Leader – why scrutiny of the council’s freesheet is in the public interest
Readers have kindly expressed their appreciation for the Citizen’s dogged coverage of fire safety post-Grenfell.
But some have questioned whether our stories about the council’s freesheet Hackney Today are worthwhile.
As one reader writes: “I fully support your articles on important issues such as fire safety… They are the issues that concern me and my neighbours and not the Hackney Today freesheet.”
However, what this misses is how Hackney Today is threatening the Citizen’s ability to do the very public interest journalism readers value.
As the London Assembly’s recent report on ‘The Fate of Local News’ observed: “Local newspapers have, in some cases, been negatively affected by local authorities regularly publishing their own newsletters. While these newsletters have their place, they should not be a substitute for local news.”
It adds: “Local authorities should not be afraid of their critics and should instead choose to support local newspapers by advertising and making announcements through them.”
Most local papers do not have to compete for advertising with a £400,000 council operation delivered free to residents’ doors.
Hackney Today is also defying a government directive to cut back to quarterly publication. This use of public resources demands scrutiny in its own right. But it also has serious implications for local democracy: If independent papers suffer, residents will have to rely on Hackney Today to scrutinise the council on fire safety.
Of course the Citizen has a dog in this fight, as does the Gazette. But the short answer to any query about relevance is to ask why the Council so stubbornly clings on to their “paper”. Hackney Today provides a constant stream of stories about the Council and the party which runs it. Every issue contains pictures of Labour councillors doing this or that or just simply issuing messages while opposition councillors doing similar things (opening schools, hosting ministerial visits, chairing community meetings) are never featured (nor should they be). Hackney Today acts as a free propaganda sheet for the Labour council paid for by the voters themselves.
Who started the meme that Hackney Today is “free propaganda” for Labour?
Wasn’t it Eric Pickles, the Conservative Party politician for Brentwood and Ongar who tried to shut them down as Secretary of State for Local Government, who called them “Town hall Pravdas” and accused them of acting like Vladimir Putin?
“A bunch of hardcore local authorities” (read hard core Labour) who persisted in using public funds to publish their “propaganda rags”.
Pickles who claimed a second home allowance for a house for his parents 8 miles from his house on the basis that he lived 37 miles from Westminster and needed to leave his constituency house in Brentwood at 5.30 am to get to Westminster for 9.30 am.
The commute takes 90 minutes.
The thing is, we can vote and out councilors and mayors and there is a degree of transparency in their political stance. Can we say the same of the Citizen and Gazette owners and editors?
Well, yes, Hackney is hard core Labour Borough and so its newspaper would reflect that.
What Pickles said was, “We are prepared to take further action against any council that undermines local democracy – whatever the political colour.”
What he meant was, “”We are prepared to take further action against any council TO undermines local democracy in Labour Boroughs.”
There are what, 4 Conservative councillors in Hackney all of whom happen to be Orthodox Jews. I would have thought everyone would have been up in arms about such discrimination being anti-semitic if it was true.
It’s not.
The financial argument was had bad in 2010/2014. Nothing’s changed since then.
As the Citzen only reaches hardly representative and hardly interested hipsters in coffee bars, I don’t see where the two advertising markets cross over or that a grab at the £170,000 worth of advertising is particularly noble.
Give it up and move on.
And Hitler was a vegetarian.
Don’t listen to my argument; Here is what Labour had to say in Tower Hamlets when the “independent” administration there did the same thing to them.
“Last week, the Tower Hamlets Labour Party released a statement, criticizing the number of mentions of the mayor and his supporters against members of opposing parties, in East End Life.
When compared with Hackney Mayor Jules Pipe in the council’s biweekly newspaper, The Hackney Today, Rahman does have significantly more coverage in East End Life.
Over 28 issues examined by the Tower Hamlets council, Rahamn is mentioned, on average, 9.1 times, while Pipe was mentioned, over the last five issues of the Hackney Today, only an average of 3 times per issue.
Leader of Tower Hamlets Labour Group, Councillor Sirajul Islam, said that figures like those “leave no doubt that the Mayor and his supporters are abusing the paper for their own political benefit.”
Only three times an issue eh? Sauce for the Goose? Decide for yourself.
The “Hackney Today as propaganda trope” was also used by Conservative Councillor Harvey Odze who said — get the last four words — “This council is not allowed to produce propaganda,” he said. “Of course we should abolish Hackney Today, financial gain or not.”
