Sunday Tribune Flogging the Madam_Editor Horse for Third Week in a Row

uvox

Here we go again - The Sunday Tribune with another @Madam_Editor Twitter related story - this time angled about fake Facebook accounts. However, the thrust is clear:

"Speculation is rife that the hijacking is linked to a humorous Twitter account – and the accompanying blog – which has been appearing online under the name of Geraldine Kennedy.

The Madam Editor Twitter account has been causing consternation with its close-to-the-bone comments about real-time and real-life events inside the Irish Times office.


Shortly after its existence was publicised in the Sunday Tribune,... (cont. p94)"

Why is the Sunday Tribune continually harping on about this madam_editor drivel? The first couple of articles were courtesy of Una Vuvullally, and now Ken Foxe is at it.

1) http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2010/jun/13/irish-times-fake-twitterer-proves-to-be-a-jammy-do/

2) http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2010/jun/20/axing-of-madam-editor-may-have-breached-twitter-co/

3) http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2010/jul/04/facebook-face-off-as-celebrity-names-hijacked-on-w/

Is it because they have anything else to write about? Or because it's all a little game between insiders? Or something else?

Oddly, I don't see any mention of this Twitter Tribute account: http://twitter.com/goonabullally. This must be an editorial oversight, natch.

If the Turbine was interested in the issue they might explore the issue of social media policies issued to journalists by papers and how they should use Twitter, Facebook, and so on. They might be interesting. Especially to read the Sunday Tribune's own guidelines on the matter. Know what I mean?

jdivision

They've been amongst the read stories on the website so people seem to be interested. There's a story about Cuffe and his Twitter account that's their number 7 most read story in the news section this week

uvox

I noticed in a copy in the local Centra it's been dragged out for a fourth week. Same other sap gets to write it now, ostensibly due to a story that some UCD academic is "raging" because he was impersonated on Facebook.

Nobody's interested except Una and Co. Any wonder an unverifiable number of people read it online rather than paying for it.

Amateur journalism.

pog it

Well I gave up on the Tribune a long time ago! It amazes me they are still in existence. How are they competing with the Sunday Times at all?

Anyway this is definitely cheap journalism but it's light... who cares really. No reputational damage was done.

But... I do wonder now that I've read the articles ye linked to.. Is Kennedy really anti-Labour?

uvox

Does anyone have the circulation figures for this paper over the past 18 months (sindo, sbp, irish mail on sunday, sunday world too if available)?

I don't know about Geraldine Kennedy's position on Labour. But the boys and girls behind that fake account clearly have a position.

jmcc

uvox wrote: »

Amateur journalism.

It seems that most of those worth plundering in the Tribune have been recruited by other newspapers. A few others remain but for the most part, the Tribune is a shadow of what it once was.

I think that ABC might have the circulation figures.

Regards...jmcc

uvox

Indeed. I'll look them up.

The whole shoving of the 'arts' section into the middle of the 'sports' section is just wrong from a content perspective.

You'd automatically go to the bit with news about Shamrock Rovers to read a review of Paulo Coelho's new book wouldn't you?

Obviously a cost saving but from a user experience aspect its rank amateurism.

IRE60

Hunting for yarns!

Here are the figs for the last few halves. Some considerations:

Some of the media only publish every 6 months. Therefore these figures are well out of date (but the only data available).

The Trib is a serial offender on the bulks - about 19% of their 'circulation' are bulks. Not the only guilty party, Indo are up there as well an some of the Tabs

uvox

Thanks, this is interesting. By 'bulks' do you mean bulk giveaways (i.e., lots of copies distributed for free)?

IRE60

Bulks: a number of copies going to one place - like a hotels or airlines - the trib had 1,500 on average going to airlines in that figure. The sindo had 14,500 of their figure going to hotels! They are sold at below basic cover price.

monument

What exactly is the problem with the coverage?

I'd fault the coverage of more serious issues way before this one issue.

uvox wrote: »

Amateur journalism.

What's so amateur about it?

IRE60

I suppose the more serious side of this is that the Twitter account "Madam Editor" has been suspended. Why and under what steam? Maybe no there is an actual yarn in it.

jdivision

It was because the Irish Times complained.

jmcc

monument wrote: »

What exactly is the problem with the coverage?

