Print Page | Close Window

Freedom of the Press, Where does it End?

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: SCHOLARLY PURSUITS
Forum Name: General Intellectual Discussions
Forum Description: General area for Intellectual Discussions not covered at the specific subforums
URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=126791
Printed Date: 19 Aug 2019 at 08:09
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Freedom of the Press, Where does it End?
Posted By: Al Jassas
Subject: Freedom of the Press, Where does it End?
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2011 at 04:42
Hello to you all
 
Most of you might have by now heard about the News of the World scandal, for those of you who didn't the paper is the highest circulating weekly paper in the UK and it has been involved in hijacking the phones of nearly 3000 people over the last 11 years from victims of ordinary crimes to 7/11 families to politicians and finally the very soldiers who keep its cover on their walls in Afghanistan (which the paper staunchly supports). For more info check this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11195407 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11195407
 
The scandal lead to the eventual closing of the 168 year old successful paper and a criminal investigation that will put two very important questions forward in an unescapable way, where does freedom of the press end? The other question that this scandal will raise is the relationship between power and the press. Rupert Murdoch owns this and other right wing newspapers and the former editor of the NoW during the scandal was the PR guy (or spin doctor as the Brits call them) for the PM.
 
One might argue that without actually breaking the law you will never have real journalism since the goal of journalism is to expose scandals and as everyone knows most people don't go about broadcasting their scandals.
 
One must not forget that without illegal methods such scoops as the Pentagon papers, Watergate, Iran-Contra and of course wikileaks would have never happened and we would have still been fooled by corrupt governments.
 
So what do you think?
 
Al-Jassas



Replies:
Posted By: Act of Oblivion
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2011 at 07:05
 
...this story is understandably all over the media reports in the UK right now, with almost minute by minutes updates... the Prime Minister's connection to the previous editor of the NOTW paper (Cameron employed him) has piqued most political watchers appetites...and the Labour party are now licking their lips and have already begun to deliver the kicks..there also seems to be some Police officer involvement as well with the allegation that information has been sold by officers to NOTW journalists....once again, no real suprise there...it is pretty much accepted that there have always been (and will always be) such elements in the police force....
 
....no one is shocked at the depths the individuals involved have plumbed..in fact, it is almost expected from a 'newspaper' such as the NOTW (and others)...but what has disturbed most people (who care) is that a mobile phone was hacked which at the time, belonged to a young girl who was reported as 'a missing person' to the authorities, and then subsequently found murdered....it may have been that the phone was hacked when she was dead?...apparently, the hackers deleted messages on the girl's phone to make 'space' for any incoming messages, and this traffic was picked up by the Police and passed onto the girl's family, giving the impression that she was possibly alive and giving false hope to the family concerned..it is this episode that has been viewed as particularly dispicable....
 
...still, it will all blow over, the NOTW is to cease, another trash paper will take it place, some minor heads will be sacrificed (maybe?), Cameron will endure and Murdoch will, as you well know, get all that he wanted in the first place...as for the young girl's family...?????..a selection of 'apologies' will trotted out and probably nothing more....cynical old me..??...absolutely..!!
 
...all the best....AoO...


-------------
http://www.mybannermaker.com/link.php?nurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mybannermaker.com">



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2011 at 08:59
Simply put.  It ends when they break the law outside the public interest.  A tried and tested precedent.  Outside the public interest is bribing police, politicians and hacking the phones of crime victims and the bereaved families of our servicemen.

This goes right to the top.  Believe it. Murdoch should be lynched.


Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2011 at 09:41
I love how all the editorials, all of the 'public intellectuals', and all of the people whose opinions are considered relevant love to avoid the core issue at work here. The taboid/gutter press was/is so extreme in the UK because millions of Britons pay good money to find out what celebrity shagged who. This then extended into other figures of public interest, such as the parents of rape/murder victims, the families of dead soldiers etc. etc.

