Combined print and web stats provide an interesting picture

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/may/09/digital-media-abcs
Will Sturgeon’s work has, as Roy says, provided an interesting picture of how some of the national titles compare in their print and web channels.
But, as some of the commenters have pointed out, there are some methodological anomalies.
This would count more than once a print reader who’s also a web reader (as many News International titles subscribers are) or Facebook fan.
It also undercounts the print contribution because all titles have more readers than sales — through sharing of papers. So using the titles’ NRS readership would have been a better comparison with web users and Facebook fans and given some idea of total reach. That’s best measured by randomized qualitative and quantitative research.
This also looks at all web users and fans, but if you’re a UK advertiser selling products mainly in the UK you want to know how many of the Web readers are here, not, as with many of the Guardian and Daily Mail’s, abroad. Unless you have some way of monetizing them too, you need that breakdown.
The Facebook stats are of particular interest as they show a relationship commitment beyond casual sales, may hint at values and, combined with Facebook profile data, allow each title’s fans to be counted on the basis of demographic tools such as MOSAIC profiles, enabling better targeting of messages.
If they aren’t doing already, expect the media packs of the titles to include all this kid of thing in the future.

‘Staged’ pictures have to be transparent

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/may/06/barack-obama-news-photography
To make a big fuss about President Obama restaging a bit of an historic speech for the benefit of photographers who weren’t in the room for the original speech seems more than a little pernickety to me.
Have the same people denounced the famous picture of the Stars and Stripes being raised at Iwo Jima because it too was restaged after a film cameraman caught the actual moment? Probably not.
Rightly, many have complained about the famous Robert Capa picture of a Spanish soldier being shot because it was not only staged but false — it wasn’t what it claimed to show.
And there’s the difference. What does the caption claim that the picture shows? “President Obama announcing that Bin Laden has been caught and killed” or “President Obama speaking”. The caption has to make it clear or not make the crucial claim.
Faking historic moments is out, but restaging with a caption that doesn’t make false claims isn’t.
What would these critics have said if he hadn’t agreed to come out again for the photographers?

News blackouts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/apr/20/celtic-newspapers
I have to disagree with Roy over the agreement of Scottish media outlets to take part in a news blackout on the sending of IEDs to people linked with Celtic.
If the editors have been told, as I suspect they have, that not reporting this yet will aid the investigation in finding the culprit/s, then surely lives are being protected and conversely lives could be out at risk by breaking the blackout.
That’s usually the case with such blackouts, which is why they’re called for so rarely and usually complied with readily.
As long as they’re used properly, they have right and proper place in the toolbox of news management.

Councils’ advertising deals make sense

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/apr/06/council-run-newspapers-advertising
The resolution of the conflict between several councils and the publishers in their area over the publication of statutory notices and vacancies in council publications, rather than the publishers’ titles, seems to be a win-win.
While using their own titles to publish these essential pieces of information which council tax payers need to be aware of may have saved the councils money, a broader analysis might well have shown that using local established commercial titles might have led to them being read by more residents because the amount of time spent reading established papers was likely to be higher than that for council-produced ones. So it’s better for local democratic accountability.
It also won’t harm the relationship with the local press, to the benefit of both parties.
My one reservation is deals which give all the advertising to one group. It should be split among more than one, where possible, to ensure the messages reach as many residents as possible and ensure there’s no perception of favouritism and a cosy relationship with one title or group.
Helping to maintain local accountability through sustaining a free and independent local press isn’t a bad thing either.

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.