Forum menu
The stories coming out from the Leveson enquiry are really quite shocking. Especially the Charlotte Church, Anne Diamond and JK Rowling stuff.
It's bullying and harassment, pure and simple. The lack of empathy from the reporters, editors and proprietors is verging on psychotic.
No-one seems to be pointing out that it would all go away if we, the public, simply refused to buy papers which printed stories like that.
Or are people simply too heartless, or just too dim to see where they have a responsibility in the whole circus?
I've never bought a tabloid
Never I see these in the Cafe and want to chuck them in the bin
People's hunger for crap news involving celebrity sex shocker means tabloids will be around a lot longer than they deserve. Not bought one myself in over 20 years, my belief is that they give journos a bad name.
The public reaction against the NOTW ended that rag.
Nothing to stop something similar happening again.
Not a buyer here either.
However, I go home to my mum and listen to her spout shite she reads in the (Oirish) Daily Mail.
Makes me sad.
Not me.
But does anyone remember that post on here where a lady joined to warn one of the regulars on here about giving an interview to a red top (TJ and his roof or was it tv show???) ?
She moved from London to the lakes and was fed some bull about the story line re qualified female professionals leaving the capital and moving to the lake district - got her photo taken for the Mail(?)- and the eventual printed headline was along the grounds of "nymphos do the lakes".
I've imagined they've always been that bad. I presume everything they print is made up.
The public reaction against the NOTW ended that rag.
Nothing to stop something similar happening again.
I think News International sacrificed the paper in a bid to save the rest of the organisation from scrutiny and so they could lay off a load of staff and later bring out a Sunday Sun with lower operating costs.
Hasn't really worked on the first count, we'll have to wait and see about the second.
I once bought the Daily Sport when I was on a scout camp...
Other than that, no.
TBH, you don't need an enquiry to work out that the tabloids are scum...pick up a copy any tabloid paper and look at the content...it tells you everything you need to know about the editorial practices.
By buying them you are creating the demand for everything that goes with it, so no, i'd never buy a tabloid.
My aunt knew someone who, when she died, had these words written on her gravestone:
"I never read the Daily Mail".
I dispair whenever I have the misfortune to browse a tabloid. Amazed at how many people buy these papers. There is, and will always be a massive market for this sort of "news". I will be very surprised indeed if anything changes as a result of this inquiry.
I'll admit i used to buy the Daily Mirror, stopped when the i came out and i've been buying that ever since.
In my defence i bought it 'cos it could be skim-read in half an hour which was all i got for my dinner break!
No.
Some of my friends and colleagues believe the Mail and the Express are 'proper' newspapers though. 😕
my cat shits on the tabloids i get out of the comunal recycling bin.
She doesnt mind.But she cant read.
Isn't the Times a tabloid these days?
I don't think we deserve what they dish out, we'd read whatever they put in them even if it were less trashy.
It's just the lowering of journalistic standards, to many media studies at Bognor victims churned out on a diet of sensationalism, we were taught restraint, integrity and factual reporting in my day.
I presume everything they print is made up.
The problem is the majority of people just don't believe that. Mrs mW was discussing her strike action with her Mother on the phone earlier and her mum came out with some nonsense that she'd read in the paper (not sure which but it'll be one of the tabloids), when Mrs mW tried to put her straight she was met with the response "They would be allowed to write it if it wasn't true". I imagine her view is probably shared by a greater proportion of the population than yours (and mine).
my cat shits on the tabloids i get out of the comunal recycling bin.She doesnt mind.But she cant read.
Maybe she can read and is just telling you what she thinks of the tabloids?
(a cat that could read AND talk wouldnt be plausible)
I don't think I've ever bought a newspaper, other than for other people (or perhaps for a free gift or offer or something). As long as I've given a toss one way or the other, I've had the Internet, why would I need to buy papers full of biased opinion?
same rerason i got the beano
Have done, not really thought about where they get their stories from (why would I?) don't think I'll bother any more though.
Although I'll admit to a bad online fe-mail habit (sorry)
Never bought a newspaper in my life, don't intend to in future either. All full of trash and you never know what's real and what's not - why bother unless you like sensationalist nonsense.
Is that little 20p version of the Independent (the one with all the same stories as Metro) a tabloid?
Ever wondered how many people buy each newspaper? - here's April 2011 figures. Daily Mail has increased!!
[b]Dailies[/b]
Daily Mirror: 1,172,785, -5.40
Daily Record: 312,566, -5.57
Daily Star: 692,157, -15.90
The Sun: 2,783,110, -5.85
Daily Express: 635,576, -4.53
Daily Mail: 2,100,300, 0.2
The Daily Telegraph: 639,578, -6.39
Financial Times: 372,076, -3.75
The Herald: 49,764, -9.37
The Guardian: 263,907, -8.66
i:161,151, NA
The Independent: 180,743, -3.92
The Scotsman: 40,524, -10
The Times: 449,809, -11.28
Racing Post: 57,376, -7.91
[b]National Sundays[/b]
Daily Star Sunday: 309,237, -11.19
News of the World: 2,606,397, -10.3
Sunday Mail: 366,674, -8.03
Sunday Mirror: 1,097,434, -2.37
The People: 480,196, -9.42
Sunday Express: 601,666, 4.76
Sunday Post: 310,187, -7.15
The Mail on Sunday: 1,944,724, -1.94
Independent on Sunday: 154,227, -8.28
The Observer: 302,975, -8.68
Scotland on Sunday: 50,626, -12.26
Sunday Herald: 29,578, -30.19
The Sunday Telegraph: 509,557, -0.12
The Sunday Times: 1,018,215, -10.3
I always like to see what the ladies on page 3 of the Sun have to say for themselves. 😆
I do enjoy reading them and often get the opportunity at work. I don't believe them tho nor do i ever buy one.
