Blog - Almost Back...
Well, I'm almost back, this cold is dragging on and I have less enthusiasm than Dirk Despair at a puncture repair kit convention. I'm determined to do something constructive, but in the meantime, I'll just ramble on a bit and I'll be back soon to talk about games and comics.
Someone who is back of course is Jonathan Ross.
The Daily Mail, who have had to judicially edit their own comments page today (even after their moderation of the page) after positive comments for Mr Ross outweighed the negative ones made it apparent that more people like Jonathan Ross than The Daily Mail. Even the other media who were only too happy to give the BBC a kicking seem to be starting to shuffle about and step away from the Daily Mail as they come to the same conclusion.
The outrage was generated almost entirely by the Daily Mail. The original comments, which while certainly offensive, went barely noticed when broadcast. The Mail decided that the right thing to do was magnify the offence caused to Andrew Sachs and his family by pushing them into the public domain where they could reach millions of people and make them some money. It gave them (a frankly dubious) moral platform from which their selective reporting could enrage lots of decent citizens waiting for their dose of hate.
That sense of outrage is one you'll find from the papers often, where they've decided that something is so, and that logically, so it must be. They of course have an advantage in that they only have to give the information they want, and not a balanced picture. Well, they are called news 'stories'. Such as when a French footballer made a clever and biting attack on the media by calling them all filthy screeching scavengers, and was reported as being mental, and his comments having no possible meaning. If you think anything else, then perhaps you're mental too. You mentaloid.
Sometimes they do it to sell papers, sometimes to further the political motivations of their owner (who might think the BBC is unfair competition), sometimes they do it because they feel they've been slighted, sometimes because their target has thwarted them in the past, and sometimes they do it just to flex their muscles. Or just because they are lazy and haven't researched the story properly. Anyone who has ever had any real knowledge of a story will know that at best what you see in the papers is an idiot's version and at worse, a gross distortion of the facts. With bias often flimsily disguised with pantomime levels of incomprehension, moral outrage or bitter humour.
Of course people fall for it, it's a game where the odds are fixed, and it does do real damage in the world. I imagine the Daily Mail and the rest of the tabloids have ruined many more lives than Jonathon Ross. Some of these victims may have had a small print apology on page 27 three months later. But by and large the casualties of the media game, including those who have tried to play the game, are not remembered as the wronged.
Anyway, tomorrow, less drivel and more stuff.
Someone who is back of course is Jonathan Ross.
The Daily Mail, who have had to judicially edit their own comments page today (even after their moderation of the page) after positive comments for Mr Ross outweighed the negative ones made it apparent that more people like Jonathan Ross than The Daily Mail. Even the other media who were only too happy to give the BBC a kicking seem to be starting to shuffle about and step away from the Daily Mail as they come to the same conclusion.
The outrage was generated almost entirely by the Daily Mail. The original comments, which while certainly offensive, went barely noticed when broadcast. The Mail decided that the right thing to do was magnify the offence caused to Andrew Sachs and his family by pushing them into the public domain where they could reach millions of people and make them some money. It gave them (a frankly dubious) moral platform from which their selective reporting could enrage lots of decent citizens waiting for their dose of hate.
That sense of outrage is one you'll find from the papers often, where they've decided that something is so, and that logically, so it must be. They of course have an advantage in that they only have to give the information they want, and not a balanced picture. Well, they are called news 'stories'. Such as when a French footballer made a clever and biting attack on the media by calling them all filthy screeching scavengers, and was reported as being mental, and his comments having no possible meaning. If you think anything else, then perhaps you're mental too. You mentaloid.
Sometimes they do it to sell papers, sometimes to further the political motivations of their owner (who might think the BBC is unfair competition), sometimes they do it because they feel they've been slighted, sometimes because their target has thwarted them in the past, and sometimes they do it just to flex their muscles. Or just because they are lazy and haven't researched the story properly. Anyone who has ever had any real knowledge of a story will know that at best what you see in the papers is an idiot's version and at worse, a gross distortion of the facts. With bias often flimsily disguised with pantomime levels of incomprehension, moral outrage or bitter humour.
Of course people fall for it, it's a game where the odds are fixed, and it does do real damage in the world. I imagine the Daily Mail and the rest of the tabloids have ruined many more lives than Jonathon Ross. Some of these victims may have had a small print apology on page 27 three months later. But by and large the casualties of the media game, including those who have tried to play the game, are not remembered as the wronged.
Anyway, tomorrow, less drivel and more stuff.
posted by paulvonscott at 10:35 PM
<< Home