In this edition of our Reporters on the Record series, we spoke with Philip Stafford, Digital News Editor at the Financial Times. In our conversation with Philip, we learn about his career path, how the journalism landscape has transformed during his 20 years at the FT and what makes for a successful PR professional-journalist relationship.
How did you get started in journalism?
I knew journalism was one of things I wanted to do, so I sent my CV to lots of places looking for an internship. Then one day in 1999, a newswire I’d never heard of called Bloomberg got back to me and asked if I’d like to do a six-month stint, even offering to pay me. I was without experience and looking for money, so I immediately said yes. To my surprise, I really enjoyed it and from there I went to a small financial newsletter based in West London. The internet was just starting to take off, so a big part of my job was to set up the initial news website, which was obviously great experience given how things played out.
Shortly after, one of my former editors at Bloomberg launched an online news site that eventually became FTMarketWatch and recruited me to join. It was taken over by the FT in late 2001 and a handful of us went over. I remember thinking it was only a matter of time before the FT said, “Thanks very much, but it’s time for you all to go.” That was over 20 years ago now.
So you didn’t study journalism?
I never really considered it an option. I thought I needed some experience first. I did history as an undergraduate, international relations as a postgrad.
Would you suggest studying journalism to someone looking to become a reporter today?
I think that often the best thing is experience. I know people who’ve taken journalism courses, and while you absolutely do get something from it, I don’t think anything compares to doing the job. You learn fast from an editor telling you what to look for.
What would you tell the intern version of you if you could speak to him today?
To have more confidence and to remember that journalism is a commercial trade. You need to be able to write stories that people will be interested in, so don’t shy away from that. You obviously have to make sure you’re right, but you can’t forget you’re part of the entertainment business. You have to interest people, capture their attention.
So if you had to get started all over again, what would you do differently? What would you do the same?
What I’d do the same is still be as open to whatever came my way to get experience and to figure out where my interests are. One of the first stories I wrote was about potato futures, of all things.
As for what I’d do differently, I’d probably tell myself to be more confident. For instance, I was never really interested in writing about corporate earnings, but I did it for longer than I needed to as I felt I had to put the time in. That’s probably because I needed confidence. For a long time, I didn’t feel the FT was a place where I belonged. It never entered my mind that someone like me, who grew up in a working-class family north of Manchester and was the first person in our family to go to university, could work for the Financial Times.
And now you’ve spent most of your career there. What do you love most about it?
The FT can be a fluid sort of place, but once you understand how it works, it can be very liberating. You write quite a lot, certainly compared to many other places, but you’re not clocked in and out. That gives you a certain amount of freedom to roam, which is extremely valuable. The people here are also not only smart but nice as well, which means that if something’s not quite working, you can discuss it. The freedom and the people make for a precious work environment.
We’ve all met people who hate their job, but I’m pretty sure nobody at the FT feels that way, which is something that’s not to be underestimated.
What would surprise people the most about working at the FT?
We’re less than 300 journalists in the UK and about 700 worldwide. There’s not that many of us. We’re leaner than our big competitors and that means that sometimes it doesn’t take us as long to get things done.
But you don’t compete on speed. What do you compete on?
No, we don’t. We compete on quality.
How do you measure quality?
Part of it is accuracy – is something factually correct or not? But there’s also the element of objectivity, which is harder to measure. You can’t remove your biases, but you can be aware of them, try to set them aside and have a more global and holistic view. I think that’s about as good as you can get.
Journalism has changed a lot over the past 20 years. What do you make of it all?
When I started, I was an “online” reporter, which meant I’d write a story, publish it at 8 or 8:30 am and then update it throughout the day. We all follow a variation of that rhythm now, but back then, the print reporters worked differently. It’s important to point out not everyone was like this, but some of the old-timers would come in around 10:30 or 11 am, shuffle some papers, make a few calls, then disappear to the pub for lunch and come back around 2:30 or 3 pm, do a bit of typing and then they’d be gone by 5 pm, while the online team was still updating stories.