(Bearing in mind that it was Odze who called Global Warming “a myth perpetrated by communist China” confirmed as true by Donald Trump.)
So, it’s obviously been rattling around the Right Wing “free the market” fruitcake circles as a useful political axe to grind against Left Wing local government.
At the time, the Conservatives wanted a gagging order to stop local councils from producing “newspapers” that might question the Conservative government’s policy. For example, reporting issues such as increases in rates, hospitals shutting down, or the bedroom tax.
Conservative Party chairman Pickles had been angered by councils like Lambeth, that ran a poster campaign blaming the Tory government for spending cuts.
Even the Conservative-led Local Government Association called the supression of local discussion of such issues, “unnecessary, potentially disruptive, given councils’ need to communicate with residents, and totally contrary to the localist philosophy to which the government claims to be committed.”
It leader, Conservative Baroness Eaton, said at the time,
“Newsletters delivered to people’s homes have consistently proved to be the cheapest way for councils to directly communicate with residents and keep people informed about local services.”
“The communities and local government select committee found there was scant evidence of council publications competing unfairly with local newspapers”.
NUJ general secretary Jeremy Dear called it, “undemocratic and perverse” proving what a sham the consultation held beforehand was.
“The committee found no evidence to back up Eric Pickles’ wild assertions – it called for a fair and independent assessment of the impact of such publications on local newspapers.”
It was not really about the threat to adsheets such as the Citizen, nor even about promoting LBH.
“The committee found no evidence to back up Eric Pickles’ wild assertions – it called for a fair and independent assessment of the impact of such publications on local newspapers.”
If you want to get into bed with Eric Pickles, that’s your business … but at least let us remember the historical facts behind what is going on.
Best read up on Eric Pickles plan to wipe out “municipal socialism” in Bradford and turn it into “Bradford Plc”.
If Hackney Today is propaganda, then it’s not very good propaganda. I must write to my local councilor and demand it is even more propagandic, and raise local residents’ awareness and ire of the the damage to society Tory Fat Cat like Pickles are doing.
Bloody Hell! Are you still in bed with Pickles? Rather you than me ! First you say it isn’t propaganda but just the way of reaching a “demographic” – now you say it is propaganda but it’s justified (even if “not very good”). OK, is it justified if it’s a Conservative Council producing this cr*p and making the electorate pay for it? Make your mind up.
My comment comes up as “waiting for moderation” for me right now, so it may have been censored out as you seem to have read it.
People need to know the history of all this and see it in context, especially examining insitgator Eric Pickle’s mysterious early career and role as an agent of change for the Conservative Party during the Thatcher era.
If the Citizen censors out discussion of that, then it increases suspicion of their motives.
From invoking Hitler to deliberately misconstruing my posts and confusing the issue, you are shooting holes in your own credibility.
Do you know the meaning of “if” in English?
I think anybody who has followed this argument this far will get pretty bored if it goes much further. My contention is: running a propaganda sheet like Hackney Today is a bad thing no matter if it be legal or illegal, no matter who else supports or opposes it. And if you disagreed with the Council’s politics I suggest you would think the same. No more from me.
The “Hackney Today as propaganda trope” was also used by Conservative Councillor Harvey Odze who said — get the last four words — “This council is not allowed to produce propaganda,” he said. “Of course we should abolish Hackney Today, financial gain or not.” Is it really? Or is it not just part of a greater attack on Left Wing local governments by Thatcherite Tories?
(Bearing in mind that it was Odze who called Global Warming “a myth perpetrated by communist China” confirmed as true by Donald Trump.)
So, it’s obviously been rattling around the Right Wing “free the market” fruitcake circles as a useful political axe to grind against Left Wing local government.
At the time, the Conservatives wanted a gagging order to stop local councils from producing “newspapers” that might question the Conservative government’s policy. For example, reporting issues such as increases in rates, hospitals shutting down, or the bedroom tax.
Conservative Party chairman Pickles had been angered by councils like Lambeth, that ran a poster campaign blaming the Tory government for spending cuts.
Even the Conservative-led Local Government Association called the supression of local discussion of such issues, “unnecessary, potentially disruptive, given councils’ need to communicate with residents, and totally contrary to the localist philosophy to which the government claims to be committed.”
It leader, Conservative Baroness Eaton, said at the time,
“Newsletters delivered to people’s homes have consistently proved to be the cheapest way for councils to directly communicate with residents and keep people informed about local services.”
