A new study by Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism investigated news sources in Baltimore to study the changing nature of news media - the rise of blogs and websites, the decline of traditional newspapers. They found 95% of new stories came from traditional media (print, tv, radio, and niche media [e.g. trade press] - including the websites of these organisations) and only 5% from new media (blogs, twitter, websites). The web was the place where stories broke, both from traditional and new media.
On 6 major news stories studied in depth, 83% of all reports were repetitions of other stories without new information. Mainstream newspapers generated 48% of new information, TV 28%, and new media 4%. In the areas covered in detail, 63% of new stories came from government officials (mainly the police) while 15% were initiated by the press, 12% from citizens, and 10% from colleges/universities. They found numerous instances of press releases being reproduced word-for-word in news stories.
Many people in the blogosphere believe that bloggers can take the place of newspapers. There is some way to go. The researchers found just two news stories that originated from new media: one a posting on the police's twitter feed, and one by an investigative blogger who found a story about local government plans to put listening devices on public transport. Maybe we need more bloggers?
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
Friday, January 15, 2010
Friday, December 11, 2009
Everybody loves Apple?
Another story about the iPhone? Is the mainstream media - particularly The Guardian - biased towards Apple projects, such as Mac computers, iPods, and iPhones? Although many newspapers often jump on strange bandwagons, such as the Guardian's enthusiasm for Twitter, the Daily Express's continuing obsession with Princess Diana, or the Daily Mail's project to categorise everything into the world into those that cause cancer and those that cure cancer, suggestions of pro-Apple bias have been made for a number of years. Many journalists celebrate the charisma of Apple founder Steve Jobs, but there are other possible reasons for good treatment: the tactics of Apple's PRs, and that most journalists personally use Apple Macs.
Apple are notoriously touchy with journalists and publishers. They refused to talk to IT news website The Register for a long time, have sued several technology blogs, and banned all publisher John Wiley's books from their stores. Reasons to incur this wrath included: mocking Apple boss Steve Jobs, producing a book about him, and reporting on upcoming products.
Historically Macs have been prevalent in newsrooms even in the company's 1990s doldrums, running software such as Quark used for newspaper and magazine production. Macs have their pros and cons - they are easy to use and have good software for many creative and design tasks, but have less software in other areas (particularly games). They can't interface with as much hardware - mobile phones, cameras, MP3 players, etc - as Microsoft Windows, due largely to the decisions of hardware manufacturers about what to support (although they do support iPods and iPhones), and they cost more than systems for Windows or Linux. In image terms, Apple have strong product design, but they lack the moral superiority of free software such as Linux, which appeals to many serious programmers for its underlying philosophy as much as for its power, configurability, and cheapness. Microsoft's business practices drove many morally-based purchasers away (although Apple's transgressions are less widely known). For the needs of a journalist, an Apple Mac might be ideal.
Occasionally a few journalists start to worry about this. The first seeds of dissent sprouted in late 2005 when Apple's initial iPod success was followed by a series of products of less than brilliant innovation, particularly the first video iPod - which came long after products from rival companies and had a tiny screen and minimal battery life (see below). In early 2009, when it turned out Apple had lied about boss Steve Jobs's health and he was actually seriously ill, there was another round of criticism.
One of the first people to discuss this was columnist John C Dvorak in August 2005, who compared the treatment of Apple with that of Microsoft:
Many critics of bias focus on over-enthusiastic reports of new iPhones and iPods. As already mentioned, these are almost the only mobile phones and media players that are fully supported on journalists' Apple Macs; Samsung, Motorola, or Nokia phones generally come with Windows-only software. CNet complained in November 2008:
The 2005 video iPod announcement provoked some questions from journalists, such as Jack Shafer in Slate, October 2005
2005 was probably the high-point of Apple hysteria and bias. Another example: on 22 September 2005, the Guardian published almost the only positive review of the long-forgotten Apple/Motorola ROKR phone on the exact same day as they published an exclusive interview with Apple boss Steve Jobs. Following this, the Guardian featured in TV ads for the iPhone, where users were shown surfing to the newspaper's website, without the long loading times that the javascript- and ad-heavy web pages caused especially on first-generation iPhones.
Stephen Fry occasionally writes on consumer electronics for the Gardian, and one of Apple's biggest fans, with a close relation to the firm's PR machine. The corporation flew him over to Apple's headquarters to try it out, giving him a pre-release model, and in return received Fry's typically rhapsodic prose. (Time, MacWorld) This is no different to the way corporations woo other journalists, but Fry is not a young staffer on a technology website who might be expected to fall for such tricks.
There is also one particular story of pro-Apple bias which indicates the editorial standards of newspapers' technology desks. In the summer of 2009 readers noticed that the New York Times was employing as a technology journalist David Pogue, who also wrote several books on Apple products, and who gave Apple's products good reviews. Although he was not paid by Apple, there were suggestions of self-interest.
The Times's Public Editor summarised the problem:
The always self-questioning BBC have given the pro-Apple bias some consideration. In 2008 Jeremy Hillman discussed its coverage of the iPhone 3G (not the original iPhone) launch which he claimed was modest (getting radio and website coverage but not TV) and correctly proportioned.
