- Alison Ford
- 9 Nov 06, 02:37 PM
The story of , the al-Qaeda plotter who planned to kill thousands of people in the UK, has been all over the news this week. Sentencing him to life in prison, the judge said that if his plot had succeeded he could have caused carnage on a "colossal and unprecedented scale".
Our correspondent Daniel Sandford had been across this trial for some time and obviously recognised its significance. So he was more than a little dismayed when the trial judge decided to impose restrictions on the reporting of the case which would have stopped us making any of the details public until over three years after Barot's arrest. (The judge believed that the publicity the case would receive might prejudice the trial of seven other men who are still in custody.)
We begged to differ, and thankfully, so did our lawyers. Just over a week later the 大象传媒, along with colleagues from the Times and Associated Press, went to the Court of Appeal to try to get the decision overturned. This kind of challenge can be an expensive and risky business but we decided the story was so strong that it was well worth it. We turned out to be right; the judges declared the original ruling unlawful and lifted all reporting restrictions. If they hadn't, one of the major stories of the week would not have been told.
We weren't the only ones who felt this was too important a story for the public not to know about it. As Barot began his life sentence Scotland Yard's counter-terrorism commander told the media: "For well over two years we have been unable to show the British public the reality of the threat they faced from this man. Now they can see for themselves the full horror of his plan".
Alison Ford is editor of
- Kevin Marsh
- 9 Nov 06, 10:41 AM
Recently, I spoke at the where, according to I "slam op-ed writers and reveal newspaper of tomorrow".
Well, sort of. I wasn't actually aware of slamming anyone or, for that matter, revealing anything. I was there to talk about the journalist of tomorrow and the learning we (the industry generally) need to offer.
Understandably, a lot of the talk was about skills; turning monomedial newspaper journalists into bi- and tri- and multi-media journalists. My argument was that this is the wrong focus. Yes, of course journalists need to acquire all the skills necessary for polished, professional production in any and every possible medium - and the 大象传媒 College of Journalism will be at the forefront of providing that learning.
But journalism is facing a much bigger crisis; the simple fact that five out of six don't trust what they read in the papers. And if journalism - newspaper journalism especially - doesn't address that, having all the skills in the world won't help.
Publishing skills are getting easier and easier to acquire - you can be faking photos as elegantly as any tabloid picture editor within an hour of buying . Having those skills (or the means and money) is no longer the thing that distinguishes journalists from non-journalists. Nor is the ability to tell a good story.
Hundreds of millions of digitally literate 'ordinary people' are writing blogs and making podcasts every day... and telling very good stories in the process.
But the blogger or podcaster doesn't have to answer the question from a paying (or even non-paying) consumer; "do I trust this source to tell me something true and useful?" They may do both - but journalists have to. If there is a future market for journalism, it is for the work of trusted intermediaries dealing in fact.
The same isn't true of opinion... which is where "slamming" the op-ed pages comes in. Gutsy, partial, vitriolic and not-necessarily wholly fact-based argument is vital to any society's openness and free expression.
But I wonder how much longer consumers will be prepared to pay for it when many free blogs are already better written, more timely, more authentic, more argumentative and more thought provoking than most op-ed page columns.
As to revelation - that future of newspapers wasn't mine at all but part of a conversation with the reporter, photographer, blogger, author, thinker and renaissance man, at the . Ben's prediction is that newspaper reporters will soon be using off-the-shelf software and hardware that "an eight year old" could master to choose how to tell their stories - text, film, audio, graphics... whatever. Mostly online. And with no deadlines, the 'newspaper' will be no more than a version of content frozen arbitrarily at the time someone pressed the print button.
He makes the same point; journalism will justify itself by what it is, not by what its practitioners can do. And if what it is can't be trusted, then why should anyone take any notice of it?
Kevin Marsh is editor of the 大象传媒 College of Journalism
The Mirror: "Pete Doherty was yesterday fined 拢750 for assaulting a 大象传媒 reporter." ()
The Guardian: Columnist Mark Lawson discusses TV coverage of the US mid-term elections. ()
