Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Was thinking recently that the Telegraph seemed to have gone downhill lately (not that I read the actual paper that often, but there's a lot of Daily Mail type dross on the website now).
Shame really, as it used to have some really good writing and journalism, irrespective of what you think about its political position.
" It has been placing what it perceives to be the interests of a major international bank above its duty to bring the news to Telegraph readers. There is only one word to describe this situation: terrible. Imagine if the BBC—so often the object of Telegraph attack—had conducted itself in this way."
No need to imagine it. BBC news is frequently shoddy as fuck.
"Newspapers have what amounts in the end to a constitutional duty to tell their readers the truth."
Nope. Nothing of the sort exists. There's a requirement for TV news to offer balance. But not for newspapers.
"The narrow pattern of ownership of the media in the UK has always belied the industry's lofty claim to be the fourth estate and the sentinels of democracy. Our national newspapers, with the exception of [The Observer] and its sister, the Guardian, are at the heart of the very establishment we purport to hold to account. The best of the political blogs and websites are already beginning to challenge and rebuke the way that the course of politics is ordered in this country and how that is conveyed to the rest of us."
^Kevin McKenna http://is.gd/ubihoz (Although, as with Oborne, McKenna is kidding himself regarding his employees, of course - the Graun solidly nailed its colours to the establishment mast during the reporting on last year's referendum.)
has there ever been a news story that isn't about the Scottish Referendum?
But seriously, it's a very hmmmmm interesting lens through which to view things. Much was learned/discussed (about things in general, not just the referendum) which would not have come to light had the debate, etc, not occurred. A rubicon of sorts was crossed. And we're all the better for it.
acrostic vision....like yours (an enhanced viewpoint of the granuid for example) ....although you had fairly advanced acrostic vision to start with :)
to reflect on the issues raised, lest they inadvertently support a stance diametrically opposed to the one they seek to promote.
The countries in the UK are expected to share the same bed! ;-)
Still not getting it.
The BBC doesn't occupy the lofty position Oborne places it in. Neither does the Guardian. Or the Telegraph. Or any newspaper.
(That doesn't mean that what he's saying about the Telegraph and HSBC isnt true. Or important. Just that it's not a surprise in the slightest. And Oborne is naive to present it in that way.)
Oborne isn't naïve. Besides he's worked in print media in varying proprietor proximity slightly longer than you have, I assume. He's not saying any outlet is in a lofty position, just that The Telegraph have broken a number of standards that he deems unacceptable. Which is also very simple.
But for a guy who's being lauded as accurate, or diligent, or whatever, he's factually incorrect to say that "Newspapers have what amounts in the end to a constitutional duty to tell their readers the truth.". That and the misty eyed, vaseline lens descriptions of the Telegraph undermine the more meaty point underpinning all of this.
Y'know where he says `what amounts in the end to`? That's his indication that he's not presenting this `as fact`. Right there.
The point, whether presented as opinion or fact, is a total dud. It's not even in the direction of truth: it's opposed to the reality of the situation.
He's entitled to his opinion on what papers /are/. But he's wrong.
('Should be' is different to 'are'.)
imply quite strongly that you care deeply about how a) print media reports news and b) the analysis of how print media reports news. Not always without worth but with a cynicism and an arrogance which is quite astonishing.
a) I guess so.
b) To a lesser extent.
c) Newspaper are largely a lost cause at present. I care about the sphere they operate in and the place they hold in our society but not the publications themselves, by and large.
why should anyone bother? If you're speaking a higher truth about the relationship between print media and its readership than Peter Oborne is, of course (as I've mentioned before, his opinions are borne out of, y'know, actually working in it for longer than most of us have been alive).
until you find the crackpot narcissist whose blog most tightly matches your own prejudices.
Which variously does and doesn't exist yet.
I read newspapers. Sparingly. I do lots of things I'd rather not do.
of just about anything that's not a daily national newspaper, really.
To cite DiS Social wouldn't be a joke, actually. Well it would if that was all I'm citing, but you get my drift, hopefully.
To look at a specific, but fairly innocuous case, I'm infinitely more happy taking polling news and analysis from UK Polling Report (and, for a specific bent, and read with a degree of caution, Scot Goes Pop) than the mangled false stats and misinterpretation that we get from The Papers. Ya get me?
What about the Wings Over Scotland lads? You post their links quite a bit.
