Advertising revenues at local papers have plummeted

The good news is that the Lancashire Telegraph is still with us – with close on 90,000 readers, or getting on for [one in three] of the adults who live in the circulation area.

But it’s no secret that all sections of the newspaper industry, from the smallest weekly to the mass-market “redtops” like The Sun (which sells almost three million copies a day) are facing an increasingly difficult market.

The circulation of national newspapers has gone down by around 12 per cent in the last five years; though the precise situation for regional and local papers is more patchy, overall there’s been a decline, with one local newspaper group ceasing publication of 44 titles.

Part of this decline can be attributed to the severe economic downturn. Regional and local papers especially rely heavily on advertising houses and cars – the two items which have seen a greater collapse in sales in the past year than any other area of the economy. And the jobs market – the other mainstay of classified advertising – hasn’t fared much better.

But a major part of the problem is a long-term one – the internet. Just as I like reading proper books, as opposed to ephemeral images on a screen, so I love the feel of the printed newspaper page, the different type faces, the imagination – and judgements – used in layouts, the permanence of what’s produced. In my opinion there’s no substitute for that. But my view is no longer the universal one it once was.

Ten years ago on the London Underground almost everyone in the rush hours would be reading a newspaper. Now it’s a minority reading any paper at all – most have their iPods going, and maybe reading a novel.

And just as downloading of music is now far more common especially for the young than purchasing CDs, so the younger you are the more likely you are to get your news from a website – of which the BBC’s is by far the most frequently visited.

The internet is here to stay; and we could just resign ourselves to its consequences, bad and good, and wash our hands of any intervention in what some see as “natural” market forces.

Were we to do that, however, we could see a demise not just of many local and regional papers but also of regional independent TV, to leave the BBC in an unhealthily dominant position as the primary provider of news. We can’t let that happen.

After all, the BBC is not a creature of the “free market” but the exact opposite, of deliberate state intervention. It is a great institution, probably the best and most respected broadcaster in the world.

But that deserved reputation cannot blind us to unbalanced situation which now exists, with the BBC, with huge taxpayer based resources over-dominant especially in regional and local news. Hence Tuesday’s announcement as part of the “Digital Britain” policy announced by the Government.

Under this, a very small part of the £142.50 licence fee will be made available to the independent TV broadcasters like Granada to maintain a regional news coverage, and the regulations which restrict owners of regional and local papers from owning radio and TV stations will be relaxed.

The BBC are kicking up about this.

But it’s a small price to ensure we continue to have viable paid-for newspapers, and competition in broadcast regional news.

Image source: Courant.com

Comment (0)

The bit that President Barack Obama did not fluff when taking the oath the first time was his middle name – “Hussain”.

The President’s paternal grandfather was a Muslim. Hussain is a name revered in Islam. During the election campaign, some of his more vitriolic opponents thought that they might damage Obama’s growing popularity by claiming that he too was a Muslim. At one stage in the campaign 12 per cent of the electorate, according to some polls, believed this.

In any event this did him no harm at all.Indeed the claim, albeit inaccurate, may have reinforced his own campaign’s message that Obama was genuinely different from those who had preceded him, and could offer a fresh approach to the huge challenges facing America and the world, and not least in US foreign policy.

A week into his presidency and we now have an initial but strong indication of that different new approach, on the Middle East. Giving his first major television interview not to US or European TV, but to the Dubai based Al Arabiya satellite news channel, he mentioned with approval those of his relations who were of the Islamic faith, and spoke at length about America’s future relations with the Muslim world.

The most important thing, he said, was to get engaged right away, and “start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating.” Part of his job, he said, was “to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives”. He pledged to work for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, with a secure State of Israel, and a separate and independent State of Palestine with free movement for its people, trade and business to flourish. (He’s appointed former Senator George Mitchell, whose tireless work helps bring the warring communities in Northern Ireland to lead that work).

The US “had good relations with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago; there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.” And most significantly of all he said that he wanted to engage in direct talks with both Syria, and Iran. Of all the countries across the wider Middle East, Iran is key. It’s one of the largest population (65million); exceeded in the region only by Egypt (80million) but with a GDP per head at nearly $3,000 (2006 figures) more than twice that of Egypt, and with huge reserves of oil and natural gas.

The US has had no diplomatic relations with Iran since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the 444-day siege of the US Embassy which followed. As British Foreign Secretary I visited Iran five times; though none of my British counterparts had done so before or since, after 1979. I became convinced through my engagement with Iran, and that conviction has only grown in recent years, that top level face-to-face contact and negotiation by the US, and major EU countries was the only way forward.

It is terrific that President Obama has made this one of his key priorities so early in his Presidency. The President has got that right, like so much else so far.

Meanwhile I am afraid here at home the leadership of the BBC is giving further evidence of dreadful misjudgement. Its refusal to screen the Disaster Emergency Committee’s appeal for humanitarian aid to the suffering people of Gaza defies belief. Far from this underpinning the BBC’s reputation for political impartiality, it undermines it.

Comment (2)

I've never quite known what to make of the telephone numbers which are paid to footballers in weekly wages.

But there is a very open market. Some footballers are extraordinarily talented. Other clubs compete for their skills. The market finds a price. The environment is a harsh one. If the performance is not there, the club suffers, and the player’s market value drops.

But there’s not such an active, open market for the talents of television presenters. We have to rely on the judgement on our behalf of those who write the cheques. How a price is settled is quite beyond my comprehension. But what I do recall is my own incomprehension that a person called Jonathan Ross was given a contract worth £1 million to present a series of light entertainment programmes.

Taste in television programmes varies. But have I been alone in being underwhelmed by this man’s skills? At least in the future I may be spared even this; for the question which now must arise is whether Mr Ross, and his colleague, “presenter” Russell Brand, should be paid a penny by the rest of us.

When I first read about Mr Ross and Mr Brand’s behaviour on a Radio 2 programme I thought perhaps that the newspapers had exaggerated what had happened. But in many ways it’s worse than I imagined.

It would not have been funny were it a thoughtless prank by some teenagers. But Ross and Brand are not teenagers. They are grown-ups, who in return for much more money than most people earn in a lifetime are required to conform to BBC standards. And this was not thoughtless – but carefully thought through.

The item was pre-recorded. Brand and Ross evidently considered whether it should be broadcast. So, one assumes, did their producer, and whoever they report to. And they all then lost any sense of respect for Mr Sachs and the paying public, any sense of decency, and decided that the item would be broadcast.

Three big issues about arise here. The first is the obvious one. The BBC has clear standards of decency. This broadcast has to be in clear breach of them, if words have any meaning. Second, there’s the way the BBC has dealt with the story. They have given it a good deal of coverage. But when others not connected with the BBC are in the centre of a media fire storm like this, the BBC will be relentless in pursuit. They’ll send news teams to homes, and all the rest. I’ve not spotted this happening with the senior people from the BBC who ultimately are responsible for this appalling lapse in standards. Finally, there’s this. If the presenters concerned had been working for a local radio station – BBC Radio Lancashire, for example – and they’d done this, does anyone seriously believe that they’d still be in post? Of course not. They’d have been given their P45 before you could say “Jack Robinson”.

And it’s difficult not to feel that that’s exactly what should happen to these two so-called “stars”. Russell Brand has now resigned, and quite right too. But is this the end of the story?

Comment (0)