News just in, if you pardon the [url= http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2011/11/28/best-daily-mail-corrections-column-ever/ ]pun[/url]
Used to on my lunch break at work but then I realised that as I work near to the University all broadsheets are only 40p anyway so thought well there's no excuse.
Wouldn't ever buy one again now and I do mean that. The stuff that's been coming out via the Leveson Enquiry is shocking. I knew they were pretty shallow and morally bereft but must admit I have been shocked by just how vile they really are.
In my defence I only ever used to buy them for the sport but I wouldn't put anything in their pockets now.
Why do you think the dirty tricks might stop at the tabloids. Any reason to suppose they aren't rife in the broadsheets, TV and radio news, celeb blogging and political party researchers mud slinging as well?
Im fascinated as to how the Guido Fawkes/Alastair Campbell/Justice Leveson three-way circle frot is going to play out over the course of the week.
Who leaked to Guido?
When/If it's disclosed, I bet it will be a damp squib, not a smokey gun.
All it needs is an independent body to investigate complaints. With the power to fine and order where corrections should be placed.
...staffed by people who have never worked in UK press or the establishment or showbiz, and who have no need for a job or reputation later in life.
I agree lifer to a point but there are problems.
What is a blogger, does their reach effect the scale of any "offence" they might have done? Should fines perhaps be a function of breadth of readership? How do you deal with non-UK based publishing like Guido Fawkes?
The protection should be for the inappropriate publication of private material. More strict definitions of "public interest" as distinct from "interesting to the public" should be codified.
Apologies must be half front page.
Why do you think the dirty tricks might stop at the tabloids. Any reason to suppose they aren't rife in the broadsheets, TV and radio news, celeb blogging and political party researchers mud slinging as well?
I've no doubt to an extent dirty tricks exist in all of the above media but I seriously doubt that it's to as much an extent to the tabloid press and certainly for such a little value return.
Plus, short of avoiding all media there's little you can do. It's not really viable to not watch TV, listen to the radio, read stuff on the internet or a political party statement simply to avoid reading content that may have been obtained questionably. Or if it is, I'm not willing to put in that much effort. It's pretty easy to avoid buying a tabloid newspaper though.
No talk of tabloids would be complete without Guido!
Bit late for me to go through that but some good points, I'll have a think and if this is still going tomorrow I'll see if I've got anything.
Isn't the Times a tabloid these days?
Well given Ms Church got mentioned by the OP, and one of the articles she was most upset about (from what I heard of her testimony - was listening to some of it live) was in the Times, I do wonder how many of those being disparaging about tabloids buy that.
I'm OK though - I only buy the Torygraph.
I've never bought a tabloid - working in a newsroom for a few years puts you off buying papers. I do know people who work for certain tabloids. They're decent people who do the things they do for one reason - there's a market for that sort of journalism. And it's a massive market - worth remembering that the Daily Mail website is something like the [i]world's[/i] second most popular newspaper website.
In other words, we get the media we deserve. It's no use blaming the editors for the celeb tripe served up and the death of serious, impartial journalism. If it didn't sell papers, they wouldn't print it. All editors and journalists I know would much rather be covering an important story about an injustice than Lily Allen's miscarriage. But guess which gets more clicks?
It's no use blaming the editors for the celeb tripe served up and the death of serious, impartial journalism. If it didn't sell papers, they wouldn't print it.
This is very true. However, one area in which capitalism truly excels is marketing. And the secret of good marketing is in convincing the consumer to want something which they otherwise wouldn't want.
And convincing the masses that they [i]want[/i] celeb tripe is hugely beneficial.
I can't think of anything more potentially explosive and dangerous than if the Guardian or the Independent, was Britain's best selling newspaper and preferred choice of the masses.
to be honest, if you think the practices exposed at the notw are confined to tabloids, then you're naive.
One of my sun journo friends is embarrassing herself by towing the party line of innocence currently on Facebook incidentally.
The Times is a Murdoch paper, so is only the Sun in a cheap suit.
I personally couldn't care less if JK Rowling, Carlotte Church, or Anne Diamond get their phones tapped. They sold their souls to become media whores (well, maybe not Anne), so can suffer the consequences. If the first two had written some art that had an ounce of quality then only the Guardian types on here would give a shite and no one would care. It's like the Hugh Grant thing- Loves being a movie star in the limelight, but gets annoyed when a journo takes a picture of him eating a pasty. You can't have your cake and eat it, Hugh.
Is it just Rowling, Church et als' phones being hacked you don't care about?
GlitterGary - MemberYou can't have your cake and eat it, Hugh.
.....or Gary.
Your hero GlitterGary, recently thought press intrusion was unacceptable, media watchdog officials however thought differently.
[url= http://www.contactmusic.com/news/gary-glitters-complaint-about-tv-hanging-rejected_1233113 ]Gary Glitter - Gary Glitter's Complaint About Tv 'Hanging' Rejected[/url]
[i]But officials at Ofcom ruled that Glitter had a "well-publicised reputation in relation to child sex offences", so there was "likely to be little scope for additional damage to his reputation". [/i]