On the other hand, many Apple fans have insisted that the media is anti-Apple; while this can hardly be justified with respect to iPhones and iPods, the media has sometimes paid less attention to Apple computers - but with Apple's tiny share of the PC market that is not too surprising.
What is needed is more substantial, perferably quantitative, analysis. In the absence of that, I did a quick search of the Guardian's archives today. "Apple" returned 16131 results, 2145 in 2009; "Microsoft" 13085 results, 1341 in 2009. Taking figures for 2009, that is 60% more coverage for Apple than Microsoft, despite turnover of $58bn for Microsoft (makers of Windows, the XBox, search engine Bing, and websites including Hotmail) against $34bn for Apple (makers of Mac computers, iPhones and iPods, and operators of the iTunes online store). iPhone got 1074 results against 305 for Nokia. Google (2640 results) and Twitter (3566) got more coverage, although those stories may have been bulked by journalists inviting people to Twitter comments or Google stuff.
(The Guardian's vast Twitter coverage is another topic; whether they are enthused by Twitter's usefulness for marketing, or someone there just really likes it, is unclear.)
Apple are notoriously touchy with journalists and publishers. They refused to talk to IT news website The Register for a long time, have sued several technology blogs, and banned all publisher John Wiley's books from their stores. Reasons to incur this wrath included: mocking Apple boss Steve Jobs, producing a book about him, and reporting on upcoming products.
Historically Macs have been prevalent in newsrooms even in the company's 1990s doldrums, running software such as Quark used for newspaper and magazine production. Macs have their pros and cons - they are easy to use and have good software for many creative and design tasks, but have less software in other areas (particularly games). They can't interface with as much hardware - mobile phones, cameras, MP3 players, etc - as Microsoft Windows, due largely to the decisions of hardware manufacturers about what to support (although they do support iPods and iPhones), and they cost more than systems for Windows or Linux. In image terms, Apple have strong product design, but they lack the moral superiority of free software such as Linux, which appeals to many serious programmers for its underlying philosophy as much as for its power, configurability, and cheapness. Microsoft's business practices drove many morally-based purchasers away (although Apple's transgressions are less widely known). For the needs of a journalist, an Apple Mac might be ideal.
Occasionally a few journalists start to worry about this. The first seeds of dissent sprouted in late 2005 when Apple's initial iPod success was followed by a series of products of less than brilliant innovation, particularly the first video iPod - which came long after products from rival companies and had a tiny screen and minimal battery life (see below). In early 2009, when it turned out Apple had lied about boss Steve Jobs's health and he was actually seriously ill, there was another round of criticism.
One of the first people to discuss this was columnist John C Dvorak in August 2005, who compared the treatment of Apple with that of Microsoft:
As big and as important as Microsoft is, the coverage of the company is quite mediocre. This is particularly true in the mainstream press. The reason for this is that today's newspaper and magazine tech writers know little about computers and are all Mac users. [...]Daniel Lyons in January 2009 complained that the media failed to pursue stories about Steve Jobs's health problems:
The newsroom editors are generally so out of touch that they can't see this bias. Besides, they use Macs too. There are entire newsrooms, such as the one at Forbes, that consist entirely of Macintoshes. [...]
I often confront these guys with this assertion, and they [...] all say that they use a Mac "because it is better."
The fact is, in the eyes of the media, Apple is the corporate equivalent of Barack Obama—a company that can do no wrong. [...]He also criticised Apple's PR machine in strong terms:
But some of my colleagues in the media have made a Faustian bargain with Apple. In exchange for super-special access to Jobs, they tacitly agree not to criticize the company or even to say things it doesn't like. [...]
Apple's entire corporate culture is built on secrecy, and I mean crazy, CIA-style secrecy[...]. Imagine what it might be like if the Church of Scientology went into the consumer electronics business
This is a company whose idea of "corporate communications" mostly involves picking up the phone and saying "No comment." Or sometimes they'll pick up the phone and just repeat the same meaningless sentence, over and over again, no matter what question you ask them. I'm not kidding. They really do that. And of course a lot of the time they just don't return phone calls at all.This may seem incredible, even by the standards of telephone customer service people, but similar claims have come from The Register:
Apple corporate has turned these talented PR professionals into little more than call center workers who repeat the same, frustrating phrases over and over again, refusing to activate anything resembling human emotion or intellect. This has to be dehumanizing, and I suspect many of the PR staff seek therapy just so they can drive to Cupertino each morning.It is little wonder that journalists whose careers depend on good sources in the industry and access to new technology will try and be nice to these fearsome PR robots.
Many critics of bias focus on over-enthusiastic reports of new iPhones and iPods. As already mentioned, these are almost the only mobile phones and media players that are fully supported on journalists' Apple Macs; Samsung, Motorola, or Nokia phones generally come with Windows-only software. CNet complained in November 2008:
the vast majority of journalists use Macs to write their stories and have a deep-seated love for Apple products. [...] When was the last time you saw the entire technology field stop and wait for an announcement from any other company besides Apple?(CNet is no stranger at annoying big companies; Google once refused to speak to them for a year: report and the story that started it.)
The 2005 video iPod announcement provoked some questions from journalists, such as Jack Shafer in Slate, October 2005
The pairing of the V-iPod announcement with news that the iTunes store will sell Desperate Housewives and other ABC fare drove the story to Page One of USA Today and onto the biz fronts of the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. [...](Slate was at one time owned by Microsoft, but they had sold it by then.)
