After the kids TV finished on FIVE this morning, I forgot to turn over and was suddenly presented with the a programme called "The Wright Stuff". This programme supposedly looks at "The stories of the day" and has a couple of generally ill informed, so called "experts" with no discernable qualifications to speak on the topic of current affairs other than the fact that they appear to be not exactly "A" list names.
This morning, the programme had on an American, who I have never seen before or heard of, who repeated the common line from journalists at the moment, a line that if they all repeat often enough, they start to actually believe. When discussing the government, this American said, as a statement of fact, "Lib Dems are leaving in droves to join the Labour Party !" .
On what basis is he making this comment other than he heard other lazy journalists saying it ? I gather (to my surprise) that there was a surge in membership after the election and I cannot think of anyone who has joined Labour since the election.
Isn't it another case that lazy journalists like to make up stories about the Lib Dems in the hope that it will be true, and then cannot discern between their own lies and the substance ?
Note - For clarity, I am not a supporter of the coalition and I did consider leaving the Lib Dems after the coalition deal. If I had, I would not have joined Labour as I don't like parties that start illegal wars.
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
7/25/2009
Do the press simply not understand elections ?
Since Ian Gibson resigned his Norwich North seat a few weeks ago, the press have been making predictions and assumptions about Norwich which serve to underline that the press simply do not understand elections properly.
The very earliest reports locally on TV were about how the Green Party would the main threat in this seat whilst the national press also adopted this view, along with the view that it was a shoe in for the Tories. This was a line the press had decided upon and a view that evidence, campaigning and visits to Norwich would not change or alter. Yes, it was clear that the Tories would win this from the moment Gibson resigned, the press' mind was on this all being about the Greens, to the exclusion of Labour, Lib Dems and UKIP.
Take for example the comments made to me by a BBC producer when I was waiting to appear on 5 Live drive. He said "It's going to be difficult for your lot, being squeezed in to 4th by the Greens". Now I knew this wasn't going to happen from the amount of literature being produced and delivered, but the the journalists were not interested in the campaign. In their minds the starting positions of the parties was also the finishing position. In effect they cared not one jot about what was happening on the ground and the campaign, the canvassing, the leaflets were not important and would not get in the way of the story they wanted to perpetuate.
Perhaps the most hard done by party in this election was UKIP. BBC East should hang their heads in shame for doing a head to head debate amongst (as they called it) the four main candidates, excluding UKIP, despite UKIP polling far more votes across Norfolk in the Euro elections that the Green party. The fact that UKIP came in 4th place, well ahead of the Greens and not far behind the Lib Dems speaks volumes about the way the press sought to get the result they wanted and not the real result. The press had their mind set on a Green breakthrough despite the fact that the Greens had no real campaign at all. The only things the Greens actually did in the campaign was to launch a campaign pledge (which all the signatories broke), which the Lib Dems refused to sign simply because it was a meaningless pledge. But oh how the press loved this pledge. Why ? Because it allowed them to indulge their obsession with the Green Party.
It's not just the BBC though. Last week Rod Liddle made himself look like a prize tit by devoting a whole article in praise of the Green surge and breakthrough in Norwich North. Other newspapers too had fallen for this guff. I spoke to a Sky News producer yesterday at the count who was asking me how close the it was between the Greens and Labour. She was shocked when I told her the Greens were 5th. "Poor Rupert" the Sky News producer replied. "You've fallen for it too", I replied, and she had. The press had bought their own lie.
Witness early reports on Sky News yesterday which were effectively saying from the count that they expected a Tory majority of 2000 because of the impressive showing of UKIP and the Greens. I saw the BBC journalist listening and scribbling notes. I said to her, without giving anything away "Take what they are saying with a pinch of salt".
So many of you will be saying these are the words of an annoyed Lib Dem, and yes, in many ways I am annoyed at the way the Lib Dems were treated in this election. All the press stories were negative, fed to them by the opposition. BBC East again reported April Pond's moat, but very little of the positive stuff whilst allowing the opposition to slag of the Lib Dems for refusing to sign their joke pledge not to slag each other off. The BBC didn't seem to understand the irony in this situation. But BBC East also chose to praise each of the candidates in their introductions in the TV debate except for April Pond, with her introduction being about her house. Truly awful and rather pathetic journalism.
