I’m truly privileged to be speaking at these IBP Awards. I have to admit it’s a strange thing to find myself here because I’ve taken a pledge never to accept an award myself. I call it my “inoculation against failure.”
Similarly, since we’re here in this august building, I’ve also let it be known that I’ll never accept an honour – an OBE, a knighthood, a peerage – thus side-stepping the fact that no-one has asked and will now never ask.
I’ve also got to admit that I’ve become a little alarmed down the years at the number, and range, of awards available to journalists. Then again, on the plus side, I do think they always give a spring in the step to the recipients and to those who are short-listed.
Last month, I attended two awards ceremonies – for the Paul Foot awards for campaigning and investigative journalism and the Education Journalists of the Year (on Nov 5, here) – and I couldn’t help but note the genuine pride of those who stepped up to collect their prizes.
And I’m sure it’ll be the same here this evening.
The reason, as you all know, is that we hacks aren’t as cynical as some people – politicians particularly – tend to believe. And that also includes us. We journalists do have a habit of putting ourselves down too often.
And, of course, we seem to revel in doom and gloom. That’s never been more obvious than in these times of recession, an economic blight that has heaped pressures on publishers who must deal with declining revenue, due in the main, of course, to the flight of advertising.
The result, unsurprisingly, has been widespread cuts – cuts in editorial budgets, cuts in staff, cuts in the product, such as reduced pagination, and also cuts in the amount spent on training. Several publishing companies have suspended their graduate training schemes. You might think that I’d be delighted by that move. After all, I teach post-grad students at City University, and we are only too delighted to benefit from a larger intake.
But vocational training – more properly, the lack of vocational training – is too serious a matter to be the subject of academic self-interest. If we want journalism to thrive – by which I mean good journalism, journalism that serves the overall public interest, if we want that to thrive – then we need to make sure that journalists are properly trained.
Many of my older colleagues, those I first worked with in the 1960s, tend to scoff at the level of training now available, and the demands by employers for staff with good academic qualifications. We didn’t need that in our day, they say. We learned on the job. It was sink or swim. And the swimmers succeeded. The implication of that pragmatic viewpoint is that it produced high journalistic standards.
Well, I’m completely unconvinced by that argument, firstly because it doesn’t reflect the very different employment situation of that generation. In those days, newspaper staffs were huge. Most publishers were either making profits or making losses they were prepared to accept. They hired hundreds of journalists and then it was a case of survival of the fittest.
The result? Many writers were never called on to write. Many reporters did, at the most, mundane work. Many subs never subbed much more than a short. Mind you, all of them – the good and the bad – did drink heroically.
Needless to say, that kind of employment policy never did make economic sense, and newer, more modern, more sensible, owners have not been prepared to go on supporting a thirsty, but unproductive, staff. They’ve had to cope with unsustainable falls in profit levels, and have therefore sought to create smaller, leaner, fitter, and less alcoholic editorial staffs.
But there’s a second fallacy in that veteran journalist argument about learning on the job: it was tough on the weakest. They ended up doing menial tasks and were aware of being unloved rejects. I knew several in my early Fleet Street days.
There’s a wonderful story about one of them, Percy Sutton, who I worked with on The Sun. He drank copious amounts in El Vino’s every day. One afternoon, in his cups, he shouted incoherently down the bar to no-one in particular: “Where in this street of a thousand dreams can you find sympathy?”
A wag at the other end of the bar shouted back: “Try the dictionary, it’s somewhere between shit and syphilis.”
Anyway, the point I want to make is that we must insure that we maintain a good standard of journalism intake, whether we do it at universities, through the courses run by National Council for the Training of Journalists, or through some form of publisher-funded training courses.
I noted the other day that the annual meeting of the National Union of Journalists was covered by 25 students – doing it for free. I also noted that Sky News is planning to cover next year’s general election results by recruiting students. They’ll be paid a fee, which will be doubled if they get the results back to Sky before opposition broadcasters.
Strictly speaking, neither instance can be called training, but they do offer students the opportunity to catch the eye of a news editor. And that’s very important because – despite the downturn – there remains an unsurpassed eagerness by young people to become journalists. And by journalists, I don’t mean bloggers. I mean full-time professional journalists working in the mainstream, traditional media. I have been lecturing this term to 256 post-grads, all of whom see their future in journalism.
I haven’t seen any written work from them yet, but going on my experiences marking assignments over the past six years, I’m expecting the majority to turn in good essays, properly spelled, with good grammar and full of intelligent insights. The standard of intake for City’s MA journalism course is high.
And I know from remarks by editors and executives who have hired our students in the past couple of years that they are very pleased with them. I ought also to add that I hear the same uplifting remarks about students from Cardiff, Sheffield, Lincoln and Stirling and elsewhere too. In my view, standards are high.
