Who’s telling this story? Whose story is it anyway?
It’s the age old argument at dinner tables twixt husband and wife – ‘Who’s telling this story?’ – as husband (I’m biased, so?) interrupts wife halfway through the tale and manages to spoil the punch line…
It has set me thinking. Who actually ‘owns’ a story? The subject of the tale, or the person doing the retelling – for you can be sure of one thing, like a Chinese whisper, the tale will have subtly changed. It’s a particularly pertinent point when applied to journalists and the media.
The art of the journalist is to appear as ‘friend’, prepared to listen, hanging onto a person’s every word, particularly in the face of tragedy when family and friends will do anything to change the subject, too intimately involved to bear a retelling of the facts.
When the journalist says – ‘Tell me how you felt when you discovered your husband had been eaten by a giant panda/raped your Mother/died after three months afloat on a raft in the South Pacific’ – do we really imagine that this total stranger is imbued with powers of empathy, or care and consideration that is not present in our nearest and dearest? Or are we just grateful for the sympathetic ear, the free ‘counseling and support’, the sense enhanced by the presence of the tiny microphone (that he hopes we’ve forgotten) that our view of events is so important that he cannot afford to miss a single word?
The journalist is quick to claim ownership of the story, copyright on his version of the words that saw it into print, the story ‘that every journalist would want’? In one sense, journalism is the art of patenting gossip – The ‘I heard it first’ syndrome. But shouldn’t ownership of the story belong to the person who suffered those events?
I am particularly mindful of the large number of journalists who claim to have ‘heard’ stories regarding Savile over the years, first hand in some cases, from alleged victims. Should those stories really be ‘theirs’, to hang onto, clasped to their bosom, until they could make what they see as their ‘rightful’ income out of them? Or should those stories be seen in the same light as a lost wallet lying in the street, something that should be handed into a place of safety? If the journalist is not in a position to fulfill that clarion call of ‘let me tell your story, let your voice be heard’ for whatever reason, should there be a duty imposed on them to make sure that the story reaches a place of safety?
Can you see where I am going with this? It’s beginning to seem to me that a large part of our present problem is the fact that journalists are given the ‘right’, that precious ’press pass’, to swarm round every tragedy, and we then take it as a given that the tales they hear…belong to them! It is as though every bank was forced to open its vaults to the wind at regular intervals – and the money belongs to whoever scoops it up first. It is then their choice whether to hand it in, or hang onto it for future need. We would argue that it was never ‘theirs’ to hang onto.
Perhaps rather than regulating the media, we need to think what the media really means, what role it actually provides in our life. No journalist alive would sit down with a potential subject and say ‘let me give you the chance to have every aspect of your life torn apart in forums’, to become a byword for whatever derogatory slant the writer decides to put upon that story? There is a very subtle grooming process that goes on when a journalist sits down with a vulnerable person. ‘Let me help you find your daughter’. ‘Let me tell your side of the story’. ‘Let me make you feel important’. They don’t mean any of those words. They mean ‘spill, baby, this could be the next step in my career’.
And the moment you speak to this person, this journalist person, the story is not yours any longer. It is theirs. To do with as they wish.
If we feel the need in time of tragedy or unresolved traumas , as it seems we do, to find a sympathetic ear, or to publicise some loss in the hope that others may know something – then maybe we, as a society, should be looking at ways in which we can fulfill those needs rather than accepting that the present media is all we have and seeking to rein in their excesses.
What is that ghastly American phrase? ‘Blue Sky thinking’ needed here?
Can anybody run with this idea? Let us take the McCann’s as a prime example of betrayal by the media – What could we invent for society that would have fulfilled their myriad needs at the time that Madeleine disappeared, that wouldn’t have involved the media taking ‘ownership’ of their story? Or Karin Ward, if you like, another person who was sadly abused and betrayed by the media?
Could something more positive be dreamt up for society than merely regulating the media? (Try not to come up with the parish priest, we’ve tried that one already).
It might even be as simple as transferring copyright to the subject of the story…
Show me what you’re made of in the comments. I’m counting on you.
May 5, 2013 at 14:52
-
PS my earlier comment on same article got 18 recci’s ….
How’s about that
then guys and gals ..;)
- May 5,
2013 at 16:21
-
We can only hope that the public is getting tired of all this, and is
starting to decide for themselves instead of being swept along by the
clanging train of the MSM. It’s so glaringly obvious what’s been going on
here, and what is still going on. It’s up to the public whether this
continues to play out, or whether we can move on to something more
enlightening soon. Thumbs up rabbit, keep up the good work!
-
May 5, 2013 at 17:52
-
Thanks for that Mewsical – we have to keep taking the fight to them –
challenging them on their turf with thoughtful, reasoned arguments. I keep
trying to be first to comment that way everyone see’s our side first –
unless it get’s removed – onwards
M Big Smiley
- May 3, 2013 at 22:32
-
@rabbitaway
Indeed. Surely you knew of all of these glittering moments
in MWT already, didn’t you?
-
May 3, 2013 at 22:33
-
In MWT’s career, was what the above ought to have said.
- May 3, 2013 at 22:01
-
I’m just browsing around for info on this guy who’s so fond of playing
judge, jury etc – in this other piece about the same case (Tia Sharp) Goodness
we can do away with the police, newspapers and CPS and just put Markey Mark on
the case !
