The Panama Papers coverage has been superb but what next for our papers?

There are those who love nothing more than to scoff at the Guardian, I know. Sometimes with very good reason too. But the paper deserves to be applauded - and probably awarded - for its superb coverage of the Panama Papers this week.

This story - the mass leak of data from Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca - is one of those classic cases in which the printed press come into their own.

Sure, the material was available online and was covered on TV and radio extensively but this was a complex and detailed unfolding story. It was the sort of story that demands sitting down and going over several times to truly understand. Snippets can too easily be missed online while the broadcast media is a format that dictates the pace to you, rather than the other way around, and doesn't always allow for the level of detail the Guardian managed in print this week.

I don't buy a paper as much as I used to these days but have parted with £1.80 everyday this week and have thoroughly enjoyed it. The story has grown and evolved throughout the week, like a slow-burning Night Manager-esque thriller with a key difference. Most of the people mentioned have done nothing illegal.

The Guardian's coverage leaves you in no doubt of the fact that much of the information unearthed by the Panama Papers - shared with them by partners at Süddeutsche Zeitung - is perfectly above board. But that, for me, doesn't detract anything from the story. In fact, this feels like a watershed moment where people across many countries question what is and isn't right and why the law allows the rich and famous to manage their finances in this way. It has opened a debate about what should be legal and what is morally right too. For all that to be decided, we need to shine a light on this secret and largely unknown - to you and I anyway - world of offshore money and accounts. That's not to mention the lessons for David Cameron in handling the questions he's faced this week.

The story might also come at a watershed moment for the industry itself. It has not been lost on me that this may even be the last - or one of the last - big stories that will be published in this way as journalism addresses its future.

Perhaps buoyed by the Panama Papers coverage - or by the demise in print of the Independent - the Guardian today revealed that its cover price will soon be £2. That price feels symbolic, a figure that belongs to a 'premium product'. While I've been happy to shell out £1.80 every day this week, the price of the print paper is one of the factors that stops me being a more regular reader. I've bought this as a 'treat' because of the story and couldn't justify £10 a week every week.

In some respects I feel sad typing that. The modern, internet age has to come to terms with the fact that quality journalism costs money. By delivering such a good offering online for free the industry has shot itself in the foot a little and has now got to grapple with how to fund itself going forward. I say now but this was a question many have been wrestling with for some time, certainly as long as I was a journalist.

This is clearly an important time in the history of newspapers. The Independent and Independent on Sunday are no longer on the news stands every morning having taken the bold move to go 'online only'.

I read both titles' final editions with a tinge of sadness but, of course, am fully aware that it's people like me not buying these papers which means they cease to exist in print. Both bowed out with dignity, packed with quality writing on the sorts of causes and issues that have been an important part in their stories. They did themselves - and their proud joint history - justice.

In many respects the Indy has done what many others must have considered. It's a bold step but everyone in the industry has presumed some, if not all, papers will have to go online to move with the times. Sometimes 'going first' isn't the wisest move but I hope they find a way to make it work. The quality of the likes of Cockburn and Fisk is simply too good to disappear and the spirit of campaigning journalism mustn't be lost because it's no longer committed to paper. Is it naïve to hope the essence of the paper will live on? Perhaps. But if the Indy pulls it off it'd be some coup.

There is one more print milestone for the Indy, however. Tomorrow (April 9) marks the last of its editions of the i paper. This concise spin-off has been a welcome addition to the news stands and is a title I've regularly turned to as a solution to my lack of cash and time to invest in reading the chunkier papers. From Monday the torch is passed to Johnston Press. It'll be fascinating to see what - if anything - changes as a result. Hopefully very little. It'll be a huge challenge for the regional publisher (my former employer) to take on a national title.

Then of course, we've just seen the launch of the New Day. From what I've seen of the title - and it doesn't feel aimed at me so I'm probably not the best judge - it will take a while to find its place. I think its best editions so far have come when it has taken a big issue - one that maybe other papers aren't tackling - and done some big to highlight it. In a nutshell, that takes the ethos of the Indy and channels it to a different audience and is to be applauded. The price seems high (this seems a theme, maybe I'm a cheapskate?) and it'll be interesting to see if its lack of website helps or hinders its success.

The print Indy disappearing, the Guardian cost cutting and raising its print price to premium levels, the i beginning a new life and a new newspaper have all made for an intriguing few weeks. This is far from the end though. The Times, for example, recently announced it is focussing less on 'breaking news' and more on delivering 'editions'.

Alan Hunter, head of digital told Digiday: “Readers don’t come to us for breaking news; they can go to the BBC and Twitter for that, which are free. They come to us for the authority of our reporting, opinion and analysis. Breaking news has become a commodity, and it’s hard to charge people for it. We believe in the power of digital editions.”

The editions model - centred on 9am, midday and 5pm - will be interesting to see. Since going online papers have become much more like the broadcast media, feeding the 24-hour news cycle in the way they never did before. The Times' decision aims to step back from this. I wonder if others will follow.

Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the coin, Buzzfeed has launched a breaking news app. Online operators are continuing to change the content they deliver as they look to mature and build on their digital successes. Newspapers have to be mindful of these rivals and continue to offer the one thing that has stood them apart from other publications: journalism.

Which brings us neatly back to the Panama Papers. This week has been a high point for the printed press. Whatever the 'platform' or 'format', such journalism has to continue. It's over to 'the press' now to find a way to do just that in the future.