Problem – they’re affluent, middle class and southern. Not enough working class northerners coming through.
I ought also to mention worthwhile training initiatives by the PPA. Its establishment of the Britain’s first qualification in digital publishing was a welcome development. It ran into problems last year but I understand it’s to be relaunched in the new year. And, as you know, the PPA runs several courses for people already working in the industry. These are careers courses for people working in the industry and are, therefore, part of lifelong learning. Now that’s a concept, and a practice, that the Fleet Street veterans also despise. They like lifelong drinking.
And, once again, that attitude is a mixture of ostrich-like behaviour and Luddism, a failure to appreciate progress and its benefits. That has never been truer than in recent years in the era of what I call “the digital revolution”. It is the publishing industry’s biggest issue – about how we deliver content and how we extract value from that content. The results have been patchy. But even the ostriches have been forced to lift their heads from the sand and many Luddites, albeit reluctantly, have had to come to terms with the new media platforms because that’s where the audiences are going.
I love newspapers. I love their feel, their texture, their smell, their portability. I have loved working for them, and I still do. I also loved those old newspaper offices and print works, the smell of the ink, the sound of the thundering presses. So I’m not anti-newspaper, nor anti-newsprint. Then again, I loved steam trains and trams. I loved the horse that drew the milk-cart that delivered to the house in south London where I was born.
But my lifetime has been marked by immense technological change and I’m pleased about that. For journalism and journalists, the most obvious effect is the gradual erosion of our own form of Berlin Wall, the barrier that has previously existed between the journalist and the public, the reporter and the reader, the them-and-us is being eroded all the time.
I also believe the rate of change is having an effect on us too because we seem to accept change more readily. We are less conservative than we used to be. I recall how my late father – an insurance clerk who witnessed the early use of computer processing in his company – was fond of saying that computers would never catch on. It’s easy to laugh at that now, but we are wise after the event. People living through the earliest stages of technological change rarely grasp its implications.
It seems hardly any time ago that I was sitting in front of an Atex keyboard in Wapping and learning the rudiments of working on a fabulous invention called a computer terminal.
Not all of my colleagues – I was on The Sun in those days – were as au fait with the system as others. The paper’s ageing racing editor, John Kendrick, was an obvious case in point. Because he had been badly beaten by the pickets, an Australian TV crew decided that John should be the man to interview. Sitting back at his desk, he was fine when talking about his racing and fighting-picket experiences. But the interviewer decided to finish off his piece by asking John about the differences in working in Fleet Street, in a hot metal environment, and working at Wapping with a the computer keyboard.
John’s response took them entirely by surprise. Pointing at the blinking cursor on the screen, he said: “Oh it’s much better here, that little fucker does everything.”
I think it’s fair to say that drink might have been taken. Lucky it wasn’t a live interview.
Of course, we’ve come a long way since that incident in 1986, when we were still some years away from the regular use of email and even further away from full page design on screen. Freed from all sorts of restrictions, newspaper publishers and editors now grasp at every new invention to see what might be helpful, whether in terms of cutting costs or improving the service to readers.
There’s no doubt in my mind – nor, I’m sure, in the minds of most people here – that journalism has been changing too. The technology is allowing the public to take an active role in news-gathering, in analysis and in providing essential advice. In other words, the top-down journalism is gradually being replaced by the bottom-up.
Everyone is a sort of journalist now. They can blog, they can make podcasts, they can shoot video, all of which can be uploaded to enable others to read, hear and see. Moreover – and this is a key point – these people don’t need us, the traditional media, to mediate, to get in between, to act as a forum.
The old relationship between centralised media and the people was vertical. From on high, down to the many below. Now, as people take the opportunity to communicate directly with other people, the relationship is horizontal. People are cutting out the middle man – that’s us, the traditional media.
They can speak directly to each other without the need for our centralised platforms, our papers or our studios. In journalistic terms, the us-and-them is increasingly becoming the us-with-them, what The Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger, has referred to as “the mutualisation of news.”
Now, I’m very aware that I’m talking here to journalists with specialist knowledge. I’m sure you all know a great deal about building and architecture and property and engineering and business, and you’re more knowledgeable about the subject than many, many thousands of people. But, on the other hand, you can’t possibly know absolutely everything, however wide your knowledge, however broad the range of sources and contacts.
Not only that, when writing articles, it’s always the case that someone, somewhere knows just a little more, more facts, more context. They are now able to share that knowledge with you faster and more effectively than ever before. They can comment, they can criticise, they can offer practical help.
However, I’d be the first to agree that we’re a long way from the kind of collaboration that idealists, such as me, imagine will one day happen. But there’s no doubt that we are moving in that direction.
