Martin Tideswell: Local newspapers are still the best defenders of democracy
IN THE wake of yesterday's historic decision about press regulation we now have the entirely predictable and unseemly spectacle of the main protagonists doing their very best to claim victory and rewrite history.
Despite protestations to the contrary, it's plain for all to see that, as per usual, leaders of all three political parties were more interested in point-scoring and saving face than genuinely achieving an accord which satisfied both the public clamour for change while safeguarding one of the pillars of our democracy.
-
IN TOWN: Lord Hunt during his visit to The Sentinel's headquarters in Etruria.
Frankly, I'm very cynical about the Leveson Inquiry and rather despondent about the subsequent witch hunt.
This is not because I don't think the inquiry was warranted. Neither am I cynical because I would try to defend any of the nefarious activities of certain journalists working for certain media organisations.
Call WHITEGATES Today 01782 209935 ..Limited offer. Available only up on production of voucher. Sell your home for £399 plus vat.* #EPC is required to market your home not included in offer.
Terms: *Upfront payment, non-refundable in the event of property remaining unsold, being withdrawn from the market or being sold by another agent, yourself or by any other means.#EPC £62.50 plus vat.
Contact: 01782 209 935
Valid until: Thursday, July 04 2013
I'm cynical because I see how MPs, scarred and seething in the wake of the expenses scandal, were champing at the bit to bash Fleet Street.
I'm cynical because the rich and famous with axes to grind turned the inquiry into a cause célèbre and rather hijacked the very legitimate aims and concerns of the Hacked Off campaigners.
I'm cynical because, if anything, the real danger to people's privacy and the enemy of good journalism – the internet and social media – was beyond Lord Justice Leveson's remit, despite it becoming more relevant (and intrusive) by the day.
I'm cynical because many broadcast journalists who should know better are taking the moral high ground and reacting as though their counterparts in the print media have leprosy.
I'm cynical because the hacking of telephones by a minority of national newspaper journalists (exposed, of course, by other national newspaper journalists) has somehow been allowed to tar the entire industry with the same brush.
Lastly, I'm cynical because my colleagues and I in the regional press are wondering where Leveson and yesterday's decision leaves us – the thousands of ordinary regional newspaper journalists who haven't the faintest interest in hacking someone's phone but may well pay a heavy price because some fools once did.
A few days ago the chairman of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) Lord Hunt visited The Sentinel.
We gave him a whirlwind tour of Stoke-on-Trent and then he met staff on a paper that's been chronicling the history of this part of the country for 159 years.
Lord Hunt gave us an insight into his meetings with senior politicians ahead of yesterday's all-important deal and spoke of his hopes and fears.
We expressed our concerns that the regional press seemed to have been forgotten in the almighty post-Leveson scrap but could well pay the price of misdemeanours by staff on national newspapers.
He spent a couple of hours at Sentinel HQ and during that time we did our best to accentuate the differences between ourselves as A Friend Of The Family
and the red tops and broadsheets who caused this mess.
We explained that we are the only media organisation with the resources and the inclination to cover both magistrates and crown courts in North Staffordshire on a daily basis – thus playing our role in the administration of justice locally. To that end we extolled the virtues of my colleague Dianne Gibbons, who greets me in the office each day at 7.30am with a smile before heading off to court.
Dianne has been with The Sentinel for more than 50 years.
Like her colleague Dave Blackhurst, our health reporter for more than 30 years, Dianne's knowledge and professionalism is unparalleled and the service they provide to our readers is vital.
We informed the chairman of the PCC that we are the only media organisation which provides in-depth coverage of local government – attending every city council meeting and outlining in full the ramifications of things like local authority cutbacks.
We told him of our investigative work which has exposed everything from the goings-on at Port Vale under the previous board of directors to various council gaffes and concerns over the capability of a doctor at our local hospital.
We showed Lord Hunt our successful campaign to save the name of the Staffordshire Regiment which attracted 17,000 signatures on a petition which was taken by veterans to 10 Downing Street.
We told him about our public events – from the ever-popular Our Heroes Community Awards and the City of Stoke-on-Trent Sports Awards (now in its 38th year) to our Class Act campaign for schools, our Young Journalist Awards scheme run in conjunction with Staffordshire University, The Sentinel Business Awards and Stoke's Top Talent, which we organise in partnership with The Regent theatre.
We pointed out that we mark all the important occasions in our neck of the woods with souvenir supplements – from the Olympic Torch coming to our city to Stoke City's 150th anniversary or 40 years of the Dougie Mac.
Hopefully Lord Hunt went away knowing that we echo the view of Lord Leveson himself who said: "It is clear to me that local, high-quality and trusted newspapers are good for our communities, our identity and our democracy and play an important social role."
This is what we strive to do at The Sentinel every day – irrespective of what Hugh Grant thinks.