A first listen of The Last Shadow Puppets Everything You've Come To Expect

Everything You've Come To Expect is a bold choice of title. Over the last eight years The Last Shadow Puppets' superb The Age of the Understatement has become one of my favourite albums. It was a short, sweet burst of something very different and left me tantalised by the prospect of more. So, after all this time, could it really deliver everything I'd come to expect?

We plumped for the vinyl (yep, we're cool) and gave it a burst. Within seconds, Aviation feels like the return of an old friend, encapsulating that sound of the first album. It's hard to define the mix of the vocals, lyrics, top class arrangements and distinctly retro sound that make up The Last Shadow Puppets' appeal. It's like the sort of music your dad might have made you listen to but slicker and, well, better. Will that do?

From there we veer off towards the Arctic Monkeys end of the band's spectrum, tapping into the slower more mellow sound that Alex Turner's vehicle has displayed in recent years. While, as an Arctic Monkeys fan, I enjoyed Miracle Aligner and Dracula Teeth the band's best bits come when songs neither Monkeys nor Miles Kane. In The Element Of Surprise and Bad Habits - a decent single - we're back there.

On the second side (it's a vinyl thing kids...) little stood out on first listen. The orchestral 60s arrangements of the first album were less in evidence and only Pattern really grabbed me by the ears and said 'listen again'. This is, of course, a little harsh on first listen and I'm sure there'll be rich rewards from popping the needle on again. The first album certainly rewards the listener on repeated sittings.

So, first thoughts? Not as good as the first album but that was unlikely. A fresh, new collection of work from a talented group that stands out from the crowd? Certainly.

While it wasn't everything I'd come to expect, only time will tell just how much it fulfils my hopes...

The Night Manager was great...but I don't want any more

I'll miss The Night Manager this Sunday night. The Beeb's super-expensive adaptation of John Le Carre's novel was sheer class. Well, apart from the silly title sequence that is (in a subtle drama, why was there a need to shout 'this is about spies guys' in that way?).

The action built slowly but surely to a crescendo last week, bringing in a rich array of characters along for the ride. While Tom Hiddleston (and his backside) and Olivia Colman (and her pregnant bump) seemed to earn the most plaudits - and tiresome column inches on James Bond - the real star of the show for me was Hugh Laurie.

His suave, smarmy and, ultimately, sinister Richard Roper commanded attention every time he was on the screen. So much so that I almost felt sorry that he didn't get away with it. Only almost though...and the justice meted out was devilishly satisfying.

Praise too is due for Tom Hollander, the colourful 'Corky' who still always makes me think of his superb - and incredibly brief - turn as The F***er in The Thick Of It. Elizabeth Debicki's troubled Jed also added to the magnificent melting pot.

Well acted, superbly shot, smartly adapted, great locations. It's perhaps easy to see why some are calling for a second series. They're wrong though.

The Night Manager two? BBC rumoured to be considering sequel https://t.co/Jp9HUrufk2

— The Guardian (@guardian) March 27, 2016

There's no second book for starters. You might well argue that this is different enough from Le Carre's 1993 book to render that insignificant but the meat of the original text underpinned this adaptation and gave it the rich characterisation and depth of storytelling that made it all so enjoyable. The big names might have risen to the challenge but they're only as good as the lines they deliver and this could easily have descended into a vanity parade of stars. A sequel could well do just that.

Then there's the closure of the ending. Of course you could write around that but where would you go? Pine wouldn't go back into Roper's crew and neither would Jed. Would the follow up focus on another scheme from Roper without Pine or another undercover sting from Pine without Roper? Either would remove a key component.

As Digital Spy points out, the only follow up that would really work out would be a spin-off involving Burr's agency. But going after who?

The success of the show shouldn't lead to a sequel. It should, instead, give the BBC and others the confidence to commission more good drama, more brave book adaptations and use the talents of top actors. The old sayings of 'leave them wanting more' and 'go out on a high' should apply to The Night Manager.

April Fools' Day...the old joke that's worn thin

In December I turned a bit 'grumpy old man' and listed off ten things that were almost as overrated and underwhelming as New Year's Eve. I ought to apologise. Not for being miserable, but for forgetting to put April Fools' Day on the list.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind a spoof or a well-thought out prank, and it's fair to say that some people use this day to perform these, but let's face it, the vast majority are tame, lame or just plain garbage.

At my first newspaper April Fools' Day was approached with severe caution. Some years before I joined the paper had decided to prank the readers by announcing a new congestion charge was coming to the town. To make matters worse, the phone number given out for queries took people through to the newsdesk. Safe to say it didn't end well, with days and weeks of ear bending hammering home the extent to which the 'joke' backfired. You try telling and angry person 'sorry, we were just having you on' and see how ready they are to laugh it off.

For that reason, future attempts were pretty timid - including one year in which a whole sponsored pullout was produced with the advertiser in on the overly-laboured joke.

The thing is, while not every paper will have had its 'congestion charge moment', most are hamstrung by fear of putting their foot wrong. Put yourself in the reporter/editor's shoes: you've got to write something funny and sort-of believable but also that won't offend people either by making them the butt of the joke or leaving them annoyed when they realise it's not real. That last point is harder than ever in a world where people love nothing more than to be offended.

As a result you end up with 'safe jokes' that all have to contain some sort of anagram of April Fool to make it bleedingly obvious. (my last attempt still exists here) Some contain nice puns or cheeky ideas but the reader is in on the joke from the start rendering it all largely pointless.

Today even Google managed to balls up an April Fools' Day prank. Brands that produce their own content are realising the same problem that newspapers faced in that being believable isn't always a good thing.

Essentially the best way to do a spoof or a prank properly is to pull it on any day but April 1. That alone should make people realise that Fools' Day is a naff waste of time.