But I know I am not alone in my distrust of the way the press seek to tell the story they want rather than telling the real story. I was chatting to a Tory MP at the count yesterday and he told me that the press asked for a statement from him on something recently. He said the thing they were reporting was untrue, and he told them that in no uncertain words. He repeated that he knew it to be a lie, and the press' response was "We're reporting it anyway". So what is the point ?
It is little wonder that political blogs are now becoming preeminent when it comes to find out real political news. Not only do most political bloggers really understand politics, and by this I don't just mean policy, but I mean elections, campaigns and strategy. But they also know what is bullshit and what is genuine. Whilst people might resent Iain Dale's Tory bias, at least we know his political leanings and you can cut through the bits you don't like to get to the key elements of truth within what he writes.
I am no great fan of Guido Fawkes self congratulatory style and his obsession with being Guido rather than Paul Staines, but he does the sort of journalism that political journalists today simply cannot be bothered to do. No wonder they resent him so much. He puts so many of them to shame.
Similarly you may not like my bias, and I have been called an attack dog by some people whose views I don't greatly respect, but I think those reading this blog would have got a far greater insight in to what is happening in Norwich North than you ever would have from reading The Guardian or watching and listening to the BBC (or Sky), which is a shame as they are my TV channel and paper of choice. The other advantage of a blog is that you can send a comment to the blogger and get a response. Try doing this with the BBC. I wrote days ago about their debate and I have still not had a response.
So whilst we are constantly being told that politics needs to be cleaned up, lets not forget that those who report our politics are themselves not entirely honest in their reporting. The truth is not important to them because they work to their own agenda, the agenda agreed by the newspaper owners or producers in advance and the agenda which fits what they want the outcome to be.
Ultimately though the problem with the reporting of politics is that political journalists do not understand anything that happens outside of Westminster and the old style political "lobby" journalists don't understand elections.
Update : I am reminded of what a Tory said to me at the count yesterday which highlight the level of of political knowledge of the typical political correspondent. One major TV news channel said to the Tories that this is the sort of seat they should expect to win because it really should be a Tory seat anyway. When the Tory told the news channel that since the war the seat had been Tory for just 14 years, the reporter had no idea. It would have taken the reporter 5 minutes on wikipedia to find that out.
The very earliest reports locally on TV were about how the Green Party would the main threat in this seat whilst the national press also adopted this view, along with the view that it was a shoe in for the Tories. This was a line the press had decided upon and a view that evidence, campaigning and visits to Norwich would not change or alter. Yes, it was clear that the Tories would win this from the moment Gibson resigned, the press' mind was on this all being about the Greens, to the exclusion of Labour, Lib Dems and UKIP.
Take for example the comments made to me by a BBC producer when I was waiting to appear on 5 Live drive. He said "It's going to be difficult for your lot, being squeezed in to 4th by the Greens". Now I knew this wasn't going to happen from the amount of literature being produced and delivered, but the the journalists were not interested in the campaign. In their minds the starting positions of the parties was also the finishing position. In effect they cared not one jot about what was happening on the ground and the campaign, the canvassing, the leaflets were not important and would not get in the way of the story they wanted to perpetuate.
Perhaps the most hard done by party in this election was UKIP. BBC East should hang their heads in shame for doing a head to head debate amongst (as they called it) the four main candidates, excluding UKIP, despite UKIP polling far more votes across Norfolk in the Euro elections that the Green party. The fact that UKIP came in 4th place, well ahead of the Greens and not far behind the Lib Dems speaks volumes about the way the press sought to get the result they wanted and not the real result. The press had their mind set on a Green breakthrough despite the fact that the Greens had no real campaign at all. The only things the Greens actually did in the campaign was to launch a campaign pledge (which all the signatories broke), which the Lib Dems refused to sign simply because it was a meaningless pledge. But oh how the press loved this pledge. Why ? Because it allowed them to indulge their obsession with the Green Party.
It's not just the BBC though. Last week Rod Liddle made himself look like a prize tit by devoting a whole article in praise of the Green surge and breakthrough in Norwich North. Other newspapers too had fallen for this guff. I spoke to a Sky News producer yesterday at the count who was asking me how close the it was between the Greens and Labour. She was shocked when I told her the Greens were 5th. "Poor Rupert" the Sky News producer replied. "You've fallen for it too", I replied, and she had. The press had bought their own lie.
