posts about or somewhat related to ‘tabloids’

How the Daily Mail Got its Groove On →

The Daily Mail is England’s most popular paper and its Web site recently surpassed the New York Times’ as the world’s most visited.

Last week it won nine British Press Awards.

In a longread, the New Yorker explorers England’s media landscape and the Mail’s present, past and future.

Via the New Yorker:

The Mail’s closest analogue in the American media is perhaps Fox News. In Britain, unlike in the United States, television tends to be a dignified affair, while print is berserk and shouty. The Mail is like Fox in the sense that it speaks to, and for, the married, car-driving, homeowning, conservative-voting suburbanite, but it is unlike Fox in that it is not slavishly approving of any political party. One editor told me, “The paper’s defining ideology is that Britain has gone to the dogs.” Nor is the Mail easy to resist. Last year, its lawyers shut down a proxy site that allowed liberals to browse Mail Online without bumping up its traffic.

The Mail presents itself as the defender of traditional British values, the voice of an overlooked majority whose opinions inconvenience the agendas of metropolitan élites. To its detractors, it is the Hate Mail, goading the worst curtain-twitching instincts of an island nation, or the Daily Fail, fuelling paranoia about everything from immigration to skin conditions. (“WITHIN A DAY OF HIS ECZEMA BEING INFECTED, MARC WAS DEAD,” a recent headline warned.) A Briton’s view of the Mail is a totemic indicator of his sociopolitical orientation, the dinner-party signal for where he stands on a host of other matters. In 2010, a bearded, guitar-strumming band called Dan & Dan had a YouTube hit with “The Daily Mail Song,” which, so far, has been viewed more than 1.3 million times. “Bring back capital punishment for pedophiles / Photo feature on schoolgirl skirt styles / Binge Britain! Single Mums! / Pensioners! Hoodie Scum!” Dan sings. “It’s absolutely true because I read it in the Daily Mail.” The Mail is less a parody of itself than a parody of the parody, its rectitudinousness cancelling out others’ ridicule to render a middlebrow juggernaut that can slay knights and sway Prime Ministers.

utnereader:

Arrested Motion alerts us to TrustoCorp.’s latest project, one that pokes fun at our secret guilty pleasure—tabloid magazines. They’ve gone into magazine stands, bookstores and pharmacies throughout Hollywood, Manhattan, Williamsburg, LAX and JFK to drop copies of these little artistic interventions for the unsuspecting public. More info here …

FJP: 1, Gotta love culture jamming; 2, Must. Get. Copies. Now.

poynterinstitute:

Poynter’s Roy Peter Clark describes how good writing turns crap into a front-page natural: “This is tabloidism at its best, a combination of clever, almost offensive messages, created by a team – photographers, writers, editors, designers — who are, shall we say, on the same page.”

Vive Le Tabloid?

poynterinstitute:

Poynter’s Roy Peter Clark describes how good writing turns crap into a front-page natural: “This is tabloidism at its best, a combination of clever, almost offensive messages, created by a team – photographers, writers, editors, designers — who are, shall we say, on the same page.”

Vive Le Tabloid?

There are plenty of examples of reporters going to extreme lengths to satisfy exacting news desks without quite veering into obvious criminality. There was the tabloid freelancer who hid in a church organ for several days, defecating in a plastic bag, to get pictures of Madonna’s baby’s christening; there was the time Rebekah Brooks, then a lowly reporter, disguised herself as a cleaner to infiltrate the newsroom of a sister publication and nab a copy of their scoop.

But the great tapestry of tabloid infamy has always been viewed as an entertaining appendage to public life, mischievous rather than malicious. The UK press looks across the Atlantic and—with, to my British sensibility, some justification—views a moribund print culture that spends more time pontificating about morals than getting stories and making them interesting to readers. As the former Times editor and Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins once put it, “I was trained as a reptile lurking in the gutter whose sole job was ‘to get the bloody story.’” Not for nothing does the trophy for the country’s most prestigious investigative journalism award, the Bevins Prize, show a determined rat nosing up a drainpipe.

In the May/June issue of the Columbia Journalism Review, Archie Bland wrote about the News of the World phone-hacking scandal and why there was relative silence in the English media about it over the past few years. 

In doing so, he explores the country’s cutthroat media culture and suggests that most ignored the issue because most were most likely doing the same.

Archie Bland, Columbia Journalism Review. Anybody There? Why the UK’s phone-hacking scandal met media silence.

That media likes to talk about media is nothing new, unless of course the media has done something very wrong and would like everyone to look the other way.
Such is the case in the ongoing phone tapping scandal in which UK tabloids hired private investigators to eavesdrop on the calls of celebrities, politicians, the families of slain soldiers and even the family of a missing girl.
Writing in the the Spectator, Peter Osborne notes that News International, the Rupert Murdoch-owned company whose papers are at the center of the scandal, is attempting to keep a lid on coverage by flexing its political muscle and simply not reporting it in its papers.
As Osborne notes, News International owns the Times, the Sunday Times, the News of the World and the Sun: a full third of the domestic newspaper market.
In this graphic, he shows the number of times each newspaper is known to have eavesdropped, and the number of subsequent articles they’ve written about the scandal.
Not reporting the news, of course, isn’t limited to England. Earlier this year NBC was taken to task when its news division remained silent amid reports that its parent company GE did not pay corporate taxes.
Update: Via SoupSoup - “News Corporation will close its tabloid News of the World after this Sunday’s edition, as a result of an escalating phone hacking scandal, James Murdoch said on Thursday.”

