Tagged: frontline club

The Times opens its paywall…and a new strategy appears?

Yesterday The Times opened up its paywall to allow open access to its leader article on the future of the press regulation in the UK. The piece itself takes in different forms of regulation, and outlines some of what’s happened in the Leveson Inquiry so far. My personal favourite was:

“As the evidence of wrongdoing came to light, News International, Rupert Murdoch’s company that also owns The Times, was unable or unwilling to police itself. This was a disgrace”

For those who persist in the narrative that everything that Rupert Murdoch touches is inherently interlinked, the piece offered a solid riposte and made a several interesting arguments concerning the British press.

But it wasn’t really the content of the article that mattered. It was the timing.

Faces who made appearances at Leveson yesterday included James Harding, editor at The Times and John Witherow, editor at The Sunday Times. So the decision was taken to publish this leading article outside the paywall because it had direct relevance to events happening later in the day that concerned the paper.

“Today, the inquiry is hearing from The Times. This seems the appropriate moment to make clear to our readers the newspaper’s view on the future of the press.”

By dropping the paywall The Times ensured that attention from readers (and potential customers) was maximised because the topic of press regulation has never occupied a larger space in the public mindset. I’ve no idea of the traffic generated by the article, but it’s a surefire bet that it’s higher than usual in addition to increased social sharing on Twitter.

Why’s this important? Because you can easily see The Times using this kind of leverage again in the future, and not just on leading articles.

Imagine something extraordinary happens in the Republican party primaries. The Times’ Nico Hines gets an exclusive. Rumour is all over Twitter, but Hines is the only one who has the story. Editors at The Times hit publish and put the article outside the paywall. It would follow that there’d be an avalanche of traffic to the article, not only because it’s unusual for a newspaper that operates an airtight paywall policy to allow free access, but also because of the strength of the story.

The acid test would be to see how many readers would then decide that The Times were producing the kind of journalism that they liked and stump up £2 a week.

This kind of approach would lend particular articles more weight in the modern times of disposable content, because those not paying would race to see what they were missing. If they deemed £2 a fair price for more content of the same quality, they’d become subscribers.

Without stretching the analogy too far – it’s a bit like my relationship with the Frontline Club. Frontline organises excellent events with authoratative speakers on a range of topics covering journalism and current affairs. I go to its events, but I can’t afford the membership fee. The content is good, but the pricing isn’t right for me.

If people deem what they see ocassionally slipping out of the Times paywall to be worth the price of entry (I can count the people I know on two hands who subscribe for Caitlin Moran’s columns alone) then this kind of tactic could well be a new way to attract loyal subscribers to their brand. And, just like at Frontline, members are loyal.

Frontline Club: America’s Secret Government

This article was originally written for Frontline Club. You can view the original on their website here.

American government is constantly in the grip of unseen forces, including the CIA and big business.

That was the consensus view at last night’s Frontline Club event, ‘America’s Invisible Government’.

The panel discussion was chaired by BBC Radio 4’s Paddy O’Connell and comprised of Michael Goldfarb, London correspondent for globalpost.com, Godfrey Hodgson, ex Washington correspondent for The Observer, and Russ Baker, an investigative journalist who also had copies of his book, ‘Family of Secrets’ on sale.

Hodgson pointed out what he believed to be a common misconception about America, saying:

It’s a fallacy that America is a non hierarchical society. While I don’t think that there’s a single conspiracy, there are a few groups who are a sort of commercial aristocracy.

When asked about the role the American President had within Washington, he responded:

Most Presidents are actually surprised at how little power they really have.

Hodgson also said that he could only think of two American Presidents, Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt, who had truly been able to act autonomously when in office, praising them both for having ‘independent spirit’.

Exploring themes covered in his book, Russ Baker spoke of a very conservative elite, motivated by economics and market forces, that sought to preserve the status quo:

A lot of political parties now want to be seen to be diverse at the top table of politics. But that elite still exists, and they don’t like it when someone from outside their circle gets in, like JFK.

Michael Goldfarb argued that there was a far more disturbing dimension to many behind the scenes power-plays in Washington, citing the prevalence of ‘the politics of fear’ and the reluctance of many Americans to criticise their political system.

Gore Vidal’s idea of ‘Perpetual war for perpetual peace’ works very well for the American people, and because fear is such a driving force, this extends to the behind-the-throne actors as well.

Towards the end of the evening, an audience question prompted the panel to question and interpret what role the media had to play in preserving convention. Goldfarb opined that the turning point for American newspapers was Watergate, when wealthy right wing business actors started taking an interest in newspapers, and moulding articles to a neo-conservative ideal. He cited Woodward and Bernstein as an anomaly in American journalism, with the majority being ‘an elitist closed shop’. Baker agreed with this, concluding:

There is an obsession with ‘telling both sides of the story’ which we need to get rid of, and crooks need to be singled out as crooks. There are so few instances of the media really going after the establishment…

We all want to keep our jobs!

Click below for video footage of the entire evening:

For more Frontline Club events, click here. Don’t forget to subscribe to our podcast and follow us on Twitter!

Bosnia: Will the uncertain peace deal hold?

This article was originally written for Frontline Club. You can view the original on their website here.

Almost 15 years after the Dayton Agreement, the future of Bosnia is still very uncertain.

That was the unanimous agreement by the panel at last night’s Frontline Club, comprising of Paddy Ashdown, Kemal Pervanic, founder of Most Mira charity, and chaired by Allan Little, the BBC correspondent who spent many years covering Yugoslavia.

If you couldn’t join us for this event, you can watch our video feed of the entire thing here:

Pervanic, a survivor of the Omarska concentration camp, spoke of his experiences during the Bosnian War, but also about what steps should be taken in order to establish long term peace in the region:

As a Bosnian, I have to vote for a Serb or a Croat. I want to vote for someone who votes for free healthcare, free travel, but currently we have people in power where the system suits them. That keeps them in power, and as a citizen I can’t change that with my vote. We need real leadership.

Lord Ashdown agreed, but added that “You cannot create a sustainable peace until the thin crust of those who ran the war are out of the way. Only then can you start to rebuild.”

He continued by saying that the EU must be able to risk a short term crisis by setting standards for Bosnia and adhering to them. Warning that there may be factions who are willing to disrupt the whole process of rehabilitation, Ashdown emphasised that Bosnia had to “draw a line and move beyond this”.

Both Ashdown and Pervanic agreed on the notion of historical honesty, that all involved parties had to admit their failings in the past and progress with the present.

Pervanic described his experiences in forgiving people and moving on:

Those who tried to kill you, they’re still humans. In the end, I succeeded in forgiving people, and I chose to move on from the past by helping to improve my environment, rather than feeling sorry for myself.

For more on how Pervanic approached his own resolution, listen to this Audioboo:

Listen!

 

He was also appearing to promote awareness of his charity, Most Mira. The project is run by a group of Bosnian and English volunteers, and its’ goal is to provide opportunities for young people in the Prijedor region of Bosnia & Herzegovina.

Pervanic finished by emphasising his disillusionment with the ability of politicians to create change, saying:

There is no will on behalf on politicians to make the change. You can’t just wait around for them to help you, you have to do it yourselves. That’s why Most Mira is relevant.

You can read more about his experiences of living in prison camps in his book; The Killing Days: My Journey through the Bosnian War.

If you missed the talk, you can see our Twitter feed below:

 

For more Frontline Club events, click here. Don’t forget to subscribe to our podcast and follow us on Twitter!