Standards of UK Journalism

[THE RED ROOSTER]

Before this thread decends further into a political debate.

Responsible journaliosm is about reporting the facts as they are, not slanting them to support your narrative. You do that and it is opinion not journalism.

As for the Ryan Giggs saga, salacious gossip about celebrities and the lives of the rich and famous do sell papers at the tabloid end of the market. It's treated as a matter of "public interest" and proof of that is the existance of this thread...

[Gordon Street]

2 hours ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

Before this thread decends further into a political debate.

Responsible journaliosm is about reporting the facts as they are, not slanting them to support your narrative. You do that and it is opinion not journalism.

As for the Ryan Giggs saga, salacious gossip about celebrities and the lives of the rich and famous do sell papers at the tabloid end of the market. It's treated as a matter of "public interest" and proof of that is the existance of this thread...

journalism responsible or otherwise is far more far reaching and important than reporting facts. Journalism is also about providing background to events, comment and opinion, and interpretation of those facts. No two people see events in exactly the same way. Journalism is very much about providing narrative. It is an important part of the service it provides. 

[Wolford6]

New York Times and Washington Post both asking 'What will happen to the queen’s royal pack of corgis?'

[JohnM]

Anyone able to explain current reporter/ journalism usage,  saying someone had "passed" .  Used to be "passed away" or more simply "died".  . 

Edited September 9 by JohnM

[Gerrumonside ref]

52 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Anyone able to explain current reporter/ journalism usage,  saying someone had "passed" .  Used to be "passed away" or more simply "died".  . 

Language evolves, John.

[Shadow]

22 hours ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

As for the Ryan Giggs saga, salacious gossip about celebrities and the lives of the rich and famous do sell papers at the tabloid end of the market. It's treated as a matter of "public interest" and proof of that is the existance of this thread...

The twisting of the “Public interest” line to include sordid gossip like the Giggs saga and Wagnarok have contributed to the decline of journalistic integrity in this country and others.

There is a massive difference between “in the public interest” and “the public is interested in….”

[Gordon Street]

3 hours ago, Shadow said:

The twisting of the “Public interest” line to include sordid gossip like the Giggs saga and Wagnarok have contributed to the decline of journalistic integrity in this country and others.

There is a massive difference between “in the public interest” and “the public is interested in….”

if you were to half close your eyes and try quite hard, you could see the 'public interest' being served in relation to the treatment of women in cases of alleged domestic violence/physical and sexual abuse, particularly when it involves rich and powerful men. Silence from victims, and a pliant media meant that people like Weinstein and Savile were able to get away with it for years and no doubt still do. 

[Futtocks]

On 02/09/2022 at 09:05, JohnM said:

In my opinion, standards of reporting here are very high in the responsible media: BBC, Times, Telegraph, Private Eye.

The Telegraph? A decade or so ago, maybe. It was a quality newspaper I'd read and enjoy, despite its viewpoint being mostly different to mine.

Nowadays, it is a shrill, hectoring rag whose motives are both base and barely-concealed. The sooner the remaining Barclay brother relinquishes control, the better. Those two degenerates did for the Telegraph what Murdoch did to the Times, only worse.

[Damien]

The last couple of weeks I've been watching a documentary about the BBC. When discussing media coverage of things like the death of Princess Diana journalists from different newspapers openly admitted to printing stuff that they knew wasnt true, conspiracy theories and the like, just because it sells more newspapers. Whilst we know this goes on it is still very disconcerting when they are so blase about it. Newspapers have so many agendas, whether political or sales driven, and they really should be taken to account more and punished more heavily.

[JohnM]

3 hours ago, Futtocks said:

The Telegraph? A decade or so ago, maybe. It was a quality newspaper I'd read and enjoy, despite its viewpoint being mostly different to mine.

Nowadays, it is a shrill, hectoring rag whose motives are both base and barely-concealed. The sooner the remaining Barclay brother relinquishes control, the better. Those two degenerates did for the Telegraph what Murdoch did to the Times, only worse.

No doubt you are right. It's years since I read it. I don't buy it, and it's behind the paywall. 

 

[Wolford6]

I don't know what's going on at the Western Mail. It seems to have stopped putting out articles on Glamorgan CCC. The team has had a good season and, this week, their captain scored an undefeated triple century. No reportage for weeks.