When I feel it to be appropriate for whatever reason. As with any site, it misses the mark on occasion, and occasionally gets a little het up over something, dog-with-a-bone style. But it is frequently putting sides of stories forward which, for a range of reasons, The Papers and TV choose to ignore or misrepresent. It's very tempting to use the phrase "truth behind the spin" at this point, but I'll refrain from going quite that far.
A bunch of people like to have a sneer at WoS. Often focussing on the Rev part of the main man's name*, or something about him 'only being a games journo'. It's notable that they are rarely, if ever, able to string together a coherent refutation of the actual content the site publishes
*he's evasive on the surroundings of the Rev thing, but maintains he's a real reverend. I suspect it's the manifestation of a bee in his bonnet about religion. Like a slightly more considered version of you or I using the Laird title that that novelty gift certificate bestowed. i.e. a bit trolly. Or something. Regardless, I consider the guy to be a good writer fulfilling a worthwhile role.
and yes that's what I was referring to earlier. I couldn't care less if he's a vicar or a games journalist for the record, but on the evidence of the little of his that I have read I get a strong impression that he is very very fond of himself and his opinions. I find people like that a little scary.
And his rant at Rachael Reeves about the origins of National Insurance was sufficiently laughable for me to decide he's probably not worth bothering with if other swivel-heads are available.
But I wouldn't say he's any more obnoxious than yer average journo/columnist.
His ask.fm is an interesting mix of stuff ranging from expanding on political points to good ol' banality.
Just noted that you post a number of their links. Links which always appear to support your point of view too, I note. But that's always how these things work, isn't it...
As I said, it's not something I swallow without question as being unimpeachable. WoS defo sometimes misses the mark, or gets a little distracted by minor points of trivia, so I ain't gonna post that, am I?
of course there's an implicit constitution, you be as cynical as you like, but as a rule people – no matter how misguidedly – don't buy their paper of choice in order to be lied to, in the full knowledge that it's a bunch of lies. And readers obviously accept a certain amount of political weighting with their papers, but as a rule I don't think they'd expect major stories to be dropped for advertising reasons. The very fact that the Telegraph has bothered to 'refute' his claims is indication that what he's accusing them of has breached an implicit constitution.
"people – no matter how misguidedly – don't buy their paper of choice in order to be lied to, in the full knowledge that it's a bunch of lies"
I might not put it in those terms, but people definitely buy newspapers because they seek confirmation bias, and they aren't too fussed about the accuracy underpinning that.
but as rule that's done via different slants on the same story, filtering importance by political bias, or having commentators with certain opinions etc. None of that amounts to lying to readers or withholding information at an advertiser's behest, and the bottom line is that no newspaper would ever say 'yeah, we lied to you!!!' to its readership.
Clearly it was a mark of Oborne's writing that he had a very inflexible sense of honour, probably less flexible than most of his readers, but ultimately papers do operate under the ideological flag of telling their readers the truth.
"None of that amounts to lying to readers or withholding information at an advertiser's behest"
I respectfully disagree.
"the bottom line is that no newspaper would ever say 'yeah, we lied to you!"
I largely agree.
for someone who has happily worked for the Barclay brothers, two of the UK's most notorious tax-dodgers, for years, to complain about the paper not covering this story. If you care so deeply about tax evasion, don't work for a company that practices it.
he resigned over journalistic standards, I think he articulates very well why he took the job and why he left it.
It's easy enough for people to say 'oh well, big surprise' but I totally recognise that 'old' Telegraph he describes at the start. He's always been a man of almost autistic political integrity and it's obviously not a coincidence that he came on board just after the MPs' expenses scandal.
And yeah, I know quite a few Telegraph and ex-Telegraph arts journos, and the picture of a sort of directionless, rightwing W1A style management is pretty much what they've all described to me. The problem is less that they're being cynically led, more ineptly.
Oborne has been something of a lone moral voice at the Telegraph for a while now - I might not have agreed with everything he said, but he has had the integrity to write about phone hacking, Leveson and also about Miliband and Cameron in a fresh-eyed, critical way that has been almost totally at odd with the rest if the right-wing press.
There's no doubt that the Telegraph needed to reinvent itself for the digital age (the readership profile is too old for it to not do so), but the two things the Telegraph was held in high esteem for (scrupulous fact-checking/subbing and its foreign affairs desk) have been comprehensively gutted over the past few years. The best, most rational writers at the paper (eg Tom Chivers and Stephen Bush) have left or are leaving and it's very clear that something is going very wrong at the paper, and that's before you get to the reports that have been cropping up in Private Eye over the past couple of years.
about the Human Rights Act too... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/04/human-rights-act-conservatives
... which won't have been popular with his readership, peers or employers (in fact, he was writing for the Daily Mail at the time, so that could easily have lost him his job).
