It was late November last year when Salford Council's own Scrutiny Committee rejected John Merry's plans for expanding the Council's Life in Salford magazine to 12 issues a year with a cost of £175,000. During that period, income figures were changed from the original budget and it all seemed a bit iffy. We've left out the baffling sums and will cover that at some point in the future but the actual banter was highly entertaining. What did we think of Life, and what did John Merry think of the Salford Star?
To print the whole transcript would run into thousands of words so we've edited it and included the best bits. Hopefully we've been fair to Mr Merry and the Salford Star…
Seconds Away: Round 1
On Life in Salford…
"I think that the kids of St George's have had rather enough publicity, don't you?"
John Merry: You feel that Life in Salford is biased?
Stephen Kingston: It's rubbish. And it's biased because if you're just giving out good news it's like Brave New World or Pravda or something…
JM: Give me an absolute example in the latest edition of a biased article?
SK: Less is more – if you don't put anything in it there's nothing to criticise is there?
JM: If you're saying it's so bland it goes in the bin and then you're saying it's politically biased I find that a bit contradictory…
SK: Would you turn over two pages of Life without any editorial control, to the community to say what they really think ?
JM: I wouldn't turn over two pages of it to anybody to have a voice, that's not the point of it – I don't have a voice in it – if you're saying do we need to find a way of involving our communities in the decision making, I'm hoping to try and find that but it's not just about those people who shout the loudest, it's about getting everybody involved.
SK: Would you let the kids of St George's have two pages in Life to explain their point of view?
JM: I think the kids of St George's have had rather enough publicity don't you? I don't think they feel a lack of publicity.
SK: I'm sure they'd love to have a two page spread in there to give their point of view…
JM: If we had two pages for St George's we'd have to have two pages for people opposing what they say.
SK: Whatever…it's better than relentlessly bland rubbish…can we have some criticism in there too?
JM: I'll have a think about that but there are plenty of opportunities for people to criticise us – there's your magazine, the Advertiser…
"The Advertiser will be sacking journalists who might be scrutinising the Council..."
SK: We can't afford to print our magazine and you're talking about withdrawing over £50,000 of advertising from the Advertiser which is the equivalent of two or more journalists. So the Advertiser will be sacking journalists who might be scrutinising the Council.
JM: First of all I'm not actually sure that the journalists they employ do actually do that particular job. What I'm concerned about is that the Advertiser doesn't reach large portions of the readership in Salford, therefore do I want to put my recruitment advertising in there and potentially not reach large sections of the people of Salford? We've just taken a view that we can do a more a effective job within Life…
SK: But no-one reads it – it goes straight in the bin
JM: Now I've got to say we've got good feedback on the magazine believe it or not…
SK: Yeah from the Big Listening where 64% said it was good or very good – but 73% said they voted in local elections which is not representative of Salford at all…
JM: No it isn't but it's also the case that people sometimes confuse general elections with local elections.
SK: Maybe they got it confused and meant to tick rubbish, it's the same argument
JM: I understand what you're saying…
SK: …or maybe when they ticked `very good' they got it confused with Star…
Seconds Away: Round 2
On the Salford Star…
"I've always said that the Salford Star is quite well written...just misleading and untrue in places"
SK: The Salford Star is having problems because people are too scared to advertise with us
JM: What, they think we're nasty and vindictive and we'll penalise them for it?
SK: Yep, pure fear
JM: Why would we possibly not like your magazine?
SK: A lot of people won't come near us because they've possibly got a contract with the Council and they're scared.
JM: I noticed that you softened the magazine last issue and that might be its future…
SK: No chance. We didn't soften it, we say what needs to be said.
JM: I've always said that I think the Salford Star is quite well written, just misleading and untrue in places
SK: It's not untrue
JM: If you came across a story that was positive to the Council would you print it?
SK: Of course we would – we were going to do a big piece on Emmaus, that was going to be a great project for homeless people but then it got cancelled…
JM: That's not the impression ordinary people have…I can show you examples on Salford Reds website where people say `Of course this article came from Salford Star which has always got an axe to grind'. I can tell you about community activists who say Salford Star has always got an axe to grind.
SK: We have no axe to grind whatsoever.
JM: That's why I spend time with you.
SK: Yet the Council rips up our applications for funding from community committees..
JM: You wouldn't want to be operating under the same lease as it were as Salford Life does, which is about being non political and all the rest of it
SK: We are non political
JM: No, you're a-political if you're going to argue it…Can you tell me when Paul Foot applied to the people he was slagging off to fund Private Eye? Why would the Council want to support a magazine whose mission seems to be to criticise…
SK: It's not. Like, we all want to promote community committees but we ain't doing it while you're ripping up our funding applications to them – you don't recognise us, we won't recognise you. It's quite simple…but we'd love to promote community committees.
Seconds Away: Round 3
Legal and Funding Stuff…
"You've fiddled the figures..."
SK: You've messed about with the figures for Life magazine, there's no doubt about it.
JM: We've refined our figures
SK: You've fiddled them…all of a sudden you're making a £30k profit
JM: Well, that's good isn't it?
SK: But it's public money you're playing with
JM: Of course it's public money…I was originally informed that we were spending something like £150k in statutory advertising and I've now had that figure revised up to £250k. I've taken a view, which the officers have said is a reasonable one, that we could spend £100k of that within our own publication – that is a positive sign and it does make a big difference in terms of the figures but nevertheless what am I supposed to do, hide them from people and say no we're going to stick with our original figures?
SK: Is it legal to withdraw advertising from local papers? There's never been a test case
JM: Waltham Forest, Bolton and East Riding have all gone down this particular route
SK: Well they're not in Salford are they?
JM: No but the law applies right across the board and nobody has seen fit to challenge it yet. Of course if you want to spend your hard earned money on a high court challenge …
SK: We haven't got any money, that's why we can't challenge it.
JM: The Advertiser is owned by the Guardian Media Group – no doubt if they feel we're offending the law they'll want to challenge it. They've got the resources to do so but I've taken the view that it's legitimate to take £100k from the advertising budget because these are the sort of notices that can go in our own newspaper. Now I would have thought that people would welcome the fact that we're saving the taxpayer money here…
SK: That's a matter of opinion
JM: But my opinion is backed up by the facts
SK: Well, you've got the budget details...
***
JM: Why don't you come and write for Life?
SK: You couldn't afford me...
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
