The unseen ways those stories you love to hate are actually helping the journalism you cherish to survive


This week, we saw photos of mile-long queues for KFC. Conventional wisdom is to roll your eyes and wonder why it is so many people are desperate for a bit of the Colonel’s secret recipe.

But the adherence to conventional wisdom, of what we *should* think about something, of what we *should* consider important in life, has for too long damaged journalism, especially local journalism.

Over the last decade, journalists have been presented with an abundance of new tools which provide the ability to peek into the lives of readers, and the things they are interested in. Social media – or some, at least – give us the chance to eavesdrop into conversations, and try and work out what role we play.

Like everything, too much of one thing is bad of journalism.  Set your journalistic compass entirely by riding the Crowdtangle interaction curve, or chasing down the next Dataminr spike, and something gets missed.  We all know the trending topic of the day on Twitter is very unlikely to be the main topic of conversation away from there, for example. 

But the insight from your Chartbeats, NewsWhips and yes, even your Twitter trending lists does at least mean we have a greater appreciation of what people what to talk about, and spend time reading about.

And I’d argue that such knowledge, acted upon sensibly, has not only helped local journalism in the UK do amazing things during the Coronavirus pandemic, it’s also helped keep local journalism afloat. 

There are several things to look at here. I’ll start with the most obvious one.

Continue reading “The unseen ways those stories you love to hate are actually helping the journalism you cherish to survive”

Hurt journalism, win power: The sad truth of General Election 2019

In summary, we have a Tory Party which is undermining critics, a Labour Party undermining the very principle of holding power to account, and the Lib Dems trying to pass propaganda off as journalism. The election of 2019 isn’t good news for those who care about journalism…

Standing up for journalism is never going to be a vote winner. “Extra taxes to pay for a reporter in your town” won’t ever make it on to a placard of a party with a serious desire of winning – if the slogan had ballot box potential, then journalism wouldn’t need the slogan in the first place.

But if the emergency election of 2019 has taught us anything as an industry, it’s that when it comes to friends in high places, we’re a pretty lonely lot when looking in to the upper echelons of the three main political parties.

Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn and Jo Swinson have all made the right noises towards the media in recent times, particularly local media. But their actions speak louder than words.

In the Red Corner…

Lets start with Mr Corbyn, who greeted news that the i newspaper had been sold to the publisher of the Daily Mail with this Tweet:

corbs It’s a tub-thumping tweet which will appeal to the core of Mr Corbyn’s support which believes that the only thing standing between him and and carried on the nation’s shoulders to have tea with the Queen is the pesky media *with it’s anti-left agenda*.

And maybe we should dismiss it as that. If it’s like most political accounts, the fingers doing the typing won’t belong to the face on the account. But equally, here’s a man who wants to lead the country in two weeks time, telling this fans to discount anything negative they read about Labour in the i in the future because, you know, it’s owned by the same company which also owns the Mail. What with Metro, also published by the Mail’s owner, being so anti-Corbyn too. Only it’s not.

It’s a lazy narrative for Labour which allows it to dodge awkward questions. Dodging awkward questions is nothing new for any political party, but the aim of Labour’s dodging is to cut grown-up journalism down at the knees, to undermine and diminish the role of journalism in holding the powerful to account. Labour does get a raw deal in various parts of the media, but the response shouldn’t be do denounce the i for something which hasn’t happened, and which probably won’t.

I say probably won’t because the i has demonstrated you can build a profitable business from offering news in a new way, one which is underpinned by neutrality. That’s not to say it doesn’t offer opinions – it does – but the starting point in its relationship with readers is that is balanced. Of course, the BBC does this too, but the i has shown that impartiality doesn’t come at the expense of offering informed opinion and personality. The profit-seeking dmg group won’t have spent £50m buying a profitable news brand only to remove the one thing that makes it stand out, and replace it with a right-of-centre bias which sends readers away. Secretly, Labour knows this.

It’s a win-win narrative for a Labour party which can cheers its members by making hate figures out of press barons/privatised utilities/fat cats/Tory grandees, and which hasn’t got solid answers when challenged on anti-semitism, funding nationalisation, its position on Brexit and so on. But it’s bad for journalism.

