AddThis SmartLayers

What about us? Hyperlocals protest over Facebook ‘snub’

meese-emmaFacebook and the NCTJ have been accused of ‘snubbing’ hyperlocal publishers by restricting their new Community News Project to five big newspaper groups.

As reported on Monday, the social media giant and the leading UK journalism training body are to partner with five publishers to fund 80 new journalists in towns which no longer have their own newspapers.

Publishers taking part in the two-year pilot project include Reach, Newsquest, JPIMedia (formerly Johnston Press), Archant and Midland News Association, with recruitment to begin early in 2019.

But the move has been strongly criticised by the Independent Community News Network, which represents the hyperlocal publishing sector, on the grounds that no small publishers have been invited to take part.

The ICNN has contrasted this week’s announcement with the BBC Local News Partnership, which saw 15 hyperlocal publishers apply for the chance to employ one of the new Local Democracy Reporters.

Although most of the contracts ultimately went to the big publishers, there were exceptions, such as Stonebow Media, which won the contract to cover Lincoln, and the Hackney Citizen in East London.

The ICNN’s communications and project officer, Matt Abbott, has set out the organisations objections in a piece on its website entitled ‘What is a Community News Project without community journalists?

He said ICNN director Emma Meese, pictured, has asked Facebook’s head of news partnerships Nick Wrenn why reputable independent community news publishers were being snubbed with the rollout of this project.

Wrote Matt: “Facebook’s commitment to local journalism is laudable. Investing £4.5m to fund the creation of 80 new community journalists should be great news for the community news sector. It’s a global first for the social network.

“But the announcement has left many of us who work in this sector confounded.  How can such a large investment in community news completely ignore the vibrant community journalism sector and instead be given directly to regional publishers?

“How is it that the very journalists who truly serve their communities, who produce high quality, relevant, truly local and community-focused news, and who do so on a shoestring, be disregarded?

“This is a prime example of why the Independent Community News Network, ICNN, was founded. To not only challenge decisions like this but also to educate and inform of the many benefits of engaging with the quality and reputable independent community news journalists we represent.”

Director of the Centre for Journalism at Cardiff University, Prof Richard Sambrook, added: “Not all these local newspaper groups have managed their businesses well and there is a legitimate question about how much third-party subsidy they deserve.

“Also, there is a thriving sector in community news and hyperlocal support where Facebook could have a huge impact – it’s a shame they have been overlooked.”

The Society of Editors has also called for the project to be expanded to smaller publishers once the two-year pilot has been completed.

Executive director Ian Murray said: “The announcement by Facebook that it is to support the recruitment and training of some 80 journalists to cover truly local news through a partnership with the National Council for the Training of Journalists (NCTJ), often where such services have been lost, is very welcome indeed,” commented the Society’s executive director Ian Murray.

“It shows a commitment by the digital giant to grassroots journalism, and also just as importantly to supporting high standards of editorial training.

“When seen alongside the BBC-funded Local Democracy Partnership where some 150 journalists are being supported in the regional press to cover local councils and authorities, there is now a pattern set of how grassroots journalism can be supported where traditional revenue models are struggling.

Added Ian: “If similar funding could be sourced for other important areas of local reporting which have fallen by the wayside, such as attending magistrates and crown courts, then we could truly have a roadmap for underpinning the vital role that grassroots journalism plays in communities.”

“I would hope that if the two-year pilot proves a success and continues that the initiative can expand to include small independent publishers or even start-ups in areas where there is no longer any local paper.”

A spokeswoman for the NCTJ said: “For the pilot community news project, terms have been agreed with a small number of partners to test the model and implement the scheme quickly.

“We are noting interest from other parties for future initiatives, including smaller independent publishers and hyperlocals, which the NCTJ is very keen to support in a similar way if possible.”

Facebook has declined to comment, saying the NCTJ is leading the project.


You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • November 22, 2018 at 3:48 pm

    I’m not a journalism snob by any means, and lord knows I have no time for the big newspaper companies, but the quality of some of these new hyper-locals has been absolutely dire. I’m reminded of that clown that used to be on here all the time after being taken to court for naming someone in a story (can’t remember his name) but it was amateur hour from start to finish.

    Wearing a stethoscope doesn’t make you a doctor.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(10)
  • November 22, 2018 at 7:54 pm

    This is very nicely carved up between the big players and Facebook (at least for now).
    The fact is that Facebook is loathe to pay anything for content.
    For years now news websites have been asking for a share of FB’s cash. Zuckerberg wanted their content – especially those live videos. But when news groups asked about some advertising opportunities nothing happened, despite lots of promises that “it would be coming soon”.
    Instead we get 80 journalists (worth roughly £2.5m a year). It is a sop to the government, keeps the regional publishers happy – and crucially, means they don’t have to pay out anything in the US.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(5)
  • November 22, 2018 at 10:34 pm

    Agree with Jeff Jones. While there are undoubtedly some excellent hyperlocals, we can’t hold them all up as bastions of community journalism.
    While I can name one excellent one in my area, I can also point to another whose whole operation is based on copying and pasting entire stories from other websites/papers and passing it off as their own without as much as a credit let alone any regard for image copyright.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(6)
  • November 23, 2018 at 7:57 am

    I see the usual voice of one of the big publishers getting the help is trying to justify it by claiming that most community journalism in the country is coming from the ones being given the support, as if that makes it any better.
    Those groups are the ones who dropped community reporting and reduced district teams when the thought of rich pickings at little cost via digital became the flavour of the month and required fewer staff to produce it. They also realised more and more people were dropping their papers, which had seen regular cover price rises for a greatly reduce quality of news content,much of it out of date and warmed up by the time the paper was on sale,so why should they now be given help to up their game with free staff when it’s the real community news publishers, the new small independents, who most need and would benefit from extra resources?
    The groundswell against this fiasco is such that if they had any sense of fairness they’d rethink the scheme and allocate the resources, money and help where it would be best utilised, and that’s certainly not with the publishing groups who they’ve chosen to get it.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(16)
  • November 23, 2018 at 12:54 pm

    The argument is not whether it should be given exclusively to hyperlocals or newspapers, it’s about recognising that journalism is now about more than the traditional provider and that the wealth should be shared. Why should all of our journalism eggs be put in one basket?

    While there are plenty of hyperlocals that might not cut the mustard, there are a hell of a lot of newspapers who could also run them close in that race these days.

    JohnJones said: “…whose whole operation is based on copying and pasting entire stories from other websites/papers and passing it off as their own…”

    This sounds like a model some of our once great newspapers currently use. It’s not quite as simple as saying one is worthwhile and another isn’t.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(8)
  • November 24, 2018 at 3:15 pm

    There are many former journalists and editors now running hyperlocals. I would say this sector has moved on considerably over the last couple of years (yes, I run a hyperlocal. I have been in the business a good many years and think I apply the same rules to my website as I did to the papers I worked on in my previous work life)

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(5)