Apple manipulates several narratives to continue to make its products interesting fodder for journalists. One is the never-ending story of mad genius Steve Jobs, who would be great copy if he were only the night manager of a Domino's pizza joint. The next is Apple's perpetual role as scrappy underdog—reporters love cheerleading for the underdog without ever pausing to explore why it isn't the overdog.
2005 was probably the high-point of Apple hysteria and bias. Another example: on 22 September 2005, the Guardian published almost the only positive review of the long-forgotten Apple/Motorola ROKR phone on the exact same day as they published an exclusive interview with Apple boss Steve Jobs. Following this, the Guardian featured in TV ads for the iPhone, where users were shown surfing to the newspaper's website, without the long loading times that the javascript- and ad-heavy web pages caused especially on first-generation iPhones.
Stephen Fry occasionally writes on consumer electronics for the Gardian, and one of Apple's biggest fans, with a close relation to the firm's PR machine. The corporation flew him over to Apple's headquarters to try it out, giving him a pre-release model, and in return received Fry's typically rhapsodic prose. (Time, MacWorld) This is no different to the way corporations woo other journalists, but Fry is not a young staffer on a technology website who might be expected to fall for such tricks.
There is also one particular story of pro-Apple bias which indicates the editorial standards of newspapers' technology desks. In the summer of 2009 readers noticed that the New York Times was employing as a technology journalist David Pogue, who also wrote several books on Apple products, and who gave Apple's products good reviews. Although he was not paid by Apple, there were suggestions of self-interest.
The Times's Public Editor summarised the problem:
Two Thursdays ago [27 August 2009], two of Pogue's interests seemed to collide. In his Times column, he gave a glowing review to Snow Leopard, Apple's new operating system for Macs. At the same time, he was writing a "Missing Manual" [part of a season of books] on Snow Leopard — two, actually — already available for pre-order on Amazon. It is no intended knock on Pogue's integrity — he has panned Apple products and praised those of competitors — to point out that the review put him in the kind of conflict-of-interest situation that The Times regularly calls others to account for: doctors with a financial interest in the drugs they recommend, or a presidential adviser whose clients have a direct interest in certain legislation. In this case, the better Snow Leopard sells, presumably the better Pogue's "Missing Manual" on how to use it will sell.Later Pogue admitted that Snow Leopard, the OS he had praised so highly, was full of bugs and often crashed. The New York Times - one of the world's most respected newspapers - saw a conflict of interest but refused to take any action to stop it.
The always self-questioning BBC have given the pro-Apple bias some consideration. In 2008 Jeremy Hillman discussed its coverage of the iPhone 3G (not the original iPhone) launch which he claimed was modest (getting radio and website coverage but not TV) and correctly proportioned.
On the other hand, many Apple fans have insisted that the media is anti-Apple; while this can hardly be justified with respect to iPhones and iPods, the media has sometimes paid less attention to Apple computers - but with Apple's tiny share of the PC market that is not too surprising.
What is needed is more substantial, perferably quantitative, analysis. In the absence of that, I did a quick search of the Guardian's archives today. "Apple" returned 16131 results, 2145 in 2009; "Microsoft" 13085 results, 1341 in 2009. Taking figures for 2009, that is 60% more coverage for Apple than Microsoft, despite turnover of $58bn for Microsoft (makers of Windows, the XBox, search engine Bing, and websites including Hotmail) against $34bn for Apple (makers of Mac computers, iPhones and iPods, and operators of the iTunes online store). iPhone got 1074 results against 305 for Nokia. Google (2640 results) and Twitter (3566) got more coverage, although those stories may have been bulked by journalists inviting people to Twitter comments or Google stuff.
(The Guardian's vast Twitter coverage is another topic; whether they are enthused by Twitter's usefulness for marketing, or someone there just really likes it, is unclear.)
Friday, October 30, 2009
Give a man a twitter account and he thinks he's Edward R Murrow
Recently there have been a number of outrages against public decency that have broken as stories or been heavily promoted by celebrity Twitterers: these include Jan Moir being rude about a dead gay singer; Carter-Ruck and Trafigura injuncting the Guardian; and the Scottish Sunday Express intruding on Dunblane.
What's curious is that the voices promoting these issues are not in the main political reporters, politicians, or even political bloggers. Instead the likes of Graham Linehan (instrumental in the Dunblane issue), Stephen Fry (credited with publicising Trafigura), and Charlie Brooker (promoting a variety of liberal causes from drug policy to being nice to Stephen Gately) are comedy writers and/or presenters. The tone is summed up by this tweet from Brooker: "RT @arusbridger: Thx to Twitter/all tweeters for fantastic support over past 16 hours! Great victory for free speech. #trafigura #guardian". The Guardian makes use of Twitter for advertising as well as campaigning so this is a happy collision of both.