Witness early reports on Sky News yesterday which were effectively saying from the count that they expected a Tory majority of 2000 because of the impressive showing of UKIP and the Greens. I saw the BBC journalist listening and scribbling notes. I said to her, without giving anything away "Take what they are saying with a pinch of salt".
So many of you will be saying these are the words of an annoyed Lib Dem, and yes, in many ways I am annoyed at the way the Lib Dems were treated in this election. All the press stories were negative, fed to them by the opposition. BBC East again reported April Pond's moat, but very little of the positive stuff whilst allowing the opposition to slag of the Lib Dems for refusing to sign their joke pledge not to slag each other off. The BBC didn't seem to understand the irony in this situation. But BBC East also chose to praise each of the candidates in their introductions in the TV debate except for April Pond, with her introduction being about her house. Truly awful and rather pathetic journalism.
But I know I am not alone in my distrust of the way the press seek to tell the story they want rather than telling the real story. I was chatting to a Tory MP at the count yesterday and he told me that the press asked for a statement from him on something recently. He said the thing they were reporting was untrue, and he told them that in no uncertain words. He repeated that he knew it to be a lie, and the press' response was "We're reporting it anyway". So what is the point ?
It is little wonder that political blogs are now becoming preeminent when it comes to find out real political news. Not only do most political bloggers really understand politics, and by this I don't just mean policy, but I mean elections, campaigns and strategy. But they also know what is bullshit and what is genuine. Whilst people might resent Iain Dale's Tory bias, at least we know his political leanings and you can cut through the bits you don't like to get to the key elements of truth within what he writes.
I am no great fan of Guido Fawkes self congratulatory style and his obsession with being Guido rather than Paul Staines, but he does the sort of journalism that political journalists today simply cannot be bothered to do. No wonder they resent him so much. He puts so many of them to shame.
Similarly you may not like my bias, and I have been called an attack dog by some people whose views I don't greatly respect, but I think those reading this blog would have got a far greater insight in to what is happening in Norwich North than you ever would have from reading The Guardian or watching and listening to the BBC (or Sky), which is a shame as they are my TV channel and paper of choice. The other advantage of a blog is that you can send a comment to the blogger and get a response. Try doing this with the BBC. I wrote days ago about their debate and I have still not had a response.
So whilst we are constantly being told that politics needs to be cleaned up, lets not forget that those who report our politics are themselves not entirely honest in their reporting. The truth is not important to them because they work to their own agenda, the agenda agreed by the newspaper owners or producers in advance and the agenda which fits what they want the outcome to be.
Ultimately though the problem with the reporting of politics is that political journalists do not understand anything that happens outside of Westminster and the old style political "lobby" journalists don't understand elections.
Update : I am reminded of what a Tory said to me at the count yesterday which highlight the level of of political knowledge of the typical political correspondent. One major TV news channel said to the Tories that this is the sort of seat they should expect to win because it really should be a Tory seat anyway. When the Tory told the news channel that since the war the seat had been Tory for just 14 years, the reporter had no idea. It would have taken the reporter 5 minutes on wikipedia to find that out.
8/14/2008
Leah Ferguson and Lord Haw Haw
I wrote yesterday about the Russian Propaganda Channel "Russia Today", and made reference to their British presenters who to me seem willing to peddle any story or tale the Russian government wants put to the world without offering any balance or insight in to the whole picture.
So who is Leah Ferguson ? Well she is one of Russia Today's senior reporters. She is also British, and she seems to me to be willing to turn a blind eye to news in order to tell a tale that the political masters in the Kremlin must be absolutely loving.
Yesterday the implication of her reports on Russia Today was that the Georgians were still on the attack in South Ossetia and that the "genocide" as Russia Today likes to call it was all the fault of Georgia. Russia today made great efforts to stress the honourable way in which Russia had handled its response to Georgia.
So will we see Leah Ferguson reporting on South Ossetian forces in Georgia and South Ossetia operating a scorched earth policy by burning Georgian houses, stealing cars and food at gunpoint from Georgians, all with the "honourable" Russian Army watching and encouraging ? What do you think.