And that’s before you get to Labour’s support for Impress, the ‘official’ press regulator backed by campaigners who say they are pro a free and responsible press, but seem to find a way to blame the press for every one of society’s ills.

To the Tories…

That’s not to say the Tories are any better. While under a Conservative government, it seems unlikely the Press in the UK will find itself shackled and cowed by Impress, it’s hard to argue the Tories will be good for journalism.


At a recent Downing Street reception for regional media, Mr Johnson had very warm words for local news, and promised us plenty of stories (yay!) but there was scant offered around the funding of local journalism – one of the two crises it faces (the other being existential, the subject of a future blog post). When challenged on this by Toby Granville, Newsquest’s editorial director (that’s the pair of them up above this paragraph), Mr Johnson didn’t reach for action against Google and Facebook hoovering up ad revenue but instead chose …. the BBC.

We didn’t hear too much of what he had to say as he was soon booed by a small section of the room, and he changed tack. There’s no doubt that supporting local news in any meaningful way is a long way down his agenda, and it’s possible to speculate whether the word ‘Cairncross’ has even been uttered in Downing Street since he first arrived in the summer. The lack of activity around implementing anything Dame Cairncross suggested would indicate that is indeed the case.

Inertia is one thing, menacing is another. And that’s what we saw this week when Mr Johnson was replaced with a giant ice-cube after he declined to appear on a Channel 4 climate change debate. My personal opinion is that Channel 4’s approach to political coverage in recent times has left the door wide open to attack from the Tories, but that’s not to say they should respond the way they have.

And certainly, threatening to get Ofcom to review Channel 4’s public service licence if they win power again is not a sign of a Tory Party which believes in a free press, or one which appreciates the importance of scrutiny. If I try to be fair to the Tories, they did turn up at the climate change debate, they just sent Michael Gove, a former environment secretary. The Tories claim Channel 4 asked the other participants if Mr Gove could join in and they said no. Imagine if that was the Tories denying another party a podium in a debate?

The Beeb doesn’t fare much better with the Tories either, and the broadcaster rather walked into the elephant trap of TV licences for the over 75s recently, creating an open goal for the Tories to declare themselves the champion of poor pensioners in the face of overpaid BBC talent. Their narrative, not mine – but one aided by the BBC’s handling of the issue. It seems to be highly likely that funding of the BBC as we know it will come to end soon, and if the BBC continues to get its side of the debate wrong, that change will happen with the full blessing of the public.

So one broadcaster being threatened with a licence review, another at loggerheads with the government over its funding – what of the profit-generative, and therefore in theory a little safer from Government meddling, media? Well, aside from inertia over Cairncross, we have a Government party which has banned dissenting voices from their election battle bus, and a prime minister who consistently does his best to avoid scrutiny, especially from local journalists. Mr Johnson had to be shamed in to speaking to the Mansfield Chad after recent flooding.

Coupled with the appallingchopping up of broadcast interviews to mis-represent what Labour was saying,and the decision to rename the Tory Twitter account ‘factcheck’ during the leaders’ debate, it’s clear that the Tories might talk in prose about the importance of the a free press and accountability, but they aren’t above actively misleading the public if they think it will help their cause. They are capitalising on the fleeting attention spans readers have when seeking out news, a time so short it doesn’t allow for meaningful verification of source. A party truly committed to supporting journalism wouldn’t do that.

And then there were three…

So two down, what of the Lib Dems? In some ways, the most disappointing of the lot. While perhaps the actions of Labour and the Conservatives could have been predicted, why have the Lib Dems resorted to mimicking local newspapers with their leaflets?

spot the difference

Spot the difference? Well yes, of course you can. One is a professionally published newspaper packed full of local news and information which has been serving its community for generations, the other is a poorly-presented, overly yellow piece of political propaganda.

It would be daft to suggest readers can’t tell the difference, but if so, why do it? Why choose the same name as the local newspaper at the same time? It’s not as if they’ve kept the same name around the country:


The Tories are at it too:


With a masthead locals say resembles an old Pudsey publication of a different name. Labour aren’t above the lets-play-at-running-a-newspaper trick either, here in London:


But two things stand out about the Lib Dems. The first is the passing off as a ‘free newspaper’:


The Hallamshire Herald might be a free newspaper in that it is free and printed on newsprint, but that’s not what the Lib Dems are gunning for here. They are essentially no different than those bank fraudsters who get your number and try and convince you they are from the bank and need your pin number. 90% of people won’t fall for it, but they only need 10% to be convinced for their scheme to have been successful.