The JCPR Twitter Index attempts to rank Twitter account holders based on retweets and other measures as well as the number of followers. The top 10 British Twitterers as of 30 Oct are:
1 Jonathan Ross 438,099 followers
2 Fry 921,760
3 Linehan 33,458
4 Downing Street 1,523,922
5 Jason Bradbury (The Gadget Show) 39,913
6 Philip Schofield
7 Alan Davies
8 Russell Brand
9 Coldplay
10 Phil Jupitus
Brooker was further down, 51st of the British, but with 83,856 followers was more popular than many above him. He does retweet a lot, though.
In contrast, when The Independent asked "Who are the most influential bloggers on Twitter?" on 3 Aug 2009, the top 3 were Guido Fawkes (notorious right-libertarian blogger) (as of 30 Oct, he has 5672 followers), Jon Snow (Channel 4 newscaster of somewhat liberal persuasion) (8800 followers), and Iain Dale (mainstream Conservative) (6411 followers). None of them feature in Twitter Index's list. So it's clear that (with the uncertain exception of Downing Street) it is comics, not politicans or political writers, who are getting their message across on Twitter.
While Fry is in the popular imagination something of a polymath, with plentiful books (fiction and non-fiction), numerous factual TV shows, newspaper columns, dramatic acting, as well as being funny, the others have less obvious claim to be moral guardians. Linehan has written or co-written some amusing TV comedy (working on Father Ted, Big Train, Black Books, the IT Crowd, and others).
Brooker's story is perhaps the most interesting example of a man pushed to fame by his ability to spout opinions in easy to package doses. He started off as a video-game journalist before progressing to mock bad TV online and in the Guardian. Eventually he progressed to an all purpose ranter, mocking the obsession with Twitter (1, 2), attacking the mob mentality of the outraged who rush off to complain about everything they see or hear, saying "I hate offended people", and that he hates opinions. The self-contradiction is almost-certainly tongue in cheek.
In October 2008 he penned a column about how maybe it's not so good to mock celebrities, after reading some of the megabytes of hate-filled email he gets from wannabe comedians seeking his seal of approval: "Perhaps I'm mellowing in my old age, or perhaps I've grown 15% more human, but kicking real people when they're down doesn't really activate my chuckle cells." A few weeks before he'd talked about his spiritual emptiness, suggesting a kind of personal crisis.
Since then his columns have been less sneery, and Brooker's career has had its ups and downs: You Have Been Watching, a Channel 4 panel game in which he sneered at TV got mixed reviews, while Newswipe in which he reported more seriously on TV news coverage was widely appreciated as one of the few TV programs to take television seriously. His tweets and columns reflect a growing interest in the reporting of science, as well as the more obvious expressions of outrage (Trafigura, Moir).
Will the growth of the comic-turned-twitter-politician be the start of a new popular movement? Fry, being intelligent, sees the risks and has expressed sympathy for Moir in the witchhunt she suffered:
ADDENDUM: Further controversy has accompanied Fry's Twitterings (Guardian 2009/10/31, 2009/11/02). A twitterer called brumplum called Fry's postings boring, and Fry announced his retirement: "You've convinced me. I'm obviously not good enough. I retire from Twitter henceforward. Bye everyone." Large number of Fry-followers attacked brumplum (some names removed):
What's curious is that the voices promoting these issues are not in the main political reporters, politicians, or even political bloggers. Instead the likes of Graham Linehan (instrumental in the Dunblane issue), Stephen Fry (credited with publicising Trafigura), and Charlie Brooker (promoting a variety of liberal causes from drug policy to being nice to Stephen Gately) are comedy writers and/or presenters. The tone is summed up by this tweet from Brooker: "RT @arusbridger: Thx to Twitter/all tweeters for fantastic support over past 16 hours! Great victory for free speech. #trafigura #guardian". The Guardian makes use of Twitter for advertising as well as campaigning so this is a happy collision of both.
The JCPR Twitter Index attempts to rank Twitter account holders based on retweets and other measures as well as the number of followers. The top 10 British Twitterers as of 30 Oct are:
1 Jonathan Ross 438,099 followers
2 Fry 921,760
3 Linehan 33,458
4 Downing Street 1,523,922
5 Jason Bradbury (The Gadget Show) 39,913
6 Philip Schofield
7 Alan Davies
8 Russell Brand
9 Coldplay
10 Phil Jupitus
Brooker was further down, 51st of the British, but with 83,856 followers was more popular than many above him. He does retweet a lot, though.
In contrast, when The Independent asked "Who are the most influential bloggers on Twitter?" on 3 Aug 2009, the top 3 were Guido Fawkes (notorious right-libertarian blogger) (as of 30 Oct, he has 5672 followers), Jon Snow (Channel 4 newscaster of somewhat liberal persuasion) (8800 followers), and Iain Dale (mainstream Conservative) (6411 followers). None of them feature in Twitter Index's list. So it's clear that (with the uncertain exception of Downing Street) it is comics, not politicans or political writers, who are getting their message across on Twitter.
While Fry is in the popular imagination something of a polymath, with plentiful books (fiction and non-fiction), numerous factual TV shows, newspaper columns, dramatic acting, as well as being funny, the others have less obvious claim to be moral guardians. Linehan has written or co-written some amusing TV comedy (working on Father Ted, Big Train, Black Books, the IT Crowd, and others).