I remember a few times learning about big stories that happened and these guys would say, “Oh yeah, I heard about that at the pub” and I’d think to myself, “Why on earth didn’t you write it? Or at least tell us so we could?” It felt like an extension of the senior common room at university – the only thing missing was the wood paneling on the walls. But the FT, to its credit, didn’t keep them around forever. It could see the world was changing and it needed to adapt, too.
Journalism is so different now and the skills required have changed – how does that translate in terms of your job?
I recently looked back at some of our stories from the 2008 financial crisis and the style was just so very dry. There’s no way you would write in that style now, it just wouldn’t pass muster.
One story I read was from the beginning of the crisis, when BNP Paribas gated their funds. This was a big moment, but the story was just very factual, very dull. That’s not a dig at the writer, it’s just how things were back then. You’d tell people what happened but not why it mattered – in this case, an event that triggered a massive reaction in markets amid fears that the lending of the last 20 years was about to come to a shuddering halt.
That’s changed now. You have to explain the significance of news to your readers, which in turn makes you think more critically about why you’re writing something. That sort of framework is actually a very useful thing and I think makes for a better product overall. It improves the quality of the writing. Arguably, the quality of the FT’s writing is as high as it’s ever been. We’ve pulled up the standard massively.
What’s the hardest thing about being a reporter these days?
One is that the shelf life of news for a story is just not that long. You used to be able to enjoy the fruits of a good story. Now it dies on the vine because the news cycle has sped up – especially in crypto, where the shelf life is virtually zero.
Moving on to the PR side of things – what makes a good PR person to you?
First, someone who is helpful, which means someone who actually understands what I write about. The number of people who send me a pitch about something that’s not my beat, and never has been, is surprisingly high.
Second, don’t try and pitch me every little thing that comes your way. I’m more likely to respond to someone judicious because if they say, “I’ve got something I think may interest you” and I don’t hear from them all the time, then the chances are maybe they do.
Then, let’s say I’m interested in a story — in that case, prompt replies are obviously helpful. I have deadlines! Also, provide answers that are useful. I want to talk to somebody who’s got something interesting to say, who understands what’s going on and why. Otherwise, what’s the point?
What’s the most annoying thing a PR person has ever done?
Things like requests for corrections over tiny, inconsequential things. I know it’s come from the client, but it’s just a waste of everyone’s time. These aren’t things to come to me with, and they’re not in the best interest of the client.
It’s also annoying when you ask somebody a question and they say, “Well, I don’t know. I’ll have to go ask.” And then they take too long or can’t figure out an answer.
Not so long ago, I asked a PR for an official comment on something, and the person went and asked the wrong part of the company. I had to say, “Actually, you need to go and ask this part of the company.” It was like I was doing their job for them. That’s annoying.
What about you – what’s the most annoying thing you’ve done to a PR?
I’ve published stuff that people got annoyed about. And I’ve sat on things when I couldn’t decide whether they would make good stories or not, which prevented the PRs from going to another journalist with it.
We’ve talked a lot about the industry changing. Who has more to fear from AI, reporters or PRs?
The weakness of AI in its current form is that it relies on stuff that’s already out there – the algorithms require and reflect the hive mind.
The quality we possess as humans is our ability to think, distill our ideas and thoughts and create ourselves. It goes back to what I said earlier, about how stories change andwhy they matter. They rely on twists, drama, the unexpected, making connections. That’s not something the hive mind can deal with. So who’s got the most to fear from AI? Those doing repetitive tasks.
Information gathering can be repetitive. Isn’t there a lot of that in reporting?
Less so now because it’s been squeezed out by competition and social media. It’s like I said earlier: the shelf life of a story dies so quickly that it’ll be gone in an hour. There’s no point in doing an online market report because everyone can find the prices themselves.
Instead, we’ve changed what we offer quite radically. We say we’re the paper of record. That’s true in a sense. You might record everything – here’s a list of everything that happened. That was the case 20 years ago, but lists can be very boring. Now we are the paper of record that says here are the most important things that happened and, crucially, why they matter.
Thank you. You’ve given us a lot to think about. Last question – what do you do in your spare time?
I’m an outdoors person. I like to go out cycling. I like finding and photographing wildlife. Hiking, when I get a chance to do that. I feel freest out in nature.
