Comments on: Two cheers for tabloid trash Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:54:39 +0000 hourly 1 By: Joss Wed, 07 Dec 2011 07:26:56 +0000 Maybe of interest regarding the insatiable appetite
for tabloid news:
For instance an OECD study into the circulation numbers
which found: “… that UK circulation has fallen by 25% between 2007-09, second only to the US, where the decline was 30%. …”
That was well before the hacking scandal blew up.  /17/newspaper-circulation-oecd-report

Following the closure of NoTW in the UK, a recently
look into newspaper readership in the UK showed the
the following:
“… total net readership of national Sunday newspapers fell from 19,221,000 to 15,859,000, a 17% decline of 3,362,000. …”
” ….it appears that many of the 4.3m solo readers of NoW have dropped out of the market altogether. …” de/2011/nov/25/newsoftheworld-national-n ewspapers

In other words, it looks like that the newspaper
crisis is making some serious progress. One just has
to use the search words “newspaper layoffs” to see
what it is happening.

By: Dafydd Fri, 02 Dec 2011 14:09:22 +0000 In the UK we certainly need greater diversity of ownership. We allowed too powerful a position to the Murdochs. They still have too powerful a position.

That way journalists who break the law can be brought to book.

But when the police and journalists link together ina corrupt embrace? Who will take on our corrupt police?

What we need is someone showing journalists in the same sort of harsh light they show others.

Leveson looks like he will achieve that. If he can do anything else useful is doubtful. And how long the public will remember the cost of reading such trash is another matter altogether.

By: matthewslyman Fri, 02 Dec 2011 00:49:26 +0000 My point (in brief) is, if government officials need a legal Sword of Damocles hanging over them to keep them in the strait and narrow; then surely (as amply evidenced in this inquiry), the journalists need their own.

My only concern here (in keeping with yours, Mr. Shafer) is that we should not enact such a broad body of law as to enable officials, police and prosecutors to persecute anyone they please, by selectively applying the law. Any new laws must not invest too much power in any one officer of the law, or in any group…

It’s a fine balance indeed…

By: matthewslyman Fri, 02 Dec 2011 00:24:17 +0000 There’s a part of me that wants to believe you’re wrong: that wants to believe there’s some set of rules that can be applied, in a decent society, to divide reliably between “responsible” and “irresponsible” journalism. Clearly, some of the stories under discussion at the Leveson inquiry fall far into the “irresponsible” side of the spectrum.

On the other hand, without giving much thought to the matter, there’s another part of me that thinks that whatever rules we invent to regulate journalism, there will always be some exception…

My conclusion? Invent the rules. Make the laws. And then let the journalists justify themselves when they overstep the mark, just like the rest of us often have to do so, when we technically break any laws (even if our reason for doing so is very good).

What ever happened to,
“Do as you would be done by”?
I just wonder how long it would take McMullan to change his mind if HE was subjected to the kind of illegal surveillance and lewd publicity that we’ve been learning about recently.

You certainly err too far toward defending the British tabloids, if you think they have the right to secretly take pictures up the skirts of middle-teenage celebrities using hidden cameras in bushes in their gardens at home (no exaggeration) and publish those pictures in the morning papers. A representation of “truth”? Perhaps. But not the sort of “truth” anyone needs…

By: scythe Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:50:22 +0000 (quote) “… if the ends justified the means, McMullan let his interrogator have it. “Yes, I think so,””

like asking a parasite if it regrets killing its host

the man is an amoral parasite

no, parasites have a purpose …..