- May 3, 2013 at 21:27
-
He certainly gets around this MWT – here he is ‘reporting’ on the Tia
Sharpe case in August two months before Exposure . Now I wonder, is this guy a
journalist, criminologist or copper ?? Looks like he wants to be all three at
the SAME time !!
- May 3, 2013 at 17:25
-
@Mewsical – I ran my bath this morning better than he ‘ran’ his expose
‘investigation’ – so much to be proud of – persuading at least 2 liars and a
con man to speak on camera about a defenseless dead man. I’m not sure about
his part in J King either – he appears to be as big a fantasist as Fiona. A
dangerous man. let’s hope we see the back of him soon – preferably
disappearing through door of the scrubs – Shepherds Bush – you know where
Jim’ll fix it was made !
- May 3,
2013 at 19:02
-
I am only sorry that the jury who tried him for possible blackmail
against the owner of a funeral facility found him not guilty. They could
have done us all a HUGE favor if they’d found differently. Oh well. Next
time.
-
May 3, 2013 at 19:25
-
@Mewsical
Couldn’t agree more. Although if we go by his own
standards we can simply say that we believe the victim, and the fact he
got off is purely down to the failings of the investigation and the
criminal justice system. For added value we can lament that he is still
getting away with it and hiding in plain sight.
-
May 3, 2013 at 19:37
-
I took it that he was acquitted, does that not mean neither an
innocent or guilty verdict was met? If that was the case IF further
evidence was found would he be tried again?
- May
3, 2013 at 20:32
-
This is the prosecutor. If you scroll down you’ll see details of the
charges brought. http://www.bushywood.com/crown_prosecution_service/henrietta_paget.htm
– a little more detail here . http://s6.zetaboards.com/The_TV_Shelter/topic/8844888/1/
– either way, if he did what is alleged, regardless of the acquittal,
it’s sleazy and unethical. It may not have met the legal standards for
blackmail, but morally it is. If he was so concerned, he could have gone
to the owner and button-holed him, and simply said if you don’t stop
doing what I hear you’re doing, what makes you think other members of
the press won’t find out? Someone told me; nothing to stop them telling
others. So stop it.
-
May 3, 2013 at 20:41
-
Mina Field,
Re: “For added value we can lament that he is still getting away with
it and hiding in plain sight”
Lol, you’d be right too….
- May 3,
2013 at 21:15
-
@Mewsical, Mina Field and Lucozade – for you …..skim down the
page
http://www.bushywood.com/crown_prosecution_service/henrietta_paget.htm
- May 3, 2013 at 21:28
-
I tried to make a post earlier about Henrietta Paget, but I’m on
moderation.
- May 3, 2013 at 21:29
-
Here’s the post – probably a glitch with the blog.
This is the prosecutor. If you scroll down you’ll see details
of the charges brought. http://www.bushywood.com/crown_prosecution_service/henrietta_paget.htm
– a little more detail here . http://s6.zetaboards.com/The_TV_Shelter/topic/8844888/1/
– either way, if he did what is alleged, regardless of the
acquittal, it’s sleazy and unethical. It may not have met the
legal standards for blackmail, but morally it is. If he was so
concerned, he could have gone to the owner and button-holed him,
and simply said if you don’t stop doing what I hear you’re doing,
what makes you think other members of the press won’t find out?
Someone told me; nothing to stop them telling others. So stop
it.
- May 5, 2013 at 14:50
-
Mewsical, Mina Field, Lucozade – I wonder if people are
waking up …..I usually get insults when I comment in MSM but I’m
getting lots of recci’s on this ….
rabbitaway
1 day ago
No one can know for sure what, if anything happened all those
years ago but we must remember – ‘innocent until proven…’ and so
on. Sir Jimmy Savile was never investigated by the police in
Yewtree. He was never charged with any crime – how sad that some
people choose to automatically believe such stories without
questioning the motives of the tellers and the program makers
who unearthed them.
(Edited by author 1 day ago)
Comment like count Recommended by 15
people
Reply
Edit
Report
FROM
-
May 3, 2013 at 22:54
-
Rabbitaway,
Re: http://www.bushywood.com/crown_prosecution_service/henrietta_paget.htm
It’s funny how even during the Salem witch trials people were able
to say “it would better that ten suspected witches may escape than one
innocent person be condemned”, and these witches were accused of some
pretty heinous stuff (child abuse included), yet today the common
attitude seems to be the reverse “it would better that ten innocent
people be condemned than one serial groper escape”, even if he gave up
the groping 30 years ago, lol….
- May 4, 2013 at 09:41
-
rabbitaway,
Re: “so much to be proud of –persuading at least 2 liars and a con man to
speak on camera about a defenseless dead man”
And you are being very generous indeed by only saying “at least 2 liars”
Good work Mark Williams Thomas (lmao)….
- May 4, 2013 at 10:56
-
rabbitaway,
Re: “Shepherds Bush – you know where Jim’ll fix it was made !”
And Clunk Click, lol….
-
May 4, 2013 at 11:55
-
M
- May 3,
2013 at 16:47
-
Someone asked about MWT and his involvement in the Jonathan King situation.