You can yap on about the rule of law and regulation all you want, but there is a profound deviancy and stupidity in British and Irish society. Many people actively seek out this muck and then proceed to poison their minds with its drivel. Its pathetic and sad, but at some stage the people will have to start taking responsibility for their collective voyeurism.


-------------
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2011 at 10:06
That snotty tired old argument.  Urrr... what's it got to do with a journalist bribing a policeman and the policeman accepting it?  The public didn't make the decision for them and if you're implying that they did then you need to take a step back.



Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2011 at 11:12
I'm looking at the bigger picture Zagros. I've read and heard a lot of talk about a 'new era' in British journalism, about how the ball park has been completely changed, how valuable lessons have been learned and about how ordinary people have been repelled. Utter f**king hogwash. Idiots will still buy the Star and read about how a gust of wind blew up Kate Middletons skirt to reveal her thighs. This invasive intrusiveness is endemic in British society, a product of the big brother generation where the most intimate personal details are somehow issues of 'public interest'. Some like to absolve ordinary people of blame for this culture, in fact I would wager that most would prefer to have this paternalistic attitude that a few rotten apples in a few major tabloid papers have poisened a generation. The press and its conduct is a product of the people and its readership.

In short, the people will always get what the people deserve.


-------------
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2011 at 12:11
That's an old, separate and nebulous argument since not all papers are bad and it's mostly air heads who read tabloids with any commonality.  The regulation I am talking about already exists, it's generally referred to as "The Law".   This is a criminal matter not just involving journalists, their trashy newspapers and their victims but also senior media figures very close to the heart of the government and worst of all, the police and organised crime figures.  That's the bigger picture.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2011 at 16:21
While I have no problem with prosecuting the newspaper for the crimes it committed (and it did committ crimes) my real problem is that certain people will take this opportunity to attack the freedom of the press even more.
 
A simple comparison between the state of the media during Vietnam and the media now and the way how society and the government deals with them tells alot. The release of irrelevant combat documents (Iraq-Afghan war leaks) caused a s**t storm of accusations of treason and when the diplomatic cables came out all hell broke loose on Wikileaks and the newspapers that published those documents despite the fact that these organisations didn't committ any crimes.
 
Al-Jassas
 


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 09 Jul 2011 at 21:28
I think there will be more freedom of the press if Murdoch is castrated.  The man clearly has his own political leanings and notions and allies himself to political parties with the promise of immense propaganda clout based on how much they bend to his will.


Posted By: es_bih
Date Posted: 10 Jul 2011 at 23:17
Murdoch is way too powerful for anyone's good. Media should never be a part of mega corporations. Never really surprising what seedy things can happen when it is.

-------------
http://postimage.org/" rel="nofollow">
http://postimage.org/" rel="nofollow - adult photo sharing


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 04:28
Absolutely Es Bih. It's only now, after the escalation of this scandal so compromising Murdoch's empire that politicians have the balls to speak out.  Representatives from all of the major parties have explicitly admitted as much.  Even so, some within the Labour party, for example, are fearful of Murdoch's wrath given that Ed Miliband has dared question the legitimacy of his proposed controlling buy-out of B-Sky-B given recent developments.  The deal was not even going to go to the Competition Commission previously, as a measure of appeasement from the Tories.  However, this scandal has put the deal on hold until its sordid extent comes to light pending ongoing criminal investigations.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2011 at 02:27
Goods news today from the UK.  Full judge-led inquiry headed by Lord Leveson into the scandal including police corruption as well as criminality in the press amongst other things. 

Additionally Murdoch has abandoned his bid to take full ownership of BSkyB. The best news though, his iron grip on British politics is being prised loose.  As part of this all future meetings between politicicians and media figures to be on public record.  It means that political success is much less contingent on appeasing Murdoch.


Posted By: Seko-
Date Posted: 14 Jul 2011 at 04:20
That is good news in withdrawing the takeover bid. Now for us Americans I wonder why this important stuff is hardly reported on Faux News - the self proclaimed Fair an Balanced arm of Mr. Murdoch. 


