Manchester Evening News goes free

[Wookey]

I take it you can substantiate your assertion that working class people like paedo stories, lap them up even.

I have reams of independent research as well as discrete user figures which show that crime stories are unfailingly the most popular stories with Class C readers. I would show you to prove it, but the information is expensive and commercially sensitive.

We don't choose paedo stories because of a conscious decision to scare people, or because we don't like paedos - they sell papers, people want them. It's a commercial decision.

Ah I see the working class choose a capitalist model just as they choose the medium to indoctrinate themselves.

The working classes also read my Stand Up For Salford campaign, running weekly for the last year, which tries to counteract the negative stereotypes held about inner-city working class areas such as the one I live in.

They also like the Sort It Out feature, in which the newspaper approaches local government and services on their behalf to tackle a long-standing community issue such as leaking pipes, dangerous roads, untended parks, fast traffic on housing estates, etc.

They also like celebrity stories (second most popular after crime) - and I wouldn't patronise them by assuming they are choosing that for any other reason than they are intested in it.

By the way, you still haven't addressed the fact that, despite claiming the M.E.N is poor quality because it prints stories about paedophiles, that kind of story is very rare, and even rarer on the front page. In the last year, it's the only major story on paedophiles we've done - and represents a tiny fraction of 1% of our overall news output.

Are you ready to admit that you've over-reacted on the paedo story in a bid to support your assertion that the M.E.N is not good enough for working class readers?

If not, now the paedo story has been put in it's true context, do you have any valid reason for saying that the M.E.N is not good enough for the working classes of Manchester?

*Remember, I am a member of the working classes of Manchester, and the MEN sits on our tea table today, and on the tea tables of my mates, just as it has done since we were kids.

Our output includes active respresentation of worker's union rights, asylum seekers (unlike the nationals), health and education issues, and local government.

If we didn't ask people what they are interested in, we wouldn't know what to write, and we wouldn't be the biggest regional newspaper in the UK.

The concept that the working classes read a newspaper that is irrelevant to them contradicts what they say to us, and what the readership figures say to us. That's the bottom line of your innacurate view of things.

 

[soulman]

I have reams of independent research as well as discrete user figures which show that crime stories are unfailingly the most popular stories with Class C readers. I would show you to prove it, but the information is expensive and commercially sensitive.

We don't choose paedo stories because of a conscious decision to scare people, or because we don't like paedos - they sell papers, people want them. It's a commercial decision.

Expensive, commercially sensitive and unavailable to the 'Class C readers' whose needs you claim the MEN meets with headlines like the one I posted.

The working classes also read <snip>

By the way, you still haven't addressed the fact that, despite claiming the M.E.N is poor quality because it prints stories about paedophiles, that kind of story is very rare, and even rarer on the front page. In the last year, it's the only major story on paedophiles we've done - and represents a tiny fraction of 1% of our overall news output.

Are you ready to admit that you've over-reacted on the paedo story in a bid to support your assertion that the M.E.N is not good enough for working class readers?

If not, now the paedo story has been put in it's true context, do you have any valid reason for saying that the M.E.N is not good enough for the working classes of Manchester?

It's not that it's a headline piece about paedophiles, or in fact not about paedophiles but about a rehabilitation centre, that interests me. That just happened to be a headline on the day I searched the paper. What does interest me is your defence of 'journalism' that's based on creating fear, and your continued assertion that working class people get the media they want or deserve while refusing to point to any quantifiable research indicating that.

<snip - more free advertising for capitalist media>

If we didn't ask people what they are interested in, we wouldn't know what to write, and we wouldn't be the biggest regional newspaper in the UK.

The concept that the working classes read a newspaper that is irrelevant to them contradicts what they say to us, and what the readership figures say to us. That's the bottom line of your innacurate view of things.

Ah I see. You journalists write what you're told your readership expects. Hmmm...

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

You OK, Ann? Your posts are usually immaculate!

I recently had two ops on my buggered up wrist - a bone graft from my hip, and then my tendons snapped so I've had tendon transplant/graft/reconstruction and i'm wearing an amazking contraption called a dynamic splint with an outrigger.. whixch looks a bit lije this:

http://www.benefitsnowshop.co.uk/shop/detail.asp?bid=&item=2248&sectionId=477

Tytping with one hand is really terdious and if i try to dp it proper.ly and correct all my mistakes it takrsd aaaaaaaaaaaages.

So i'm afraid i've hasfd to let my stanbards slip

 

[moose]

Blimey - I'll let you off then!

Getx well snoo.

 

[Wookey]

It's not that it's a headline piece about paedophiles, or in fact not about paedophiles but about a rehabilitation centre, that interests me. That just happened to be a headline on the day I searched the paper.

So if it didn't interest you, why did you raise it?