A party which believed in the importance of a free Press, and extolled the sanctity of speaking truth to power, wouldn’t be trying to pass itself as a newspaper in this way. There are a million better ways to communicate that message as a piece of marketing (and to be frank, a million better ways to make it look more like a newspaper, but that’s a little self-defeating). It’s impossible to conclude the Lib Dems are trying to do anything other than mislead.

The second reason this is so disappointing from the Lib Dems is Jo Swinson’s response. She’s been incredibly dismissive, waving complaints off as ‘this has been going on forever.’ So has the first-past-the-post election system, but that didn’t stop the Lib Dems fighting against it. Equally, drink driving was once socially acceptable. Maybe that’s our problem, it is now socially acceptable to undermine journalism.

In short, we now have the three main political parties in England speaking warmly about the media in one moment, only to inflict damage on the media’s ability to speak truth to power if suits their short-term political ambitions in the next moment. 

They know journalism’s crisis is not just financial, but existential. That’s our problem to solve. We live in a world where promising to respect journalism won’t win an election, but behaving in a way which undermines journalism in the UK very well might. Scary times. 

We need to get better at telling our own story

The short version: If we’re going to thrive as an industry, local journalism needs to become more representative to ensure we reach, and reflect, the lives of as many people as possible. We have a positive story to tell to help us here, but need to be ready to tell it, and also be prepared to listen more.

James Mitchinson, the editor of the Yorkshire Post, last week announced he was looking for a new chief sports reporter. His tweet, which has been much talked about since, said:

That the response from some quarters was predictable tells us a lot about where our industry, or rather those who speak loudly about our industry, is – and probably why editors like James need to shout even louder about their determination to change a business which stands and falls entirely on whether the wider public appreciate what you do.

We stand a far greater chance of being appreciated by the wider public if we are overtly making attempts to appreciate the wider public which we claim to serve. Bluntly, if your newsroom doesn’t reflect the community it claims to serve, you’ve probably got a problem.

Over a decade ago, I remember being sat in a ‘how do we improve newspaper sales’ meetings (back when ‘lets put less on the internet, that’ll win ’em over’ was still considered a viable strategy) and the idea of beefing up the weekly women’s supplement was floated – female readership of this particular title was considered low. Amid approving nods around the table, a marketing executive (a woman in her 20s) asked: “Aren’t we just saying we don’t write news or sport for women then?”

Those are the sorts of discussions we need to be having now, and which I think we are having more – partly thanks to the digital revolution. Digital analytics bring into sharp focus what people want to read, while social media has meant we hear a lot more about what people think about what we’re doing.  But we’ve a long way to go yet.

Continue reading “We need to get better at telling our own story”

A manifesto for saving local democracy (a very, very long read!)


Last week, I watched in realtime as more people than ever before (in the digital news era at least) engaged with stories about local elections. The number of page views generated from articles about the elections doubled when compared to 2018.

Of course, volume of articles was up significantly thanks the the main variable between 2018 and 2019 – the addition of Local Democracy Reporters, some 50 plus of the 150 are employed by Reach in newsrooms around the UK.

What you won’t find – generally – in this local, on the ground coverage is constant references to Brexit, or what the local elections tell us about Brexit. Local elections are meant to be about local issues … but at times it has felt as though this has been forgotten by the world at large.

Even if voter turnout didn’t shift much between 2018 and 2019, the page view figures we saw showed there was an appetite for detailed coverage of local elections, set in a local context.

Quick stat: More than 2million people used a widget created by our data unit to see how the elections had gone in their area. Based on the areas Reach is in, that quite likely means in many areas more people were checking to see who was their councillor than had actually voted. Worrying? I think so.

I have this nagging feeling that we’re watching local democracy die. There’s an interest in local council activities, but still two thirds of people don’t vote. Council decisions matter to people, but people clearly don’t feel voting makes a difference.

And for the third who do vote, well, all of a sudden your vote on what should be ostensibly local issues suddenly becomes a snap referendum on the government of the day and, as an icing on the cake this year, Brexit.

