If my memory serves me correctly, all or most of the panel were over the age of 40.

Perhaps we could’ve had someone younger on the panel…

“These are not the matters that I would list under the same category of ‘problems at media’ outlets” – The expression ‘problems at media outlets’ is a technical correct description that could fit any problem at a media outlet.

“But it is irrelevant to the quality of editorial” – I have so-far not being talking about the “quality of editorial,” but general problems with media outlets. Correct me if I’m wrong, but nowhere in my above comments have I directly commented on ‘editorial integrity’, ‘quality of editorial’, or editorial independence. I simply have not been commenting here on the ethical side of these problems, but rather the problems in general.

“Although Cian’s original comment (and Phoenix’s headline) labels everything as being B&F-related only” – I was speaking generally. But both the Phoenix’s and my use of B&F looks to be inline with your company’s usage. For example, B&F’s website uses terms such as “Business & Finance Media Group” and lines such as “We also produce many other publications including Magill magazine, [etc]”.

“You are comparing apples and oranges” – Sure, I am. And they are not directly comparably on many grounds. But, they – like real apples and oranges – are comparable on some levels. In this case significance – on which, in my opinion – financial trouble is far greater then a slap on the wrist from a financial regulator (again, I’m not speaking about ethics as I don’t think there’s any direct or major journalistic ethical problems with the two issues).

If you want to talk about ethics, fine… on what I’ve seen about the issues with the Phoenix and the financial regulator, I’d class the issue as a technical one of little or no journalistic ethical insignificant. That’s quite fine if you disagree. And unless you have more information then the regulator posted in their ‘note’ we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

As for the dominance of the big four as you call it, I think that’d have to be rephrased to the dominance of the big two — Irish Times and Sunday Times. Between the two Indo group titles there were just two shortlisted entries, and not a single award won. Also worth noting that the Indo titles didn’t win a single award, which means that the awards weren’t of the ‘divy them up fairly’ variety. From my read of it, the awards went to the newspapers who put the most effort into them. The ST and the IT clearly valued them and put their best foot forward. The Indo and the Sindo clearly did not.

What might bring some more transparency would be if there was a catalogue of entries. You talk about the lack of representation for non press print. Id wonder how many non press print journalists entered, if any.

Not sure though should the points each one got be made public. More for the runners up or ones who really did badly than anything else. I can foresee witchhunts by disgruntled people demanding everyone publish their points if people were given what they scored as well.

But at least these awards don’t charge for entry, unlike the Golden Spiders. Like the Golden Spiders though, the judging could definitely do with being more transparent.

Again, I beg to differ here.

One is the issue of the current management and past management performance, since we are dealing here with accumulated losses. Change of management structure or ownership structure is relevant to this problem, but it is irrelevant to the quality of editorial, unless new management decides to abuse editorial integrity to drive up revenue or profitability. This has not happened in the case of B&F. In fact, the new management has been fully supportive of the editorial integrity and independence. This, possibly, is one of the reasons why the break-even moment for the magazine has been delayed – my guess is as good as yours here. But again, this is the issue of accounts. Incidentally, the accounts are for the entire group, which included in 2005 (and includes today) more than two publication titles, although Cian’s original comment (and Phoenix’s headline) labels everything as being B&F-related only.

In contrast, a ’slap on the wrist’ is, in the case of Phoenix, the issue of the quality of editorial, not of accounts.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

This would be half the problem were you not also to bunch them with the problem revealed by this week’s events at the Tribune.

If you think that having business losses in 2005 (remember, it’s the end of 2007 now, and my original reply to Damien was about now, not about 2005) somehow comes even remotely close to
(i) having a section editor sacked in, what appears to be, very disturbing – to the paper editorial integrity – circumstances or
(ii) being publicly reprimanded for an editorial violation of the regulatory code in the area in which you claim to provide expert analysis (finance),
I would have to simply agree to disagree with you, because we are clearly using two different ethical alphabets. These are not the matters that I would list under the same category of ‘problems at media’ outlets.

Per awards: Did the organizers create a special category because they were deemed to be a ‘special’ category – i.e. intrinsically non-competitive with the ‘Big Boys’? With exception of the Silicon Republic which short-listed print media journalists come from any non-daily/Sunday newspaper? (Please, note that in the original comment I did not ask about ‘non print’ category, but about non-newspaper print mdeia – i.e print media modes that are not a newspaper print). Only one journalist out of 18 who were short-listed for non-regional print awards was from outside the group of five ‘national’ newspapers.

Only two journalists in the print media categories made it, who were from outside the Big-Four (Indo, S Indo, Times, S Times).

Which way do you want me to slice these numbers? As far as the ‘three articles’ criteria is concerned, have the awards organisers made these articles public? For all short-listed self-nominees? It might bring some more transparency to the awards.

This has been a fine discussion, by the way. Thanks to all. And thanks to Damien for patient hosting.

At no point did I try to link it with the other stores (sorry if that was the impression)… although, I’d list them all under the slightly less vague ‘problems at media’ outlets.

The point in my first comment was simply that B&F are not immune to problems. I’ve no ill will to B&F, in fact, I bought the current edition early today.

Are they worse then the Tribune’s problems? No, of course not.

But is a slap on the wrist from a regulator a bigger issue then increasing losses which amounted to “accumulated losses at the end of 2005 of a whopping €1.35m” which led to a need for more owners etc? Yes, of course it is.

Cian, changes in shareholdings – although if you note, the figures quoted in Phoenix do not add up to 100%, to mention just one problem with the Phoenix reporting – are hardly a matter of journalistic quality or integrity or independence of Business & Finance editorial. Or are you suggesting that these matters somehow reflect in a negative light on Business & Finance magazine?

FR letter and the aforementioned sloppiness in the Phoenix article on B&F are a matter of direct reference to the quality of content.

Someone, indeed anyone, investing in a publication is not an editorial matter. Having to reach a settlement with regulatory authorities on one’s editorial is. Dealing with a journalist in a manner in which Richard Delevan has, allegedly, been dealt with is.

Your attempt to link Business & Finance’s financial history to the current events at the Phoenix and the Tribune is spurious.

BAILING OUT B&F

CONGRATULATIONS to Ian Hyland of Business and Finance and Magill magazines, who has managed to raise some big bucks for his struggling publishing company, although his own stake has been significantly reduced as a result of the fundraising.

Early in September, Niav Hyland – wife of Ian – stepped down as a director of Cloughmore Media Ltd, the holding company for the Hyland titles. She was replaced by Adrian Gallagher – an accountant who has had a very hands-on role in the Hyland operation for a number of years – and another number cruncher, Jonathan O’Connell, who already holds a small stake in Cloughmore and is also an investor in Merrion Pharmaceuticals, which is backed by the Tony Ryan siblings’ Irlandia Investments vehicle.

Along with their arrival on the board, Gallagher and O’Connell have also invested in the company, with the former handing over €180,000 for an 18% stake and O’Connell upping his shareholding to 30% courtesy of a €200,000 investment. In effect this values Cloughmore at €1m. The deal leaves Ian Hyland holding 44.5% of the shares (diluted down from 70%) while Elgin
Loane (son of Nelson) now has a little over 6%, down from 10%.

The two new directors clearly know something that the rest of us don’t given that the last accounts for the Cloughmore Media showed accumulated losses at the end of 2005 of a whopping €1.35m, an increase of €120,000 on the previous year.