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.
No comments:
Post a Comment