<p>If that were the case, it raises interesting questions about whether good faith in the encryption you are using is a sufficient defence. If your adversary is the NSA or GCHQ, <a href="http://www.propublica.org/article/the-nsas-secret-campaign-to-crack-undermine-internet-encryption">the Snowden files themselves already tell you they have ways of circumventing it</a> …</p>
<h2>The real questions that need to be asked</h2>
<p>In its ongoing inquiry into this affair, the Home Affairs Committee will take evidence from MI5 chief Andrew Parker next week. Although there is no suggestion that he will be <a href="http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1341644.ece">fully briefed on the questions in advance</a> this time, there are some questions that he can probably guess. Top of the list must be: how could Snowden get access to so many highly sensitive files?</p>
<p>This question has been raised several times by Liberal Democrat committee member Julian Huppert – and indeed by Rusbridger in this inquiry. The Guardian and its editor aren’t the only ones that need to provide a clear picture of their understanding of security and cryptography when explaining their role in this affair.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21133/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eerke Boiten is a senior lecturer in the School of Computing at the University of Kent, and Director of the University's interdisciplinary Centre for Cyber Security Research. He receives funding from EPSRC for the CryptoForma Network of Excellence on Cryptography and Formal Methods. </span></em></p>Despite all the political blustering that has surrounded Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger’s meeting with the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee this week, the real story in the Snowden affair is cryptography…Eerke Boiten, Senior Lecturer, School of Computing and Director of Interdisciplinary Cyber Security Centre, University of KentLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/188922013-10-03T16:15:51Z2013-10-03T16:15:51ZNew measures of success extend newsprint’s shelf life<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32423/original/5yy77chr-1380811849.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Online news is great, but you can't chew it on the train.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Arjen Stilklik</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Figures <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2013.818365">published recently</a> suggest that more than 90% of newspaper reading still happens in print. This might come as a surprise given the gloomy assessments often made of the state of print media in the UK but, it turns out, we’re just not measuring success properly.</p>
<p>In the digital age, understanding how audiences consume newspapers requires new methods. The key is having a comparable set of metrics.</p>
<p>Print newspaper consumption is most commonly talked about in terms of the number of physical copies distributed per day. For online, it is how many pages have been read, and the number of unique browsing devices (laptops, smartphones, tablets and so on) that visited newspapers’ websites in a month.</p>
<p>It is pretty obvious that these metrics cannot be directly compared. However, a much more direct comparison is possible if you look at time spent reading.</p>
<p>When you look at the problem through this lens, it seems that reports of the death of print media may be greatly exaggerated. Newspapers might want to take note and rethink the way they measure success if they’d like to shore up their ever decreasing advertising revenues.</p>
<p>Although online channels have increased newspapers’ reach, looking at time spent reading paints a different picture.</p>
<p>At least 96% of the time spent with UK national newspapers by their domestic audience was in print. This excludes time spent on newspapers’ mobile and tablet apps but includes mobile access to newspaper sites through internet browsers.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32415/original/tnkzhb2c-1380798694.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32415/original/tnkzhb2c-1380798694.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32415/original/tnkzhb2c-1380798694.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32415/original/tnkzhb2c-1380798694.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32415/original/tnkzhb2c-1380798694.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32415/original/tnkzhb2c-1380798694.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32415/original/tnkzhb2c-1380798694.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32415/original/tnkzhb2c-1380798694.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Estimated total annual minutes spent reading by the aggregated UK print and online readerships of each of 12 UK national newspapers, 2011.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This metric also undermines the commonly held view that The Sun is the most popular newspaper in the UK. In fact, if you measure success as the amount of time a newspaper brand is looked at over a year by all its readers, the Daily Mail attracts about 20% more attention than The Sun and about double that enjoyed by The Mirror.</p>