“The communities and local government select committee found there was scant evidence of council publications competing unfairly with local newspapers”.
NUJ general secretary Jeremy Dear called it, “undemocratic and perverse” proving what a sham the consultation held beforehand was.
“The committee found no evidence to back up Eric Pickles’ wild assertions – it called for a fair and independent assessment of the impact of such publications on local newspapers.”
It was not really about the threat to adsheets such as the Citizen, nor even about promoting LBH.
“The committee found no evidence to back up Eric Pickles’ wild assertions – it called for a fair and independent assessment of the impact of such publications on local newspapers.”
If you want to get into bed with Eric Pickles, that’s your business … but at least let us remember the historical facts behind what is going on.
Best read up on Eric Pickles plan to wipe out “municipal socialism” in Bradford and turn it into “Bradford Plc”.
If Hackney Today is propaganda, then it’s not very good propaganda. I must write to my local councilor and demand it is even more propagandic, and raise local residents’ awareness and ire of the the damage to society Thatcherite Fat Cats like Pickles are doing.
Oh, see more censorship of comment going on at the Hackney Citzen.
I just read a Hackney Today. It’s not propaganda. The whole propaganda myth just comes from the Tories as part of their assualt against Left leaning local councils. Specifically they want to stop them being able to raise awareness amongst their residents about the effects of Tory policies.
I made a start at explaining the greater context, seems the Citizen won’t allow it.
As I write this at appx 6.28 pm on Monday 09 October and having counted the number of comments as being nine, I am starting g this by wondering why there isn’t any mention of the real ob Councils are publicly funded to do – serve local communities.
Very true, there are plenty of valid and needful criticism of LB Hackney. More than enough to fill a newspaper. Criticism of ‘Hackney Today’, either as allegedly Left Wing propaganda or to grab its advertising income, is not one.
Unfortunately, those most at risk and abused by LBH are the least likely to read something like Hackney Citizen.
Would the Hackney Citizen care to become their champion?
I agree wth you entirely on this sentence:
’there are plenty of valid and needful criticism of LB Hackney. More than enough to fill a newspaper’
I would add this: in order to confirm that we (you and I, so far here) are not making comments about the timidity of ‘local papers’ out of spite, let me make a topical point which is only possible to be made today 10 October.
The BBC and SKY have been reporting the ‘Diversity Audit’ published today.
In an advance copy that the Report had been released to the Press, there is interesting criticism implied against local Councils.
This is why Tuesday’s The Times has this on page 2 of their coverage
of the Audit.
“Race audit leaves councils with ‘nowhere to hide’ ”
On Page 1, the same Edition of The Times runs a positive headline,
“Britain’s first race audit reveals extent of discrimination.”
The Times has the first of its Leader Comments of the day devoted to the Audit although it contains an ignorant promotion of greater assimilation of people from all ethic and racial groups.
That it has given space to the issue of ‘race discrimination’ is a plus
for transparent Journalism albeit also prompted by the Times’ links with the present Govt.
The newspaper also carries a Rightwing group signing an advance Letter, made up of ‘Asian and African’ ‘professionals’ condemning as ‘crude’ any audit of service providers based on ‘Race’.
The Times Leader ‘Difficult Truths’ claims that racial ‘disparity in Britain has narrowed over time’ and (The Times) goes on to hit the crux ‘but by only being forced into the open’.
Will the Hackney Gazette and its commercial rivals cover the Hackney Council’s role over the past 50 years, by following the measuring criteria applied for the Diversity Audit?
What will the in-hose Hackney Today look for as an excise to feign ignorance about the fact, the impact let alone the harshness of racial discrimination dominating so many of the Council’s failings?
The report is largely window dressing for the Tory party. Posturing that misses many of the bigger issues. An attempt to steal the “Diversity” banner from the Labour Party and its councils.
Diversity on its own is worth nothing. In fact, it’s worth less then nothing, it has a cost on society.
Far more important to pursue are other qualities such as insight, efficiency and professionalism and prioritising, with society as a whole, civility and civic responsibility rather than social engineering using different ethnicities as pawns. This is one area that Labour, in promoting the buzzword and chasing “coloured” votes in the hope to win, lost widespread support within the indigenous working classes, which has then turned to bite us all on the bum as it swung to the Right and Brexit instead.
From having it “rubbed in their face by Blair et al”, now the Tories are moving to take the ground.
The last thing LBH needs is to be forced to make up numbers according to a colour chart. It needs more dedicated, insightful, efficient professionals.