Of course, it’s quite possible that national issues do influence some people in local elections. But that’s not the purpose of local elections. And if the dominating narrative after every local election is not what it means in one of 400-plus town halls where the votes were counted, but what it hypothetically means for Westminster, what incentive is there for anyone involved in local elections to even try?

Don’t blame Brexit (this time anyway)

Brexit hasn’t caused this problem – but it has exacerbated it. When Andrea Jenkyns, the Brexit-supporting backbencher, stood up in PMQs this week and blamed the loss of 1,300 council seats on Theresa May’s handling of Brexit, the media didn’t go ‘hang on, they’re meant to be local elections.’

Instead, she became the story for calling on her leader to quit. (I’m sure the good people of Morley are delighted she chose party politics and not any of the local issues people really care about as her PMQs question, but that’s another story).

The fact no one narrative can be drawn from the local elections in the context of national government, or indeed Brexit, proves how futile taking one set of elections and trying to apply them to another is futile, and can only be used to support self interest. Quite how a shift to the Lib Dems across the country is a vote for a faster Brexit is beyond me.

2019’s reaction to the local elections has felt like most extreme debasing of local government yet in pursuit of studying the national context. Save for the BBC’s brilliant Chris Mason on Brexitcast, I’m struggling to think of a national news broadcast about the local elections which didn’t mention the fact that local elections are supposed to be about millions of local things.

Time and again on 5Live, Sky News and other national news outlets, I saw the proclamations of politicians about what the local elections meant go unchallenged. Not once did I hear a journalist say: “Aren’t local elections meant to be about local things?”

Westminster’s play thing

Councils have long been the play thing of Government. Labour in the 2000s inserted quangos left, right and centre around councils, making life very tough for councils to get things done. John Prescott was desperate to bring in regional assemblies, but such was his commitment to local democracy that when he realised he was going to lose, he canned the referendum on the issue in Yorkshire and the North West, leaving only the North East with electoral permission to tell him to do one with his third tier of Government.

More recently, elected mayors have been foisted on some areas, and fought for in others. Police and Crime Commissioners have added, well, another chance to vote for someone who then doesn’t talk to the public for four years. But these pale into insignificance compared to austerity.

Across the UK, billions have been slashed from local government budgets, as councils have suffered the worst of the Tory-led austerity measures. Shortly before the general election in 2010, David Cameron praised town halls for being far more efficient than Whitehall, and said civil servants had much to learn from their more cost conscious local colleagues.

He and George Osborne then embarked on a wrecking spree of the like never seen before, and largely, the response was muted. Yes, we’ve seen campaigns around the country over specific closures or changes, but if the NHS, for example, had seen the same scale of cuts, I can’t help but think the protests would have been louder, and lasted longer.

Local government’s weakness in that sense is that it is fragmented. It doesn’t have one over-arching narrative people can get behind, or which can be reported on. But it’s strength is also that fragmentation, that it is local … if only we support local democracy to be local.

Cheap shots

Jenkyns’ ‘it’s all about us’ moment in PMQs is not the first woeful abuse of local elections, although it is one of the most blatant. James Purnell, back when he was in Government, used Labour’s poor showing in June 2009 local elections to try and force Gordon Brown to resign. It backfired spectacularly. Ed Miliband on several occasions urged people to express their dis-satisfaction with David Cameron through the local elections. They then failed to listen to Miliband in the 2015 general election. Oops.

I know a council leader who was running an authority very well, bringing in cash which was helping to regenerate it when he was suddenly beaten in a safe, inner-town, deprived Labour ward. Why? The Lib Dems made the local elections about the Iraq war, in a mainly Asian constituency. The Lib Dems won, the Labour council leader, also then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw’s election agent, was out. So it’s not new.

The warning signs of this disconnect between people’s interest in council news and local democracy have been there for years. I witnessed the sickening sight of the BNP being elected in Burnley, and then one got in in Blackburn. The national narrative bordered on ‘thick racist northerners’ at the time, and Labour’s response was to send Tony Blair to Labour’s northern heartlands and urge people to vote Tory if they couldn’t vote Labour, to keep the BNP out. Because people love being told how to vote by politicians.