That media likes to talk about media is nothing new, unless of course the media has done something very wrong and would like everyone to look the other way.

Such is the case in the ongoing phone tapping scandal in which UK tabloids hired private investigators to eavesdrop on the calls of celebrities, politicians, the families of slain soldiers and even the family of a missing girl.

Writing in the the Spectator, Peter Osborne notes that News International, the Rupert Murdoch-owned company whose papers are at the center of the scandal, is attempting to keep a lid on coverage by flexing its political muscle and simply not reporting it in its papers.

As Osborne notes, News International owns the Times, the Sunday Times, the News of the World and the Sun: a full third of the domestic newspaper market.

In this graphic, he shows the number of times each newspaper is known to have eavesdropped, and the number of subsequent articles they’ve written about the scandal.

Not reporting the news, of course, isn’t limited to England. Earlier this year NBC was taken to task when its news division remained silent amid reports that its parent company GE did not pay corporate taxes.

Update: Via SoupSoup - “News Corporation will close its tabloid News of the World after this Sunday’s edition, as a result of an escalating phone hacking scandal, James Murdoch said on Thursday.”

Ethics 101 teaches journalists a few things about what they should and shouldn’t do. Somewhere near the top is that you can’t hack into people’s phones to poach their voicemails. It’s not just unethical, but illegal too.
Evidently, Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World never got the message.
Yesterday, a third journalist from England’s largest paper was arrested “on suspicion of unlawfully intercepting mobile phone voice mail messages.”
The story begins back in 2005 when, according to a September 2010 New York Times Magazine cover story:

[T]hree senior aides to Britain’s royal family noticed odd things happening on their mobile phones. Messages they had never listened to were somehow appearing in their mailboxes as if heard and saved. Equally peculiar were stories that began appearing about Prince William in one of the country’s biggest tabloids, News of the World.

As the Times Magazine told it, phone hacking was part of News of the World’s get the story at any cost culture with editors looking on at the practice with a nod and a wink.
The ethics are easy on this: tabloid gossip aside, you don’t invade celebrity privacy to generate scandal.
But what if you’ve larger fish to fry? Listen to what The Guardian’s Ian Reeves wrote in 2006:

I’ve used some of those questionable methods myself over the years. I, too, once listened to the mobile phone messages of a corrupt arms company executive - the crime similar to that for which Goodman now faces the prospect of jail…
…But unlike Goodman, I was not interested in witless tittle-tattle about the royal family. I was looking for evidence of bribery and corruption. And unlike the News of the World, I was not paying a private detective to routinely help me with circulation-boosting snippets. That is my defence, when I try to explain newspaper methods to my current university journalism students, and some of whom are rather shocked.

Are these techniques legitimate then if an intrepid journalist is trying to uncover malfeasance and corruption? Or does it give journalists authoritative powers never intended for them?
Over at the BBC, media critic Torin Douglas sympathizes with bending the law if it’s in the public interest but notes that English law doesn’t. “There is no public interest defense,” a lawyer tells him.
Besides, journalists aren’t an infallible bunch. Some have been known to get the story wrong in quite dramatic ways.

Ethics 101 teaches journalists a few things about what they should and shouldn’t do. Somewhere near the top is that you can’t hack into people’s phones to poach their voicemails. It’s not just unethical, but illegal too.

Evidently, Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World never got the message.

Yesterday, a third journalist from England’s largest paper was arrested “on suspicion of unlawfully intercepting mobile phone voice mail messages.”

The story begins back in 2005 when, according to a September 2010 New York Times Magazine cover story:

[T]hree senior aides to Britain’s royal family noticed odd things happening on their mobile phones. Messages they had never listened to were somehow appearing in their mailboxes as if heard and saved. Equally peculiar were stories that began appearing about Prince William in one of the country’s biggest tabloids, News of the World.

As the Times Magazine told it, phone hacking was part of News of the World’s get the story at any cost culture with editors looking on at the practice with a nod and a wink.

The ethics are easy on this: tabloid gossip aside, you don’t invade celebrity privacy to generate scandal.

But what if you’ve larger fish to fry? Listen to what The Guardian’s Ian Reeves wrote in 2006:

I’ve used some of those questionable methods myself over the years. I, too, once listened to the mobile phone messages of a corrupt arms company executive - the crime similar to that for which Goodman now faces the prospect of jail…

…But unlike Goodman, I was not interested in witless tittle-tattle about the royal family. I was looking for evidence of bribery and corruption. And unlike the News of the World, I was not paying a private detective to routinely help me with circulation-boosting snippets. That is my defence, when I try to explain newspaper methods to my current university journalism students, and some of whom are rather shocked.

Are these techniques legitimate then if an intrepid journalist is trying to uncover malfeasance and corruption? Or does it give journalists authoritative powers never intended for them?

Over at the BBC, media critic Torin Douglas sympathizes with bending the law if it’s in the public interest but notes that English law doesn’t. “There is no public interest defense,” a lawyer tells him.

Besides, journalists aren’t an infallible bunch. Some have been known to get the story wrong in quite dramatic ways.

How Did the Mail Online Become the World's Second Biggest Newspaper Web Site →

Just how did this middle-range tabloid’s website rise from relative obscurity to become the second most popular newspaper site in the world, and the most popular news site in the UK?

Martin Clarke, Mail Online’s executive, credits his rapidly increasing traffic to his acceptance and incorporation of online social networks, specifically Facebook and Twitter, into his marketing strategy.  Recent data (from Nathalie Broizat) shows that 10% of Mail Online’s UK traffic arrives via Facebook referrals.

(Source: soupsoup)