The revolution acknowledged

Jeff Jarvis blogged Alan Rusbridger’s speech to the assembled staffs of the Guardian and Observer (for which I write). Here’s a snippet of Jeff’s account:

Yesterday, Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of the Guardian, told the staff of his newspaper that now “all journalists work for the digital platform” and that they should regard “its demands as preeminent.”

This came in each of three all-hands meetings with the editorial and business staff held at a theater 15 minutes from the paper’s offices, the first such meetings since the Guardian went through its last metamorphosis to its medium-sized Berliner format. (I happened to be consulting at the paper yesterday and I went along for the ride. Rusbridger gave me permission to blog the company event.)

So that was the line that struck me: preeminent. I suspect it was the line that resonated with staff members a few hours later. Rusbridger said that some would find the content of yesterday’s meetings no-big-deal and others would find unease. But the message was clear, although it was shoehorned into much else in the presentation; you had to listen to hear it. He also said that the paper will serve the public 24/7; it does not yet do that. So the Guardian, he said, will be a 24-hour, web-first newspaper. To do that, the paper’s management needs — he called it the F word — flexibility. And that means that jobs will change. It’s all in a parcel…

The interesting thing about the Guardian is that it’s owned by a Trust rather than being a commercial company. Some people mistakenly think that this ownership structure makes the paper more cosy and resistant to change than a more straightforwardly commercial outfit. In fact the opposite it true: the Guardian has moved faster and more aggressive to embrace change than any other British publication.

Remember old Chinese curse: may you live in interesting times. We do.

Hennessy’s lucrative moonlighting

There’s a guy called John Hennessy on the Google Main Board. There’s also a guy called John Hennessy who is President of Stanford. And guess what? They’re the same chap! Dan Gillmor quotes what the WSJ wrote about this…

In the month of November, John L. Hennessy, president of Stanford University, made $1 million. It didn’t come from his day job.

Mr. Hennessy, an engineer who co-founded a semiconductor company, has used his talents, Silicon Valley connections and academic position to help win billions of dollars for Stanford. He has done well for himself, too. Mr. Hennessy’s November haul included a $75,000 retainer from Cisco Systems Inc., on whose board he sits, plus $133,000 in restricted Cisco stock, proceeds of $452,000 from selling stock in Atheros Communications Inc., where he is co-founder and chairman, and a $384,000 profit from the exercise of Google Inc. stock options. He sits on Google’s board.

That month makes up only one part of an income stream that many in academia consider without precedent for a university president. In the past five years, through exclusive investments and relationships with companies, Mr. Hennessy has collected fees, stock and paper stock-option profits totaling $43 million, securities filings show. That dwarfs his $616,000 annual compensation at Stanford, where he has been president since 2000.

Debunking the debunkers

Splendid column by George Monbiot on Channel 4’s idiotic film ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’…

For the film’s commissioners, all that counts is the sensation. Channel 4 has always had a problem with science. No one in its science unit appears to understand the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a clipping from the Daily Mail. It keeps commissioning people whose claims have been discredited – such as Durkin. But its failure to understand the scientific process just makes the job of whipping up a storm that much easier. The less true a programme is, the greater the controversy.