What happened to the Today newspaper?

By Simon Wright – Follow me on Twitter @Siwri88

The newspaper industry has been through a rough time in the past three years and most of it is down to failures of simple practices. Struggles to match the demand for online content, combined with the phone-hacking scandal of 2011 has seen sales drop and the appeal to win people’s attention decrease. Indeed, in my case now, I am only likely to buy a newspaper when I’m on holiday out of the UK. The market just doesn’t seem to be there anymore, which is perhaps a good thing, considering the behaviour of some journalists and newspaper editors in recent times.

Phone-hacking came back into the public sphere in the summer when former news editor of the News of the World, Andy Coulson was jailed for his role in hacking the phones of celebrities. Another chief news editor of the defunct newspaper, Rebekah Brooks, was cleared on all charges. The News of the World isn’t the only paper though that has ceased to exist.

In fact, British newspapers do come and go. Whilst the red-top tabloids still dominate circulation figures, broadsheets are still around and provide a more accurate approach in comparison to some of the sensationalized reporting you’d often find in the Daily Mirror and the Daily Star. One paper that did revolutionise the British newspaper industry was Today.

It didn’t last a decade, but made its mark. So, whatever happened to the Today newspaper (logo pictured below)?

The Today newspaper made a short impact on journalism in the 1980s

Early struggles

Launching on 4^th March 1986, Today was seen as the honest tabloid, a newspaper that was a balance in the middle between left-wing and right-wing competitors. Seen as competing in the same market as the Daily Express and the Daily Mail, Today pioneered newspaper technology in the mid-1980s, by becoming the UK’s first complete colour newspaper. It was a time where computer photo-typesetting was still a new technology and many other papers stuck to the tried and trusted Linotype machines.

Eddy Shah was the original owner of the paper. A Manchester-based businessman, Shah believed he could take on the might of Rupert Murdoch and Robert Maxwell, the two most dominating media moguls of the 1980s. It wasn’t long though before Today ran into financial difficulties.

Shah, who also owned six local newspapers, took on the trade unions well before the launch of Today. He was the first person to take on Margaret Thatcher’s anti-union laws and anyone who did that to the prime minister would often lose in those days. Within two years of setting up Today, he was gone, selling his empire and moving off into television production instead.

The paper changed ownership twice in its early inception. Tiny Rowland’s Lonrho bought the paper in the summer of 1986 and in 1987; it was eventually sold to Murdoch’s powerful News International brand. Once in Murdoch’s hands, he could control it and despite Today’s change in the way newspapers were printed, there were already signs that it was the beginning of the end.

Cancellations

Alongside the weekday version, a Sunday Today edition was launched but didn’t last long. It was closed early in 1987 as a cost-saving measure. At the same time, Today began an unsuccessful sponsorship of the English Football League. A three-year deal signed at the start of the 1986/87 season lasted just one campaign. For the record, Everton were the only winners of Today Football League Division One!

Murdoch kept Today going, but channelled most of his efforts into his other newspapers, including The Times and the new BSkyB venture, as he tried to turn Sky News into a creditable source of television news journalism. Despite years of decline, the paper survived until 1995 when it ceased publication. Murdoch was concerned that more intelligent people were still interested in the reporting in Today than in the other newspapers he owned.

A sour ending

Today’s most embarrassing story came in its final year. On 19^th April 1995, 168 people were killed in a domestic terrorist bomb attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. In the aftermath, Today made a huge blunder.

The front page of the paper the next day showed a picture of a fireman carrying the body of a young girl with the headline printed “IN THE NAME OF ALLAH”. The editor, Richard Stott and his team believed Muslim terrorists were behind this atrocity. It later turned out that the perpetrators were American survivalists Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. It left the senior executives quite red-faced.

Today became the first long-running daily newspaper in the UK to close down since the Daily Sketch fell in 1971. The final headline on Friday, 17 November 1995 was “GOODBYE, IT’S BEEN GREAT TO KNOW YOU.”

Today made a short impact and changed the way newspapers were printed in the 1980s. It had its audience, but too many changes in editors and owners meant it wasn’t to become a sustainable threat. 

Categories: 1986, 1995, Colour, Eddy Shah, Newspapers, Online, Ownership, Rupert Murdoch, Today, UK

BBC cutbacks - Was axing BBC Three the right move?

By Simon Wright – Follow me on Twitter @Siwri88

There was shock and complete surprise earlier this week (starting 3^rd March) when rumours spread of one of BBC’s channels was about to face the chop. In order to meet agreed spending figures by the end of 2016, the Beeb have decided to axe BBC Three – one of the most popular channels for a young target audience.

BBC Three has been the home to plenty of new talents, with successes such as Being Human, Little Britain and Gavin & Stacey being eventually picked up by mainstream channels after its first success on the platform. Other shows including The Fades, Torchwood, Don’t Tell the Bride, Lip Service and Free Speech have won rave reviews for its content shown. Alongside its quality programming, BBC Three has opened new doors to upcoming comedians, musicians and actors who want to make the big time but need to make their name first.

So despite the announcement that its content will move online in future, why is this cutback move by British Broadcasting Corporation a wrong move, especially where other expensive avenues could have saved itself from the backlash it has received.

Cutbacks are required

First of all, the BBC has had to make savings in a number of areas to meet agreed cutbacks put in by the BBC Trust. This has already involved movement of programmes to cheaper locations such as MediaCity in Salford and Cardiff, job losses and the decision not to renew some of its popular dramas and sport rights to meet the required targets.

