The media love libraries – let’s make the most of it!

Don't let the opportunity go to waste! Image c/o Robbt on Flickr

One of the fascinating aspects of my involvement in Voices for the Library has been working with Lauren and the rest of the team in developing strong links with the media (both local and national).  As time has passed, I think we have all realised that there are a lot of media types who have a great deal of affection for libraries.  Certainly, my interactions with various journalists have been very positive.  Every single one has been supportive and keen to find out more about the situation facing public libraries across the country.  Ok, sometimes these interactions do not always necessarily lead to stories in the national press or on the TV, but it isn’t always about getting a story out there (much as we would like it to be so), sometimes it is simply about building a relationship – the importance of this for the campaign cannot be underestimated.

I have been lucky so far in that a few things I have brought to the attention of various media outlets have been picked up (like my financial analysis of the libraries vs internet debate – picked up by The Guardian).  However, most stuff tends to go nowhere – again, whilst this can be frustrating, it is worth remembering that not everything can be published (space is finite after all) and the creation of relationships will lead to greater benefits in the long run.  That said, sometimes you push something, a story about a particularly authority or campaign, and it can pay off in spectacular fashion.

Let me give you an example a little while ago I was invited to a lunch hosted by a certain satirical magazine.  The lunch provides an opportunity for politicians, newspaper columnists and journalists to network and share stories.  I have already witnessed how one news story seemed to grow and flourish in the days and weeks after the lunch (the so-called ‘super injunctions’).  I perhaps didn’t truly appreciate it at the time, but they are great opportunities to develop relationships and plant seeds.

One of the people I got talking to was (I later discovered) an important figure in national broadcast news.  We talked extensively about the situation facing public libraries, the closures and their potential impact on local communities.  Again, as mentioned above, there was a great deal of sympathy in terms of the plight of public libraries, not least in terms of the impact on those that use them.

After a long and engaging conversation, I was handed their business card and told to get in touch if anything of interest crops up in the future.  Realising the importance of gaining such a key contact in the media, I resolved to make use of this new avenue wisely and sparingly.  There was no point sending them every story that came along.  It was important to choose a story that would be significant and highly newsworthy.  And then a story emerged that fitted the bill perfectly.

Johanna Anderson and the Friends of Gloucestershire Libraries have been fighting a long and difficult battle with their local council over the future of public libraries.  Despite garnering widespread local support, the campaign was continuing to face an uphill struggle in convincing the local council that their proposed cuts to libraries should be rolled back.  The disregard shown by the council leader for his electorate was breathtaking.  Contempt for both library campaigners and library users seemed to be his default position.  In such circumstances it is hard to imagine how Jo and FoGL had the strength to continue to take on the council.  Many would have conceded defeat and walked away.

But there then emerged a glimmer of hope for library users in Gloucestershire.  The High Court had issued an injunction (pending a hearing earlier this month) against Gloucestershire County Council calling a halt to their proposals for the future of the library service in the county.  This was unprecedented.  It was also just the story I had been waiting for.  Not only was this about library closures, but the legal aspect made for an added dimension to the story, one that may have implications for other such battles against both central and local government cuts.  This story had scope for expansion and, therefore, had the potential for coverage by a national broadcaster.  So, I tipped them off and, with the help of Jo, put them in touch with someone involved in the local campaign.  This was the result:

I was chuffed to bits that this kind of coverage had been secured.  It demonstrated to me, once again, that there is a willingness to engage on the library closure issue and, furthermore, that if a particular story can be shown to have wider implications, it is more than likely to gain exposure.  It is no good just trying to engage with the media simply about libraries, if you can link it into something bigger you have more chance for success.

I guess this is the biggest lesson I have learnt since getting involved in Voices for the Library.  It has taken just under a year to learn it, but I have come to realise that it is important to think strategically about all interactions with the media.  It is easy (and very tempting) to just go ahead and send everything that crops up, no matter their significance.  It is, however, far more sensible to wait for that significant story to crop up and, when the time is right, hit ‘send’.  It’s a lesson I am still learning (there are still more ‘misses’ than ‘hits’) but it is without doubt the most important lesson I have learnt from my involvement in Voices for the Library.  Well, that and learning what can be achieved when you work with a bunch of passionate, talented people who give everything to keep this campaign running.  I really am very lucky indeed.