Brooker's story is perhaps the most interesting example of a man pushed to fame by his ability to spout opinions in easy to package doses. He started off as a video-game journalist before progressing to mock bad TV online and in the Guardian. Eventually he progressed to an all purpose ranter, mocking the obsession with Twitter (1, 2), attacking the mob mentality of the outraged who rush off to complain about everything they see or hear, saying "I hate offended people", and that he hates opinions. The self-contradiction is almost-certainly tongue in cheek.
In October 2008 he penned a column about how maybe it's not so good to mock celebrities, after reading some of the megabytes of hate-filled email he gets from wannabe comedians seeking his seal of approval: "Perhaps I'm mellowing in my old age, or perhaps I've grown 15% more human, but kicking real people when they're down doesn't really activate my chuckle cells." A few weeks before he'd talked about his spiritual emptiness, suggesting a kind of personal crisis.
Since then his columns have been less sneery, and Brooker's career has had its ups and downs: You Have Been Watching, a Channel 4 panel game in which he sneered at TV got mixed reviews, while Newswipe in which he reported more seriously on TV news coverage was widely appreciated as one of the few TV programs to take television seriously. His tweets and columns reflect a growing interest in the reporting of science, as well as the more obvious expressions of outrage (Trafigura, Moir).
Will the growth of the comic-turned-twitter-politician be the start of a new popular movement? Fry, being intelligent, sees the risks and has expressed sympathy for Moir in the witchhunt she suffered:
I feel sorry for her because I know just what it is like to make a monumental ass of oneself and how hard it is to find the road back. I know all too well what it is like to be inebriated, as Disraeli put it, by the exuberance of my own verbosity.He continued musing on his own Twitter popularity:
And what am I after all? What right have I to wield this kind of influence? A question people have been asking about journalists for years, but which they have every right to ask about me too. I don't know what business I have wielding influence either. This whole thing has just grown up around me and now I cannot help wondering if, despite my preference for turd-sucking over politics, I have found myself in a new Fifth Estate political assembly, willy-nilly hailed as some sort of tribune by friendly people on one side and being yelled at by unfriendly people on the other. I am not cut out for the hurly-burly of adversarial politics. I am not qualified to represent anyone nor, I cannot repeat often enough, do I wish to. So I should shut up.Fry continued for another 1000 words.
ADDENDUM: Further controversy has accompanied Fry's Twitterings (Guardian 2009/10/31, 2009/11/02). A twitterer called brumplum called Fry's postings boring, and Fry announced his retirement: "You've convinced me. I'm obviously not good enough. I retire from Twitter henceforward. Bye everyone." Large number of Fry-followers attacked brumplum (some names removed):
@brumplum IS SO BORING HE FUCKS SHEEP @brumplum ur soo gonan be fucking sorry for callin my fav celeb boring u fukin turded faceless arsoleFry defended brumplum and the two made up:
@brumplum You sound like a prick and I only half read your Twitter.
@brumplum r u the reason that stephen fry is thinking of leaving Twitter?Shame on u -he's a national treasure with a kind soul y b so nasty?
@brumplum you truly are a nasty little individual.
I can think of fewer things worse really. Who the fuck is @brumplum to upset Twitter's and England's darling?
@askjeevesdotcom guess what the arsehole @brumplum called @stephenfry boring when stepehn fry isnt
stephenfry: @brumplum I am so sorry to hear ppl have been abusing you. You had every right to say what you did. Pls accept my apols. This is so awful.As already mentioned, the whole story was covered in detail in the Guardian and much of the other media.
brumplum: @stephenfry Thanks. Can we all be friends again? *tweet favourited* (I have an ego as big as the next man!) ;-)
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The War of the TaxPayers Alliances: a tale of modern journalism
What do all these news stories have in common?
Whether a story concerns political corruption, political correctness, contentious public spending, or simply statistics vaguely related to public life, it seems no story is complete without a contribution from the TPA. But who are these people, and how have they gained this hold over Britain's news media?
Their name may bring to mind middle-aged colonels writing to the Daily Telegraph protesting about bin collections, or the Ratepayers' Parties of past days (Ken Barlow was nearly a candidate once) but the TPA combine right-wing libertarian policies with slick modern PR techniques, and are willing to openly discuss their media manipulations. They are less willing to reveal their sources of income - beyond mentioning a combination of corporate and individual funding - or to acknowledge that there is a rival organisation, The Other Taxpayers' Alliance, with a similar URL but rather different beliefs.
In just five years, TaxPayers' Alliance membership has grown to nearly 20 000, according to its own figures. It was founded in 2004 by former Conservatives who objected to the party's insistence on matching Labour's spending plans, and demanded tax cuts, particularly on inheritance tax and for business. They have also advocated a controversial flat-rate income tax. Although they claim to be non-partisan, all three founders have close links to the Conservative Party.
Matthew Elliott (the chief executive) worked as a researcher for Conservative MPs and MEPs; he received the Conservative Way Forward "One of us" prize from William Hague in 2007 and the ConservativeHome "One to Watch" award in 2006. He blogs for website ConservativeHome and is also a keen admirer of Ayn Rand and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.
Andrew Allum (now chairman) was a Conservative councillor in Westminster from 1998-2002 and earlier had led the student Conservative group at Imperial College.
Florence Heath also led student conservatives at Imperial College and the European Young Conservatives.