So why the reference to Lord Haw Haw (William Joyce) ? I guess there are some similarities in why they are used in the roles both these "reporters" play. Joyce was used because of his voice, English accent and British passport whilst Ferguson, it appears to me, is also used in the same way. Are we to believe Russia today employ Ferguson (and other British journalists too) for the simple reason that they are the very best in the world or because they know that having a British voice gives credibility to the Russian version of the news in a way that having just Russian voices would never do.
Did some people believe Lord Haw Haw because he wasn't German ? I am sure some did. Will some believe Russia Today's one sided half news because it is being given by a British journalist ?
Update : Russia Today just described Russian troops actions in the Georgian town of Gori (where people are being robbed, houses are being burnt and Georgian proprty is being destroyed) as a "humanitarian mission". How on earth can the many British journalists who work for RT sleep at night ?
So who is Leah Ferguson ? Well she is one of Russia Today's senior reporters. She is also British, and she seems to me to be willing to turn a blind eye to news in order to tell a tale that the political masters in the Kremlin must be absolutely loving.
Yesterday the implication of her reports on Russia Today was that the Georgians were still on the attack in South Ossetia and that the "genocide" as Russia Today likes to call it was all the fault of Georgia. Russia today made great efforts to stress the honourable way in which Russia had handled its response to Georgia.
So will we see Leah Ferguson reporting on South Ossetian forces in Georgia and South Ossetia operating a scorched earth policy by burning Georgian houses, stealing cars and food at gunpoint from Georgians, all with the "honourable" Russian Army watching and encouraging ? What do you think.
So why the reference to Lord Haw Haw (William Joyce) ? I guess there are some similarities in why they are used in the roles both these "reporters" play. Joyce was used because of his voice, English accent and British passport whilst Ferguson, it appears to me, is also used in the same way. Are we to believe Russia today employ Ferguson (and other British journalists too) for the simple reason that they are the very best in the world or because they know that having a British voice gives credibility to the Russian version of the news in a way that having just Russian voices would never do.
Did some people believe Lord Haw Haw because he wasn't German ? I am sure some did. Will some believe Russia Today's one sided half news because it is being given by a British journalist ?
Update : Russia Today just described Russian troops actions in the Georgian town of Gori (where people are being robbed, houses are being burnt and Georgian proprty is being destroyed) as a "humanitarian mission". How on earth can the many British journalists who work for RT sleep at night ?
1/26/2008
A sign that the blogosphere is starting to have an influence after pro Labour journalists have a go at Guido Fawkes
Dizzy has an interesting report highlighting that a number of left wing blogs, but more importantly, a number of journalists have run an rather inaccurate story today claiming that Paul Staines (aka Guido) has sent an e-mail which states clearly he is working hand in glove with the Tory party.
The background to the story is that Paul Staines has probably done as much as everyone else put together to highlight what Peter Hain has been up to and he has, as a result been the toast of anti Labour bloggers and conversely come in for much criticism and derision from Labour bloggers.
So what has stirred up today's story ? Well an e-mail appears to have been sent to some leading bloggers and journalists with an attachment or footer that states that Guido is a Tory. However, those with the technical nous can see very easily that the e-mail had been altered and journalists should do a lot more than simply check the "sender" to find the true origin of an e-mail. It appears the e-mail footer at the bootom claiming to be from the Tory Party was added after Guido sent the e-mail.
he question then is who is it from ? Guido admits it was his e-mail, but the footer at the bottom of it was added after it was sent by him. So why haven't the journalists noticed this ? It appears to me that those pro Labour journalists who were quick to run the story were desperate to make a link between Paul Staines and the Tories that the truth of the matter was no longer of any interest to them. The journalists in question do not appears to have bothered doing their background checks to check the authenticity of the e-mails. Shoddy journalism.
Note - This posting has been altered to take in to account my initial mis-understanding of the situation. Thanks to Mark Pack for clarifying matters.
The background to the story is that Paul Staines has probably done as much as everyone else put together to highlight what Peter Hain has been up to and he has, as a result been the toast of anti Labour bloggers and conversely come in for much criticism and derision from Labour bloggers.
