I posted on the British Press awards some 10 days ago. In the first, I noted that the shortlists had been "composed quite properly by Press Gazette without the usual horse-trading", but I suggested that the lack of red-tops may have been due to their senior executives "voting against each other."
In a follow-up posting, after speaking to two editors, I reported that they believed "tactical voting" explained the relatively low popular press score. Both postings elicited several comments and other theories.
Now the Press Gazette editor-in-chief Tony Loynes writes to say that all the comments so far (including mine, of course) have been "gloriously uninformed, largely because you have chosen not to spoil a good conspiracy theory by actually finding out how the awards are made."
He explains: "Over 130 judges voted on the awards this year of which less than 40% were from newspapers. It may be that the journalists to whom you have spoken have also failed to grasp the truth of this which is doubly sad. No award category was judged by less than 50% of independent judges."
So there you have it. Even editors don't understand, evidently, how the voting works. What it does show, of course, is that there is precious little regard for the red-tops, which was my original point - regardless of conspiracy theories.