The influence of Ayn Rand can be seen in the TPA's celebration of the brave entrepreneur. They concentrate on abolishing taxes on the wealthy rather than on the poor, focusing their attacks on business taxation and inheritance taxes rather than VAT (although they acknowledge that VAT is regressive and is unfair on the poor). They claim that inheritance tax means that fewer people can invest their inherited wealth in starting businesses. (TPA blog)
They justify this focus because "Business tax reduces the amount of investment in a country which creates huge harms not captured by the amount it raises in revenue." (Source: Conservative Home) Or as report co-author Julie Meyer puts it, entrepreneurship is "the 'goose' that lays the 'golden eggs' for society". None of the TaxPayers' Alliance's founders have experience running their own business.
Journalist Nick Davies described in Flat Earth News two phenomena which relate to the rise of the Alliance: the desire of the media for some notion of balance which means every story requires opposing viewpoints; and how journalists are often too busy to do actual investigative reporting, instead depending on press releases and stories presented to them by lobbyists, PR companies, campaigning groups, and other organisations.
Another of Elliott's favourite books is Death by a Thousand Cuts, by Michael J Graetz and Ian Shapiro, which describes the American campaign against inheritance tax. This book shows techniques that campaigners of all political positions can use to influence the media and get their message across, even if they are taking a highly unpopular position such as defending the interests of the super-rich. Although politics sometimes seems in the control of wealthy elites with a weak media unable to control them, if you follow Graetz and Shapiro's advice, it has never been easier to get your message to the public.
The organisation has revealed its methods in interviews with the BBC and the Independent. According to the BBC:
It's a simple technique: email the BBC a succession of news stories complete with quotes that they can use. This saves the journalist from having to phone up actual politicians or public figures to ask for opinions, making the whole journalism process much easier. By offering pre-packaged stories to the press the TPA is able to get their viewpoint on the front pages. Elliott in the Independent:
However they may not be the only people fighting for justice on behalf of Britain's taxpayers. "Now you have a choice ... of TaxPayers' Alliance". There is another Taxpayers Association. The Other Taxpayers Alliance was formed in reaction to Elliott, Allum, and Heath's group. They even offer journalists an automatic TaxPayers' Alliance fake quote generator which is remarkably hard to distinguish from the real thing.
They say of their enemies in the original TPA
Past sources of funding for the Original TPA included the Midlands Industrial Council, a grouping of industrialists who the Times described in 2006 as "one of the Conservatives' most important financial backers". The paper also described how the MIC was used to channel funds to the Conservative Party without revealing the identity of donors (in 2008 the Party was cleared of violating electoral law over this arrangement). The Other TPA feel the Original TPA's secrecy about its funding is inconsistent with its commitment to probity and openness.
Perhaps soon the BBC will have to quote both taxpayers alliances in every news story.
ADDITIONAL NOTE: The Guardian reported on 10 Oct 2009 that another of the TPA's directors, Alexander Heath, lives in France and has not paid British tax for several years.
- Council defends Cannes trade trip 2009/08/16
- Bereaved face late tax fee rise 2009/08/15
- Deal 'close' over swine flu jabs 2009/08/14
- Police defend Muslim dress scheme 2009/08/04
- Party offices cost public £473k 2009/07/02
- 'Political club' numbers 29,000 2009/07/13
- Cost of translation is £70,000 2009/05/27
Whether a story concerns political corruption, political correctness, contentious public spending, or simply statistics vaguely related to public life, it seems no story is complete without a contribution from the TPA. But who are these people, and how have they gained this hold over Britain's news media?
Their name may bring to mind middle-aged colonels writing to the Daily Telegraph protesting about bin collections, or the Ratepayers' Parties of past days (Ken Barlow was nearly a candidate once) but the TPA combine right-wing libertarian policies with slick modern PR techniques, and are willing to openly discuss their media manipulations. They are less willing to reveal their sources of income - beyond mentioning a combination of corporate and individual funding - or to acknowledge that there is a rival organisation, The Other Taxpayers' Alliance, with a similar URL but rather different beliefs.
In just five years, TaxPayers' Alliance membership has grown to nearly 20 000, according to its own figures. It was founded in 2004 by former Conservatives who objected to the party's insistence on matching Labour's spending plans, and demanded tax cuts, particularly on inheritance tax and for business. They have also advocated a controversial flat-rate income tax. Although they claim to be non-partisan, all three founders have close links to the Conservative Party.
Matthew Elliott (the chief executive) worked as a researcher for Conservative MPs and MEPs; he received the Conservative Way Forward "One of us" prize from William Hague in 2007 and the ConservativeHome "One to Watch" award in 2006. He blogs for website ConservativeHome and is also a keen admirer of Ayn Rand and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.
Andrew Allum (now chairman) was a Conservative councillor in Westminster from 1998-2002 and earlier had led the student Conservative group at Imperial College.
Florence Heath also led student conservatives at Imperial College and the European Young Conservatives.