So what has stirred up today's story ? Well an e-mail appears to have been sent to some leading bloggers and journalists with an attachment or footer that states that Guido is a Tory. However, those with the technical nous can see very easily that the e-mail had been altered and journalists should do a lot more than simply check the "sender" to find the true origin of an e-mail. It appears the e-mail footer at the bootom claiming to be from the Tory Party was added after Guido sent the e-mail.
he question then is who is it from ? Guido admits it was his e-mail, but the footer at the bottom of it was added after it was sent by him. So why haven't the journalists noticed this ? It appears to me that those pro Labour journalists who were quick to run the story were desperate to make a link between Paul Staines and the Tories that the truth of the matter was no longer of any interest to them. The journalists in question do not appears to have bothered doing their background checks to check the authenticity of the e-mails. Shoddy journalism.
Note - This posting has been altered to take in to account my initial mis-understanding of the situation. Thanks to Mark Pack for clarifying matters.
10/19/2007
Why do the press tell such lies about MP's salaries and holidays ?
The press like to say they report news, but too often they create problems for politicians be misrepresenting facts, creating mistrust, and then publish details about how the people no longer trust politicians.
Take, for example today's news story about MP's getting four more days of holiday a year. This is probably the grossest misrepresentation possible of the reality of events. I have done lots of voluntary work with Norman Lamb, Lib Dem MP for North Norfolk, and know just how unfair it is to label days away from Westminster as holiday. Non sitting Fridays, when MP are not in Parliament, are taken up with constituency work, visiting constituents, holding surgeries, writing letters, in short, doing all the important things that an MP should be doing. An MP's job is not to simply sit in pointless and meaningless debates that have no relevance to the MP's constituency. A good MP can often achieve much more by being away from Westminster than the press realise.
The problem is that the London centric press fail to understand that there is a world of politics away from Westminster. The number of people in North Norfolk who have told me that they have been amazed to find their MP knocking on their door, canvassing but asking about their problems, not just in election years but throught a parliamentary term, actually shows that people appreciate this much more than seeing their MP sat slumped on the green benches on TV for 2 minutes.
The press have got form in this area of misrepresenting MP's in other areas too. What about when the press refer to MP's getting £130,000 a year. Of course the press never ever explain that this amount is to pay staff, cover office costs, stationary and a range of other things.
Take this quote from the BBC website "The 2005/06 payments - about £131,000 per MP - come on top of a basic salary of about £60,000 and a pension."
This quotation could not be more misleading.
Then what do the press report next "Voters don't trust MP's as they are paid too much and have too many holidays".
We have seen it recently with Ming Campbell. Yes, I have had my concerns and yes, I wanted to see a change in leadership. However, Ming's inability to have a relationship with the press which was positive in terms of news about him meant that the news agenda was dominated with negative news stories. The press often, as has been revealed, wrote negative stories in advance of events with little interest being shown in the facts.
The reason people don't trust politicians is nothing to do with our politicians being lazy or underpaid. In relative terms, out MP's are not grossly overpaid considering the hours they work and the responsibilities they have. Neither are MP's any more lazy than MP's in previous generations. Indeed, my experience of MP's (admittedly with hardworking Lib Dem's) has been that they work their socks off, rarely take any holidays and are not in any way shape or form lazy.
It's about time the press started reporting stories accurately and stopped misrepresenting the work MP's do. Perhaps then the press could play a part in building the reputation of parliament, politics and helping boost turnout in elections at the same time.
Take, for example today's news story about MP's getting four more days of holiday a year. This is probably the grossest misrepresentation possible of the reality of events. I have done lots of voluntary work with Norman Lamb, Lib Dem MP for North Norfolk, and know just how unfair it is to label days away from Westminster as holiday. Non sitting Fridays, when MP are not in Parliament, are taken up with constituency work, visiting constituents, holding surgeries, writing letters, in short, doing all the important things that an MP should be doing. An MP's job is not to simply sit in pointless and meaningless debates that have no relevance to the MP's constituency. A good MP can often achieve much more by being away from Westminster than the press realise.
The problem is that the London centric press fail to understand that there is a world of politics away from Westminster. The number of people in North Norfolk who have told me that they have been amazed to find their MP knocking on their door, canvassing but asking about their problems, not just in election years but throught a parliamentary term, actually shows that people appreciate this much more than seeing their MP sat slumped on the green benches on TV for 2 minutes.
The press have got form in this area of misrepresenting MP's in other areas too. What about when the press refer to MP's getting £130,000 a year. Of course the press never ever explain that this amount is to pay staff, cover office costs, stationary and a range of other things.