Or, that employees aren't responsible for (and therefore need not worry about) the company's tax affairs.
Not sure I agree with the logic, but that's how he sees it.
it was (in part) because he perceived the Telegraph to have started burying major stories either at the behest of or to appease major advertisers, namely the Chinese government and HSBC.
Say what you like about Peter Oborne (Private Eye usually do) but he consistently upholds a surprisingly rare strength of morals in his columns. He's been getting a bit more agitated lately. In fact he wrote a column just last week for the Spectator in which he makes the rather stunning claim that Ed Miliband's the best Leader Of The Opposition in living memory. Key evidence cited - his willingness to tackle vested interests and powerful voices. This now all makes perfect sense.
Also the Telegraph have said not to worry about Oborne’s piece – it’s full of inaccuracies. No run down forthcoming as yet about what those inaccuracies are. Or why their CHIEF POLITICAL COMMENTATOR (who probably had sign off on most political stories) would be so wrong. Oh well.
The Telegraph's chinned off loads of its more moderate voices recently, as Oborne cited himself. Matt D'Ancona was the most surprising one (who's now ended up at The Guardian). Interesting things are happening at it.
Also worth noting HSBC gave the same editorial flex to the Guardian, after they investigated HSBC's goings on. The Guardian told them to shove it. The Telegraph, however, have been in thrall to it. Unsure as to how directly comparable the situations are but... worth knowing that this `sort of thing` isn't `just what happens` eh.
said that they 'refute' the allegations.
That, at least, wouldn't have happened under Heffer's watch.
Classic. Be interesting if that's in their style guide...
There was a tweet doing the rounds not long ago in which the writer was scrupulously editing Simon Heffer's book about scrupulous use of proper English. Was quite funny.
position on things, even if you don't agree.
Echoing comments above, but the Telegraph used to be a paper that any half sensible person, regardless of their political views, could easily pick up a copy of and find something to interest them. Not so much now...
I didn't even notice.
I sat a test with lots of others.
I was really good in the test, they mentioned this in the interviews, that i had the highest scores in the tests in birmingham for that period.
I was asked lots of current affairs questions which I was able to discuss aspects of as I was aware of these affairs and had internal dialogues about them.
One of the questions that they asked was what papers I read regularly or brought. I replied that I didn't (because I didn't), and I explained why.
I didn't get a job.
I should have lied and said what I thought they probably wanted to hear, and that i read the ft times guardian and telegraph, but I believed in sincerity and that that would win through. I was wrong.
If asked, lie, and tell them what they want you to say, they don't actually want you to be sincere (just the appearance)
about current affairs that cost you the job more than the newspaper thing. :)
Blackadder: There are only two princesses in Europe available. The first is Grand Duchess Sophia of Turin. We'll never get her to marry him.
Baldrick: Why not?
Blackadder: Because she's met him.
and I think that I was extremely convincing and would be exactly the sort of person who you would want to be in the civil service.
Bravo Telegraph. That's fucked what little was left of your reputation for making independent editorial decisions.
It's not particularly coherent (lashing out at targets on the left without acknowledging that the likes of the Mail also gave the HSBC prominence), but also then basically says that the Telegraph isn't like other papers because it has to make a profit, which might be true, but it completely undermines the point they're trying to make.
that it was their own political editor who broke the story in his resignatory open letter
The way it is worded might lead cynics to claim (no doubt incorrectly) that they're saying they consider very rich people should be able to evade their responsibilities to society and not be publicly criticised for doing so.
don't think they're gonna get any support from the vast majority of their readership on this. Really weird PR slip-up tbh, almost sounds like one of those statements that chairmen of league one football clubs type out themselves in a rage, when everyone's calling them a shitcunt for trying to sign a rapist or something, and they feel really offended by it all.
to say they'll change future behaviour, which makes it impossible to do much other than try and come up with some kind of weird defence of it and lash out at all concerned - it's about the only way to go about defending the indefensible.
Reckon the Telegraph's got a very strong core readership who've never read anything else and will never read anything else. Not sure why anyone outside of this would bother to read the Telegraph these days, since they’ve been dispensing with many high quality commentators. Is their sports coverage still pretty good? I dunno.