Posted By: Act of Oblivion
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2011 at 08:50
..to be honest, i have not been keeping up with all the twists and turns of this episode in detail since the news story  broke and this thread was started..but i did note that events have become increasingly intriguing..not least this latest headline....
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14194623" rel="nofollow - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14194623
 
 


-------------
http://www.mybannermaker.com/link.php?nurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mybannermaker.com">



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2011 at 19:29
Yeah but the guy was also a chronic alcoholic and drug user and didn't exactly look the picture of health when interviewed.  Although, having said that, I do hope the police are not dismissive because of that and actually conduct a proper investigation and bring to light any suspicious circumstances around his death without any fear or favour of the Murdochs.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2011 at 20:49
Hah, murdered he was.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19 Jul 2011 at 23:39
All this talk about Murdoch's empire and hardly a peep about the power of the BBC? 


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 20 Jul 2011 at 01:40
And what power does the BBC have may I ask? If anything all studies showed that the BBC is far to the right than even Murdoch's own papers especially when it comes to foreign wars and American foreign policy.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 20 Jul 2011 at 02:23
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

And what power does the BBC have may I ask? If anything all studies showed that the BBC is far to the right than even Murdoch's own papers especially when it comes to foreign wars and American foreign policy.
 
Al-Jassas
 
It is so far to the "Right" when it comes to Foreign Policy assessments that it is actually on the "Left". Sorry, Al, but if one can say anything about the BBC officially, it is it's love of catering to the elite even in its programming of "pop" items. Of course, I do really wonder why society and law in the UK is brought up in this discussion other than to note that if there is one individual in the UK that is probably having a very satisfactory chortle, it is a certain Charles of Wales.
 
 


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Act of Oblivion
Date Posted: 20 Jul 2011 at 02:53
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Yeah but the guy was also a chronic alcoholic and drug user and didn't exactly look the picture of health when interviewed.  Although, having said that, I do hope the police are not dismissive because of that and actually conduct a proper investigation and bring to light any suspicious circumstances around his death without any fear or favour of the Murdochs.
 
...ah, fair enough..i was not aware of the man's personal circumstances, not that i put too much weight on the idea of 'conspiracy' in such matters anyway..but it did appear to be rather coincidental...just adds to the whole mess that pervades this 'hacking' story i suppose.....it will be interesting to see who actually falls...if anyone...


-------------
http://www.mybannermaker.com/link.php?nurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mybannermaker.com">



Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 20 Jul 2011 at 05:11
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

And what power does the BBC have may I ask? If anything all studies showed that the BBC is far to the right than even Murdoch's own papers especially when it comes to foreign wars and American foreign policy.
 
Al-Jassas
 
It is so far to the "Right" when it comes to Foreign Policy assessments that it is actually on the "Left". Sorry, Al, but if one can say anything about the BBC officially, it is it's love of catering to the elite even in its programming of "pop" items. Of course, I do really wonder why society and law in the UK is brought up in this discussion other than to note that if there is one individual in the UK that is probably having a very satisfactory chortle, it is a certain Charles of Wales.
 
 
 
Sorry Doc but I am afraid that even you can be influenced by the right wing propaganda machine. The problem of the BBC is that because it is a public institution it can't take sides nor defend its journalistic integrity especially if it reports facts (which are made into bias by the right wing propagandists) which Stephen Colbert once said "have a well known liberal bias". Here are but two proofs, the Iraq war coverage:
 
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/bbc-j10.shtml" rel="nofollow - http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/bbc-j10.shtml
 
And the coverage of the Palestinian crisis, former correspondent Tim Llewellyn proves how much biased the coverage towards Israel is on the BBC:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/jun/20/israel.broadcasting" rel="nofollow - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/jun/20/israel.broadcasting
 
While Ciar Byrne quotes other sources that say that the balen report suggested a pro-Israel coverage:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/bbc-bids-to-suppress-study-on-middle-east-bias-774282.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/bbc-bids-to-suppress-study-on-middle-east-bias-774282.html
 
And in any case I have been following the BBC for the past 12 years and I can clearly see a right wing bias when it comes to news. When it comes to TV dramas/films then we might talk but if we take the news side alone there is no doubt in my mind where the BBC is.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 20 Jul 2011 at 08:17
No matter how angelic my pose, I am afraid Al Jassas that I do not have wings attached to my dorsal scapulas, either on the right or my left. Nor is the utterance of Israel a barometer on political inclinations or "leanings". Right wingers embrace Israel as solidly as the traditional "socialist" Left within the American milieu. Anyway, I do believe the issue here is "freedom of the press" an actually meaningless term outside American parameters.
 