The people who voted BNP weren’t (in the main) racist. They were fed up, and so disconnected from local politics that when a candidate rocked up offering new ideas, admittedly laced with lies, prejudice and undertones of racism which were dressed up as ‘honest views,’ people felt they might as well use they vote to try something different. Time quickly taught those who voted that the BNP were racist, and they didn’t change anything. And that was almost 20 years ago. We didn’t respond to that then, either in Westminster, or the media.

A win win for all involved – but not the voters

The problem with this ‘it’s really about us, you know, us in Westminster’ approach, which has been years in the making, is that it corrodes local efforts to be elected. When a local party loses councillors, it’s very sad for those involved, but increasingly it’s blamed on the ‘national picture.’ Easy excuse.

Friends who are councillors tell me that this is the year when national issues – Brexit – dominated on the doorstep, but how many candidates did you see on your doorstep ahead of May 2’s vote this year? Me: 0. Come to mention it, how many properly local, campaigning leaflets did you get? Me: 1.

If you’re charitable, it’s that if two thirds of the doors you knock at won’t turn out to vote, why bother knocking or killing trees to share your thoughts on paper. If you’re not feeling so cheery, then the defeatist approach tolerated by the understanding optimists serves to just compound the errors of the party leaders who try to make the local elections about them.

Local democracy, not local politics

The next logical step is that, over time,  fewer and fewer people will stand for election, and those who do will come from a narrower section of society, and already motivated by party politics rather than what we’ve seen in the past, which often felt like loose association to a movement rather than a passionate advocate of a political belief.

Truth be told, the most corrosive thing that can happen to local democracy is that is becomes driven by party politics. It needs to be driven by local issues and local people, with candidates coalescing loosely around a party’s broad beliefs and values, rather than joining a party and engaging in hand-to-hand combat with the political rival of the day to be able to say their party took council X.

All too often, full council meetings are lengthened because parties want to discuss political motions on the issues of the day. A council condemning the government for not taking action in Syria, for example, might make those pushing the motion feel good about themselves. It might score a cheap political point and make a headline. It doesn’t, however, represent councillors doing what they’re supposedly elected to do: Make decisions and run local council services.

Across the country, especially in Labour, we are seeing local associations divided between the different factions which dominate the national party agenda. People who share the beliefs of the majority find themselves winning the chance to stand for council over people who have long track records of being good councillors and popular with voters.

Not too far from me, a local councillor with 20 years under her belt on the council was de-selected in favour of someone who more overtly backed the views of Momentum. I know this because he stood in my ward last year and his letter to voters was dominated by national issues, rather than local ones. This year, he landed a rock-solid Labour seat. An ex-Lib Dem, well known in the area, promptly stood against him as an independent. The independent won.

The lesson here? Well without talking to every voter it’s hard to know for sure. But the assumption that people voting for lots of independents this time because they’re fed up with national Government might not be the only story in town. It might just be that voters respond better when individuals campaign on local issues, rather than being part of the national tit-for-tat between parties, which local elections appear to have become annexed to.

How this all began, I don’t know. Did the media over time turn local elections into national snap polls? Was it political parties looking to be more efficient? Did local politicians fail to spot what was happening? Did local media let the side down as newspaper sales slid, which in turn often pushed the less sexy news stories – eg council – further away from the front page? Chicken, meet egg, and so on…

Where do we go from here?

Local democracy needs saving. That doesn’t mean national political meddling, but saving. Politics and the media play a part here. Here’s how it can be done:

1.National parties start respecting the local in local elections

In my ideal world, we wouldn’t have political parties in local councils, as their presence is how we ended up here. But in the absence of a better way of getting councils to function as a democracy, national political parties need to focus on helping their local candidates get elected based on local issues, not as proxies of the national mood.

A national party’s beliefs and principles can of course flow through to local politics (although given Labour’s battle with anti-semitism, I know a lot of Labour activists locally who are keen to distance themselves from such assertions) and influence the manifesto or decisions, but local elections need to be about local life.

2.A democracy fund to ensure voices are heard

It’s one thing to get on the ballot paper, it’s quite another to make an impact. Too often, whole swathes of the country go into a local election having seen nothing from any party. So all they have to go off to vote, if they go to the polls, is party knowledge.

What if standing for election meant you had to commit to connecting with voters, and were funded to send at least one election communication to every house in your constituency. The local council, through the returning officer, would be funded to deliver these leaflets, and they would all arrive together.