Take this quote from the BBC website "The 2005/06 payments - about £131,000 per MP - come on top of a basic salary of about £60,000 and a pension."
This quotation could not be more misleading.
Then what do the press report next "Voters don't trust MP's as they are paid too much and have too many holidays".
We have seen it recently with Ming Campbell. Yes, I have had my concerns and yes, I wanted to see a change in leadership. However, Ming's inability to have a relationship with the press which was positive in terms of news about him meant that the news agenda was dominated with negative news stories. The press often, as has been revealed, wrote negative stories in advance of events with little interest being shown in the facts.
The reason people don't trust politicians is nothing to do with our politicians being lazy or underpaid. In relative terms, out MP's are not grossly overpaid considering the hours they work and the responsibilities they have. Neither are MP's any more lazy than MP's in previous generations. Indeed, my experience of MP's (admittedly with hardworking Lib Dem's) has been that they work their socks off, rarely take any holidays and are not in any way shape or form lazy.
It's about time the press started reporting stories accurately and stopped misrepresenting the work MP's do. Perhaps then the press could play a part in building the reputation of parliament, politics and helping boost turnout in elections at the same time.
9/30/2007
Re-writing History ? Operation Black Vote's account of Priti Patel
Just reading up on various candidates, I note that Operation Black Vote has a profile on Priti Patel, the rather vacuous Tory candidate for Witham. Having seen her on Question Time she is the biggest cure for insomnia you are ever likely to find, but her write up seems very odd indeed.
Firstly it says "She spent her time growing up in areas including Islington, Northfolk, Hertfordshire and Harrow."
My first question therefore is where the hell is Northfolk ? It's like the made up name of a place in an ITV drama, presumably starring Martin Clunes or Robson Green (as every ITV series seems to do).
The second thing that struck me as odd about her was that it says "She later returned to politics and stood for the first time as a Conservative Party Candidate for Nottingham North in 2004"
I never knew there was an election in Nottingham North in 2004. Presumably this parliamentary by-election slipped past all the other political parties without anyone noticing.
Of course, none of these historical accuracies can be put down to Ms Patel, although presumably she gave an interview to Operation Black Vote. What it does show though is that some journalists who write these profiles on politicians are very very dim indeed.
Firstly it says "She spent her time growing up in areas including Islington, Northfolk, Hertfordshire and Harrow."
My first question therefore is where the hell is Northfolk ? It's like the made up name of a place in an ITV drama, presumably starring Martin Clunes or Robson Green (as every ITV series seems to do).
The second thing that struck me as odd about her was that it says "She later returned to politics and stood for the first time as a Conservative Party Candidate for Nottingham North in 2004"
I never knew there was an election in Nottingham North in 2004. Presumably this parliamentary by-election slipped past all the other political parties without anyone noticing.
Of course, none of these historical accuracies can be put down to Ms Patel, although presumably she gave an interview to Operation Black Vote. What it does show though is that some journalists who write these profiles on politicians are very very dim indeed.
9/05/2007
The Tories always scream the word "bias" at the BBC
The Tories are obsessed with labelling the BBC as "a bunch of lefties" or "institutionally biased against the Tories". Just check out any number of Tory blogs and they will come up with this Tory at least once a week. So what about when it is biased in their favour ?
The story on the BBC website yesterday about the TV debate that Gordon Brown has refused to do has as its opening paragraph
"Conservative leader David Cameron has written to Gordon Brown to ask him to "re-consider" his decision not to take part in a televised debate. "
Of course, if you read further dawn the story you will read that Ming Campbell asked some months ago that Brown do a TV debate. Of course, the BBC are not interested in this Tory, only the Cameron angle. Perhaps the Tories should have a week of getting the treatment the Lib Dems get from the press and they would soon appreciate what they have got.
The story on the BBC website yesterday about the TV debate that Gordon Brown has refused to do has as its opening paragraph
"Conservative leader David Cameron has written to Gordon Brown to ask him to "re-consider" his decision not to take part in a televised debate. "
Of course, if you read further dawn the story you will read that Ming Campbell asked some months ago that Brown do a TV debate. Of course, the BBC are not interested in this Tory, only the Cameron angle. Perhaps the Tories should have a week of getting the treatment the Lib Dems get from the press and they would soon appreciate what they have got.