I refuse to buy it, but I don’t know why they’re kicking and screaming so much when their ownership model seems reasonably similar (could be wrong) to The Times in essence. They’ve partially weathered the `new media` storm by encouraging online subscription in return for ensuring they can back this up with a raft of high-quality commentariat and content. Seems a better model to me (notwithstanding other evils etc.)
but it doesn't benefit, and hasn't benefited in the past, from the cross-funding and subsidies from tabloid stablemates and satellite television.
though surely (Littlewoods etc.)? Fully accept that's a lot less lucrative than Murdoch's portfolio of interests but... ultimately my point is contending the Telegraph's sob-story about `having` to bend to advertiser pressure to survive. The Times have at least shown in part how The Telegraph might wish to equip themselves to deal with their demographic/digital challenges.
I might be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that the Telegraph group operates as a self-contained entity.
Was working on the assumption that most newspapers as a whole haemorrhage money so assumed wealthy backers had some way of pumping other revenue streams in... but, likewise, I could well be wrong.
"Evidently, TMG's advertising revenues have remained relatively stable."
But of course: `continues to defy the newspaper publishing sector's downward market trend`
Love how that works to confirm Oborne's accusations rather than `refute` them. It's all rather brilliant.
Whilst I abhor all parties involved, this anecdote from Andrew Neil from his tenure at the Sunday Times is pretty good, at anecdote level obvs. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B-HN7ZWCUAAE5C9.png:large
but HSBC's £250m is a considerably sterner test of integrity than Al-Fayed's £3m
An analysis of the Telegraph's HSBC coverage: http://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/policywonkers/was-peter-oborne-right-about-the-telegraphs-coverage-of-the-hsbc-scandal/
don't really understand how he can say it's not his job when Call me Dave sticks his nose into everything and anyway isn't this the equivalent of a Secretary of State for Education saying that it's not their job to deal with a massive failure in the school system?
especially this bit
"Ministers have faced a public backlash for allowing large corporations such as Vodafone and the bank Goldman Sachs to come to cosy deals with HMRC over multimillion pound tax debts while small businesses and individuals have been hounded for payments."
vis-a-vis Gideon's claim
“We resourced HMRC accordingly and as a result prosecutions are up fivefold,”
My mum was hounded for £500 she apparently owed in unpaid tax but she contested the demand for over a year until it finally ended up in court and the Judge awarded that HMRC pay my mum £500 in damages + court costs as they had no evidence at all for my mum's liability.
It's only anecdotal & I can't really claim that it's HMRC's policy to shakedown individuals to extort cash (many would just pay rather than contend) but it's clearly a massively wasteful use of public resources to let off corporation for billions and hound individuals for pennies
but it is his department's responsibility what with HMRC being under the Treasury's remit, so it's certainly not unreasonable that he should be held accountable.
it's not directly his job to bring prosecutions but it is absolutely his job to see to it that the treasury is managed in the proper way and that they, through various agencies, have the power & commitment to pursue tax evasion & fraud
then again, it's not Call Me Dave's job to tell Facebook or the population what should & shouldn't be allowed to be posted about British Soldiers but that doesn't stop him sticking his oar in
is quite the opposite to Mr Oborne's: editorial judgments have been allowed to determine advertising priorities.
Someone is IRKED
is a standard clause in every contract like this.
Despicable Me getting an extra star bc the studio bought lots of advertising
No-one who's ever read the stand-up section of the Guardian Guide of a Saturday could believe that's not paid for, for example.
Just thought it was quite funny, given the film in question...
Just have a funny feeling the Guardian and a few others might skip reporting this particular angle.
but it contains a fair bit of info:
we want the old marckee back
I mean I can't imagine Telegraph readers are going to think 'yeah, right on', there seems to be literally nothing to gain from it. And it's one thing to bash the leftie hypocritical etc Guardian, but opening a front against the Times too is a bit Operation Barbarossa. The thing is, if Times staff are being driven to despair by management then maybe there is a story there, but using two people's deaths in tit-for-tat mudslinging trivialises and even deflects from what might be a real issue
pretty much every issue of Private Eye for the last year has had stories about the mess the paper has been in, with staff leaving, the new American overlord being a complete monster and having no clue what he's doing, allegedly firing Clive James despite him being terminally ill, collapsing circulation held up largely by those free water/chocolate deals, crosspromotion for other Barclays Brothers enterprises etc
it all seems to have gotten a lot more public now though, and they're chosen to go on this bizarre warpath to deflect attention.
but it's a question of who they're trying to deflect the attention from, if it's their own readers it is kind of predicated on the readers having read up on the situation elsewhere, in which case surely the Telegraph should try and assuage their fears rather than say 'look how shit everyone else is'. But probably this is what happens when you have a newspaper without an actual editor.