The rules of engagement could be that the leaflets had to be about your policies only. No political sniping, no national issues (unless overtly local too), and details of how to contact a candidate.

None of this would stop parties campaigning as well, or even sending more leaflets if they wanted too. But at least every voice would be heard, and every voter informed.

The cost would of course be millions of pounds a year across the UK, but the price of local democracy is surely greater? Just cancel HS2 if you’re struggling

3.Proper manifestos

If registered political parties are standing in local elections, in multiple seats, compel them by law to produce a manifesto which is housed on the council’s website (along with the election material mentioned above). Too often, the same party will argue polar opposites on certain issues in different wards to get the votes in.

Don’t expect these manifestos to be well read – but why should any political party be worthy of running a council if it can’t be bothered to produce a manifesto on local issues?

4.A commitment from national media

Local elections should be about local issues. A link between Labour’s performance in Chorley is no more a sign of national view on Labour, than me going to Nando’s rather than McDonald’s for tea is a damning indictment of McDonald’s – I’m just as likely to have gone because I love chicken as I am because I’m scared of restaurants which have clowns as mascots.

Local elections are a local event, which just happen to take place across the country at the same time. Just like the morning commute – everyone on the road is going somewhere, but not all to the same place, or for the same reason. Forcing it into a national context might create a story, but it lets politicians locally and nationally off the hook.

If political parties treated local elections as 400-plus local events, and the Tories took a kicking, then there would be room for lots of debate on what this says about how Tory values are resonating across the country, but it should never tell me the country is bored of Brexit.

To that end, we as the media are as much a part of the problem of low voter turnout as the national politicians who try to make local elections about them and the local politicians who can’t muster the energy to put a letter through your door.

5. Local: Be local

I would say this, being proud of have been involved in the creation of the Local Democracy Reporter scheme, but we need to make sure local journalism doesn’t just report on local councils, but constantly challenges our local politicians to be put local ahead of politics. And we need to keep pushing to find new ways of our local council stories to be read. The numbers I saw last week show that when you put your audience first, and find engaging ways to tell council stories, people will read them. That’s a good place to be if we want to play our part in saving local democracy.

The LDR scheme was set up to plug gaps in local government reporting. Increasingly, it feels like it could play a key part in saving local democracy overall. It’s showing people care about local council news — but voter turnout suggests not enough enough people care about the democracy which underpins it.

We’re proving people will read council news when it’s put in front of them (especially when it’s promoted and written to be well read). The fact people still aren’t voting indicates a crisis we all need to want to solve. 

Finding your newsroom’s ‘public interest’ metric


In newsrooms, we can measure things like never before. Page views and active engaged time are the minute-by-minute trading currencies of the newsrooms I work with. On a monthly basis, no fewer than 21 metrics are studied to ensure we’re building a future for journalism which is sustainable.

Those metrics include the two mentioned above, but also volume of high impact articles (those engaging large volumes of readers for more than a minute), video streams, video completion rates, pages per loyal visitor and audio streams. Anyone can chase a page view, but building a sustainable future for journalism takes more than that.

And it’s the sustainability of local journalism which has been in spotlight since the publication of the Cairncross Review into journalism a few weeks ago. The review highlights a risk to ‘public interest journalism’ in a world where the reader is more reluctant to pay than in the past, and where revenue is attached to page views, with little or no value attached to what’s on the page by those advertising on it.

The Local Democracy Reporter Scheme has shown us a way around this – the BBC funding 150 reporters to cover local councils across the country. (Disclaimer: I worked on the project team which created the scheme, and the company I work for, Reach, employs 55 LDRs). The Cairncross Report proposes the expansion of the LDR scheme.

Cairncross suggests the an “Institute of Public Interest News” should be set up, and funded (exactly how is unclear) to provide a certain future for such coverage, including the existing LDRs. Financially, of course, it would, which would be good news, and it would at least guarantee public interest journalism continued.

Continue reading “Finding your newsroom’s ‘public interest’ metric”

How the page view will help save journalism

The page view feels like it has been under attack for years, getting the blame for pretty much, well, everything wrong with journalism.

In digital journalism circles, the argument went that there had to be better metrics to look at when determining what ‘good’ journalism looked like. Time spent, active time spent, pages per visit, local audience visitor numbers, subscriber numbers, return visits, brand traffic … the list goes on.

