Life for the news industry is grim. The circulations of mainstream newspapers in the UK, and more so in the US, are in what looks like permanent decline. Knives have been taken to editorial headcounts and will, I’m reliably told, be done so with increasing frequency.

But this is not true for all newspapers. A much underreported story has been the boom in newspaper circulation in many developing economies. In Brazil, for example, total circulation of newspapers has grown by 1m over the last ten years. Brazil’s growing middle class is, The Economist reported earlier this year, “hooked on a clutch of inexpensive new papers that are heavy on murders and bikinis”. Tabloids in Brazil are doing splendidly.

I was reminded of The Economist’s analysis by the news today of Gawker having a bigger online circulation than all newspapers with the exception of the New York Times. The lesson appears to be simple, give readers what they want to read rather than what editors think they ought to read. Ignore ideas of civic responsibility and publish more celebrity tittle-tattle. The Daily Mail is growing fat on this formula.

This doesn’t sit easily with many grand newspapers. Bill Keller, the New York Times’ executive editor is sniffy about pandering to readers’ tastes: “We don’t let metrics dictate our assignments and play because we believe readers come to us for our judgment, not the judgment of the crowd.” Keller’s undoubtedly right and to be applauded to protecting serious journalism. But  how long can serious journalism survive with state funding if newspaper ignore readers’ demand for the loew-brow?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Real Journalism Threatened by Knowledge of What People Like [Media] (gawker.com)
• Web analytics: newspaper savior? (econsultancy.com)

Caroline Kean of media law firm Wiggin is one of the UK’s foremost litigation lawyers. Conde Nast, Emap, Trinity Mirror and Al Jazeera, amongst others, count on her advice. I caught up with her to ask about free speech, Trafigura and super injunctions and the role of law firms like Carter Ruck.

Caroline Kean, litigation partner at Wiggin

Is free speech alive on the web and are we likely to see more super injunctions broken on the internet?

Free speech is alive on the web though equally that same free speech is open to abuse – the web also hosts plenty of unfair, vitriolic and plainly wrong material, with the writer usually hidden behind a veil of anonymity. It is becoming more common for the identity of such posters to be revealed by their ISPs and cases have been brought in which posters have been sued. If the web is to stay free, it is important that those people are discouraged or yet more regulation is likely to be introduced in an effort to control the few. We already have a situation where material that can’t be published here for reasons of confidence or contempt is routinely leaked over the internet. It is highly likely that super injunctions will go the same way, though given the very small number of people involved in the granting of them there is a much greater risk that the source would be identified – and might find themselves on the receiving end of a prison sentence for contempt of court.

Why was the Trafigura injunction broken when there are reportedly more than 300 injunctions holding tight?

The Trafigura injunction was broken because the Guardian reported the attempt to prevent the reporting of the MPs question. Note, the Guardian did not itself identify Trafigura. Once the attempt to stop the reporting of the question was made public, it was not difficult for other sites based off shore such as Guido Fawkes to speculate – correctly as it turned out – which of the published questions was being referred to. The Report that the injunction was designed to protect seems to have been leaked to wiki, presumably by a whistleblower at their office, some time earlier. Once the whole thing was out in the open, it was almost inevitable the injunction would be discharged, since it was pointless.

What role do lawyers have to play in protecting an organisation’s reputation?

The Lawyer’s role can be anything from quasi – PR, including advising on media strategy and the wording of statements to litigation advice, in appropriate cases issuing proceedings for an injunction/damages for libel and invasion of privacy. A good lawyer is more likely to seek to avoid getting their client involved in litigation than to threaten proceedings, which can frequently backfire and often cause more long term damage than they prevent.