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 20 Jul 2011 at 18:50
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

All this talk about Murdoch's empire and hardly a peep about the power of the BBC? 


If you have allegations of criminality at the publicly funded and state controlled BBC, then please do put them forward.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 20 Jul 2011 at 19:01
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

And what power does the BBC have may I ask? If anything all studies showed that the BBC is far to the right than even Murdoch's own papers especially when it comes to foreign wars and American foreign policy.
 
Al-Jassas


The BBC tows the government line.  Subtly, but it does.  There was a marked change in its tone and coverage after the 2010 elections.  On its foreign services it takes its guidance from the FCO.  For example, who decides that it's a good idea to have BBC Persian and Arabic but not Mongolian?


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 20 Jul 2011 at 19:46
The BBC Arabic servic service is 73 years old and was there to promote the British empire and then the capitalist west view of the world.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 20 Jul 2011 at 20:13
So obviously there is a benefit in its continuation in the face of scale backs elsewhere in the world service.  The BBC is reviewed by the government on a regular basis to see where value for license payers' money is.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 20 Jul 2011 at 20:34
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

All this talk about Murdoch's empire and hardly a peep about the power of the BBC? 


If you have allegations of criminality at the publicly funded and state controlled BBC, then please do put them forward.


Am i noting a little bit of cynicism there? Maybe not...

Funded by the public but state controlled and my question is, are British citizens really happy with this set up? Taxation without representation is a great evil i thought the British government had learned some time ago. Then again, maybe the state has gotten to be more clever about it. At least Murdoch is going down in flames, but state controlled info, well... that will still be around at taxpayer expense whether you like the finished product or not.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 20 Jul 2011 at 21:39
The BBC is accountable on everything it does, it is also well run and the general public hold it dear in their hearts.   The licensing cost is being reduced by 20% and the organisation is divesting accordingly.  Is it little coincidence that News Corp backed the Conservatives and had been lobbying for just that so that it can fill the void on a commercial basis?


Posted By: Seko-
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2011 at 00:49
This is just the early unraveling of the secret Murdoch empire. His megalomania is evident through the twisted lies to the British Parliament yesterday. But I'm biased...anything to bring down Faux News is a bonus. The American people have been duped long enough by the blatant lies and deception of said channel.

In other news, we can't even get an agreement on raising the debt ceiling, but the Gang of Six, and such is embarking a pathetic power play that has serious repercussions. Let's see...agree to a ceiling or go broke! Duh! Is there any other sane answer to this mess? Yet, the Murdoch channel makes heroes out of the obstinate GOP. Instead, they should listen to their deceased idol, Ronald Reagan, and raise the ceiling. See you all on the flip side of this storm.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2011 at 02:14
Yes, this whole scandal has been overshadowing many other important issues on the news here... such as America going bankrupt, the Eurozone crisis, famine in the horn of Africa, Libya, Afghanistan...


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 21 Jul 2011 at 04:41
This shows how monopoly is really bad in general and in the media is catastrophic. No one should have the kind of monopoly that Murdoch has.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Yes, this whole scandal has been overshadowing many other important issues on the news here... such as America going bankrupt, the Eurozone crisis, famine in the horn of Africa, Libya, Afghanistan...
 
 
 
 
America won't go bankrupt, its all political theater between Obama and the republican leadership to score political points.
 