It is classic filler material. Take what is effectively a non-story that's of interest to only a few people and spin it. It might have been worth an inch or two in the Phoenix but the Trib is still supposed to be a newspaper.

I'd fault the coverage of more serious issues way before this one issue.

The Tribune used to be a good newspaper once. However it really seemed to be a bulwark against the entry of the Irish Times into the Sundays market. The Irish Times managed to f*ck itself up before that threat was ever realised with the purchase of Myhome.ie at the peak of the property bubble and other decisions. So instead of O'Reilly's mob having to fight the Irish Times, it found itself competing with Murdoch's Sunday Times- a far more daunting prospect. Over the last few years, the Sunday Tribune seems to have been run down and the budget for a stable of high quality journalists isn't available. As a result, it has to concentrate on developing a few good journalists while padding the rest of the newspaper with low-grade filler and wire services material. Any journalist that shows promise will be headhunted. The Sunday Tribune used to be a good newspaper, once. However the market and the readership have moved on to other newspapers.

Regards...jmcc

uvox

Totally agree. The problem here is that it is impossible to break out of that cycle of decline without massive investment or take over. Ain't gonna happen. That paper will be gone within two years.

Look at the number of redesigns in the last few years. None of them have any user experience merit. They're to save money.

There are some fine people there, professionals. But it's also clear the polly filler syndrome has set in. Significant parts of it are little better in actual discovery of real news, analysis or opinion than pisspoor blogs and the average college newspaper. In fact there's way too much opinion written by people who really have little to say.

Even the social diary correspondent left for the Indo!

uvox

If you want to try this test of how low the interest is in that newspaper, send them a reader's letter about some obtuse subject or story they coverered (try the censorship of madam_editor as an indictment of the level of censorship in today's society, yawn, etc). The letter will almost certainly be published (in fact they landed in legal trouble over one by way of something said about Dermot Ahern or his department if I remember).

They'd publish a bloody dog licence if you sent it in. Headbangers paradise. Nobody else cares.

monument

None of my posts should be seen as to be blaming anybody. For example the writer of an article can only partly be responsible for it given the others who work on the story (editors, sub editors etc).

We also can't fully know the dynamics within the paper.

jmcc wrote: »

It is classic filler material. Take what is effectively a non-story that's of interest to only a few people and spin it. It might have been worth an inch or two in the Phoenix but the Trib is still supposed to be a newspaper.

It's fairly serious that a national newspaper which purports be in favor of freedom of expression to attach somebody else's freedom.

So many people say so many stories are of "interest to only a few people" that newspaper would be empty if they listened to everybody who said this. As for the Phoenix comment, newspapers should be covering much of what it covers and papers do not.

But, yes, the paper may have went on a bit too much of a run on the subject.

jmcc wrote: »

The Tribune used to be a good newspaper once. However it really seemed to be a bulwark against the entry of the Irish Times into the Sundays market. The Irish Times managed to f*ck itself up before that threat was ever realised with the purchase of Myhome.ie at the peak of the property bubble and other decisions. So instead of O'Reilly's mob having to fight the Irish Times, it found itself competing with Murdoch's Sunday Times- a far more daunting prospect. Over the last few years, the Sunday Tribune seems to have been run down and the budget for a stable of high quality journalists isn't available. As a result, it has to concentrate on developing a few good journalists while padding the rest of the newspaper with low-grade filler and wire services material. Any journalist that shows promise will be headhunted. The Sunday Tribune used to be a good newspaper, once. However the market and the readership have moved on to other newspapers.

Regards...jmcc

I agree with a lot of what you're saying here.

There's a few issues which have lead to the stripping of resources: The Tribune being used as a block for other papers has resulted in it not being seen as that central, the paper's losses have mounted so much that cuts had to happen (in the absence of proper direction and funding), and there has been a general trend at companies like IN&M to cut resources when looking for unrealistic levels of profit for shareholders and to pay the top people crazy amounts of money.

flogen

jmcc wrote: »

The Tribune used to be a good newspaper once. However it really seemed to be a bulwark against the entry of the Irish Times into the Sundays market. The Irish Times managed to f*ck itself up before that threat was ever realised with the purchase of Myhome.ie at the peak of the property bubble and other decisions.

The Sunday Tribune was circling the drain long before The Irish Times made the baffling decision to buy Myhome.ie, which as you say ended any chance of them launching a Sunday of their own.