* Incidentally, permission was granted for a High Court judicial review of GCC’s library cuts.  Hopefully this will lead to bigger and better good news for the dedicated and hard-working campaigners in Gloucestershire.

Gloucestershire’s Mark Hawthorne costing taxpayers thousands

The High Court have issued an injunction against Gloucestershire Council - image c/o Joe Gratz on Flickr

Yep, arguably the most incompetent council leader in the country, Gloucestershire’s Mark Hawthorne, is set to cost taxpayers thousands due to his complete contempt for local library campaigners.  Earlier today, it was revealed that the Hight Court has issued an injunction against Gloucestershire County Council, preventing library closures until the review on the 7th July.  This is great news for local campaigners, and very bad news for Hawthorne, which perhaps explains his weird rant on the BBC website:

“This is very frustrating for council taxpayers and community groups.

“They are being forced into a costly legal process at a time when 20 communities have stepped forward with innovative and exciting business plans to take over their local facility.”

Yes, it is costly and frustrating for taxpayers Mark.  Which begs the question, why did your council embark on a disgraceful consultation that took little notice of the needs and requirements of the local community?  To think, the people of Gloucestershire will suffer purely because of your utter incompetence.  This could have been easily avoided if you had just listened to the people of Gloucestershire.  You chose not to, and these are the consequences.  Why is it Conservatives argue for individual responsibility and yet absolve themselves of all responsibility when their incompetence is found out?  It is a puzzle.

Still, at least we can rely on the local press to really scrutinise Hawthorne and get to the heart of this mess.  But then, the local press do not exactly have a great record for holding Hawthorne or GCC to account.  The Gloucestershire Echo’s ‘outrage’ over the Downfall/public libraries mash-up (the paper claimed that it was comparing library closures to the Holocaust – much to Hawthorne’s delight no doubt) was eventually found to have breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editor’s Code of Practice.  Of course, there is no doubt whatsoever that the same newspaper will take an objective view of recent developments and in no way will act as a mouthpiece for the county council. No wonder the people of Gloucestershire despair.  Let’s hope this leads to some very welcome good news and, just maybe, the resignation of Britain’s most incompetent council leader.

Is the Big Society causing library closures?

"The Big Society" - killing a library near you?

Whether you believe in David Cameron’s “Big Society” or not, the promotion of this initiative has had some puzzling side effects.  Take Gloucestershire for example.  An attempt to launch a review of the council’s plans to cut the service has been rejected by the council’s overview and scrutiny management committee (which, like the council, is Conservative run).  The council’s plans are based on funding reductions of around 25 per cent by 2014.  The cuts by the council could lead to Gloucestershire’s library service being cut in half. But here’s the weird thing, Gloucestershire are also promising £50,000 per district for ‘Big Society’ projects.  With around 16 districts in the county, that makes a grand total of £800,000 in cash set aside.  £800,000 that could, of course, be better invested in the library service.  But it’s not just Gloucestershire that is pulling money out of libraries to invest in the ‘Big Society’.

Oxfordshire and Kent have both also recently announced that they will be putting money aside for ‘Big Society’ projects.  Oxfordshire are keeping £600,000 back and are intending to close around 20 out of 43 libraries.  But most mind-blowing of all are Kent.  Although no closures have been announced (yet), they are keeping back an astonishing £5 million for the ‘Big Society’.  One hopes they don’t announce any closures after the impending consultation.  If so, one wonders why they were unable to reduce the fund to £3-4 million without affecting the library service in the county.

So is it really the case that the ‘Big Society’ project is the cause of these closures?  It is hard not to come to that conclusion when you see the money that is being held back.  Scrap the ‘Big Society’ initiative and suddenly library services can be kept fully operational (most councils are already protecting what they see as ‘essential services’ so these budgets are not under threat to the same extent as libraries).  It seems that the answer is obvious, instead of focusing on possible savings that the service could make (which is debatable anyway), campaigners should be asking their council why they are withholding money that could be used to ensure that their library service is not subject to disproportionate cuts.  The cause of the cuts to library services is not the cut in government funding, it is an eagerness to experiment with the ‘Big Society’.  It is a sad irony that, given the role that libraries play in communities, it is the ‘Big Society’ which is killing libraries.