The influence of Ayn Rand can be seen in the TPA's celebration of the brave entrepreneur. They concentrate on abolishing taxes on the wealthy rather than on the poor, focusing their attacks on business taxation and inheritance taxes rather than VAT (although they acknowledge that VAT is regressive and is unfair on the poor). They claim that inheritance tax means that fewer people can invest their inherited wealth in starting businesses. (TPA blog)
They justify this focus because "Business tax reduces the amount of investment in a country which creates huge harms not captured by the amount it raises in revenue." (Source: Conservative Home) Or as report co-author Julie Meyer puts it, entrepreneurship is "the 'goose' that lays the 'golden eggs' for society". None of the TaxPayers' Alliance's founders have experience running their own business.
Journalist Nick Davies described in Flat Earth News two phenomena which relate to the rise of the Alliance: the desire of the media for some notion of balance which means every story requires opposing viewpoints; and how journalists are often too busy to do actual investigative reporting, instead depending on press releases and stories presented to them by lobbyists, PR companies, campaigning groups, and other organisations.
Another of Elliott's favourite books is Death by a Thousand Cuts, by Michael J Graetz and Ian Shapiro, which describes the American campaign against inheritance tax. This book shows techniques that campaigners of all political positions can use to influence the media and get their message across, even if they are taking a highly unpopular position such as defending the interests of the super-rich. Although politics sometimes seems in the control of wealthy elites with a weak media unable to control them, if you follow Graetz and Shapiro's advice, it has never been easier to get your message to the public.
The organisation has revealed its methods in interviews with the BBC and the Independent. According to the BBC:
Mr Elliott freely admits that the Taxpayers' Alliance message - that the state has become bloated and wasteful and that Britons are paying too much tax - is essentially the same as any number of other right wing think tanks and pressure groups. The difference, he argues, is in the way it is packaged and sold to the media.Much of their research depends on requesting public authorities to provide them with information via the Freedom of Information Act, but they do not seem to consider the cost of these requests as a waste of taxpayers' money.
It's a simple technique: email the BBC a succession of news stories complete with quotes that they can use. This saves the journalist from having to phone up actual politicians or public figures to ask for opinions, making the whole journalism process much easier. By offering pre-packaged stories to the press the TPA is able to get their viewpoint on the front pages. Elliott in the Independent:
What we've tried to do since 2004 is understand how the media works, so we've tried to give news stories to journalists on a plate.Elliott to the BBC:
The impression I get is that what the media like now is to have spokesmen representing groups in society and we have filled a niche in terms of speaking on behalf of tax payers in a credible and professional wayThere is something postmodern about an organisation that reveals it is manipulating you, yet continues to apply its methods, often successfully. Perhaps there is also some postmodern post-irony in the way the BBC continues to be manipulated even after publishing an article acknowledging how it is being manipulated.
However they may not be the only people fighting for justice on behalf of Britain's taxpayers. "Now you have a choice ... of TaxPayers' Alliance". There is another Taxpayers Association. The Other Taxpayers Alliance was formed in reaction to Elliott, Allum, and Heath's group. They even offer journalists an automatic TaxPayers' Alliance fake quote generator which is remarkably hard to distinguish from the real thing.
They say of their enemies in the original TPA
it isn't an alliance of ordinary taxpayers at all. It is an alliance of right-wing ideologues. Its academic advisory council is a who's who of the proponents of discredited Thatcherite policies: Eamonn Butler and Marsden Pirie of the Adam Smith Institute, academics Patrick Minford and Kenneth Minogue, Margaret Thatcher's former economic advisor Sir Alan Walters, and others such as ex-Institute of Directors policy head Ruth Lea.They also question its funding - the original TPA is reticent about where its money comes from, and they wonder how it is possible to pay for 10 staff and two offices on a declared 2006 income of £130,000; in contrast, centre-left thinktank Compass publishes detailed accounts of who gives it money and where the money goes.
Not everything the TPA says is wrong. Who could disagree with its commitment to "criticise all examples of wasteful and unnecessary spending", or to putting 2012 London Olympic spending under scrutiny? But the Alliance's concern for better public spending is a stepping stone to its desire for less public spending. And far from being a voice for "ordinary" taxpayers, its policies – opposing all tax rises (what, for everyone, in any circumstance?) and backing a flat rather than progressive tax – will increase inequality and shift wealth from poor to rich.
Past sources of funding for the Original TPA included the Midlands Industrial Council, a grouping of industrialists who the Times described in 2006 as "one of the Conservatives' most important financial backers". The paper also described how the MIC was used to channel funds to the Conservative Party without revealing the identity of donors (in 2008 the Party was cleared of violating electoral law over this arrangement). The Other TPA feel the Original TPA's secrecy about its funding is inconsistent with its commitment to probity and openness.
Perhaps soon the BBC will have to quote both taxpayers alliances in every news story.
ADDITIONAL NOTE: The Guardian reported on 10 Oct 2009 that another of the TPA's directors, Alexander Heath, lives in France and has not paid British tax for several years.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Graffiti for God
The Daily Mail with customary vigour reports on a show at the Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow where visitors are invited to write comments in a copy of the Bible. The show, called Made In God's Image, was curated by artists Anthony Schrag and David Malone, and this particular exhibit was presented by the Metropolitan Community Church, a liberal denomination ministering particularly to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and queer community.
They invited people: "If you feel you've been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it." According to the Mail, the work has "the aim of reclaiming the Bible as a sacred text", particularly for gays, lesbians, and other people who feel marginalised. Inevitably, some people have written rude comments in the Bible, including "FACIST GOD" (sic), as well as more harmless remarks like: "I have no religion belief, but I try very hard to be a good person, and 'That is it!'", "Everyone is a person no matter what", and "I don't want in."