And if it was a random headline, why did you try to extrapolate from it to a wider critique of the newspaper in general?

Your approach makes no sense to me, you're going to have to explain what you mean.

What does interest me is your defence of 'journalism' that's based on creating fear, and your continued assertion that working class people get the media they want or deserve while refusing to point to any quantifiable research indicating that.

I'm not defending anything, I'm explaining how it works in terms you'll understand. I've pointed you to both empirical independant research (ABC, JICREG), plus our own marketing research which uses reader questionnaires, plus the user figures for my site which, thanks to modern software, enable me to see how many users have visited which story, from where, to where and for how long. In fact, there has never been a better time in history for me to say that I confidently know exactly what stories the public like from my site, and what broadly interests them from a mainstream regional new site in general. I have the black and white figures to descibe their conscious and subconscious choices as consumers in detail.


The fact that a story about Polish migrant workers being unionised, which is the type of news that I like to read about, will garner 300 readers, while a story about cheerleaders having their skimpy uniforms banned by the authorities garners 300,000 hits, should tell you what you need to know about people's tastes and choices in what they expect from my site.

Ah I see. You journalists write what you're told your readership expects. Hmmm...

No, not Hmmm. What is Hmmm? Can you articulate what you mean by Hmmm?

Hmm is a sneering and chin-rubbing reponse that allows to you attempt to rile me with a damning judgement, without actually saying what you mean so I can deconstruct it like the flimsy armchair revolutionism I expect it to be. You must think my head buttons up the back.

Either say what you mean, and preferably within the sphere of your own contribution to society, or quit talking out of your arse. Hmmm wastes my time and yours.

 

[soulman]

So if it didn't interest you, why did you raise it?

And if it was a random headline, why did you try to extrapolate from it to a wider critique of the newspaper in general?

Your approach makes no sense to me, you're going to have to explain what you mean.

I raised it because it's an example of 'journalists' creating fear without any basis in reality. It's an extension of the 'politics of fear' that's become the norm now.

I'm not defending anything, I'm explaining how it works in terms you'll understand. I've pointed you to both empirical independant research (ABC, JICREG), plus our own marketing research which uses reader questionnaires, plus the user figures for my site which, thanks to modern software, enable me to see how many users have visited which story, from where, to where and for how long. In fact, there has never been a better time in history for me to say that I confidently know exactly what stories the public like from my site, and what broadly interests them from a mainstream regional new site in general. I have the black and white figures to descibe their conscious and subconscious choices as consumers in detail.

Oh but you are defending it Wookey and that's understandable when you've invested so much in your career choice. You don't have to explain it in terms you think I'll understand. Just explain it in terms you understand.

The fact that a story about Polish migrant workers being unionised, which is the type of news that I like to read about, will garner 300 readers, while a story about cheerleaders having their skimpy uniforms banned by the authorities garners 300,000 hits, should tell you what you need to know about people's tastes and choices in what they expect from my site.

Is your site an official offshoot of the MEN or something you've created for yourself Wookey?

No, not Hmmm. What is Hmmm? Can you articulate what you mean by Hmmm?

Hmm is a sneering and chin-rubbing reponse that allows to you attempt to rile me with a damning judgement, without actually saying what you mean so I can deconstruct it like the flimsy armchair revolutionism I expect it to be. You must think my head buttons up the back.

Either say what you mean, and preferably within the sphere of your own contribution to society, or quit talking out of your arse. Hmmm wastes my time and yours.

Hmmm means I'm thinking, is that such a bad thing to do?

 

[Wookey]

I raised it because it's an example of 'journalists' creating fear without any basis in reality. It's an extension of the 'politics of fear' that's become the norm now.

The people who came to us asking for us to investigate the story of an unannounced offenders' centre in their neighbourhood were fearful. They hadn't been told of the plans, they weren't consulted by the Probation Service, and in that vacuum of information they were worried about the plans for the new centre.

The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service promised to install security cameras on site, pledged to see children in another office entirely, and said they would speed up their plans to move to another office entirely.

No newspaper created this fear - lack of communication, worry over child abusers in the community, and official reticence to honestly converse with community members caused that fear.

