I’m becoming increasingly intrigued by Roy Greenslade’s idea of blogging and his apparent willingness to publish any old bit of tittle tattle emailed to him by two or three Telegraph journalists with axes to grind.
His latest ”contribution” to the debate about the future of journalism at the Telegraph Media Group is unworthy of him. Perhaps Roy, if you had bothered to check a few facts or were more in touch with what’s going on in the real world you might have paused before publishing.
The original complainant has contacted Greenslade again to further impress upon the professor’s readers just how dire conditions are at the Telegraph. Like last time, he cites pay, hours worked and how difficult it is to have a ”normal family life”.
On pay, the Telegraph journalist complains that journalism will cease to be a viable career for anybody over 30. He cites the new content editor roles at TMG, claiming that the Telegraph “is only offering £25,000 a year for its much-trumpeted new jobs and expects people to work one full weekend in two”.
This statement is so misleading and inaccurate that it renders the rest of the Greenslade piece meaningless. The content editor salaries are on a scale according to age and experience - to quote a figure of £25,000 indicates that the author of the email has no idea what he or she is talking about.
But more worringly, Greenslade is prepared to republish tired and hackneyed comments about the Telegraph’s news agenda and then to give them credence by describing them as “revelations”.
A second employee at TMG contacted him. Greenslade says that she wanted “to complain about a ‘lamentable decline in the breadth of news covered by the Telegraph’ and believes that under the stewardship of the editor, Will Lewis, the paper ‘has become superficial, uninformative and filled with content that isn’t news and isn’t even new - witness the repeated health page items on the virtues of the Mediterranean diet.’
“She paints a picture of an organisation determined to generate as much content as possible as cheaply as possible to put up on to the website. ‘You do realise, don’t you, that stuff is being lifted with hardly a word changed from the Mail website and the Metro?’”
So Greenslade weighs in: “In fact, I noted just a week ago that a story about a member of my own family that was originally on the Mail website appeared the next day on the Telegraph website. But it didn’t dawn on me at the time that this was not a one-off, but a pattern backed by a policy decision. This is some revelation, is it not?”
Well, Roy, no it is not a revelation. Like the rest of this execrable piece of point scoring that you’re trying to pass off as a blog post, it has no basis in reality. The suggestion that the Telegraph lifts stories lock, stock and barrel from the Mail website is crap. Like all other newsdesks, ours checks rival websites constantly to see if we’re missing anything that our 22 million users should be able to see on our site.
If we haven’t seen copy on it, then we then look to see if agencies have filed stories they are featuring. We then use that copy. It looks the same because it comes from the same source - an agency. The Mail and Metro publish vast amounts of agency copy on their websites as does, horror, the Guardian.
Of course the Guardian doesn’t place any of the unadulterated Reuters or PA copy it pumps out on its website summary pages.
This Guardian practice means that it continues to pick up vast numbers of search engine referrals for copy that is not its own while ensuring that Greenslade is able to maintain his righteous indignation at the appalling things going on in Buckingham Palace Road.
Pathetic, Roy. Really, really poor.
So, if the articles she’s talking about are lifted from agency copy, Roy’s post should really have been a criticism of ‘churnalism’, rather than an accusation of copying from rival publications. But it’s difficult to ascertain since we don’t know journalist #2’s name, or which articles she’s talking about.
Justin, I think you would be surprised at the identities of the Telegraph complainants. I get, as you would surely expect, lots of emailed tittle-tattle week after week. I ignore them or reply politely and move on.
The reason I took up these particular cases was due to the seniority of the people involved, their level of experience, and the fact that two of three were clearly not motivated against the online world, nor against multi-platform journalism. They are not from the normal whingeing brigade.
I have also had supporting emails today, one from a another current member of staff and another from someone who left earlier this year, that suggest the emailers have not exaggerated. I have also had conversations with other staff members too that broadly support their views.
Now, of course, I’m not calling you a liar. As with every newspaper office I have worked in, there appear to be contrasting, but strongly-held, views about a supposedly single reality.
I just want to make it crystal clear that I did not rush to publish on my blog without ensuring that the emailers were not bearing grudges. The two main complainants have a story to tell that fits the jigsaw of other, less coherent, internal critics.
Of course, I wish they would go “on the record”, but we all know what would happen if they did. In the circumstances, I was glad to give them a platform to air grievances they - and others - hold.
regards,
RoyG
Roy,
I know who your female correspondent is and I’m not surprised but I’ll take your word for it and prepare to be shocked and surprised by the identities of the others.
As you know, there’s a box marked “It’s shit here” in every newspaper office and it only takes one person to stuff their ballot paper in to it before the disgruntled element is doing the same. The Telegraph is no different. Neither, I suspect, is The Guardian.
What irked me is that you were prepared, without checking, to publish two inaccuracies - the first being the salaries of the content editors and the second over the false allegation that our newsdesk cuts and pastes competitors’ content.
I’m the guy interviewing for and appointing the content editors and I can tell you, categorically, that you and your correspondent have grossly distorted the truth to paint a picture of a Telegraph that’s little better than a sweat shop. Your correspondent was wrong, Roy, and you should be prepared to admit it.
The second claim - that we cut and paste content from other websites - is more serious but equally inaccurate. I have explained that we do not and why it is that UK newspaper websites appear to have similar content. I urge you to correct this falsehood - you’ve seriously offended and upset some of the very good people on our newsdesk.
In your justification above, you’ve chosen to ignore both of these major inaccuracies to make a point - the point being that there are ton of people complaining that the Telegraph is a dreadful place to work. Well, it isn’t. Far from perfect - yes. But, overall, a good place to be. Invite comments from any workforce about conditions and you’re sure to get a sack of complaints from the vocal minority.
Nothing you have said has convinced me that your recent posts about the Telegraph are anything more than a small minded attempt to paint a picture of an unpleasant organisation hell bent on garnering unique users at the expense of its employees. It is a picture that I - and others - do not recognise.
I do not understand your motivation here, Roy. It looks and smells like shit stirring. I hope that I’m wrong.
Justin