Jump to content

 

 

The Scotsman: the first of many?


Recommended Posts

It's of course a sad day for many of those employed by the newspaper group, but isn't this just what's been predicted?  What role do these publications play these days?  By the time something is printed, it's out of date and we've already had the news via digital routes.  Equally, with so much obvious political bias in most publications, why would anyone trust a newspaper for the real story any more?  And finally, when was the last time any of us really read a piece of decent journalism?  Most of it is just re-presented wording they get from forums (like this one), Reuters or other news agencies.  Isn't this just the first of many?  I realise that some people appear to be portraying the free press as an important aspect of our culture and democracy, but is it?

 

Like many industries, I think this one will eventually be replaced as it's become unresponsive, irrelevant and outdated.  The various football forums serve us better than any back pages of a rag ever can.  The analysis is smarter on line than anything you'll ever read in a newspaper.  The same goes for the nonsense written about BrExit or other key decision points (where an independent voice would have been valued).  Much better insight is available online with professionals in the field who write blogs.  There is less of a need to sensationalise (or make stuff up) on quality forums because they're not so reliant on that attention grabbing headline to sell copies.

 

I feel for the families affected by this, but I'm neither surprised nor disappointed at the outcome.  If the staff, shareholders or customers disagree with me, I'm sure they'll consider options to fund it somehow (under a new company structure), but I think they realise themselves that this is just the first of many.

Edited by Gaffer
Link to post
Share on other sites

All paper newspapers will disappear in the near future. That is not just at newspaper level but also at all club levels. I just got a e-mail from my marina saying that they will not be sending out a paper edition anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is much to agree with in your post and I too sympathize with the printing department employees etc.. However, I have no sympathy with the editorial staff and most of their reporters.
They had their chance to give us fair and unbiased investigative journalism and comment and they blew it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gaffer said:

It's of course a sad day for many of those employed by the newspaper group, but isn't this just what's been predicted?  What role do these publications play these days?  By the time something is printed, it's out of date and we've already had the news via digital routes.  Equally, with so much obvious political bias in most publications, why would anyone trust a newspaper for the real story any more?  And finally, when was the last time any of us really read a piece of decent journalism?  Most of it is just re-presented wording they get from forums (like this one), Reuters or other news agencies.  Isn't this just the first of many?  I realise that some people appear to be portraying the free press as an important aspect of our culture and democracy, but is it?

 

Like many industries, I think this one will eventually be replaced as it's become unresponsive, irrelevant and outdated.  The various football forums serve us better than any back pages of a rag ever can.  The analysis is smarter on line than anything you'll ever read in a newspaper.  The same goes for the nonsense written about BrExit or other key decision points (where an independent voice would have been valued).  Much better insight is available online with professionals in the field who write blogs.  There is less of a need to sensationalise (or make stuff up) on quality forums because they're not so reliant on that attention grabbing headline to sell copies.

 

I feel for the families affected by this, but I'm neither surprised nor disappointed at the outcome.  If the staff, shareholders or customers disagree with me, I'm sure they'll consider options to fund it somehow (under a new company structure), but I think they realise themselves that this is just the first of many.

I bought a newspaper yesterday (The Times), it's the first one I've read since I was on a long flight about a fortnight ago. It's actually fantastic. The 'magazine' alone has a fascinating article about triplets in America separated and put up for adoption, an interview with Lenny Kravitz daughter, a bodyguard, a woman who underwent pioneering stem cell treatment on her MS and an interview with Little Mix, that I'm hoping will make me look pretty smart to my 10 year old daughter. I'd recommend it to anyone, it's less than a couple of pounds too. 

 

I think we conflate a number of issues when we speak about the demise of newspapers. Firstly the problems with Johnston Group, the company who own the Scotsman, are unfortunately typical for a number of  'media groups'. I do genuinely think this is a bad thing, not so much for titles like The Scotsman or the Yorkshire Post, there are alternatives to them, but for the many, many smaller local titles like the Stornoway Gazette or the Southern Reporter in the Borders also owned by Johnston Group. There's not only still a desire for 'local' news but also need for it. Who will watch the councillors or the police or the land owners without them? 

Secondly the issues with Johnston Group, for me, are around ownership and expectation. The aforementioned Stornoway Gazette and Southern Reporter simply shouldn't be owned by hedge funds. They should be independently owned, ideally by person or people local to that area. A living can be made from a local 'paper', but it can't deliver the kind of profits demanded by stock market listed PLCs. The ownership model is wrong, not the concept itself. 

 

News in the press has been 'out-of-date' since the advent of the radio. Television has been a mainstay of our culture since the 60s, the press reporting yesterday's news has been the case for decades now. The internet has sped up the ability to follow breaking stories and general news, but newspapers were always much more than 'news'. Part of the problem for 'papers' is the change in advertising, which not only create income for papers but also drove sales. Jobs, cars, property, personal ads, local buy and sell, were reasons to buy papers. It's the loss of this that's been the main problem. Added to changing social habits such as fewer people using public transport and fewer people smoking so visiting a newsagent and buying tobacco, a packet of mints and the evening paper. Obviously us all carrying smart phones also takes away the need to buy a 'paper'. The great thing about newspapers for me is their coverage of other topics that I'd simply never read otherwise (Little Mix above for example). The internet in particular creates echo chambers, where too many people are drawn to people with the same views as them. I've basically left two other Rangers messageboards because anyone with a different view was simply shouted down. I watched the evisceration of Forlan's Sister and Gunslinger on a different messageboard with dismay. Their view went against the orthodoxy of the mods and loud voices there, yet even though it was clearly thought out and considered it was dismissed in an aggressive and intolerant way. The fact they were later proved correct is of little consolation. It is to the great credit of Frankie and the other admins on here that they both foster and encourage different views, but let's not pretend that's the norm for the internet.  

 

Newspapers have always had political bias. That's been part of their attraction for many readers. Some do occupy the middle ground and have columnists and articles from across the spectrum. Others very clearly nail their colours to a mast. That's fine too, no one makes you buy them. I guess the internet is the same, but on steroids. 

 

The coverage of Scottish football, for so long a mainstay of the Scottish press, draws criticism from many of us. But we should be careful about writing off the entire industry because of that. Does anyone think democracy is safer or better today than it was 10 or 20 years ago? Do you think people are better informed, more balanced and able to see different views? Or have we become more entrenched, more tribal, more hung up on identity than on rational experience? I know what I think.

 

Someone needs to pay journalists to carry out the interviews, to follow the leads and to be able to compose prose that enlightens, or moves or angers us. If we lose that the only way is downwards in my opinion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.