Are the media racist asks New Statesman report

An investigation by the New Statesman magazine reveals that ethnic minorities are still largely absent from opinion pages, senior roles and staff jobs in UK press.

The report is part of the magazine's special report on race in the British media.

Columnist Mehdi Hasan writes in an essay for the special report:

 What have the following five individuals got in common: Gary Younge, Hugh Muir, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Amol Rajan and India Knight? They are part of a small group of non-white newspaper columnists who appear regularly on the comment pages of our national newspapers. Well, OK, not quite. They are the small group of non-white newspaper columnists who appear on those comment pages. That's it. There's just five of them - the Guardian's Younge and Muir (both black), the Independent/i's Alibhai-Brown and Rajan (both Asian) and the Sunday Times's Knight (mixed race).It is a deeply depressing state of affairs.

The magazine surveyed surveyed the main comment pages of selected newspapers in the week between Monday 5 December and Sunday 11 December to count the number of non-white writers who appeared finding that 3 newspapers did not have a single non-white writer on the comment pages and only 5 non-white writers have a regular weekly fixed column in the British broadsheet press .

UK Comms Sector is vital in rebalancing the economy says CBI report

The Government needs to “think big” when it publishes its forthcoming Communications Bill, and be ambitious about what one of the UK’s fastest growing sectors can achieve according to the Confederation of British business (CBI).

In a new report, called Blazing a trail the CBI says the communications industry should play a key part in rebalancing the economy. To support this, the Government must ensure that regulation is suitable for a dynamic industry, encourage competition in the communications sector, maximise export opportunities, and ensure the UK has the infrastructure it needs to compete on a global stage.


The UK,says the report is already a major global player in communications, with a sector worth at least £50 billion a year to the economy in value terms, and the potential to grow its annual exports by more than 8.7  per cent between now and the end of the decade.

However, major economies as diverse as Singapore, Sweden and China are investing in technology to compete, and the UK cannot afford to take its hard-earned position for granted. The CBI’s recommendations include ensuring that regulations are supportive of convergence, are targeted at a clear outcome and work with the grain of consumer demand as well as a thorough review of the obligations placed on Public Service Broadcasters, to ensure that they remain relevant in a convergent digital world

It also recommends the creation of a (non-binding) advisory panel, with representatives from industries within the communications sector meeting regularly to achieve progress on difficult issues.

Dr Neil Bentley, CBI Deputy Director-General, said: “The UK is known around the world for its cultural exports, whether it’s Adele topping the charts in 18 countries around the world, or Downton Abbey being screened in over 200 territories.

However it added that the UK’s communications sector is worth much more than its high profile successes. It has the potential to grow its exports faster than most other sectors over the coming decade, and can therefore play a key role in rebalancing our economy and reducing our reliance on domestic consumption.

“That’s why we need the Government to think big in its forthcoming Communications Bill. Our communications sector needs a framework in place that will enable and encourage innovation, with a clear and consistent approach to regulations.”

The reverse paywall model

That perennial problem on how to make the media pay is addressed by media guru Jeff Jarvis on his Buzz machine blog today.

Jarvis suggests the reverse Paywall model?
What exactly is that? Well Jarvis explains it all.

Imagine that you pay to get access to The Times (That's the NY Times). Everyone does. You pay for one article. Or you pay $20 as a deposit so you’re not bothered every time you come. But whenever you add value to The Times, you earn a credit that delays the next bill.
* You see ads, you get credit.
* You click: more credit.
* You come back often and read many pages: credit.
* You promote The Times on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, or your blog: credit. The more folks share what you’ve shared, the more credit you get.
* You buy merchandise via Times e-commerce: credit.
* You buy tickets to a Times event: credit.
* You hand over data that makes you more valuable to The Times and its advertisers (e.g., revealing where you’re going on your next trip): credit.
* You add pithy comment to articles that other readers appreciate: credit.
* You take on tasks in crowdsourced journalistic endeavors: credit.
* You answer a reporter’s question on Twitter and the reporter uses your information: credit.
* You correct an error in a story: credit.
* You give a news tip or an idea for an article The Times publishes: credit.

No rebirth of a News of the World?

Since the unfortunate demise of the News of the World earlier this summer,there has been much speculation over whether there will be room for a new Snday to launch.

Media guru Roy Greenslade ruminates over the issue in his latest blog on the Guardian media site writing that in a few short months the gap has closed with many NOTW readers moving to the Mirror or the Star but more importantly that many people took the paper as a second option along with titles such as the Sunday Times or the Mail on Sunday.

So the gap is maybe no longer there? As Greenslade says

It would be counter-productive to produce an NoW lookalike. In this immediate post-hacking climate, that journalistic model - based on intrusive content and employing the dark arts to achieve it - cannot hope to prosper.
Then again, a paper based around PR-generated, non-intrusive celebrity content is surely a non-starter. A weekly newsprint celebrity vehicle cannot compete with the glossy magazines, such as Hello! and OK!

But maybe the point is that the newspaper market is dying,especially it seems on a Sunday.

Media historians may look back at this summer's events and decide that the NOTW closure was the final nail in the coffin for the Sunday newspaper market

The eventual destination of the printed newspaper, then, looks likely to be the equivalent of the artisanal cheese.

Far too much gets written about the future of the media,mostly by navel gazing journalists but Ian Jack's piece in this morning's Guardian is well worth a read.

At their best, newspapers became beautiful objects. I shall miss them reminds us that newspapers need revenue, and their income still comes overwhelmingly from their printed rather than digital editions but advertising has declined and will never return to print in anything like its previous volumes.

Lessons that have been known for sometime yet the industry has clung onto the flawed model.

As Jack writes

If you like newspapers, the future looks dark. Only a couple of the qualities – the Telegraph and the Financial Times – make any money. If you like national newspapers and live at a distance from London, the future looks even darker. The supply chain that takes newspapers from printing presses to newsagents is fragile.

But to me his last paragraph sums up all that is wrong with the industry

This week I went to a glamorous event in the Banqueting House in Whitehall where a panel of the great and good, led by Sir Harold Evans, debated regulation of the press. Someone from the floor said the phrase "dying industry" and produced a small stir in the chamber, as though some truths were better parked outside in the cloakroom.