So instead of O'Reilly's mob having to fight the Irish Times, it found itself competing with Murdoch's Sunday Times- a far more daunting prospect.

While O'Reilly's attempted takeover and subsequent investment in the Sunday Tribune was surely to some degree to stop The Irish Times from taking it over (or more filling the void left by its collapse because I think they were approached to invest before INM was) it was primarily intended as a block against The Sunday Times' Irish ambitions.

O'Reilly made the investment in the early 1990s - around 1991/92 - when it was clear that Murdoch was keen on an Irish edition of his Sunday broadsheet. Sure enough an Irish office for The Sunday Times was established in 1993.

The intention was always to use The Sunday Tribune as a meat-shield for the Sunday Independent. It hasn't worked, though.

Over the last few years, the Sunday Tribune seems to have been run down and the budget for a stable of high quality journalists isn't available. As a result, it has to concentrate on developing a few good journalists while padding the rest of the newspaper with low-grade filler and wire services material. Any journalist that shows promise will be headhunted.

Usually by INM newspapers, too.

The huge problem for The Sunday Tribune is it has been stripped of its assets in every respect but still expected to turn a profit. When it fails to do so it gets another budget cut which, to the seeming surprise of INM, results in more losses and further readership declines.

uvox wrote: »

Totally agree. The problem here is that it is impossible to break out of that cycle of decline without massive investment or take over. Ain't gonna happen. That paper will be gone within two years.

INM could afford to keep it on life-support for a long time but it can't any more. Any potential buyers - The Irish Times, TCH etc. - can't afford to either even if INM was willing to sell to a rival (and to write off the huge debt owed to it by the Tribune).

If it sees 2011 I'll be surprised (but then again I didn't expect it to see 2010).

There are some fine people there, professionals. But it's also clear the polly filler syndrome has set in. Significant parts of it are little better in actual discovery of real news, analysis or opinion than pisspoor blogs and the average college newspaper.

As yourself and jmcc say there are some good journalists in there and they do have some good stories here and there - but they're lost in the static.

In fact there's way too much opinion written by people who really have little to say.

In fairness you could say the same for most Sunday newspapers - arguably most newspapers full-stop.

jmcc

flogen wrote: »

The Sunday Tribune was circling the drain long before The Irish Times made the baffling decision to buy Myhome.ie, which as you say ended any chance of them launching a Sunday of their own.

Actually Myhome.ie was quite different from some of the other property operations in that it had its own network of tied in auctioneers and estate agents. This is possibly what made it attractive. However the fact that there was a property bubble was apparently ignored by the Irish Times (apart from its property "journalism" which bore some amazing similarities to its clueless "technology journalism" in the first Dot.Bomb bubble). The Irish Times, instead of covering the news became part of it.

While O'Reilly's attempted takeover and subsequent investment in the Sunday Tribune was surely to some degree to stop The Irish Times from taking it over (or more filling the void left by its collapse because I think they were approached to invest before INM was) it was primarily intended as a block against The Sunday Times' Irish ambitions.

I don't think that O'Reilly was stupid enough to believe that he could stop Murdoch if Murdoch decided to make a serious play for the Irish Sundays market. The move was more to deter the Irish Times as there had been some speculation about the IT launching a Sunday version. There was a third player in this. The Sunday Business Post managed to target a very lucrative niche that would have been a major part of a potential Irish Times on Sunday newspaper.

If it sees 2011 I'll be surprised (but then again I didn't expect it to see 2010).

Denis O'Brien is the largest single shareholder in INM now (from what I remember). The O'Reilly family is still embedded but there may well be a gradual shift. The Trib will be very lucky to see out 2010.

Regards...jmcc

flogen

jmcc wrote: »

Actually Myhome.ie was quite different from some of the other property operations in that it had its own network of tied in auctioneers and estate agents. This is possibly what made it attractive. However the fact that there was a property bubble was apparently ignored by the Irish Times (apart from its property "journalism" which bore some amazing similarities to its clueless "technology journalism" in the first Dot.Bomb bubble). The Irish Times, instead of covering the news became part of it.

The Irish Times - from a managerial point of view at least - was well aware of the property bubble, that's what made the Myhome.ie purchase so baffling to me.

They bought it largely with money raised from the sale of their D'Olier St premises - which they sold at the peak to get the best price out of it - but then invested it in a property site.

