Not so free information

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/oct/11/freedomofinformation-local-newspapers
If this council, is using the FoI legislation as a means of delaying disclosure of information, it’s not very smart — look at all the bad publicity it’s drawn that a simple “give me a few days to get the answer for you” wouldn’t have.
Also, it, possibly wrongly, gives the impression that the council has something to hide.

How not to do PR

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/aug/12/newsquest-pensions
If Newsquest was a person, how would you describe him or her if they behaved this way? Aloof, probably.
‘No comment’, or here none, never looks good and should only be a last resort.
If you have a position, it must be justifiable. So make the argument, even if you know others won’t like it or accept it. To not comment can be perceived as accepting you don’t have a good argument for your position.
And that’s the point — silence can be interpreted any way. A statement only has so many.

Is owning quality titles a loss-leader for Murdoch?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/apr/07/rupert-murdoch-bskyb
I agree with Roy that there’s definitely something to this argument that Rupert gains influence in return for losses on the papers of record mentioned.
No high-profile person wants to be dissed by them.
But the mass circulation titles play their part too — by heavily influencing the perception of these people to their readers.
That’s why no politician wants to be in his bad books. No matter how hard they try to control their image, it’s how the mass media depict that tends to stick.