1/09/2007
Well done to The Sun and the News Of The World
I guess it is not a headline to be seen very often, but well done to The Sun and the News of The World, who have said they will no longer use paparazzi photos of Prince William's girlfriend Kate Middleton.
The upset already caused to Miss Middleton through the constant "doorstepping" of her outside her house should be reason enough. However, when you think about the suffering that Prince William has already had to suffer, with the death of his mother whilst the drunk driver of her care tried to get away from the paparazzi in Paris, surely the rest of the British press should follow the Sun's lead ?Of course, the biggest problem will be the foreign press and their desire for photos from the paparzzi, but in the mean time, hats off to News International and The Sun and the NOTW !
12/27/2006
Tis the season for the Daily Mail to rant
Spending last night at my in-laws meant that the only paper I could read this morning was the Daily Scum, sorry, Daily Mail.
Reading through it confirmed to me again everything I dislike about the paper, the biggest of which is the fact that it reports very little news, but is heavy on its "witchhunts" against individuals and organisations on the Daily Mail's "hit list". Here is a brief summary :
1) Attacking John Prescott - Why this time ? No new news at all, just a resume of things that have happened in the past dresssed up as new news. Pathetic journalism.
2) BBC attacked for Christmas viewing figures - Of course, the Daily Mail LOATHES this BBC, but when you read the story it shows clearly that 8 of the top 10 shows on Christmas Day were BBC programmes. Quite why this was so bad for the BBC was never explained in the story itself. Again, a pathetic piece of journalism.
3) Labour Party losing members story - Predictable as a story in the Mail, but the story skirted over the fact that the Tories were losing members too !
4) Barclays Scam e-mails - The Daily Mail reports that scam e-mails are going out from scammers trying to get people's login details. Is this really new news ? this has been happening for years ! If the Daily Mail has only just discovered it, well, it says it all.
5) An asylum story (Britain is full of foreigners apparently)
6) Another asylum story (seriously, yes, another)
Yes, this is Britain's best selling "quality" tabloid ! That statement says as much about why this country is in the state it is in than anything the Mail says about the government, if not more !
Reading through it confirmed to me again everything I dislike about the paper, the biggest of which is the fact that it reports very little news, but is heavy on its "witchhunts" against individuals and organisations on the Daily Mail's "hit list". Here is a brief summary :
1) Attacking John Prescott - Why this time ? No new news at all, just a resume of things that have happened in the past dresssed up as new news. Pathetic journalism.
2) BBC attacked for Christmas viewing figures - Of course, the Daily Mail LOATHES this BBC, but when you read the story it shows clearly that 8 of the top 10 shows on Christmas Day were BBC programmes. Quite why this was so bad for the BBC was never explained in the story itself. Again, a pathetic piece of journalism.
3) Labour Party losing members story - Predictable as a story in the Mail, but the story skirted over the fact that the Tories were losing members too !
4) Barclays Scam e-mails - The Daily Mail reports that scam e-mails are going out from scammers trying to get people's login details. Is this really new news ? this has been happening for years ! If the Daily Mail has only just discovered it, well, it says it all.
5) An asylum story (Britain is full of foreigners apparently)
6) Another asylum story (seriously, yes, another)
Yes, this is Britain's best selling "quality" tabloid ! That statement says as much about why this country is in the state it is in than anything the Mail says about the government, if not more !
11/29/2006
Nasty smell coming from The News of the World
The news today that the News of the World reporter Clive Goodman was behind the phone "hacking" that provided secret and personal information about the Royal Princes Is all rather disturbing. Glenn Mulcaire, not of the News of the World was also found guilty of similar charges relating to intercepts of other people's phone messages. The whole story is reported HERE.
I had the misfortune today to be not at all well today with some virus, so was at home under a blanket at lunchtime when I saw Max Clifford being interviewed on the BBC News. It appears too that he was targeted in the wake of his refusal to do any further business with the News of the World some 18 months ago.
When asked how much of this goes on in "Fleet Street", he replied words to the effect that "It was a lot more common than most editors would let on".
Now I don't know to what extent Mr Clifford is to be believed or not, but if it is the case that mobile phone messages are being hacked in to by British Newspapers on a regular basis, shouldn't the police be launching an investigation now ?
I personally think a jail sentence would send the right message to the rest of Fleet Street that this is unacceptable behaviour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)