It was also supposed to be part of a diversification strategy to protect The Irish Times from future losses but in terms of income sources they did not diversify at all.

I don't think that O'Reilly was stupid enough to believe that he could stop Murdoch if Murdoch decided to make a serious play for the Irish Sundays market.

The over-riding logic of O'Reilly's move was to stop the ST from eating into the Sindo's market - there's plenty of detail about the move in John Horgan's Critical History of Irish Media.

I'd imagine O'Reilly didn't expect Murdoch to come into Ireland all guns blazing as it is too small a market to be worth spending huge sums on gaining a foothold in.

To some degree he was right, too.

Initially the Irish Sunday Times was much the same as most "Irish" Sunday tabloids - a handful of local stories placed amongst a British newspaper. That was ramped up over time, of course, but it wasn't until the late 90s / early 00s that The Sunday Times had a proper presence in Ireland.

Had O'Reilly let the Trib fail in 1992 it would have left a then significant piece of market share open for any new entrant to exploit. The Irish Times may have been one potential beneficiary but The Sunday Times definitely would have been.

Regardless the over-riding logic of O'Reilly's move was to stop the ST from eating into the Sindo's market - there's plenty of detail about the move in John Horgan's Critical History of Irish Media.

I must find the reference but I'm certain I read that The Irish Times were approached first (or before INM) by the Tribune - at the very least INM was the Tribune's last choice.

If the IT had serious aspirations of a Sunday that would have been their perfect in but they turned it down. That said, maybe they passed it up so they could have it all their way (and under their brand).

Denis O'Brien is the largest single shareholder in INM now (from what I remember). The O'Reilly family is still embedded but there may well be a gradual shift. The Trib will be very lucky to see out 2010.

He is, though he has been careful not to call for the sale of the Trib stake like he did for the Indy (which was also loss-making).

O'Brien does have a connection to the Trib - via Tony Ryan - going back a fair while so maybe it has a place in his heart. I doubt that, though. It's more likely that he kept quiet about Irish job losses as part of a PR offensive.

As for the O'Reilly's they've been saying 'the Trib has to break even this year or else' for... well... years. The only difference now is they actually cannot afford to keep sending millions its way.

uvox

Back closer to OP, this week we have the recurring "It's not really me on Facebook" saga on page three. Apparently a sinister campaign of impersonating UCD lecturers and othe leading lights in society is being conducted by a mysterious V for Vendetta character who has been in touch with the Trib (doesn't deserve a link).

If it wasn't for Ms Breen and Mr Freyne's and Ms Tynan's barbs I'd stop reading it altogether.

What a terrible shame. There's no need for this dross given the week that was in it. Editorial policy just seems so confused...

jdivision

The Tribune was a block to the Sunday Times. The Irish Times should have bought the Business Post when it was put up for sale - that was the perfect diversification opportunity. Myhome.ie was bought by Maeve O'Donovan - whose every investment has been a disaster (the Gloss, the Gazettes etc) - and journalists have lost their jobs to pay for her mistakes.
The losses at the Trib are somewhat exaggerated in that INM profits from the printing and distribution contracts etc - if they were done at nil value they'd be much lower I assume

IRE60

"if they were done at nil value they'd be much lower I assume"

How can this be done at a 'nill value' - who would pick up the actual and very real cost of labour, paper, plates, ink etc on the Saturday night that applies to the Tribs printing???

jdivision

Nil value = cost price

IRE60

No its not! Nil Value is Zero. Nil value does not exist in their accounts. They pay the cost plus as do anyone contracting to have a job printed there. The will naturally get 'mates rates' but that's fair enough.

jdivision

What I meant is that if the Trib was officially part of INM the thing would be charged within a group structure and therefore they would have a lower loss. Presumably because of the Competition Authority stuff the Trib had to tender for its printing contract but must still pay above cost. Your point is well made

IRE60

Oh true, if they were in the inner sanctum the costs for printing i'd suggest would be halved and the overall losses would be a completely different figure. I say there would still be losses all the same..!

pjproby

Great article in the Trib last Sunday by an Alex Meehan about the Victory Centre in Firhouse who have built a new church with individual 'donations of €2 to €200,000'.
The Victory Foundation have been or are the recipients of significant sums from the Dept of Justice for providing reception centres for asylum seekers.
A bit of investigative journalism would not go astray.