I found this relatively recent article from the Guardian in which MWT claims
to have ‘launched’ the investigation and he also confesses to calling the
press when he was a police officer, to feed them details of matters he was
working on. Ugh. Anyway, worth a dekko. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/24/mark-williams-thomas-jimmy-savile
-
May 3, 2013 at 18:11
-
@Mewsical
Thank you for your reply re MWT and Jonathan King. What you
and Moor Larkin have demonstrated is that it is just MWT who is going around
spreading the myth that he was in any way involved in the JK prosecution,
and that there is not a shred of evidence for it. He has himself disclosed
the fact that someone from the media mentioned their suspicions to him once,
and that seems to be the beginning and the end of his ‘involvement’. He
hasn’t said that he did anything about it – and as a lowly PC who was
already by that time starting to be a bloody nuisance with ideas above his
station,
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1390033/Police-dont-seem-to-have-a-clue-in-hunt-for-Milly.html[/url]
all
he could have done is pass up the message to his betters.
If I’m mistaken and he had an involvement he can correct me.
- May 3, 2013 at 15:00
-
Goodness me just come across this story – the woman who walked out on her
life suddenly reappears 12 yrs later ….notice the twittering …why can’t they
keep it to themselves …..!!
- May 2,
2013 at 18:57
-
I know quite a few of the Duncrofters complained that they were being
harassed by ‘journalists’ who had found them through the register of voters,
or whatever you call it there. Some of them – Ellicot of the Mail being one –
actually door-stepped after getting their information. Outrageous
behavior.
-
May 2, 2013 at 19:41
-
Mewsical – was this before or after ‘Exposure’ was aired ?
- May
2, 2013 at 20:05
-
Before, during and after.
- May
2, 2013 at 22:43
-
Mostly after, though.
- May 2,
2013 at 22:54
-
Thanks – I know you’ve already put up alot of info about the daily
mail hack etc – doorstepping…… that’s what they do …maybe someone
should doorstep some of them ….;)
- May 2, 2013 at 18:07
-
Now, this IS a real story. As it must be hers, I do hope Ms R feels free to
give us all the juicy inside details …….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-22383313
- May 2, 2013 at 11:04
-
@ It has set me thinking. Who actually ‘owns’ a story? The subject of the
tale, or the person doing the retelling – for you can be sure of one thing,
like a Chinese whisper, the tale will have subtly changed. It’s a particularly
pertinent point when applied to journalists and the media. @
A related conversation might be “What is News”.
I increasingly find the radio full of discussion/phone-in shows where the
News starts becoming what all these people are saying to one another about a
subject. This type of thing is best illustrated by the way later “News” shows,
or newspapers often become headlined by some [alleged] controversy over what
someone has said earlier, rather than anything they have done, or anything
that has actually happened. It seems to me that this is a trend that the
internet, twitter and suchlike voices have added further volume to, following
the long tradition of “Phone-In” radio-shows.
-
May 2, 2013 at 10:27
-
On the related subject of copyright and freedom of expression, Inform’s
blog is beginning an exposition:
-
May 2, 2013 at 09:52
-
In my lifetime the invention of the internet seems the best way to find
true freedom of speech.
- May 2, 2013 at 00:45
-
Re: “Or Karin Ward, if you like, another person who was sadly abused and
betrayed by the media?”
She may have been, but she is a grown woman who chose to write untrue
stories about celebrities on the internet were anyone could come across them,
if she couldn’t have foreseen that a journalist might have come across them
and taken an interest she should have at least owned up and admitted that they
were less than factual when they did instead of leading them a merry dance,
even if some of them did deserve it, it’s still peoples lives she’s messing
with.
Not unlike a journalist herself really….
- May 1, 2013 at 23:51
-
Factual, dispassionate and unbiased news would be good. No comments
please!
But the other side of The Media/Meejah really does require some
restraints to realise its potential. The dog’s dinner the idiots have cobbled
together as Regulations is obviously not helping.
Perhaps Friday will
reveal a countrywide stunning “one finger” to the so-called Big3. Do you think
it’ll make a difference?
- May 1, 2013 at 23:38
-
I was at a BBQ a couple of weeks ago, and got talking to a 25 year old
‘journalist’. Two years since her graduation, she is in her second post as a
reporter on the local newspaper. Considering she had the recent qualifications
and work experience in the subject and I’m just a jaded Law graduate, she
didn’t seem to have a clue about what constituted ‘investigative journalism’.
She gets direction and/or permission from superiors at the paper on what to
report, sees her ‘job’ as an invitation to target and/or make examples of
people she doesn’t like and promote those she does and – best of all – they
have license to trace (stalk?) people using polling register database (‘or
Facebook if they are a bit dodgy’). Quite simply, she is employed to bully
people and see ‘writing’ as basic lowest-common-denominator hackery.
Thing
is, I imagine this is what 99% of ‘journalists’ churned out by Universities
are like now.
- May 3,
2013 at 01:42
-
And Meirion Jones, who is a well-trained journalist of the old school,
has now joined their ridiculous ranks. Rupert Murdoch has changed the
standard of journalism in Britain to the absolute lowest common denominator,
and even if some of these newbies wanted to make a change, it wouldn’t work
because the British public wants this rubbish. It takes two to tango.
- May 1, 2013 at 23:09
-
‘We heard from a source’ – we made it up. ‘It was said today’ – We made it
up. ‘Some one who doesn’t want to be named said..’ – We made it up. If one
doesn’t speak to the press they give their own version anyway. Personally, if
a journalist told me that the sky was blue today, I would have to look up to
check. Maybe that’s ‘Blue style thinking’.
As far as I remember Mark
Williams Thomas was reporting for Sky during the Madeleine McCann
investigation and it was also he who was reporting the Savile documentary and
took it to ITV in which Karin Ward made her allegations of sexual abuse.
- May 1, 2013 at 22:52
-
There’s a relevant piece at WUWT – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/30/the-paradox-of-consensus/
“Theories that can be easily tested should have a high degree of consensus
among researchers. Those involving chaotic and less testable questions –
climate change or economic growth, physiology or financial markets – ought to
have a greater level of scientific disagreement.”
It should be the same with the subject of media stories – if a story is
easily testable then consensus is natural, if it isn’t (e.g. unverified
assertions about long ago events involving a dead man) then there shouldn’t be
consensus and it is dangerous if there is.
- May 1,
2013 at 22:15
-
It is has now become legal in the US for girls from the age of 15 and over
to purchase the ‘morning after’ pill, only being required to show ID to prove
they are 15. Before this, the pill had to prescribed for girls of 15 to 17, I
think. Now, they can take care of their own issues without involving either a
doctor or their family. 15 is now apparently considered an age when girls
might actually have sex and not be pilloried for it – let alone this should
seriously cut down on teen pregnancies. Britain needs to get a clue as
well.
-
May 2, 2013 at 01:06
-
I think it is illegal for girls of 15 to have sex in most states, unless
the boyfriend is the same age or very close. However letting them have
access to morning after pills is a good thing anyway for all the obvious
reasons.
- May 2, 2013 at 08:51
-
@Mewsical
Contraception is available in Britain. We still have around 8,000 under
16 pregnancies every year.
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/broken-britain.html
“Health
professionals in the UK may provide contraceptive advice and treatment to
young people under 16 if, in their clinical judgement, they believe it is in
the young person’s best medical interests and they are able to give what is
considered to be informed consent”
-
May 2, 2013 at 10:24
-
Moor Larkin,
Re: “Health professionals in the UK may provide contraceptive advice
and treatment to young people under 16 if, in their clinical judgement,
they believe it is in the young person’s best medical interests”
Lets face it, the contraceptive pill can also be diagnosed for period
pains and to treat acne. It’s gonna be at the doctors discretion and it’s
better than an unwanted pregnancy….
- May
2, 2013 at 18:31
-
The whole point of the lowering of the age is to allow younger women
to eliminate the need to consult a doctor or tell their parents, and to
simply go to a drugstore and buy the pill.
-
May 2, 2013 at 19:42
-
Mewsical,
Re: “The whole point of the lowering of the age is to allow younger
women to eliminate the need to consult a doctor or tell their parents,
and to simply go to a drugstore and buy the pill”
I don’t think I ever did go to the doctor without my mum before I
was 16, so I wouldn’t know about patient confidentiality before that
age, lol
- May 1, 2013 at 20:18
-
I am still surprised that not one newpaper seems to have questioned the
‘victims’ veracity, past or motivation and possible collusion, you would think
at least one would. Spiked has some good articles. You can pity the lives of
some but why make ‘vistims’ out of old men, particularly old rich men! except
for the money they may get. I think it is better not to ever speak to the
press and probably not the police either, safer that way. I don’t think there
is anything that would help the McCanns in their sorrow and, to some extent,
guilt. Maybe just speaking on radio or TV directly so whatever they say cannot
be twisted or distorted. Sure the press would put their own interpretation on
it but the actual words would still be out there.
- May 2, 2013 at 08:48
-
It’s quite hard. My latest Blog (and last until after the holiday
weekend) is “criticising” Debbie Curtis, but it’s a tricky path to tread,
without coming over like a bully yourself.
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/radio-goo-goo.html
- May 1, 2013 at 17:49
-
To be fair Anna, my offering is it’s not the ‘Journalist’ who is to blame
all the time. Getting a story into press has more than one simple cut ‘n paste
hoop. Editorial policy and editors forces rewrites; sub editors cut out
critical paragraphs because of space issues and write some very strange sub
headings. Although I’ll be generous and avow that they generally get the
spelling right. Not always, mind. Just mostly. Visit the Torygraph’s website,
or any other for that matter, for proof.
I’m also aware that there are few editors in Christendom who will let mere
facts get in the way of a juicy, if inaccurate, witch hunt. Mere facts don’t
sell papers, you see. ‘Human interest’ rules. Salacious gossip is more
appealing. At least to many. It occurs that perhaps we have the media we
deserve. Especially the tabloids.
- May 1, 2013 at 16:30
-
I certainly think that people should be aware that the media is not their
friend. Almost every media contact I have had or where I knew the people
concerned personally ended up in an inaccurate end result. And I don’t mean
differences of interpretation, I mean fabricated quotes and plain factual
inaccuracies (including my being given a non-existent wife). None of these
were even front page news – the stakes for the newspapers and TV companies
concerned were pretty much zero.
So I agree that the current system can
have horrifically bad effects on undeserving people whose story happens to be
of interest to the media but I’m not sure that people owning the copyright (or
something similar) on their own story is any answer.
What happens if
someone is lying about their story – or even if there are simply other
reasonable interpretations of their experiences? Can they prevent the press or
bloggers from using their words or actions to come to a conclusion they don’t
like?
If someone tells “their” story they are almost always going to be
including something about other people. Do those other people have no right to
pick apart or reproduce part of the original story in order to give their side
of the story? Is the first person infringing the copyright of anyone else they
mention anyway?
How would it be possible to write a sensible book about,
say, the Kennedy Assassination, the Falklands Conflict or even the history of
the Savile affair? So much of any such account would involve the use of
fragments of hundreds of people’s stories – many of whom might object to the
use to which their experiences were put even if it was the most anodyne book.
It would kill off almost any attempt to write a book which came to a
controversial conclusion.
I don’t think that this is what any of us want
and I find it difficult to imagine how any “ownership” of one’s own story
could have a much different outcome.
- May 1, 2013 at 15:16
-
Clever point Anna —one of many I would just never think of —-how to put it
right I haven’t got a clue though I am not sure things won’t work out or need
to be sorted out coz of the web—how things came about I might hazard a guess.
So some couple of centuries back newspapers started out just selling
advertising –then came the idea that putting a bit of factual news about what
was going on locally sold more advertising—-all facts were pretty local and
checkable in the fullness of time —-some came to buy the newspaper coz of
facts not just advertising and still the facts were to some greater or lesser
extent verifiable from personal experience —tell fibs repeatedly in a
newspaper and if people relied on them and they were wrong then no body would
buy it —I don’t know the financial mathematics of running a newspaper now or
in the past but given the wide boys who go into owning a newspaper I reckon it
is probably one of those industries where after you have sold enough papers to
cover fixed overheads (which I guess can be pretty high if you want quality)
you are on a winner financially (the power it brings is a bonus). So volume of
sales is probably the key to income and reducing fixed overheads is the other
key to profit margin —Outcome? Well quality is one of the least likely —-pitch
ones newspaper where it will sell most and buy your overheads from whoever
gives the lowest price —perhaps one of those areas where the ‘market’ model
produces some poor outcomes —-could be a bit of horsemeat thrown in with the
beef in lasagne (whose gonna tumble? —lets spend a bit more on brighter
packaging and bring the price down a penny or two) ot the Gosnells of the
world (whose gonna care if its more than 12 weeks? just hold the ultrasound at
the right angle and stick a larger notice ‘Pro Choice’ in the
window).Ultimately though those things come to light coz there is forensic
evidence
Like you I am pretty equivocal about the difference between horse
and beef (I eat neither though when I ate meat I ate both) but there are other
things that I am picky about —information is one of them—-yea truth if one
doesn’t want to gloss things—and truth doesn’t come in different ‘forms’ like
meat —-its well —-just the truth —–and the market model just doesn’t produce
truth as its outcome coz that is not what it is designed for.You can regulate
as much as you want but the imperative to profit— to ‘ownership’ of news —-and
once one convinces oneself ‘things’ are owned then one does as one likes with
them. Its that elision that it is claimed children make ‘I like it, I want
it,It’s mine’ Strange I don’t find children make that elision as easily as
adults do.Adults love to claim a right to ‘things’ —I own the newspaper so I
claim the right to the news is possibly just one example — teachers claim
rights to educate pupils entrusted into their care —- and so on and so
forth.
Whats to be done about the present day media? Well the market model
for information —for production of the truth—- that hasn’t produced the truth
since it was never designed to, is dying –blind panic all round —battalions of
lawyers (always a sign of something failing) —loads of experts diagnosing
whats wrong —- no two opinions the same—–if they had produced a solution it
would have been implemented —howls from Jounalists of I get paid for writing
so I must be good at what I do (sorry you are good at entertaining not good at
informing and whats more the market is saying you are not worth the money you
think you are—— yes its the internet as we all know—the competition now is to
tell the truth —truth goes ‘viral’ on the web in a jiffy—-everyone has a
mobile phone with a camera—oh yes loads of nonesense as well but that has the
same shelf life as a newspaper that is designed to entertain rather than
inform coz somewhere the truth can now usually be found on the web or at least
why something is obviously not the truth..This blog is a good example —I
reckoned the Jimmy Savile was either a load of jackanory or the most sinister
bit of cover up this side of fiction—either way I landed here —just a matter
of time before pretty much all land on this and similar sites and once they do
so one by one newspapers are sold less and less coz who wants to spend money
on lies when the truth is available with a little effort?.I find people who
are truthful are generous with it coz they understand a bit about what the
truth is and its nature and one can’t ‘own’ it —–those who lie do so for
profit—– and yep one can own a lie can’t one ? .
- May 1,
2013 at 14:19
-
The problem with journos is that they don’t listen – or they do but they
misquote you or take you out of context.
I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve been misquoted…
- May 2, 2013 at 08:46
-
Check out Patrick McGoohan’s pastiche of “the Press” from as long ago as
1966…..
Reporter: How are you going to handle your campaign?
Number 6: No
comment.
Reporter: [writing] “Intends to fight for freedom at
all…
Photographer: Smile!
Reporter: …costs.” How about your internal
policy?
Number 6: No comment.
Reporter: “Will tighten up on Village
security.”
Photographer: Smile!
Reporter: How about your external
policy?
Number 6: No comment.
Reporter: “Our exports will operate in
every corner of the globe.” How do you feel about life and death?
Number
6: Mind your own business.
Reporter: “No comment.”
-
May 1, 2013 at 13:58
-
I spotted a weird product on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Libel-by-William-Roache/dp/B000TQXA4S/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1367409497&sr=8-3
“Devised by William Roache after he sued the Sun for printing a defamatory
article about his portrayal of Ken Barlow. The game ‘guides players through
the quicksand of assembling a full team of legal advisers in order to proceed
to a full trial’. An entertaining and educational game for all the family to
enjoy.”
I think the libel trial related to the Sun calling Ken Barlow a ‘boring’
character. What a stupendous waste of time that must have been.
- May 2, 2013 at 08:41
-
Being called “boring” presumably led him to write his memoir of his 1,000
conquests. Ego is a dangerous thing in every way…..
- May 1, 2013 at 13:40
-
I’ll make this short just in case I wipe the whole thing like i did half an
hour ago ! Anna there is and wil never be anything that could be ‘invented’ to
help the likes of the McCanns ‘myriad needs’. One cannot find such help from
without as it were – perhaps this explains why so many in a similar postion
chose NoT to share their ‘story’. I recently read a book about the Moors
Murders (‘One of your own’) and was touched by the quiet dignity of the mother
of Edward Evans. Not that I think Winnie Johnstone and Anne West were any less
noble – they just had a different way of dealing with their pain and
anger.
It seems to me that all that is really required is an understanding
that – even if someone does invite you into their ‘story’ that their
vulnerability must be respected. It remains ‘their story and any retelling by
the ‘media’ should only be with the explicit approval of the originator. No
one should be paid for such material – this aspect of reporting cheapens and
demeans the teller. I’m not sure about Karin Ward – my criticism of her would
only be in the context of the JS saga.
In some cultures, the sudden death
of a loved one is expressed at the graveside in wails and moans. Those in pain
are literally, held up by numerous supporters who I’m sure carry on holding on
to the anguished long after the terrible event. Many of us don’t have those
arms and legs to support us – I’m going on too much now – I’m sure you get my
point. As I said on Moor’s blog – once this horrible business with JS etc is
put to bed and the truth is established, we can get on with the REAL business
of CARING and compassion for others – ’til then ….!
- May 1, 2013 at 13:24
-
Well, as you imply Anna, until about 20 – 30 years ago, the parish priest
would have been very a good alternative to the less-than-reliable modern day
press hacks. Unfortunately, we have recently become aware of just how out of
touch and corrupt many of the clergy have become via the, er, modern day press
hacks.
Perhaps we could create a new profession as proposed by the
Libertarian-leaning Sci-Fi author Robert Heinlein in his book Stranger in a
Strange Land, that of being a “Fair Witness“.
It was a profession whose members’ duty was to observe without prejudice or
opinion what they were asked to witness and to reproduce a scrupulous,
unembellished description later.
These quotes from Henlein’s book demonstrate how Fair Witnesses worked:
”…You know how Fair Witnesses
behave.”
”Well . . . no, I don’t. I’ve
never had any dealings with Fair
Witnesses.”
”So? Perhaps you weren’t
aware of it. Anne!”
Anne was seated on
the springboard; she turned her head. Jubal called out, “That new house on
the
far hilltop – can you see what
color they’ve painted it?”
Anne looked
in the direction in which Jubal was pointing and answered, “It’s white on this
side.” She did
not inquire why Jubal
had asked, nor make any comment.
Jubal
went on to Jill in normal tones. “You see? Anne is so thoroughly indoctrinated
that it doesn’t even
occur to her to
infer that the other side is probably white too. All the King’s horses and all
the King’s
men couldn’t force her to
commit herself as to the far side . . . unless she herself went around to the
other
side and looked – and even then
she wouldn’t assume that it stayed whatever color it might be after
she
left . . . because they might
repaint it as soon as she turned her
back.
”Anne is a Fair
Witness?”
”Graduate, unlimited license,
and admitted to testify before the High Court. …”
(The fact that the Fair Witness in this example has a similar name to our
good landlady is a coincidence but also quite apt.)
Don’t hold your breath though. My opinion is that, like all professions
that we previously regarded as being honourable, such a new profession as this
would also become just as corrupted.
Is it just human nature that corrupts everything these days or is there
something in the 21st century waters that makes it so? May be it’s because we
are a Progressive society, i.e. progressing with good intentions
towards a nasty hell in a handcart.
- May 1, 2013 at 20:36
-
Is it just human nature that corrupts everything these days or is
there something in the 21st century waters that makes it so?
I think the answer to that is the welfare society that has been brought
up on a diet of mediocrity from education then moving on to the daily dose
of the Jeremy Kile show and various supposed ‘talent’ quests all of which
appear to point people to their ‘right’ to have a few minutes of fame, even
if it kills someone else reputation – much better if they’re are dead
because they can’t take you to court.
- May 1, 2013 at 13:23
-
Doesn’t anyone else find it strange that M W-T seems, as a mere journalist,
to have so much inside knowledge about what the police are doing and planning
to do? I thought there were cases in court right now about past inappropriate
relations between the police and their officers with journalists, and I
thought that as a result of all the worms that had crawled out from the
woodwork, the whole Police approach to what they gave out had changed to
restrict the willy nilly passing on of operational information to the media.
In the light of the question posed by the hostess, I can’t for the life of
me work out with any certainty whose story is really being told there, or
given by whom to whoever. It’s all completely opaque
I do like the idea, though, that some journos might be as dense as claim
‘copyright’ on, or credit for, stories which they have merely been
deliberately fed. That would be ironic
- May 1, 2013 at 13:42
-
“An ITV producer was outside the actor’s home as police detectives
searched the property”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/01/coronation-street-bill-roache-rape
- May 1, 2013 at 13:52
-
May 1, 2013 at 13:53
-
I feel a mood swing coming on ……!!
- May 1, 2013 at 13:56
-
If only Bill had sold millions of albums to Americans in the 60s &
70s – nobody here would care which slightly-underage-girls he may or may
not have laid in 1967….
- May 1, 2013 at 21:43
-
And what pray, would plod expect to find in a man’s house pertaining to
an alleged offence half a century old? Smacks of harassment.
- May 2, 2013 at 08:39
-
@davidb
If they find pornographic material, then that would serve to
corroborate his prediliction.
Let’s hope for his sake the has no
Graham Ovenden hanging on his wall……
-
May 2, 2013 at 21:16
-
Ah, proof that he is/was heterosexual? Must be guilty then. Or if
he had a large collection of gay porn would that prove him innocent?
Perhaps he has a few polaroids from 50 years ago in a box beneath his
bed. It was half a century ago!!
- May 3,
2013 at 01:24
-
Mark Williams-Thomas is not and never has been a journalist. He’s a tv
presenter and a self-acclaimed “child abuse expert.” He managed to get
himself involved in the McCann case (which obviously resulted in a big
nothing as far as results), and his only claim to fame was the Jonathan King
nabbing.
-
May 3, 2013 at 06:59
-
@Mewsical
When you say MWT’s only claim to fame was the JK nabbing’
what do you refer to? This, you see, is something which is puzzling a lot
of people, including JK himself. Do you know what, if any, MWT’s part was
in it?
- May 3, 2013 at 08:19
-
@Mina Filed
He says he had intelligence about King – from the media……. see this
magazine pdf from his website:
http://www.williams-thomas.co.uk/?q=system/files/Mark%20%20Williams-Thomas%20-%20Surrey%20Magazine.pdf
You’ll note he speaks of having a “list of people in the music
industry who were abusing kids”…………
- May 3, 2013 at 08:31
-
@Moor Larkin
Thanks, but that article serves to show he didn’t
DO anything. The JK thing began with an accuser going to Max Clifford.
Yet MWT has managed to subtly create the belief over the years that he
investigated, arrested, charged and convicted JK. In reality he had
left the police by then. Everyone has fallen for it, even you.
- May 3, 2013 at 09:25
-
@Mina Field
You asked what the connection was. That is his claimed connection.
I expressed my understanding in this blogpost
http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/exposition-pt1.html
We
are told how the programme-maker started the prosecution of Jonathan
King (although he had long left before any prosecution).
-
May 4, 2013 at 10:24
-
Moor Larkin,
Re: “You’ll note he speaks of having a “list of people in the music
industry who were abusing kids”…………”
Just incase anyone doesn’t know, Mark Williams Thomas’ definition
of ‘child abuse’ is anything from asking a 17 year old for a bj to
someone placing a hand over a 15 year olds bum up….
I found this out from his Twitter comments…..
- May 1, 2013 at 11:45
-
There is always more than one side to every story.
The disturbing aspect
of the media/police compact just at the moment is that there is only one
side.
-
May 1, 2013 at 11:48
-
Absolutely and they are no longer complainants but victims.
- May
1, 2013 at 20:21
-
Victims of the press, the police and their own greed and/or
gullibility. That’s all. Nothing else has been proven, just a lot of gum
flapping and downright lies.
- May 1, 2013 at 10:21
-
Bullying. There’s a ‘trendy’ word – but one never used in proper
context.
Due to the belief bullying can only happen to ‘weak’ people,
spreading crazy unsubstantiated and very nasty rumours about an ageing disc
jockey was never considered bullying due to that individuals autonomy and
ability to defend himself – just as I guess my ability to see things in
perspective meant that colleagues who defaced several company posters
displayed in the workplace for stress counselling with my name when I was off
with stress-related depression making my continued employment untenable a few
years were seen as ‘good sport’ there.
When applied to this base
lowest-common-denomintor journalism, bullying is the perfect description of
what is going on now – the manipulation of the weak (sorry individuals like
Ward, dumb readers and viewers) by the bullies for mass entertainment. Once
“they” shine their spotlight, truth and honesty go straight out the
window.
Now society has established a new pecking order, it’s wrong (nay,
illegal) to call a spade a spade, but call grandad a kiddie fiddling pervert
is fair game.
Last word must go to ‘Gripper’ Williams-Thomas who has just
tweeted:
Mark Williams-Thomas @mwilliamsthomas
Some interesting
development over next week with ongoing child abuse investigations and
operation yewtree and #Savile
So that will be the ‘Yewtree’ that has yet to bear any actual child abuse
or, indeed, actual investigation then.
He wouldn’t let it lie.
Now give
him your dinner money!
- May 1, 2013 at 10:43
-
Talking of which – Ken Barlow has been nicked now. Like Clifford &
Davidson, he made the mistake of criticising the sexcrime witch-hunt
mentality. His alleged crime? Something to do with a 15 year old girl 46
years ago…..
- May 1, 2013 at 11:01
-
Surely to God there should be a statute of limitations in these
circumstances? I will quote Wikipedia:
“The purpose and effect of Statutes of Limitation is to protect
defendants. There are three reasons that support the existence of Statutes
of Limitation, namely: (a) that a plaintiff with good causes of actions
should pursue them with reasonable diligence; (b) that a defendant might
have lost evidence to disprove a stale claim; and (c) that long dormant
claims have more of cruelty than justice in them.”
In the case of Roache, all three conditions surely apply. Of course, in
this case (and other recent ones) the police know that the CPS would be
extremely unlikely to bring a prosecution, let alone get a conviction.
It’s a trawling mission.
- May 1, 2013 at 11:14
-
“The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their
mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or
other views, which are subject to police monitoring or
enforcement.”
I wonder if ITV Shudder are about to revamp ‘You’ve
Been Framed’ with MWT as the host?
- May 1, 2013 at 11:33
-
“I wonder if ITV Shudder are about to revamp ‘You’ve Been Framed’
with MWT as the host?”
Old hat, I’m afraid.
A number of years ago, ITV showed ‘documentaries’ about stuff that
happened in front of CCTV cameras around the country. There was one
notorious episode showing a man cutting his wrists in a town centre.
He survived and turned his life around, but had no knowledge that he
was going to be shown on TV in such a degrading manner. ITV were
shamed into pulling these CCTV programs shortly after.
-
May 1, 2013 at 11:14
-
This is seriously getting out of control, like Peter McKay said in the
daily mail ‘Sir, we are charging you with being a celebrity’,
@anna I do agree with you regarding ownership of stories but I have to
strongly disagree with the sense of empathy for Karin Ward. She has fully
demonstrated that she has little disregard for the actions in her life,
how many times can you blame them on somebody else? If you have ever read
a book called the celestine prophecy she would be what is called ‘a poor
me’, somebody who craves the attention by means of sympathy. Like poor me,
I was a bad mother as I never knew how to be one, or. Poor me, I didn’t
mean to try and suffocate my baby, or poor me I didn’t mean to steal
£50,000 from 4 banks as it was a better prospect than suicide and poor me
I couldn’t understand why I was convicted and sentenced to a year in jail
for fraud and deception.
Why is it that not one bricklayer, office clerk, Joe blogg off the
street has not been called in for questioning under Operation
Yewtree…because at the end of the day, would you remember their name 40
years later and to be honest would the public care. This is seriously
becoming one big witch hunt, a reality tv program being played out by the
police as one massive publicity stunt. The journalists creeping there way
into the accused lives by saying…we’ll get your story across, only to
manipulate it for their own gain.
-
May 2, 2013 at 11:24
-
Wellwisher,
Re: “I do agree with you regarding ownership of stories but I have to
strongly disagree with the sense of empathy for Karin Ward. She has
fully demonstrated that she has little disregard for the actions in her
life, how many times can you blame them on somebody else? If you have
ever read a book called the celestine prophecy she would be what is
called ‘a poor me’, somebody who craves the attention by means of
sympathy. Like poor me, I was a bad mother as I never knew how to be
one, or. Poor me, I didn’t mean to try and suffocate my baby, or poor me
I didn’t mean to steal £50,000 from 4 banks as it was a better prospect
than suicide and poor me I couldn’t understand why I was convicted and
sentenced to a year in jail for fraud and deception”
I agree, she seems very forgiving of her own failings yet unprepared
to do the same for other’s.
She blames her failings as a mother on her own (apparently) lousy
upbringing, yes that probably would play a big part, but does she not
also consider that the people who allegedly failed her may have done so
due similar problems in their own lives?
Yes people may have failed her, but she took the decision to have
children under those circumstances, SHE is ultimately responsible for
her failures as a mother in the end. If you don’t know how to be a
mother, seriously think before you have kids (just my thoughts
there).
Also, she is a grown woman who took it upon herself to put that stuff
about Jimmy Savile out there on the internet for anyone to see, if
journalists took an interest it was partly as a result of her actions,
she was exploiting the Jimmy Savile gossip for her own ends as much as
the Jounalists were.
I’ve seen the links you provided to ‘fanstory’ on another post, she
was making no allegations of abuse at Duncroft 2009 when she wrote a
very detailed synopsis of her story, I think she even said she was NOT
abused there. And said herself in June 2010 that she hardly remembered
anything about her time there but had reconnected with friends (at least
one of whom is now also making allegations against Jimmy Savile) who
were helping her ‘piece together her memories of events’ and ‘realise it
was far worse than she recalled’.
I think it is more likely that they were inventing a story together
based on the stories of others on Friends Reunited, this would have been
not long after the police investigation and the police have said there
was gossip about it on Friends Reunited, Karin Ward went on there with a
view to finding people to help her with a part of her story she was
stuck with – a lot of it doesn’t quite ring true….
- May 1, 2013 at 10:20
-
To me a “Journalist” is a kid with a big box of Lego bricks.
He/she may have unearthed that box, and maybe found other similar boxes
too, but they construct out of those bricks just what they want to.
-
May 1, 2013 at 10:18
-
“When the journalist says – ‘Tell me how you felt when you discovered your
husband had been eaten by a giant panda/raped your Mother/died after three
months afloat on a raft in the South Pacific’”
But journalists don’t ask
that question. At least, the ones I used to listen to on local radio don’t ask
that question. They ask “How angry are you?” or “How upset are you? or “How
happy are you?” and their unwitting victim says they are very sad, upset,
disgusted etc. because it’s a leading question with a pat answer. Then they go
away and write their stories: “Ms Anne Raccon (47) said she was very happy
that I misheard her when she told me her age”
They always spell your name wrong and they always tell you how old the person
is even when it has no relevance to the story.
By the way: Sorry, my blue sky thinking is under a bit of a cloud at the
moment.
- May 1,
2013 at 18:54
-
I live in the States and the one we use the most is “thinking outside the
box” or “thinking outside the envelope.” I had to actually look the “blue
sky” thing up, as I was unfamiliar with it.
{ 84 comments }