---

See more posts by Alex Balk

5 comments

It was a bad result for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's party: "In a devastating night for Labour, the party won just 15.8% of the popular vote, allowing the far right British National party to clinch its first two seats in the European parliament." Brown is likely to remain in office for the moment, as worried party members figure they might as well wait a couple of months and hope voters forget about the expenses scandal currently roiling the political landscape. The expectation is that things can't get much worse, although if you've seen this government in action that seems remarkably optimistic.

In Italy, scandal-plagued Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's allies won a disappointing victory, gaining far fewer votes than expected, but not performing badly enough to do much damage to scandal-plagued premier. (In related news, former Czech PM Mirek Topolanek, rumored bearer of the tumescent dong shown in naked pictures from the scandal-plagued Berlusconi's celeb-filled villa, has admitted to being in the photo but claims that the image was manipulated. Even better: "The Czech media had recognised his white rubber wristband – a sign of support for the anti-Castro movement in Cuba – given to Topolanek by George W Bush during a visit to the United States last year.")

Finally, Sweden's Pirate Party won a seat, striking a blow for file-sharers everywhere.

Europe, man. Crazy.

---

See more posts by Alex Balk

6 comments

---

See more posts by Alex Balk

5 comments

It is cheque-book journalism but really does have a public-interest defence. (Expect it to be used as an excuse for every sleazy tabloid buy-up for the next ten years)."

Fair enough. I don't know that it takes away from my larger point-to the extent that actually tracking down the redacted information rather than outright buying the unscrubbed version would have been the kind of "real reporting" that might actually save newspapers-but I was perhaps a little ungenerous in comparing the Telegraph's work on the story to mere transcription. Sorry about that.

---

See more posts by Alex Balk

3 comments

Carter starts off by asking if we aren't all "growing just a bit tired of reading about the demise of newspapers-in the papers themselves?" (This is presumably distinct from reading about the demise of newspapers in publications like Vanity Fair.) But Graydon knows how to save the troubled industry: "My suggestion to newspapers everywhere is to give the public a reason to read them again. So here's an idea: get on a big story with widespread public appeal, devote your best resources to it, say a quiet prayer, and swing for the fences." I don't know, that sounds pretty risky. Do you have any examples?

In 2005, Ben Leapman, a reporter for the Telegraph, filed a Freedom of Information Act request asking to see the expenses of six members of Parliament. His request was denied repeatedly, but he had the doggedness of a good journalist, and finally a government "Information Tribunal" ruled that it was in the public's interest that details of the expenses claimed by M.P.'s (who receive an average $172,000 a year in salary, expenses, and housing allowances) should be provided in full. In March 2009 word circulated around Fleet Street that a disc containing the detailed expense reports of all 650 members of the House of Commons had found its way to the Telegraph's offices (possibly in exchange for cash). Lewis didn't merely print the details of the M.P.'s expenses, as so many in these straitened times might have. In what became the paper's biggest investigation in its 154-year history, 45 staff members and numerous lawyers spent two months in a secured area of the paper's offices, secretly preparing an epic series for publication.

Well, see, here's the thing: I've been following this whole expenses scandal story a little bit, and there are a few points that I'd take issue with. Carter is absolutely right to say that it's been a huge success for the Telegraph. However:

• Ben Leapman was just one of a number of people who filed a Freedom of Information request; a Sunday Times reporter and an American freelancer made similar requests. This was by no means a Telegraph exclusive.
• That "possibly in exchange for cash" line? The Telegraph has repeatedly refused to comment on whether or not they paid for the information, but many rival newspapers noted that they had also been approached by a middleman trying to sell the disc. They rejected the offer.
• The information on the disc was going to be made public on July 1 anyway, thanks to those FOI requests. The "paper's biggest investigation in its 154-year history" was presumably the result of shelling out a major amount of money and then having a large staff transcribe the information received.

Was the Telegraph smart to devote so many of its resources to this story? Surely. Was it a great idea to release it in dribs and drabs so readers had to keep clicking on its website and buy its papers? Absolutely. Did they report anything original that would not have been released to the public soon after? Of course not. In promoting this story as the way newspapers can save themselves, Carter is essentially endorsing shelling out to sources. Perhaps that's his intention. Maybe he should have Michael Wolff write a column about how checkbook journalism is actually okay; the guy would probably be up for it.

---

See more posts by Alex Balk

9 comments

---

See more posts by Alex Balk

4 comments

---

See more posts by Alex Balk

1 comments

---

See more posts by Alex Balk

8 comments