In wider journalism circles – and especially here in the UK – the page view was (and still is) lamented too often as causing ‘click chasing’ and a general dilution in quality local journalism. I looked at this in my last post on here – if we’re honest, the problem with quality of local journalism has nothing to do with looking at page views, it’s to do with what the page views tell you.

Yet for all the tutting and criticism thrown the way of the page view, here we are in 2019 with the page view as still a primary metric in any newsroom which takes digital content even slightly seriously. Why?

Probably for two reasons. The first is simply this:


Page views generate revenue, which funds journalism, which in turn enables us to generate page views. The fact our industry didn’t pick up on this until long after others were ‘eating our lunch’ should always be remembered when the next big change comes along.

The second reason the page view has continued to dominate is because we’ve realised there is no perfect single metric which tells you everything you need to know. Digital metrics are lightyears ahead of the ones at the disposal of newspaper sales executives, but I’d argue newspaper sales executives wouldn’t have spent half as long trying to create perfect digital news metric as the digital news industry did. Ask yourself ‘What do I need to know’ and then ‘What can I realistically find out?”

In the absence of unicorn metrics which tell us if something is good journalism, the page view lives on. But increasingly, not on its own.

What we want from readers tells us what we need from metrics

We need people to want our content – and to become loyal to it. Newsrooms which allow their content decisions to be influenced by a platform will always be at risk of a nasty shock when that platform changes tack.

At this point, you go in two directions. There’s content which people want, and there’s content we need them to want. It’s  the difference between searching for content and trusting a brand to tell you what you need to know.

The page view metric is often accused of making newsrooms indulge in content described as ‘lightweight’, ‘pointless,’ ‘not news’ or ‘clickbait.’ Local newsrooms often hear this, even if it remains very rare to see any content produced by a local newsroom that wouldn’t have found a home in a 1990s evening newspaper. If anything, the page view metric teaches us that the stuff newsrooms didn’t consider part of what sold the newspaper – weather, TV listings, adverts even – was probably more important to the reader than we ever gave them credit for.

There’s a very real risk that used in isolation, the page view can lead to the wrong decisions being made.  At this point, the ‘couldn’t get the clicks’ choir often strike up. But our challenge is simple: Make people want the content we think they need.


The orange line starts with readers seeking what they want. That could be a restaurant review, traffic and travel information or even a story about Gregg’s shared by a friend. They generate the page view, which triggers the revenue, which funds the journalism, and hopefully the loop continues. Note: If a story is clickbait, this line breaks quickly, which is why ‘clickbait’ so often means ‘I’m not interested in that, I’m not going to read it, but I will make a noise about it, because I can.’

At the very least, this orange line is supporting the creation of this content. Done at scale, it can also support the creation of content which journalists would say readers need – but don’t necessarily know they need.

That’s where the blue line begins. We as journalists need to convince people they need these stories. We do that in many ways, including engaging with people, and by learning the lessons of successful ‘want’ content. Get that right and hopefully the the reader’s ‘need’ as we see it becomes the reader’s ‘want’ content in the future.

And, of course, the two sets of content – want content and need content – won’t be read by two exclusive sets of readers, which is why both the orange line and the blue have a link from the bottom row of circles into engagement. The more you engage readers, the more they’ll surely want to spend time with you, the more they’ll generate more page views. And want content and need content begin to merge in the mind of a reader who becomes loyal.

That’s why I think the page view has stood the test of time, and survived being accused of responsibility for so many of journalism’s ills. It’s the start of the story of your newsroom’s success (or otherwise), not the whole story.

Emily Bell’s Tricky podcast had Chris Moran from the Guardian on as guest the other week. The discussion about the page view as a metric is refreshing, but not niave. In other words, the page view is valuable, but it’s what you do with it which determines its impact on journalism

As Steve Dyson noted in his column on Holdthefrontpage this week, it was also possible to obsess too much about newspaper sales, and allow one metric (the sales figure) to distort thoughts on what to put on the front page.

Online, this makes the second tier of metrics critical – the ones which take you beyond quantity towards metrics which give a sense of quality for the reader (although, again, that runs the risk of being over-inferred too).


