Regional newspapers should be biased, but not in any political way, but biased towards the area and the communities they serve.
Wherever I worked on a newspaper, the key principle was always to support the readers and their battles, whether that was for a new road, better education or more Government cash, as long as it made sense.
This policy had no political bias. When as Editor-in-Chief of The Sentinel I handed the then Prime Minister David Cameron a letter asking for more cash from the Labour-controlled Stoke-on-Trent Council as I stood in Number 10 at a reception, I didn’t do this for any political motivations.
I did it purely for the community, to better the lives of the people of the city, I was neither a red or a blue or any other political colour, I was just standing up for my readers.
When The Sentinel fought to ensure that the BNP couldn’t become the majority party in the city, we did this for one reason, for the good of the city, once again, for no-other political reason.
So, however we were or are perceived by our readers, and some did think we were bias, I can say that the regional newspapers I have worked for tried to steer clear of hanging their hat on any political party.
So it was a surprise that The Sentinel and other Trinity Mirror newspapers decided to go with a front-page wraparound of a Tory advert prior to the election.
Adverts on the front pages of the TM regional titles are now common place as the group attempts to claw back declining newspaper income.
At one time, editors fought tooth and nail to stop adverts from going in the prime position in their newspapers, but the game is now up, cash and accountants are making those kinds of decisions.
Of course, newspapers did once carry ads on their front pages and the early history is of them being scurrilous political rags.
But the more recent history has seen newspapers use the front and back pages to flog the paper.
Pages two, three, five and seven were also often preserved for mainly editorial content, but this has changed dramatically in the last four years.
MDs now twist the arms of editors or enforce (depending on the relationship with the editor) a policy of putting an ad anywhere they like and while I accept cash is cash, so is ensuring the readers get the news they are looking for.
There are some fantastic adverts which improve a product, but there are many terrible ones which if placed in the wrong part of the paper simply diminishes the product.
My theory behind having the paper packed full of editorial high up the newspaper and present itself as a good read was based on the fact that if the paper costs 65p, the readers need to feel they were getting value for money and stories provided that value.
Having to wade through advertising to find a story has a detrimental effect on the readers’ perception of whether there was any news in a paper.
That’s why free newspapers have been so maligned, because they looked full of scrappy ads and no content, often something which just wasn’t true.
He stated that the ads were making so much ‘noise’ that it proved they had worked and added that it was a good sign that regional newspapers were being used by political parties to communicate with their voters.
Ok, fine. I’m all for newspapers making money, without this more regional journalism jobs would be under threat.
I just wonder if he has missed another point. This issue is not just about welcoming the fact that political parties recognise the importance of the regional press.
This is also about being perceived as a trustworthy, honest, impartial newspaper of record. The wraparound just sends out the wrong message.
Simply, it does harm the integrity of the business and of the editorial team who are tarnished with being on one side of the political fence or the other.
We are told that other political parties might do the same, but two or three wrongs doesn’t make it right.
The Sentinel’s reputation received a bashing (see below) on social media and one reader said it would be reported to IPSO.
As pointed out, no laws or rules have been broken here, but whatever TM says there is some damage to credibility. (By the way, it wasn’t only The Sentinel which was criticised, some readers of thew Westmorland Gazette have signed a petition asking the paper to apologise for putting the ad in the newspaper.)
In this world of fake news, it raises the question of whether our local papers can be trusted if they are perceived to have a political bent?
There have always been suspicions that money talks and in the last few years with the emphasis on making a quick buck, commercial pressure has fallen on editors or decisions taken out of their hands by MDs desperate to turn a coin.
However, as an editor, you also have to be a businessman and this often means making decisions which may drag you close to the line of your editorial integrity.
It’s Russian roulette. Take the ad or lose jobs, a bit black and white, but it was often put to me in this way as the storm clouds in the industry gathered.
One brief memory was when my last newspaper printed a court story about a garage mechanic effectively stealing oil off customers.
After the story was published, the garage, an advertising customer, kicked up a stink and asked for the story to be withdrawn from the web and a retraction in the newspaper.
I was asked by those on high to ring the owners and grovel to them and pull the online story.
Firmly, I believed this was a story in the public interest, our readers were getting conned, but money talks.
It was one of those moments, do you resign on principle or quietly nod ‘ok’ and remove the story?
The beginning of the end or good commercial sense?
Whereas the debate on the political ads has been in the public realm, the real debates like the garage story are going on behind closed doors.
When someone asks me about the future of journalism, I refer to a future in which readers will probably pay a premium for trusted, well-researched, un-biased journalism.
Is this idealistic? Possibly. But readers need content they can trust and a political advert on a front page doesn’t help the cause.