A weekly newspaper has accused a local authority freesheet of publishing “craven, simpering pro-council nonsense” in its report on an important Olympic planning decision.

The comment came in a lengthy comparative analysis by the News Shopper of two stories about the same contentious planning meeting – one in their own pages and the other in Greenwich Council-run Greenwich Time (GT).

The meeting debated, and eventually approved, plans to allow equestrian events to take place at Greenwich Park during the 2012 Games.

The News Shopper’s coverage (pictured below) focused on the level of public anger to the plan, threats of legal action after it was passed and the fact that Lord Sebastian Coe was heckled when he spoke at the meeting.

By contrast, the story in GT made no mention of Lord Coe, a 13,500-signature petition opposing the plan, the fact the meeting took five hours or the opposition in general.

The News Shopper has posted a barbed, point-by-point analysis of the two stories on its website containing PDFs of both articles, extracts from editor Richard Firth’s letter to GT asking questions over its coverage and the names of six councillors from the ruling Labour party who also sit on the planning committee but failed to respond to requests for comment.

There are also views from opposition council members and a full response from the Greenwich Council press office in the piece titled ‘Time to look at council newspaper nonsense’.

Richard told HTFP: “Obviously, we’re opposed to Greenwich Time period. We don’t think it’s fair. It struck us that what they were doing (with this story) was an absolute disgrace.

“That one story in particular is what has annoyed us the most. You would think that the meeting passed with no dissenting voices but we know that was not the case. We feel now that the public opinion is very much on our side.”

Richard said that GT is distributed to 108,000 houses and businesses, at a cost of 11p per copy, 47 weeks a year, pausing for major public holidays such as Easter and Christmas.

“I think that makes it the most expensive of its type in the country,” he added.

“They also have TV listings, council notices, bits and pieces of private sector advertising and some classifieds.”

Next week’s News Shopper is planning to take a more in-depth look at the figures behind the production of GT.

The latest edition of Greenwich Time carries Richard’s letter with a response from GT’s editor Peter Cordwell, also the author of the planning story under the microscope.

A Greenwich Council spokesman told the News Shopper: “Greenwich Council supports a vibrant local press, playing a vital role in scrutinising the council.

“Greenwich Time has a different but equally important function – telling residents about the 800 services we offer. No other publication is distributed to the whole of the borough.

“News Shopper has raised criticisms on the GT report on the 2012 equestrian events application at the council’s planning board.

“Far from all the attendees being against the application, many spoke out in favour of the plans, or cheered other speakers such as Lord Coe.

“We welcome all form of legitimate criticism…..we do not apologise for producing a weekly publication which gives local people access to jobs, homes, services and celebrates good news.”

Comments

Told you so. com (15/04/2010 09:36:45)
Re-run from yesterday’s HTFP
richard meredith (14/04/2010 16:10)
Can I reply here to Steve Dyson’s blog advocating papers doing deals with councils over including their freesheets as special sections. Why? well it is surely the next step in Apex’s inexorable smothering of our beloved newsrooms. Yes, you can see it now: just like our reporters, the council’s PR will soon be keying his/her master’s content straight onto our pages AND presumably, the unmentionable managements at JP will charge them something for the space too. Before you know it, the police PR will be wanting to have a go; then fire and ambulance; maybe the court clerk …and why not eh JP? lots more journo salaries to be saved here. Costs down, revenue up and don’t take No for an answer. Isn’t that the name of your game?.

MH Media (15/04/2010 09:52:02)
I looked at the two versions and the difference is unbelievable: talk about “selective” reporting! I’m personally fed up with these back-slapping, self-congratulating propaganda sheets that keep coming through my door.
I’m assuming that when one of these rags finally manages to misquote/misrepresents someone and get sued then the taxpayer will pay for the legal costs also?

Steve Dyson (15/04/2010 10:55:18)
Er, not exactly, ‘Told you so.com’. I think you’re right to be careful about any such advertising or ad feature supplement, but it’s surely an option rather than competing with local government-funded propaganda sheets. The council saves money and the papers get revenue… but only on the basis that any such ad feat or pull-out is clearly marked as an ad supplement. Surely one to consider for cash-strapped councils and newspaper groups?

hack at heart (15/04/2010 14:44:07)
Sorry guys there’s a touch of the protesteth too muches going on here. Fair and balanced is supposed to work both ways and I’ve been on both sides of the local press fence. Go on, tell me you ALWAYS use the full council response when you think you’ve got a great negative story!