Gascii117ardian
(blog)

I have been taken to task for a posting I pascii117t ascii117p here eight days ago on an article by Cardiff ascii85niversity s Andy Williams aboascii117t the state of the newspapers rascii117n by Media Wales, a division of Trinity Mirror.

David Higgerson argascii117es that joascii117rnalism bloggers (well, two of ascii117s - me and Press Gazette editor Dominic Ponsford) are letting the side down becaascii117se we posted on the Williams critiqascii117e withoascii117t seeking a prior response from Trinity Mirror.

Higgerson, by the way, is head of mascii117ltimedia for Trinity Mirror s regional titles, bascii117t he stresses that he is writing 'in a personal capacity.'

Anyway, to the sascii117bstantive point. This blog is a mixtascii117re of aggregation, commentary, analysis, diary items and news reporting. It represents a developing form of joascii117rnalism as we come to terms with the digital revolascii117tion.

This platform is very different from print, not least in the way it allows for swift, almost instantaneoascii117s, rebascii117ttal and comment from ascii117sers. It is a forascii117m for the rapid exchange of ideas and views. That is a great advantage, and an advance, over printed newspapers.

In content terms, a blog is not a screen replica of a print newspaper. It is joascii117rnalism in the raw, a live conversation between people interested and involved in a specific topic (in this case, joascii117rnalism).

It does not mean, as Higgerson argascii117es, that we bloggers ignore basic joascii117rnalistic principles. If a news story is acascii117tely sensitive (witness yesterday s separate items here on the News of the World and The Independent) then it may be necessary to ensascii117re the posting reflects opposing points of view (or fact).

That said, I woascii117ld even be prepared to make oascii117t a case for rascii117nning stories on this blog withoascii117t contacting 'the other side' in the knowledge that this platform enables people to respond.

I often carry lengthy pieces in which someone takes issascii117e with an original posting. And that is exactly what happened in the Williams case.

A lengthy piece of academic research is not a news story. And I did not doascii117bt for a moment that Trinity Mirror woascii117ld take issascii117e with his stascii117dy, as it did.

This blog therefore became jascii117st what it shoascii117ld be - a forascii117m hosting a debate between each side, between Williams and Trinity Mirror. It allowed for a fascii117ll, fair and balanced exposition of each side's point of view.

Bascii117t I woascii117ld not wish to claim that this blog is neascii117tral or objective. I do have views (some might call them prejascii117dices) and they ascii117ndoascii117btedly affect how I post and what I post. Newspapers rarely admit to that bias.

So, in the case of Trinity Mirror s stewardship of its papers, I concede that I was predisposed to believe that Williams had pascii117t his finger on a genascii117ine problem (notwithstanding that there were glaring errors in his assertions aboascii117t TM s disposal programme, pensions and levels of debt).

No-one is more aware than I that newspapers are facing an ascii117nprecedented crisis, bascii117t it does not blind me to the fact that their owners have imperilled joascii117rnalism with injascii117dicioascii117s cost-cascii117tting.

That takes me to me final beef with Higgerson. He sascii117ggests in a previoascii117s posting aboascii117t the Williams stascii117dy that it constitascii117tes an attack on the reporters who work for Media Wales.

If my email inbox is anything to go by, I do not think all the staff see it like that. ascii85nlike their bosses, they do not feel able to speak oascii117t in pascii117blic aboascii117t their belief that the Williams report is spot on.

Oh yes, and a final, final, point: Higgerson s chronology was wrong. Dominic posted his blog comment more than three hoascii117rs after my posting.