The president is constitutionally not bound to follow the debt ceiling and all republicans in the leadership plus the majority of those in the house and senate along with almost all dems didn't hide the fact that they will raise the debt ceiling. The only issue is coming from the lobotimised retards from the tea party who huff and puff and in the end won't do a thing to stop the vote because the guys who sent them to Washington are the same people who want the debt ceiling raised.
 
 
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: bagrat
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2011 at 08:24
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:


You can yap on about the rule of law and regulation all you want, but there is a profound deviancy and stupidity in British and Irish society. Many people actively seek out this muck and then proceed to poison their minds with its drivel. Its pathetic and sad, but at some stage the people will have to start taking responsibility for their collective voyeurism.
Isn't this a bit of a chicken and egg situation (the egg was first btw.)?  Isn't said stupidity not only the reason for the above described state of the press, and the rest of the entertainment industry, but also its objective? Don't press and public feed on each other in ever more bizarre spiral of thrill seeking and its fullfillment. And is it not the task of the entertainment corporations not only to satisfy but to create ever more efficient methods of diversions from reality?
The more the public concernes itself with a substitute reality that is voyeuristically observed, the more it is distracted from its own existence that has become increasingly banal and regulated.
Stupid people don't ask questions, they consume!


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2011 at 20:17
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Funded by the public but state controlled and my question is, are British citizens really happy with this set up? Taxation without representation is a great evil i thought the British government had learned some time ago

Panther, the British are represented by their MPs. 'Taxation without representation' motto started because British in America weren't represented by MPs.
Quote Isn't this a bit of a chicken and egg situation (the egg was first btw.)

Yes, the egg was first. Unless the neo-lamarkists turn out to be correct


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 22 Jul 2011 at 22:18
Interesting development today.  Revelations from ex- News of the World editor, Colin Myler and legal manager, Tom Crone suggest that James Murdoch misled MPs at the select committee three days ago by undermining his claim of ignorance of how widespread criminality in his organisation was/is.  Pretty much confirming what most people thought already... that he's his father's son, a sc.um.bag.   He has as such implicated himself in suspicion of conspiring to pervert the course of justice and is being referred to the Met by Tom Watson MP.

David Cameron: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14245922


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 05:48

Both Britain and the US  tax people without allowing them representation and always have done.  So for that matter does Luxembourg and every other country I have any knowledge of. Going on about 'no taxation without representation' is flogging a horse that was never alive.

On the topic though, I was travelling around parts of the UK when the story was breaking, and remember one comedian miimicking a butcher holding up a leg of lamb and being pointed yt by people screaming "You killed a little lamb! How could you do that!?" Scandal, gossip, and emotional intrusion are potent products that have been selling since newspapers were invented and will continue to be barring some major change in human nature. The only thing new here is the technology involved.

Meeting with old friends (a prime purpose of the trip) I didn't find one Fleet Street veteran who didn't agree that the same intrusions, given the technology, would not have happened at any time in the last 60 years[1], though of course different papers have different target audiences and therefore target different classes of victim.  
 
That being said, there are legal limits that if exceeded should result in conviction. And if the public genuinely wants them, maybe new limits should be enacted: the French law on privacy is for instance much stronger. And of course paying and receiving bribes to and by police and other officials exceeds those limits, though again there are more discreet ways of obtaining information orco-operation, even from MPs, that are neither irreproachable nor new.
 
[1] Nobody I know is still alive who remembers further back.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 06:06
I was waiting for your reply Graham and thank you for it.
 
My question is did you ever work for NoTW? Was the tabloid culture in it back in the day because to everyone the tabloid culture began with The Sun.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 14:41
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

The BBC is accountable on everything it does, it is also well run and the general public hold it dear in their hearts.   The licensing cost is being reduced by 20% and the organisation is divesting accordingly.  Is it little coincidence that News Corp backed the Conservatives and had been lobbying for just that so that it can fill the void on a commercial basis?