<p>All this is not to say that the future is bright though. Across the 12 titles I studied, the average fall in time spent reading between 2007-2011 was at least 16%. Only The Guardian managed to increase the time its domestic audience spent with the brand in print and online.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32418/original/5bjrmhvv-1380799930.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32418/original/5bjrmhvv-1380799930.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/32418/original/5bjrmhvv-1380799930.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32418/original/5bjrmhvv-1380799930.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32418/original/5bjrmhvv-1380799930.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32418/original/5bjrmhvv-1380799930.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=667&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32418/original/5bjrmhvv-1380799930.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=667&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/32418/original/5bjrmhvv-1380799930.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=667&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Estimated percentage changes in</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Digital Journalism (C) 2013 Taylor and Francis.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In light of <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2013.818365">my study’s</a> findings, newspapers might ask themselves whether they are reporting their consumption patterns in the most favourable light. Metrics such as “unique users” and “page impressions” look impressive when reported on a monthly basis. However they obscure the fact that newspapers’ print editions capture reader attention at a level hugely out of proportion to their popularity.</p>
<p>Given that newspapers still get 86% of their ad revenues from print, they have got an incentive to exercise greater influence on the evolution of audience measurement, and try to ensure engagement is reported with as much prominence as exposure.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/18892/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neil Thurman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Figures published recently suggest that more than 90% of newspaper reading still happens in print. This might come as a surprise given the gloomy assessments often made of the state of print media in the…Neil Thurman, Senior lecturer in Electronic Publishing, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/172892013-08-21T00:31:55Z2013-08-21T00:31:55ZBully boy tactics make Guardian a player in its own nightmare scenario<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29612/original/jddd34zt-1377036187.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ordeal: David Miranda, left, and his partner, Guardian investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The ordeal of David Miranda at Heathrow Airport on Sunday is a critical moment in the conflict between press freedom and national security. Miranda, the partner of The Guardian’s investigative reporter Glenn Greenwald, was detained by security while flying home from Berlin to Rio de Janeiro. He was questioned over nine hours under <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7">schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000</a> and his laptop, phone, computer games console and memory stick were confiscated by authorities looking for sensitive information relating to national security.</p>
<p>Schedule 7 allows the police to detain someone on suspicion of involvement in or knowledge of acts of terrorism. The police action has attracted widespread criticism from all corners of the political and journalistic globe. But there have also been those who have criticised The Guardian for becoming involved to the extent that it risks becoming a player in - rather than a reporter of - the story.</p>
<p>Since August 2012, Greenwald has written, extensively, frequently and critically on a variety of “sensitive” <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order">issues concerning mass surveillance</a>. It is common knowledge that Greenwald has worked closely with Edward Snowden, the computer specialist employed by the CIA and the NSA who leaked details of numerous [secret mass surveillance operations](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23721818](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23721818) to the press. According to documents leaked by Snowden, the NSA broke privacy rules and overstepped its legal authority thousands of times in the past two years. </p>
<p>On June 14, US federal prosecutors charged Snowden with espionage and theft of government property. Snowden has been granted a 12 month period of asylum by Russian president Vladimir Putin, on the condition that the disclosures cease. Which leaves Greenwald as the number one thorn in the US government’s side. <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/19/us-usa-security-snowden-brazil-idUSBRE97I0LZ20130819">It has been reported</a> that Snowden passed Greenwald 15 - 20,000 documents with details of NSA surveillance operations. </p>
<h2>Threat to journalists everywhere</h2>
<p>After Miranda’s release, Greenwald <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow">told The Guardian</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>This is a profound attack on press freedoms and the news-gathering process… [which] is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ. The actions of the UK pose a serious threat to journalists everywhere.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The editor of The Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters">in a column</a> devoted to the threat faced by journalism in the digital age, wrote of the “international dismay” that the arrest had caused. He argued that the state was building a surveillance system where before too long it would be impossible for journalists to maintain the confidentiality of sources and that governments, whilst paying lip service to the need for public debate, are making a concerted effort to silence whistleblowers. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29608/original/48hpfbfy-1377026188.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29608/original/48hpfbfy-1377026188.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/29608/original/48hpfbfy-1377026188.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=787&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29608/original/48hpfbfy-1377026188.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=787&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29608/original/48hpfbfy-1377026188.