Then again, I’d be remiss is saying everything is just fine and will work out well, because there are threats too – as I see every day in the threads under my blog and, especially, in The Guardian’s Comment Is Free section. Most often, these are threats to our language – text spellings and jargon and so on.
But there is another threat we need to confront too – because journalists are trained to write well, to understand the law, to grasp the need for accuracy, to respect sources and to respect the public we serve. One way we do that is by transparency and accountability. We have bylines. We are open to checks.
Too many commenters on websites and bloggers – and, most especially, the people on social network sites, whether it be Facebook or Bebo or Twitter – are outside this system. I don’t mind them murdering the language as much as I dislike them murdering journalism itself.
Accuracy is our watchword. And we must never lose sight of the fact that there’s no substitute for good professional journalism, for trying to tell the truth, for presenting the facts we do have in as interesting, a way as possible in order to inform the reader.
All about trust and credibility – EXPLAIN…
Anyway, it’s amazing that I got to this point without using the awful phrase “user generated content” or even “citizen journalists”. Then again, I’m amazed I got here at all.
Whenever I speak in public, I tend to hear the voice of my late, unlamented Daily Mirror employer, Robert Maxwell, booming out:
“Mister Greenslade, you know nothing.”
How do you mean, Bob?
I see your front page tomorrow says that President Gorbachev is engaged in some sort of re-invasion of Lithuania.
Well, we’re quoting someone who says that.
Don’t be foolish. Mikhail would never invade anywhere without calling me first.
The newly elected (the night before) President of the CIOB joined over 70 IBP Members and guests for the IBP Summer Dinner at the RAC Club, to discuss the open policy in China for major projects for the future and whether the world financial crisis had effected the development of business partnerships with UK companies and what is the future for our sector and when is it expected to kick-in again in China’s development?
In introducing Shirong, Michael Brown, Deputy Chief Executive of the CIOB, praised her work with the Chongqing Foreign Trade and Economic Relations Commission and her academic role at Chongqing University as part-time professor of construction management, with more than 170 published academic papers and 26 books to her credit.
Michael went on to draw the diners attention to the 175 Anniversary celebrations for the CIOB illustrating the role of the Institute’s with a list of major infrastructure projects stretching back to early Victorian times. He said that it was significant and appropriate that this year’s CIOB President was the first women to hold the office and from a major emerging market leader.
Li Shirong
This is my first public speech as President of the CIOB. So to make it in front of a room full of journalists, editors and communication experts is …..exciting.
As Michael mentioned 2009 is the CIOB’s 175th Anniversary, but it is also our 20th Anniversary working in China. The CIOB was one of the first professional bodies in the world to work in my home country; and much has changed in those 20 years.
China’s economic development has seen a building boom on a scale unheard of in modern history.
But this growth has also bought many challenges.
We are aware of our responsibility for the environment, and how we use our natural resources.
It would be fair to say that China is still a developing country, although some regions are highly developed. China is increasingly playing its part within the international community. There is still much to do at home. Poverty is being driven out through urbanisation and, increasingly through rural development.
Looked at in the right way this can bring many benefits…….. For example we can build-in current technology at an earlier stage of our infrastructure. Indeed we are a real life test-bed for many of the world’s emerging technologies.
However urbanisation and development bring many challenges. Urban communities as we know them are energy hungry.
They bring pollution and we have suffered, and are suffering, the effect of rapid growth in an industrial age and its impact on the natural environment.
Relieving poverty has come with a cost.
However, as the world seeks new ways of conserving energy use, China is able to invest in previously untried green innovations and ideas. These can be more difficult for the west to implement.’
On a balmy English night some 200 members, guests and VIP’s came together to celebrate IBP’s 40th Anniversary.
On a balmy English night some 200 members, guests and VIP’s came together to celebrate IBP’s 40th Anniversary with a programme of two parts, the first in the formal setting of St Bride’s Church, where the magnificent choir presented four decades of contemporary music with interjacent contributions from Denise Chevin, editor of Building (President IBP), Clare Barrett, Investors Chronicle and multiple IBP Journalism Award Winner and Paul Finch, director, World Architecture Festival (Senior Vice President IBP) amongst others. Full evening programme included in this report.
The Party moved on to the Press House Wine Bar, situated just off Fleet Street, to be entertained by Clarence King and the Regents, fronted by Bob Kidby (Partner at Lovells) and other guest performers from the property and communications sectors. Despite the humid conditions the Party went on until late with music, drinking, with endless chatter and the occasional walk down memory lane for good measure.
Li Shirong (left), President CIOB, congratulates Director RIBA North West, Belinda Irlam-Mowbray and Susan Dawson, editor of A the winning magazine in the subscription category. Giles Barrie, editor of Property Week and chairman of the judges said: “We were truly wowed by A. It looks and feels great and there was a great North West spirit flowing throughout.Elaine Knutt, editor Construction Manager, collects her well deserved Highly Commended Award in the subscription magazine category.Helen Wood, marketing officer, Mott Macdonald picks-up the In-House Magazine of the Year Award on behalf of the editorial team of M2.