Unless you have a paywall model or donation system (and it was fascinating to see the Guardian editor Kath Viner wreck the old myth that scale can’t correlate to engagement and therefore to revenue this week) the metrics you probably need to be looking at are the active time spent per page, the page views in visit (also known as recirculation in many newsrooms) and whether a loyal reader generated the page view.

We don’t live in a world where it’s chasing page views vs creating journalism. We’re in a world where page views tell us whether we’re succeeding in getting people to look at our journalism, and whether our journalism is appealing to people, or whether we need to find a way to make it appeal to them.

The page view isn’t the problem. It’s what you do with the data…


Local journalism’s biggest challenge is still waiting to be solved

Here’s my prediction for 2019: We’re going to spend a lot of time talking about how to fund local journalism. Not perhaps the most remarkable of predictions – and certainly in the same league as that of BBC Media Editor Amol Rajan, who says he doesn’t expect the Cairncross Review into quality journalism to save a single local newspaper.

Or this one from Jay Rosen in the US, echoing the thoughts of Rasmus Kleis, predicting that nobody is going to ride to the rescue of journalism:

Cheery huh? But in focusing, as we so often do, on solving the economic problem local journalism faces (actually all journalism, but perhaps most acutely in local journalism), we often neglect to the problem which sits behind it: Whether people care enough about what we do in the first place.

Continue reading “Local journalism’s biggest challenge is still waiting to be solved”

FOI Friday: How the Local Democracy Reporter scheme is making the most of FOI


It’s just under a year since the contracts were awarded for the Local Democracy Reporting Service, the scheme funded by the BBC which is aiming to ensure more councils are covered in more depth.

But it’s not just through council meeting reports that authorities are being scrutinised – the LDRS reporters are also making fine use of the Freedom of Information Act.

In a rare return for the FOI Friday blog, here are 10 stories shared with the public via the LDRS based on FOI results:

Continue reading “FOI Friday: How the Local Democracy Reporter scheme is making the most of FOI”

Journalism is too important to just ignore the money question

The other week, I tried to explain some changes we’d made to the way we cover football in London. It was in response to a post on a Brentford FC fan site by a journalist called Jim Levack, who was annoyed that the titles I work with no longer send a dedicated reporter to every game.

The reason for doing this was simple: The audience being generated from Brentford FC coverage wasn’t big enough to cover the costs of covering Brentford home and away. It’s not the first time such a situation has arisen in journalism, nor will be it be the last.

I also argued that being present at every game, home and away, is not the thing which makes your coverage of a club credible. There are journalists up and down the country, and plenty of people doing the jobs of journalists in non-traditional ways, who prove that. It’s important, of course, but not THE defining attribute of credible club journalism.

This view generated howls of protest from journalism’s online commentators, some still working in the trade, some not. Very few, if any, were typical readers – as we know, real readers rarely enter such debates.

In various debates on various platforms, I was told I didn’t believe in sending people to football matches (wrong), wanted all journalists to copy and paste from a desk (wrong) and that I clearly didn’t have a clue about journalism to think such thoughts (again, wrong, I hope).

I was also told, on more than one occasion, that journalism shouldn’t be about money. That some things are more important than being able to afford doing it.

Continue reading “Journalism is too important to just ignore the money question”

What if a degree in PR and journalism was actually good for journalism?

It emerged this week that the University of Salford was running a degree course which combines both PR and journalism, two professions/trades/jobs which are inextricably linked through the skills they are built upon, but poles apart from the view of the world they take.

For as long as I can remember, it’s been reasonably common for people to decide a leap to ‘the dark side’ into public relations is right for them. The reasons are entirely understandable: better hours, better pay, better perks are among the common explanations offered.

Generally, people don’t come back the other way. Why would they? Yet when I have encountered people who have come back the other way, back into newsrooms, they’ve been the people I’ve learnt most from.

I can also think of several occasions where people with journalism degrees chose to work in private companies in what we’d see as PR – be it as copy writers, social media managers or whatever – and they’ve shone when they do decide to land in a regular newsroom, because they bring something different to the newsroom when they arrive.

Salford is not the only university with such a course. Leeds Beckett, University of West of England, Lincoln and Bedfordshire all appear to have similar courses.

Continue reading “What if a degree in PR and journalism was actually good for journalism?”

%d bloggers like this: