Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Trial by media

I don't mean to start this thread and go over old ground that may have already been covered under the Malky Mackay/Dave Whelan and Ched Evans threads, but I thought the two warranted bringing together over the role the media has played in the two.

Let me say that from the outset, all parties have done wrong here. Evans obviously has been found guilty, served his time and is now free to try and continue a life back in society (according to our justice system). Mackay I don't think has a leg to stand on and when the FA inquiry ends, I think he will be found guilty and punished. Finally Whelan has shown ignorance and offence with his terms in trying to defend the appointment of Mackay, although I don't know exactly what was said specifically.

What I am getting wound up with, and it's nothing new, is just the sensational headlines and involvement in the media on how they are reporting both these incidents.

It winds me up that off the back of the News of the World trial, the media are so quick to position themselves as holier than thou and really put the boot in, in attempt to sell the most papers/get the most viewers.

A bit abstract, but it reminds me of when we get really bad snow in this country and travel grinds to a halt, tv reporters are trying to outdo themselves with how they emphasise terms like 'it's disgusting' and 'it's unacceptable'.

We get that. Just because you choose to say those words with more animation or more aggression, doesn't make the content of what you are saying any more informative.

Comments

  • "in attempt to sell the most papers/get the most viewers"

    And there it is. A lot of people love it as they still buy the papers and watch the shows.
  • edited November 2014
    The News of the World shut down, but how many of their ex readers are now buying The Sun on Sunday, knowing it is from Murdochs stable and really is the news of the World under a different banner.
  • I actually think the press are setting the agenda less.

    It is the 'people' that are setting the agenda, as the press (to me) simply follow and inflate whatever the common view is on Twitter. Well at least the tabloid ones do.
  • I actually think the press are setting the agenda less.

    It is the 'people' that are setting the agenda, as the press (to me) simply follow and inflate whatever the common view is on Twitter. Well at least the tabloid ones do.

    I agree, I just can't stand the way the fall over one another to try and sound the most righteous. It becomes less about the actual story and more about the way the story is reported, language they use, seeds they sow.

    Probably more so in the case of Evans. Again, not wanting to go over what has been said elsewhere, but if you take the view that he's completed his sentence, under our justice system he should be free to recommence work.

    His job, and what he's good at, just so happens to be a footballer. Yet I think he's going to find it tough to get back into football, because it is going to be a story the media jump all over, regardless of which club he tries to play for.

    I'm just trying to see it objectively because if it were my daughter, sister, female friend or relative, I'm sure my feelings would be clouded.

    Perhaps the media will not be so on him now Sheff Utd have come out and said he won't be going back there, but I think he may have to go abroad if he wants to continue playing football. I don't know.
  • @cabbles‌ - I think you highlight an important point.

    Freedom of speech (and of the press) ought to come with some responsibilty for the consequences of what is said and/or reported. Much of UK media, to an even greater extent than in other countries as far as I am aware, doesn't sufficiently respect this principle. It appears happy to stir up a "shit storm", with no care for the impact, either in general or for individuals, provided it sells copy. Piers Morgan, when editor of NotW and Mirror, was an extreme example of this irresponsibility, of course, but the attitude is widespread.

    When combined with the dynamics of social media, we've now seen how this mainstream culture can catalyse the creation of a form of "mob rule" which can then determine how some events unfold.

    If we want to live in a fair and just society, which treats us all in the same way, while being thoughtful about the acute moral dilemmas we sometimes face, we should worry about this trend.

  • Agree with the points raised. The media in this country, on the whole, are a despicable bunch who unless forced to will not change their practices. It would be nice to see some sort of false advertising style sanctions against them for writing things that just didn't happen. For example, how many times have you read an article headlined something like "...blasts opposite number" only for there to be absolutely no mention of it in any quotes by that person.

    Things need to change but unfortunately the masses lap up the output by them, as is shown by the Mail's popularity as a news website just because of their link baiting and celebrity stories.
  • if we could just get rid of all newspapers and news stations and just have the bbc, channel 4 news, the guardian and the daily telegraph that would be great.
  • @cabbles‌ - I think you highlight an important point.

    Freedom of speech (and of the press) ought to come with some responsibilty for the consequences of what is said and/or reported. Much of UK media, to an even greater extent than in other countries as far as I am aware, doesn't sufficiently respect this principle. It appears happy to stir up a "shit storm", with no care for the impact, either in general or for individuals, provided it sells copy. Piers Morgan, when editor of NotW and Mirror, was an extreme example of this irresponsibility, of course, but the attitude is widespread.

    When combined with the dynamics of social media, we've now seen how this mainstream culture can catalyse the creation of a form of "mob rule" which can then determine how some events unfold.

    If we want to live in a fair and just society, which treats us all in the same way, while being thoughtful about the acute moral dilemmas we sometimes face, we should worry about this trend.

    This is what I thought. Piers Morgan is the best (or worst) example. I thought it was shocking the way he ran with those fake photos of British soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners. He was (maybe still is) completely unrepentant.

    10 years later he's got all his celebrity mates and a chat show!!!! Such a bell end. But I can just imagine others of his ilk calling the shots, damning everybody and anybody, sacrificing content and impartiality
  • Trial by media does indeed have negative connotations. And in many instances the unease is more than justified.

    For example, I think it is wrong that the media should be permitted to publish the name of the accused when there has been a rape allegation until such time as the individual has been found guilty. (In this regard I refer you back to the newspaper headlines over the Jordan Cousins situation and the utter silence in the media when the allegations were shown to be unfounded.)

    However, there is no denying that on occasions trial by media is sometimes the only justice available and/or the only way that justice is forthcoming. Examples that come readily to mind are Watergate and then Plebgate. There have been many others. I just don't know where the line should be drawn. One thing of which I'm sure, I'd rather have our media than what is available in Russia or China.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited November 2014

    I actually think the press are setting the agenda less.

    It is the 'people' that are setting the agenda, as the press (to me) simply follow and inflate whatever the common view is on Twitter. Well at least the tabloid ones do.

    this .. it's as much a case of 'the traditional media' following the new 'open media' .. the Thornberry furore is a good example .. the woman makes an unwise (in some people's eyes) Tweet and 12 hours later is out of a job serving in Ed's happy shadow crew .. the tweet is picked up by TV and the press, goes 'viral', Miliband panics and like a good Stalinist, dispenses with an embarrassing colleague tout de suite. In the 'real world' is what Thornberry did a sacking offence ?
  • It's difficult in that if their is one law fits all to cover intrusive/investigative journalism.

    Eg if you're a celeb and the papparazi are constantly taking photos of you when your trying to have some private time in your home then that's intrusive and should be curtailed.

    But when journalists are looking into scandals such as kids in care homes being abused then that is investigative and should go deeper.

    Its how you define the line between intrusion and investigation. The abusers will say you're being intrusive but they really need investigating.



  • I actually think the press are setting the agenda less.

    It is the 'people' that are setting the agenda, as the press (to me) simply follow and inflate whatever the common view is on Twitter. Well at least the tabloid ones do.

    this .. it's as much a case of 'the traditional media' following the new 'open media' .. the Thornberry furore is a good example .. the woman makes an unwise (in some people's eyes) Tweet and 12 hours later is out of a job serving in Ed's happy shadow crew .. the tweet is picked up by TV and the press, goes 'viral', Miliband panics and like a good Stalinist, dispenses with an embarrassing colleague tout de suite. In the 'real world' is what Thornberry did a sacking offence ?
    Lincs, in today's social media world of 'instancy' and the need for blame, then yes, it is a sacking offence ... and perhaps that is right ...she has made a serious gaffe that has put her 'organisation' under a bad light. In the 'real world' this could also be considered a sacking offence.
  • cabbles said:

    @cabbles‌ - I think you highlight an important point.

    Freedom of speech (and of the press) ought to come with some responsibilty for the consequences of what is said and/or reported. Much of UK media, to an even greater extent than in other countries as far as I am aware, doesn't sufficiently respect this principle. It appears happy to stir up a "shit storm", with no care for the impact, either in general or for individuals, provided it sells copy. Piers Morgan, when editor of NotW and Mirror, was an extreme example of this irresponsibility, of course, but the attitude is widespread.

    When combined with the dynamics of social media, we've now seen how this mainstream culture can catalyse the creation of a form of "mob rule" which can then determine how some events unfold.

    If we want to live in a fair and just society, which treats us all in the same way, while being thoughtful about the acute moral dilemmas we sometimes face, we should worry about this trend.

    This is what I thought. Piers Morgan is the best (or worst) example. I thought it was shocking the way he ran with those fake photos of British soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners. He was (maybe still is) completely unrepentant.

    10 years later he's got all his celebrity mates and a chat show!!!! Such a bell end. But I can just imagine others of his ilk calling the shots, damning everybody and anybody, sacrificing content and impartiality
    Morgan should be tried for treason and punished accordingly for those photos.
    Scum. Smug, filthy rich scum.
  • This was reported in the Guardian of Whelan.

    'However, he said the word chink is not offensive, and that he used to say it of Chinese people when he was young. “If any Englishman said he has never called a Chinaman a chink he is lying,” Whelan said. “There is nothing bad about doing that. It is like calling the British Brits, or the Irish paddies.” Wong, director of the Manchester Chinese Centre an organisation devoted to Chinese community cultural understanding, said chink “is an insult, racist”.

    “I remember at school in the 70s a skinhead kicking me, calling me ‘chinky, chinky,’” Wong said. “It has stopped now; things have changed for the better. We have legal protection against racism and that is important; it is not political correctness. As a football manager, this man should not have said it.”

    Whelan later said that if anyone had been offended by his comments “to please accept my sincere apology”. He added: “I would never insult a Jewish person. I have got hundreds and hundreds of Jewish friends.” He told Sky News: “I’ve got loads of Chinese friends and I would never, ever insult the Chinese.”'

    Personally I agree that 'chink' is an insult and racist, and so is 'chinky takeaway' and so on.
    I would like to have Whelan say it to my face, or better still in a group including Chinese people.
    A country of 1.5 billion people, they are not all the same are they, unless you come from the view that Martians would call all of us 'earthlings' I suppose.
    It is not political correctness 'gone mad' to object to racist terms, it is being vigilant and civilized.
    Bollocks to all the media by the way, we're talking about an influential figure in the football industry who uses racist terms, and has employed another individual who has used racist terms. McKay is reportedly re visiting where he stands on his own casual racism, and it would be nice if he gave Mr Whelan some advice about where to seek help.
    Mind you some of my best friends are Millwall and Palace fans, but I still think Millwall and Palace fans are wrong 'uns.
  • Thing about Ched Evans that continues to confuse me is, he hasn't served his 5 years - how come ? I thought one of the most important criteria for early release was remorse, clearly none here
  • Thing about Ched Evans that continues to confuse me is, he hasn't served his 5 years - how come ? I thought one of the most important criteria for early release was remorse, clearly none here

    This is a good point. I thgt he was done completely. I think I raised the thread probably more with Evans in mind than Whelan.

    I saw in the Evening Standard tonight an article about a wall of people who will stop Evans getting a club in London. Again I don't mean to trivialise what he's done, but are the Evening Standard just jumping on the bandwagon here and going with what the majority of the public think (or what the ES believes they think).

    The last I checked Evans hadn't been linked with a London club, is it a news story yet?

    Or are they genuinely in the right and what he's done is so deplorable that we (London) don't want him anywhere near the capital.

    There was a survey by the way. So I guess they are going by what certain people say.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!