Over 70 members and guests attended the IBP Magazine of the Year Awards, which were presented, at The Annual Summer Dinner at the RAC on the 25th June, by Professor Li Shirong, the President of the CIOB, who had been inaugurated the day before the dinner.
Over 70 members and guests attended the IBP Magazine of the Year Awards, which were presented, at The Annual Summer Dinner at the RAC on the 25th June, by Professor Li Shirong, the President of the CIOB, who had been inaugurated the day before the dinner.
Commenting Giles Barrie, editor of Property Week and chairman of the judges said: “We had a lively and invigorating final judging session in both categories. We were most impressed with the variety on offer, and the range of different approaches all the magazines took to their audiences.” In acknowledging the judges deliberations Giles particularly thanked Ruth Slavid, (former editor of AJ online), freelance architectural author and journalist, “for her forensic analysis of the entries, at all times.” In-House Category
Giles praised the Willmott Dixon and Costain entries – “two polished publications, we relished the openness with which Willmott Dixon described some big corporate changes, while Graham Read, Head of Public Relations at Costain showed he still has much of his communications flair in the packed Costain title Blueprint,” he said.
Announcing Mott Macdonald’s m2 the winner, in the In-House category, Giles commented, “This is a publication for its time, concise, colourful yet cost effective, with a lot of personality, information about projects and overall a warm feel to the presentation of the contents.” Subscription Category
In this category Giles made special mention of Impact, the membership magazine produced by the Association for Consultancy and Engineering. “A well-put together title, this gave a good clear insight into a highly skilled world. The judges felt that they are on the right lines in addressing their audience”, he said.
Giles went on to announce a Highly Commended Award for Construction Manager, a former winner, “this magazine has improved again under the editorship of Elaine Knutt, with a marked stronger editorial voice on behalf of the membership of the CIOB”, he said.
But the winner in this category was A from RIBA North West. “We were truly wowed by this title. It looks and feels great – but does not limit itself to highly specialized or pretentious architectural fare” he said. Indeed the issue that impressed Giles the most, as a two year veteran of the downturn was the issue that focused on the recession, “far more enjoyable” he said “than the Le Corbusier issue.”
“At the same time, there was a great North West spirit flowing throughout, and other big RIBA regions should take note”, he concluded.
The last of this year’s summer coincided with the annual clash of the cricketing giants that’s PR’s and Journo’s. A few new faces on both sides this year and a new captain in Andy Cassie (recovering from a serious ski accident) for the PR’s.
The Trophy PresentationMan of the Match
Toss won and with a little local knowledge, Andy Cassie inserted the Journo’s, who proceeded respectably against a tight opening pair of James Dilleigh (same pronunciation different level of competence) and Rob Jenkins.
Hart was the first to go, stumped off Watkins, wicketkeeper Rave Dave’s first of no less than 5 stumpings and one catch in the innings, surely a record. Wickets then fell regularly; Menary without troubling the scorers, new boy Hamilton recruited from the depths of Watford for little more. However more resistance was given by — Taylor and latterly Roskrow, who was even offered the benefit of two innings. The PR bowling remained tight with very economical spells from Watkins, Murphy, the aforementioned Dilleigh and even the “Weeman” Jilesh Patel. John Howland of our kind sponsors Szerelmey claimed 2 wickets but did come in for a bit of tap.
At the end of the 30 overs – for this was a 30/30 game, Journo’s had posted a respectable – 127 all out, top scorers Gatty 30*, Roskrow (2 innings) 31, Taylor 24 and Hart 15 all batted well and the bowling was suitably tight with both Watkins and Murphy returning figures of 2-13 and Dilleigh 2-6, may be a few runs short.
Chasing a total of a little over four an over, the PR’s set about their task with some relish and despite various people having to “go onto other events” the victory total always looked achievable. Consistent batting from all the top order took the Journo’s to their total with 8 overs and 5 wickets to spare. The innings was held together by a “Man of the Match” Andy Geldard (31 retired) who lifted the ball to the boundary on several occasions, ably supported by the rest of the top order including Simon Storer and John Howland.
Once again David Helsen did a magnificent job on the catering and organisation front, thanks to Szerelmey for their continued support and it would be nice for a few more IBP members to be involved on either team and to enjoy the chance to play on one of London’s most beautiful grounds at Thames Ditton.
In the eleven years since its inception the Journo’s have a 6-5 lead over the PR’s in the series, so we will look to level it up same time next year. Thanks again for the continuing support of all parties and players and for my team for playing so well and preventing me from needing to either bat or bowl, skippers prerogative I guess.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
