[Closed] Odd reporting...

It's called "colour" in the trade.

Why do [i]you [/i]think they do it? I'm happy to explain if it's a serious question.

I don't really know why they do it. It isn't relevant at all.

See also 'Jordan, real name Katie Price...'

Sets the mental scene a bit doesn't it?

Have you ever read a novel where the author didn't describe anything and just told you the plot?

For the same reason you included 'on earth' and 'at all' in your first post?

But it isn't a novel, it is reporting the news.

Following that logic, wouldn't they say 'The swarthy, muscular armed police moved slowly through the house, like cats stalking their prey, carefully checking every dark corner in intimate detail'....

(Only written better than I can manage).

I believe the "mock tudor" is included to sneer at the proles, but I could be wrong. Perhaps it's come up in the world.

it is reporting the news.

...and one of the facts of the news story, is they lived in a mock tudor house.

That is true, but they didn't report on the state of the garden, the colour of the doors, the quality of the furnishings. Just a random fact that doesn't actually offer any information.

Why [b][s]on earth [/s][/b]do the press feel that this information is[b][s] at all [/s][/b]relevant?

What[b][s] on earth [/s][/b]do they feel they are giving to the report?

Edit- beaten to it, but you get the point.

Just a random fact that doesn't actually offer any information.

It tells me the house is quite large and relatively new-ish. The story is focusing on the bomb squad being at the house, so saying what sort of house it is seems relevant.

As an aside, I do wish they had gone with Tudorbethan, rather than Mock Tudor.

Lots of the gutter press like to quote the value fo houses.

was last seen in the £350k mock tudor mansion.'

Always make sme smile, where do they get the valuations from

Paul

This is the best thing about most tabloid journalism. And something that Viz had absolutely nailed a long time ago. The description of 22 Shit Street for example, a decrepit council house....

[i]"The fire-damaged, urine-stained mattress, carelessly discarded below the bedroom window, to the jauntily angled dustbin spilling its putrid contents across the path in a splash of repulsive colour".[/i]

😆

But read the rest of the article and it is all (relevantly) factual.

It just seems random to put in 'mock Tudor'. What is it they are trying to achieve by giving that information.

And I wrote my post in the style of ''Aggrieved from Guilford' so I embellished. It isn't wrong to do that.

Something annoyed me a little bit this morning in the Guardian with their selective use of words in the headlines of this same story, painting it as some conspiracy by the French media...

[i]How the French press buried the story[/i]

Could it not be that the French simply don't like to sensationalize their news items in the same way we do? Can the Grauniad not see the irony in that?

Just a random fact that doesn't actually offer any information.

Au contraire (Rodney) - I now know that wooden beams (sic) are involved and that it was once probably owned by a, 80s footballer who had a 'tache and a jag.

'What [url= http://www.bulwer-lytton.com ]bulwer-lytton winner for news reporting ?'[/url]
"She slinked through my door wearing a dress that looked like it had been painted on … not with good paint, like Behr or-Williams, but with that watered-down stuff that bubbles up right away if you don’t prime the surface before you slap it on, and – just like that cheap paint – the dress needed two more coats to cover her."

Edit: binners beat me to it 🙂

See also 'Jordan, real name Katie Price...'

There's the problem.

You are reading a "newspaper" that reports "news" about Katie Price.

350 wouldn't go far in Claygate.

Its an 800k house street, sorry, just read that in a press report.

You are reading a "newspaper" that reports "news" about Katie Price.

The Sun etc do the Katie Price bit. Apparently. 🙂

It's still not "news" no matter where you read it.

[img] [/img]

Looks like a fair description of the scene.

It isn't, no.

I don't think its odd at all. Its clearly a quick way for the reader to identify the class / affluence of the victim without the writer explicitly saying it.

Council Bugalow, Detached Surrey residence, Victorian terraced house.

They all paint a picture of the resident in barely 3 words.

[i] Its clearly a quick way for the reader to identify the class / affluence of the victim without the writer explicitly saying it.[/i]

around the mock Tudor house

It could be a 2 bed terraced mock Tudor house or a 10 bedroomed detached mock Tudor house. They haven't said enough to be helpful. Just put random words in.

OK, why not write to points of view then

I thought moaning on STW was the done thing?

Sorry, I’m new here.

Moaning is the second most popular pastime on here. The main one is pointless and cyclical bickering. You've a fine opportunity to engage in both now....

I shall look forward to my journey of discovery....