According to the Mail, the show has been condemned by George Reid, a former Scottish National Party MP and ex-Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (the Mail gets this title wrong), and spokespeople from the Christian Institute, the Christian Legal Centre, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Taxpayers' Alliance. A Church of Scotland spokesperson said, "We would discourage anyone from defacing the Bible."
They invited people: "If you feel you've been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it." According to the Mail, the work has "the aim of reclaiming the Bible as a sacred text", particularly for gays, lesbians, and other people who feel marginalised. Inevitably, some people have written rude comments in the Bible, including "FACIST GOD" (sic), as well as more harmless remarks like: "I have no religion belief, but I try very hard to be a good person, and 'That is it!'", "Everyone is a person no matter what", and "I don't want in."
According to the Mail, the show has been condemned by George Reid, a former Scottish National Party MP and ex-Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (the Mail gets this title wrong), and spokespeople from the Christian Institute, the Christian Legal Centre, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Taxpayers' Alliance. A Church of Scotland spokesperson said, "We would discourage anyone from defacing the Bible."
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Reading columnists and commenters so you don't have to
For years Speak You're Branes has been ridiculing people who post insane (and generally rightwing) comments on the BBC's Have Your Say discussions.
Mail Watch has been chronicling the Daily Mail's insanity for even longer, with considerable critical intelligence and wit. From the same source but with a wider remit: Enemies of Reason. The Daily Mail Tendency and Stirring Up Apathy do the same thing but less well.
Tabloid Watch goes wider. While Bristol Evening Post Watch goes narrower, and has recently shut up shop.
David Aaronovitch Watch follows the Blairite journalist, but also has a lot of information on Martin Amis and similar intellectuals. They did at one point post a link to the metatextual Aaronovitch Watch Watch, but it seems to have been taken down.
Angry Mob keeps an eye on Melanie Phillips, Richard Littlejohn, and much more.
Christopher Hitchens watch follows the maverick alcoholic.
MediaWatchWatch follows the TV-complaining organisation Media Watch and other pro-censorship groups like Christian Voice (whose voice doesn't seem to have much in common with the Church of England or indeed Jesus).
Opinion Beyond Education monitors Biased BBC (one of a large number of organisations who monitor the BBC for left-wing bias).
Any more?
Mail Watch has been chronicling the Daily Mail's insanity for even longer, with considerable critical intelligence and wit. From the same source but with a wider remit: Enemies of Reason. The Daily Mail Tendency and Stirring Up Apathy do the same thing but less well.
Tabloid Watch goes wider. While Bristol Evening Post Watch goes narrower, and has recently shut up shop.
David Aaronovitch Watch follows the Blairite journalist, but also has a lot of information on Martin Amis and similar intellectuals. They did at one point post a link to the metatextual Aaronovitch Watch Watch, but it seems to have been taken down.
Angry Mob keeps an eye on Melanie Phillips, Richard Littlejohn, and much more.
Christopher Hitchens watch follows the maverick alcoholic.
MediaWatchWatch follows the TV-complaining organisation Media Watch and other pro-censorship groups like Christian Voice (whose voice doesn't seem to have much in common with the Church of England or indeed Jesus).
Opinion Beyond Education monitors Biased BBC (one of a large number of organisations who monitor the BBC for left-wing bias).
Any more?
Monday, July 20, 2009
Walter Cronkite: the Fox News of the past?
The Guardian offers a sharply critical obituary of the deceased newscaster Walter Cronkite, who died on 17 July. In the piece by Harold Jackson, Cronkite is criticised for his failure to report foreign affairs:
as managing editor of the CBS evening news for 19 years, his evaluation of world events helped shape his country's electronic reporting into the extraordinarily insular and inadequate chronicle it has become. That, in turn, opened the door to Rupert Murdoch's current brand of unashamedly partisan news coverage. During Cronkite's reign, the standard television bulletin, from which most Americans drew their picture of the world, lasted for 22 minutes. The consequent pressure to condense or omit meant that events in vast tracts of the globe remained unknown across the world's most powerful nation.For his inability to report domestic news:
Important developments for which there was no film were reduced to soundbites that barely touched the national consciousness. Nor, as became apparent in crises like Carter's dithering over the neutron bomb, had a mechanism been devised to give viewers a coherent account of policies and ideas, except to make them crudely personalised.And his political bias:
He may have kept his voting preferences secret but the tone of voice, the pause, the lift of the shaggy eyebrows rarely left viewers in much doubt of Cronkite's editorial view. He so riled Kennedy during the 1960 presidential campaign that the candidate tried to get him removed from the CBS roster. The most famous comment he actually voiced came in a 1968 documentary, made after the Tet offensive in Vietnam, when he declared that the time had come for America to negotiate with North Vietnam "not as victors but as an honourable people". A startled President Lyndon Johnson said to his press secretary: "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America." A news magazine wrote that it was as if Lincoln himself had ambled down from his memorial and joined an anti-war demonstration.He also helped Carter lose the 1980 presidential election. As somebody else in that line of work used to say, good night, and good luck. And that's the way it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)