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=787&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29608/original/48hpfbfy-1377026188.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=989&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29608/original/48hpfbfy-1377026188.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=989&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/29608/original/48hpfbfy-1377026188.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=989&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dismay: Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA Archive</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This was where The Guardian became the story as it emerged that Miranda was more than just a partner returning from abroad. He was in Berlin for a week visiting Laura Poitras, a documentary film maker, who had worked with Greenwald on the NSA revelations. The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?_r=0">New York Times revealed</a> that that The Guardian had paid for the flights.</p>
<p>To be fair to The Guardian, though, both Greenwald and his editor Rusbridger were up front about the importance of Miranda as an “intermediary” to the journalistic process. Rusbridger has <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/aug/20/alan-rusbridger-miranda-snowden-nsa-gchq-video">since confirmed</a> that The Guardian will be “supporting” Miranda in his legal action against the British government. But none of this detracts from what has, rightly in my view been called a “gross misuse” of terror laws. Under what basis could Miranda have constituted a terrorist threat?</p>
<p>For Nick Cohen in <a href="http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2013/08/always-remember-mornings-like-these/">The Spectator</a>, basic freedoms have been violated by the state and the events were another indicator of how Britain had changed for the worse: detaining Miranda at the request of the US in order to find out what Greenwald was going to do next. </p>
<h2>Guardian criticised</h2>
<p>But some commenters have backed the police’s action. <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100231683/miranda-greenwald-and-snowden-the-guardian-is-overplaying-its-hand/">Writing in the Daily Telegraph</a>, Tim Stanley argued that “the actions of the British authorities make perfect sense. It knows that Greenwald is linked to Snowden and it knows that Snowden has access to stolen information related to UK security. So why wouldn’t it take the opportunity of Miranda stepping onto British soil to interrogate him? They’re really only fulfilling their job description.”</p>
<p>Former Tory MP Louise Mensch <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23764634">told the BBC</a> that Greenwald had admitted that Miranda was carrying “classified, stolen intelligence data encrypted on hard-drives. He wasn’t stopped because he was somebody’s husband and he wasn’t stopped because he was a journalist.”</p>
<p>Perhaps the <a href="http://www.jomec.co.uk/blog/author/jomec_sambrook/">most sensible commentary</a> is from Richard Sambrook, a former director of Global News at the BBC. He highlighted various undeniable truths presented without the myriad differing agendas which often cloud debates on national security and journalism. To paraphrase a few points: those involved in revealing secrets of national importance should not be surprised if the security services take an interest in their activities. But this doesn’t mean that those issues of national importance should not be reported. Importantly, governments, police and the intelligence services should recognise that journalism is not terrorism and terrorism laws should not be used to intimidate journalists. </p>
<h2>Clear act of intimidation</h2>
<p>We seem to be careering away from some basic principles of a functioning democracy. One of the most alarming episodes recounted by Rusbridger in his column on Miranda’s arrest, concerns a visit to The Guardian’s offices by two GCHQ experts who stood and watched whilst two of the newspaper’s hard drives were destroyed. Leaving aside the barely credible scene of a government in 2013 forcing the destruction of press property, do we really accept that these two experts believed that, in the digital age, the information was only on those machines?</p>
<p>Not at all. Rusbridger’s account points to a very clear act of intimidation. Bully boy tactics of little finesse and sinister purpose. Rusbridger was left in no doubt by senior government officials that the government would seek to close down the paper’s reporting through legal means - and if it could not, force them to hand over, or destroy, material on which they were working. </p>
<p>Would it be a massive shock then - given the way Rusbridger has extolled the liberties enshrined in the US First Amendment - if The Guardian were found to be considering moving its reporting base from London? Where at least it would be free, in theory at least, from the physical attention of government and GCHQ?</p>
<p>Miranda’s arrest and Rusbridger’s revelations should alarm those members of public who still believe that the British government acts in the best interests of democracy and freedom. It is evident that, in the <a href="http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/08/forcing-the-guardian-to-destroy-materials-is-a-direct-attack-on-press-freedom/">words of Kirsty Hughes</a> of Index on Censorship, “it seems that the UK government is using, and quite likely misusing, laws to intimidate journalists and silence its critics”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/17289/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Jewell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The ordeal of David Miranda at Heathrow Airport on Sunday is a critical moment in the conflict between press freedom and national security. Miranda, the partner of The Guardian’s investigative reporter…John Jewell, Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.