Guys, come on, we all know newspapers are doomed

Why are headlines trying to persuade us otherwise?

Just look at the latest circulation figures for the UK’s "unrivalled" stable of national newspapers. Now look at the headline of the article that included these numbers in the main body.

 

Per cent change year on year

Daily Titles

 

Daily Mirror

-3.94%

Daily Star

-10.20%

The Sun

-13.15%

Daily Express

-13.31%

Daily Mail

-6.86%

The Daily Telegraph

-4.63%

Financial Times

-13.03%

The Guardian

-11.59%

i

11.16%

The Independent

-18.82%

The Times

-2.29%

 

 

Sunday Titles

 

Daily Star Sunday

-29.05%

The Sun (Sunday)

-14.37%

Sunday Mirror

-4.68%

The People

-7.78%

Sunday Express

-11.10%

The Mail on Sunday

-10.21%

Independent on Sunday

-8.65%

The Observer

-12.94%

The Sunday Telegraph

-6.15%

The Sunday Times

-8.27%

The headline probably says more about the real problem at the heart of the media establishment than anything that was said during last year's Leveson enquiry.

The circulations of Britain's national newspapers are in terminal decline. This has been obvious for some while and you only have to speak with the millions of well-informed, articulate people under 30 years old to know why. The numbers presented in the report show quite how badly the circulations are falling. The dailies are down about 8 per cent, year on year and the Sundays by more than 11 per cent.

So you have to wonder what inspired the headline " Telegraph enjoys summer lifts in June"?

More importantly, could the article have looked at the issues that newspaper publishers face? Take distribution, for example. Delivering newsprint all around the country is costly and getting more so with every week. And papers like the Guardian are already loosing millions every year.

There will come a time when publishers calculate that the costs simply outweigh the return. Thus there are two dilemmas. First, is to calculate exactly when the newspaper groups will cease trying to sell papers at the news stand. Second, is to ask why the UK's supposedly diligent and rigorous cadre of journalists is so reluctant to investigate why an industry in such trouble is getting such misleading headlines?

The answer to the first question is: sooner than you think. The answer to the second probably doesn't matter.

Photograph: Getty Images

Spencer Neal is a reformed publisher who now advises on media and stakeholder relations at Keeble Brown. He writes about the ironies and hypocrisies that crop up in other peoples' businesses. He is also an optimist.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn's Labour conference speech shows how he's grown

The leader's confident address will have impressed even his fiercest foes. 

It is not just Jeremy Corbyn’s mandate that has been improved by his re-election. The Labour leader’s conference speech was, by some distance, the best he has delivered. He spoke with far greater confidence, clarity and energy than previously. From its self-deprecating opening onwards ("Virgin Trains assure me there are 800 empty seats") we saw a leader improved in almost every respect. 

Even Corbyn’s firecest foes will have found less to take issue with than they may have anticipated. He avoided picking a fight on Trident (unlike last year), delivered his most forceful condemnation of anti-Semitism (“an evil”) and, with the exception of the Iraq war, avoided attacks on New Labour’s record. The video which preceded his arrival, and highlighted achievements from the Blair-Brown years, was another olive branch. But deselection, which Corbyn again refused to denounce, will remain a running sore (MPs alleged that Hillsborough campaigner Sheila Coleman, who introduced Corbyn, is seeking to deselect Louise Ellman and backed the rival TUSC last May).

Corbyn is frequently charged with lacking policies. But his lengthy address contained several new ones: the removal of the cap on council borrowing (allowing an extra 60,000 houses to be built), a ban on arms sales to abusive regimes and an arts pupil premium in every primary school.

On policy, Corbyn frequently resembles Ed Miliband in his more radical moments, unrestrained by Ed Balls and other shadow cabinet members. He promised £500bn of infrastructure investment (spread over a decade with £150bn from the private sector), “a real living wage”, the renationalisation of the railways, rent controls and a ban on zero-hours contracts.

Labour’s greatest divisions are not over policy but rules, strategy and culture. Corbyn’s opponents will charge him with doing far too little to appeal to the unconverted - Conservative voters most of all. But he spoke with greater conviction than before of preparing for a general election (acknowledging that Labour faced an arithmetical “mountain”) and successfully delivered the attack lines he has often shunned.

“Even Theresa May gets it, that people want change,” he said. “That’s why she stood on the steps of Downing Street and talked about the inequalities and burning injustices in today’s Britain. She promised a country: ‘that works not for a privileged few but for every one of us’. But even if she manages to talk the talk, she can’t walk the walk. This isn’t a new government, it’s David Cameron’s government repackaged with progressive slogans but with a new harsh right-wing edge, taking the country backwards and dithering before the historic challenges of Brexit.”

After a second landslide victory, Corbyn is, for now, unassailable. Many MPs, having voted no confidence in him, will never serve on the frontbench. But an increasing number, recognising Corbyn’s immovability, speak once again of seeking to “make it work”. For all the ructions of this summer, Corbyn’s speech will have helped to persuade them that they can.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.