General Chat

in what sense Lynda?

????????? :-S

Ditto to what Gwynne said, but more so now :-)

Ann it certainly does not pay an awful ot

hmm - I must be clairvoyant - I might take it up to make a bit of wonga

I would have loved to have been a journalist - too late now :-(

Having worked for many years as a journalist and about ten as a newspaper editor I feel I know a little bit about the subject matter Ann

I have to ask Errol - you appear to be pretty clued up on journalism - could that be your background? Sounds a bit like "What's my Line" doesn't it :-D :-D

but at the end of the day, people still buy those "rags"

I'd say we have some of the best news reporting and some high journalisitc standards. We also have some scum writing for utter rags.

Guinevere I have always adhered to the strictest of standards.
Salacious news sells salacious papers.
I think any decent journalist would agree that phone hacking was wrong but it has gone on for a very long time in one form or another and in some ways is merely a modern version of doorstepping as far as privacy is concerned (please don't jump on me and say it is different because it is spying on phones as that is not what I am saying).
I know quite a bit about the subject matter and still maintain we have the best news reporting and journalistic standards in the world.

1. The reporting of the interest in S&M of a murder victim's father.
2. The naming of the landlord of a murder victim with the implication he was guilty.
3. Reporting on the attempted suicide of the mother of someone in the public eye. The information gathered by hacking her phone.

I'm not going to go on and on there are enough examples out there. Perhaps I just expect higher standards than you do, Errol.

People criticise the press and yet they are as bad if not worse through spurious speculation on dubious websites (websites which, I hasten to add, they are often too quick to believe verbatim!)
A prime example is the McCann case

Supercrutch - somewhat tricky to agree with or disagree with you or at least argue a point if you won't actually be specific.
I stand by what I say because I do know a little about it

I'll not sully the board with their name but just say 'Clarence Mitchell' ;-)

Not a generalisation - an informed observation.
In any profession you get bad 'uns but I still maintain the British press is second to none.
To say destruction of reputation is often false I would love to see figures to back that statement up.

I can't agree with such a generalisation, Errol. Some reporters and editors are lower than low and not worthy of the name. What they dig up isn't news, it's intrusion into people's lives and the destruction of reputation, often falsely.

However, others are diligent, resourceful and unafraid to publish. I used to think the same of the BBC but after the squashing of the Savile programme I've had to have a rethink.

If people put themselves in front of the public then they may be asking for it but the press intrusion into the private lives of victims of crimes and their relatives is inexcusable.

Which case is that and why is it moot?

Errol, the particular case I am referring to which Muffy follows, sub judice is moot, as is any hope of justice.

Guinevere, I believe that re the Royal reporting, Knowing for a fact what we do know about Princess Margaret.

Of course Guinevere. Self censorship is called editing. And as I have said previously, a newspaper is a business not a service so of cause any individual peper will have its own political alegiances. That is why the press in this country is such a wonderful thing and free of outside censorship.

I used to know a royal reporter and he told me stuff I'd never have believed if it was in the paper.

The newpapers do self-censor but not as much as they used to and not as much as they ought. They all have their political biases. Most newspapers support the Tory party and the others are lefty.

Neither side will publish anything too damaging to the party of their choice.