The next day, we printed a clear and unambiguous clarification, as the story progressed, that the Probation Service had confirmed for the first time that sex offenders would not be using the site. As one of my readers put it:

Okay, who's going to get the flaming torches alight and lead the march into Withington? Cue: the nimby's that know that offenders have to be rehabilitated... but don't want them in their back yard. I am the father of an eight-year-old, living close to this proposed facility and, while I'm concerned about the nature of the paedophile 'clients', I'm more concerned about the burglars, sneak thieves and drug addicts. I wouldn't mind, but the overwhelming majority of the 'previous' offenders will be from the area, anyway. (Puts tin hat on and awaits incoming.)
Realist, Didsbury

This man is telling me he's worried about the institution's clients. Do I ignore him because I happen to think his fears are unfounded? That's not my job. My job is report the story of worried citizens, then report the response to that from officials, then keep an eye on the story to ensure the officials keep to their word. My own philosophy on convicts in the community or the perceived dangers of convicted paedophiles is neither here nor there. I'm a hired writer. If someone tells me they're scared, I'll report that they're scared - whether I think they are right to be scared or not. The ability to subsume one's ego and one's own political viewpoint is essential if you are a radical person working in the mainstream press. The readers' don't want my world view, they want their own world view reflected back at them - and I'm very au fait with what that world view is, on account of the extensive research I'm pointed you to which you seem unwilling to want to recognise.

Is your site an official offshoot of the MEN or something you've created for yourself Wookey?

It's the M.E.N site, in which I control news coverage. Care to comment on the facts I presented as regards what people decide they want from my site?

Hmmm means I'm thinking, is that such a bad thing to do?

I don't believe you need to pause to think on a bulletin board in the same way we would in a face to face conversation, so forgive me if I disbelieve you. That Hmmm was not a mere indication of thought, it was loaded, and you insult my intelligence by trying to suggest otherwise.

But let's assume you were thinking, for the sake of argument - why did you have to think about the concept of newspapers giving their readers what they expect? Why does that require thought? Don't you think, seeing that we are a product, that giving the readers what they expect is a rather sensible thing to do?

I don't think the offenders' centre story was at all indicative of our news output, in fact a quick string search shows I've not published another similar story in the last year. You don't seem to want to recognise the socially-relevent stories we do, the charities we support, our liberal attitude to asylum seekers, our campaign to counter-act stereotypes of inner-city living in Salford, our campaign to protect the emergency services from violence, or our campaigns to have the reconstruction of the City of Manchester done in full co-operation with its citizens. How can you have such a blinkered view of what we cover and why?

And then it dawns on me - you don't even read it, do you?

 

[soulman]

Just follow what you're told mate. It's so much easier.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Just follow what you're told mate. It's so much easier.

What soulman, no comments on the MEN's recent front page splash about suicide by inmates at styal women's prison?

but then it doesn't sit easily with your jaundiced view about MEN being full of anti-crim hype and hysteria does it, when they run a front page story about the failures of the prison service and how it's failing to protect some of the most vulnerable members of society, women prisoners, many of whom have mental health and drug addiction problems, for whom prison isn't really an appropriate place...





And really, please don't start with your snide comments in relation to this, I actually knew one of the women who committed suicide there a couple of years back when there were six suicides in the space of a year, so please leave your vitriolic comments out of it, okay?

 

[soulman]

What soulman, no comments on the MEN's recent front page splash about suicide by inmates at styal women's prison?

but then it doesn't sit easily with your jaundiced view about MEN being full of anti-crim hype and hysteria does it, when they run a front page story about the failures of the prison service and how it's failing to protect some of the most vulnerable members of society, women prisoners, many of whom have mental health and drug addiction problems, for whom prison isn't really an appropriate place...





And really, please don't start with your snide comments in relation to this, I actually knew one of the women who committed suicide there a couple of years back when there were six suicides in the space of a year, so please leave your vitriolic comments out of it, okay?

You ask why no comments and then say you don't want any comments. If the ed wants to allow you free advertising space on the boards that's up to him but I think there's lot more worthy causes than some capitalist rag.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

You ask why no comments and then say you don't want any comments.

sensible, rational comments about the subject matter are of course welcome.

i was just alerting you to the fact that i knew someone who had committed suicide at styal so you could avoid foot-in-mouth syndrome and any unnecessarily vicious or personal comments.

If the ed wants to allow you free advertising space on the boards that's up to him but I think there's lot more worthy causes than some capitalist rag.

Huh?

What am i supopsed to be advertising?

 

[moose]

Soulman - don't use people's real names.

 

[soulman]

Soz, sorted.

 

[Wookey]

Just follow what you're told mate. It's so much easier.

Do you feel like adding something constructive to this thread or are you just going to spray student-level cynicism at it from afar?

I've tried to explain that the nature of my output addresses many socially responsible issues, from unionism and environmentalism to education and local government. I spent a 24 hour shift recently publishing the entire results of the local elections live as they came in - not the most interesting shift, I'll grant you, but I feel it is important to publicise local democracy, and lots of people are interested in it. In that one shift I could have published thousands of paedophile stories, but I didn't, I've published one this year, the one you're using to prop up your misinformed criticisms.

 

[soulman]

Can't see another blatant advert for a regional newspaper in one of the other regional threads. Why is there one here?

 

[Wookey]

Can't see another blatant advert for a regional newspaper in one of the other regional threads. Why is there one here?

Because I'm special. Now fuck off.