6 Comments
by Martin_Tidesw
Sunday, March 24 2013, 7:22PM
“If, as you suggest Kevin, Northcliffe Media (now part of Local World) were refusing to publish your 'articles' then the moderators would surely have removed the comments posted here? The point of my article was simply to point out the huge differences between the way in which national newspapers operate as opposed to regional newspapers like The Sentinel. Surely you can see them? Despite these differences regional newspapers could well be hit hardest by the deal carved up in the kitchen at Number 10 at 2.30am by a couple of politicians and some cause group campaigners. I find it remarkable that people come on to a website to criticise the organisation which operates the website when they clearly use the said website. Presumably we are doing something right? I find it odd, for example, that you haven't referenced The Sentinel's investigative work in recent years - i.e. Port Vale or North Staffs Hospital (all done by local journalists) or our many community campaigns which touch the lives of tens of thousands of people locally: Our Heroes, City of Stoke-on-Trent Sports Awards, Class Act, Young Journalist Awards, Stoke's Top Talent, Save Our Staffords, Operation Spitfire. You knock. I'll praise.”
by KevinRaftery_
Wednesday, March 20 2013, 8:08AM
“In response to Martin Tideswell's point, when I said 'this' article I was referring to 'my' article that has now been posted on to the comments page. The other side to the argument on press regulation was refused a fair airing and its own title on this site.
Other articles I have submitted have also been refused publication by the Northcliffe Group. It is as if I am attempting to spread some kind of warped and sinister Nazi doctrine (not imaginative pieces that prod at the truth).
Another truth (hinted at by Focus 386) that has also been refused publication is the suggestion that Peter Coates would not be involved in a football club (or any other business) if he wasn't making a profit.
The Sentinel wants to get its own house in order before it pontificates about democracy and press regulation.”
by Focus386
Tuesday, March 19 2013, 12:42PM
“The sentinel democratic..... I still waiting for the punch line as its clearly a joke.
Constant coverage of Stoke council and Stoke city football club. There's a story headlining on some of today's back pages about a certain local manager. Is it covered in the democratic local paper? Not a chance and why? Because the back page is given over to local business man promoting his football team.
Look at the stories placed on their web site, they choose which ones comments can be left on. Carefully controlled just in case someone says something the democratic paper doesn't like.
It's only democratic in their heads.”
by Martin_Tidesw
Tuesday, March 19 2013, 12:22PM
“To answer Kevin's point about Northcliffe Media refusing to publish my column... it has been published in today's Sentinel on Page 10. This is the online version of that article.”
by mole10
Tuesday, March 19 2013, 11:00AM
“So who funded 'hacked off'? A shop owning politician?
Where does it say that anyone who hacks into someone's private belongings, does not face jail?
The law as it stood did in deed jail those that hacked into a phone, so I do have some sort of sympathy with the news industry.
Is this a way of hitting back at the press by politicians who we know hide behind secrecy laws?
I think so.
What disturbs me from the start is the Labour proposal to see these laws implemented against political (or other) bloggers whom have no links to a newspaper or magazine.
What is that all about?
It certainly has nothing whatsoever about phones or hacking of phones, or intercepting e-mails.”
by KevinRaftery_
Tuesday, March 19 2013, 10:35AM
“It appears that new regulations covering the press have pleased all sides. As in there is going to be no statutory underpinning of the press, but an independent regulator in the form of a Royal Charter backed up by law (odd isn't it?).
The proposals must be accepted by the major players in the paper industry (not forgetting the public outcry regarding phone hacking and corruption) whereas the press must think long and hard about walking away from the new proposals bearing in mind the outcry regarding News Corporation hacking the phone of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler.
The argument for the statutory underpinning of the British Press (which would have been the first in 317 years) was in essence argued to prevent MPs (under pressure from Media Moguls) tampering with any prospective new regulations.
However, Hacked Off (the victims of phone hacking) are happy with the charter saying the new charter implements the Leveson recommendations.
What this means is that now we could see huge conglomerates like News Corporation (who had too much power and abused that power for sick titillation stories regarding murdered children) answerable to a governing body.
The Leveson recommendations do have implications for local papers like the Sentinel because the culture of newspapers was also examined by Leveson. The Press Complaints Commission was also exposed by Leveson as those that participate in 'Superficial Desk-Top Reviews' when investigating.
The elitist culture prevailing in the industry includes cronyism which is inherent in all papers including local ones.
It seems Labour politicians like Tristrum Hunt do not just get parachuted into a safe Labour seat in Stoke on Trent. They get parachuted into a safe writing column at the Sentinel.
This is in light of the fact that there are better local writers out there.
Not to mention the Sentinel's unnatural bond with Stoke on Trent City Council.
The Staffordshire Sentinel is overseen by the big Northcliffe Media Group in any event. So can it really be classed as a local newspaper bearing in mind this group has 18 daily titles in
Britain and numerous subsidiaries all over Eastern Europe?
Which begs the question: who is in charge at the Sentinel?
It makes one wonder what newspapers barons were really scared of regarding the statutory underpinning of the British Press? That they would not be able to do anything they wanted to do? And they might, just might, be held accountable for inappropriate behaviour as seen by News Corporation.
The notion that the free press is to be curtailed by any new regulations is as preposterous as it is effete.
This article has been posted on here because Northcliffe Media refuse to publish it. How's that for the so-called free press?”