Editor pens poignant farewell column – before suing

August 13, 2009

loungeactbykarenjurick

Commiserations to David Hart, who found himself out of a job as editor of the Haverhill Echo after 32 years of loyal service to the weekly paper. Not only was Hart told to pack his bags – owing to “restructuring” by owners Johnston Press – with, as he colourfully put it, “barely enough food for a day’s march”, he now finds himself embroiled in employment litigation over the manner of his dismissal.

Hart claims that he was ‘let go’ because of his age (he is 56), and claims age-related discrimination. It’s an interesting case and we await its result eagerly, but in the meantime commend Hart’s farewell column. He wrote pithily of his exit in classic simple yet effective local paper prose:

I don’t suppose I need to tell you what I think of the decision to send me on my way after 32 years, with barely enough food for a day’s march.

Sadly, the scenario of editors being shed by the big newspaper companies is becoming more and more common.

It is no secret that times are hard in the newspaper business and costs have to be cut.

But somewhere along the line newspaper companies seem to have lost sight of the fact that they didn’t create these businesses.

These giants are just agglomerates put together by directors who wanted to expand their empires and supposedly also for the benefit of shareholders who wanted bigger and bigger dividends.

Rather like in the banking business, we now see this was a bit of a bubble which was always going to be pricked one day.

Newspaper owners, and everyone in journalism, should take especial note of that last sentence.

The beguiling painting by the excellent Karen Jurick is entitled ‘Lounge Act’.

 

Comments

Please submit comments to Swordplay below.

Good work by Rusbridger

February 10, 2012
scissors

The headline says it all: ‘Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger takes pay cut‘.

Dan Sabbagh’s piece says a bit more: said editor ‘emailed staff at the newspaper to say that his salary in the upcoming 2012-13 financial year will be £395,010, compared with £438,900 in the current financial year’.

Some voices say: ‘How worthy.’

Others opine: ‘Well, he would, wouldn’t he?’

But we say: good work by Mr Rusbridger. For the sake of the media’s survival, we hope that others in senior positions in the industry will follow suit.

Image of toolkit allegedly deployed by Alan Rusbridger courtesy of Flickr user LollyKnit.

From the inside of the maze, ethically outwards

February 9, 2012

Curious times in the media; strange days at The Times.

Would ‘Dacre Cards‘ – the system of licensing journalists proposed by Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre – have prevented the embarrassment now palpable at the Times over the NightJack story?

Times editor James Harding’s evidence to the Leveson Inquiry seemed heartfelt and contrite, albeit that the paper’s former long-serving and much-respected lawyer, Alastair Brett, seems to have been, er, rather dropped in it. Clearly, mistakes were made with regard to NightJack by young reporter Patrick Foster who, once he had hacked into NightJack’s account and thus discovered his identity, then embarked on a quest to expose it via legitimate methods. This, as Inquiry counsel Robert Jay QC put it, was “rather like working from the inside of the maze out”.

But had Foster been licensed via a Dacre Card, would this unsavoury episode in the Times’s history have been avoided?

We suspect not. A raft of laws were in existence at precisely the time when many News of the World journalists seemed to believe that they were entitled to hack any phone they liked. Those laws forbade them from doing so, and yet made no difference. Aside from the obvious objection to them – that they will squeeze out freelancers and citizen journalists – Dacre Cards would simply amount to something to circumvent.

What is really required is an ethical shake-up, from top to bottom. Society generally – not just journalists – needs a sense that some things are just plain wrong.

Supreme Court on Twitter

February 6, 2012

Something remarkable happened today. Yes, the Supreme Court launched its Twitter feed. It even has a Twitter policy, one of caveats, disclaimers and little by way of illumination but regardless: who would have thought that the successor body to the House of Lords would stoop to engage with the world of tweets, hashtags and retweets?

We look forward to the day when court business will be conducted via Twitter. Meantime, check out this link for an excellent blog on the Supreme Court.