That is interesting. Please pardon any rudeness on my part, i am just usually skeptical of any government involvement in most anything. As for the BBC, I guess as cherished as any entity is, it will always have it's homegrown critics.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 14:51
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Funded by the public but state controlled and my question is, are British citizens really happy with this set up? Taxation without representation is a great evil i thought the British government had learned some time ago


Panther, the British are represented by their MPs. 'Taxation without representation' motto started because British in America weren't represented by MPs.


I know. I was just asking if they were really happy with this setup, seeing that they fund it but do not control it. Too my mind, obvious nationality aside, i couldn't have helped in noting the correlation.

If the Brits are happy with being taxed by the state for their entertainment and information, as well as this being regulated by the same, then it is no skin off my nose. It's their business, who am i to argue they should change what they are happy and comfortable with.

As for me, it is just too much state control that i find a bit unnerving.



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 15:15
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Both Britain and the US  tax people without allowing them representation and always have done.  So for that matter does Luxembourg and every other country I have any knowledge of. Going on about 'no taxation without representation' is flogging a horse that was never alive.

I don't think i could quite agree with you about the first hundred years in US history of representation and taxation, but i can see somewhat what you mean since our government has grown immensely over the past century.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 22:00
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Both Britain and the US  tax people without allowing them representation and always have done.  So for that matter does Luxembourg and every other country I have any knowledge of. Going on about 'no taxation without representation' is flogging a horse that was never alive.

I don't think i could quite agree with you about the first hundred years in US history of representation and taxation, but i can see somewhat what you mean since our government has grown immensely over the past century.

For the first hundred years of US history women  for instance were taxed but not represented (income tax isn't the only tax people pay - as you point out so is the BBC licence fee), apart from the right to vote being restricted by various other economic, social and racial factors.
 
(Same applies pretty well everywhere else of course.)


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 22:30
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

I was waiting for your reply Graham and thank you for it.
 
My question is did you ever work for NoTW? Was the tabloid culture in it back in the day because to everyone the tabloid culture began with The Sun.
 
Al-Jassas
No I never worked for the NOTW, though my unit at IPC helped somewhat in allowing Murdoch to win his fight with Robert Maxwell to take it over (we were chary about the sale of the Sun to him the following year, but Cudlipp went ahead with it anyway: another longer term mistake).
 
The 'tabloid culture' really pre-existed newspapers as we know them, certainly both in the UK and the US, where an exreme example would be the alleged allegations of Burr's affair with his daugheter, which led to the fatal duel with Hamilton. It then grew with the growth of literacy and the cheapening of printing techniques, especially graphic ones, the launch of the NOTW in 1840-odd being one step on the way (it needs to be understood that the NOTW was always a sensationalist sheet dependent on sexual, preferably perverse, stories, scandal and gossip for its success). Hearst in the US and Northcliffe in England built their empires on, effectively, 'tabloid' journalism, though their papers were not actually tabloid-sized.
 
The first tabloid tabloid (as it were) was the New York Daily News, which also provided the model for the London Daily Mirror, which became tabloid in 1934, and by the '40s had become the world's largest circulation newspaper (outside the Soviet Union) under the editorships of Guy Bartholomew and then Hugh Cudlipp.
 
The Daily News added another key factor in 'tabloid' journalism - emphasis on pictures, particularly 'cheesecake' - in which it was also followed by the Daily Mirror. That I guess is where the whole concept actually started. When Murdoch bought the Sun from IPC (which also owned the Mirror) he toook on an ex-Mirror man as editor, and really just pushed the envelope open a litle wider, most famously by the bare-breasted models that graced page 3.
 
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 23 Jul 2011 at 22:56
Tabloid culture is basically gossip culture.  It is an extension of an innate social human characteristic.  And the most intriguing gossip revolves around scandal and revelations of sensational secrets of public figures.  So in my opinion it is a bit moronic to throw blame around for tabloid culture when its essence is so intrinsic to basic human social nature.  The real issue here is and always has been criminality and corruption - the extent to which it is prevalent in our public institutions.  This is no excuse or justification for things like, for example, public servants in very sensitive positions abusing their privileges for profit...



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net