Outlined three years ago, 2000 jobs were set to go by 2017 with a further 1000 people set to be relocated to newer parts of the UK. Television Centre was closed down last year as Broadcasting House became the new home for the corporation in London which is where the majority of the BBC’s news content, both national and local is now outputted from.

£47m a year was planned to be saved from 2011 until 2016 with the BBC Asian Network and BBC HD facing the biggest reduction in content programming. BBC HD has since become BBC Two HD last year.

Shows and events that have been the victim of such vicious but crucial cuts have included crime drama Ripper Street, sci-fi series Survivors, store drama The Paradise, comedy My Family, Alan Sugar’s The Young Apprentice and live rights to horse racing and MotoGP.

Officially becoming BBC Three in 2003 after being initially launched as recently as 1998 as BBC Choice, BBC Three attracts 13m viewers per week of its content. However despite its fairly short lifespan, the percentage of 16-34 age range who watches the programmes and the total viewers per week, the Director General of the BBC Tony Hall has made a difficult but wrong call in giving BBC Three the boot.  

What will happen to BBC Three?

The news to axe BBC Three has been met with much disapproval, not just from fans of the channel and casual viewers like me but comedians like Russell Kane and even BBC Radio One DJ Greg James. However, unless the BBC Trust decides to block the plans announced last week, this is what will happen to the channel. That doesn’t mean to say they won’t do that. Three years ago, the Trust blocked plans to shut BBC Radio 6 Music and the Asian Network.

The plan is for BBC Three to close as a TV channel in autumn 2015 and Freeview viewers will see it replaced by BBC One+1. While a +1 is needed for its mainstream channel to rival ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, a home for this would have been more appropriate rather than to replace a popular channel like BBC Three.

The BBC's decision to move BBC Three onto an online platform has received criticism

It will be re-innovated as an online channel only on the iPlayer catch-up service, although it is more likely that only programming will be found on here rather than the remains of the channel. It is reported that the BBC (building pictured above) will make £50m in savings with this controversial move, although to chuck £30m into more drama programming on BBC One makes the decision more of a mockery. If cutbacks had to be made, make them and keep them rather than spend more on what is likely to be more episodes of dreary Walford soap opera EastEnders.

Director General Hall said on Thursday when the plans were made public that it was “strategically right” and “financially necessary.” You can’t really argue with his latter statement but the first comment doesn’t feel right.

86.9% on the media website Digital Spy last week believed axing BBC Three is the wrong decision and a #SaveBBC3 petition hit 85,000 in less than 48 hours after being launched last week on Change.org by fan of the channel Jono Read. It has been signed by many including this writer, but also by the likes of Rick Edwards, David Walliams and Matt Lucas. 

What could have gone instead?

£100m of savings are required by 2016, so for anyone to suggest that the BBC should do nothing doesn’t quite understand the world of finances. There are other areas though which might have brought the corporation closer to its target without annoying a huge core section of its young target audience.

BBC Three’s channel budget in 2013/14 is reported to be £85m but the £49m to give BBC Four the boot would have been a more logical solution if a channel had to close.

BBC Four’s impact on the UK TV audience has been mundane. In fact, I can’t ever remember watching a programme on it to be honest. It might provide a good home for historical programmes looking back at the past, as well as a mixture of arts shows but this content could easily slot onto BBC Two without a huge fuss.

Hall believes the BBC Three audience are ready for the move to watching TV online and while it is true that television can be watched in a number of different areas and devices, it will be interesting to see if the target audience follow the move. I somehow highly doubt it.

With the new competition of BT Sport now firmly in the sporting spectrum, the BBC’s sporting deals should come up for review. Whilst areas like the Six Nations, Premier League football highlights and Wimbledon deserve to be saved from any cutbacks, other sports could go.

The BBC could have decided to axe its deal to show Formula One. Sadly the sport has entered a generation of insipid racing, complicated technological changes and the same driver keeps winning, just like the ITV Schumacher days of the last decade.  

In 2011, they saved £16.5m a year by deciding to share the live race rights with Sky Sports, who have since launched their own dedicated channel to great success and critical acclaim. The BBC has been left behind and by moving more of its coverage onto BBC Two since the new agreement; it suggests a lack of motivation in making the deal a success. While a new season begins next week in Australia – the significant drop in audience figures and the estimated £40m cost for a typical championship would have brought the BBC even closer to its target.

With £11m to find, cuts in regional programming, highlight packages for Rugby League and the Football League and ending the National Lottery programmes might have taken them to within that £100m savings mark.

Is there hope for the BBC Three audience?

I think it is fair to say that the decision to drop BBC Three as a TV channel has been met with a lot of disapproval from fans and even celebrities.

By turning it into an online channel – the BBC has giving its rivals in the television market a huge advantage as a growing number might feel the corporation takes their feedback and dedication to their services for granted.

Cutbacks need to be made, no-one should argue about that but this feels like a move that didn’t need to be made. Give Tony Hall a thought; he is in a difficult position to meet the final spending cut targets and this is a gamble but it is fair to say that thousands disagree with his thinking.

There is hope for the BBC Three audience in that the BBC Trust could block the move and it seems like there is greater support than there was to save 6 Music and the Asian Network in 2011 when they were in a similar position. To save those radio stations was cheaper though, so while it is important to keep hope, don’t expect the Trust to prohibit the move. As long as they hear both sides of the argument next month, then you have to accept whatever is their final decision.

If it does disappear as a TV channel, it is a great shame but it did provide some great British talent to come through onto our screens over the past decade.  

Categories: Audience, BBC, BBC iPlayer, BBC Three, Being Human, Matt Lucas, Money, Online, Tony Hall, TV