JQP in brief

Not sure when I’m next going to get writing time, so a context update: this pdf report has now come out. Now we know what the orange jackets were doing, and can see why the police may have been targeting them. It’s worth reading. Considered thoughts to follow.

In other news, LibCon in making me think shocker. Sunder’s document is intelligent and well-written, and the goal is not only admirable, I think it’s necessary. But this instance of it is tied to party-political in-fighting and that shows. I’ve not got a considered response yet, but I’m working on one.

The Evening Standard are still desperately trying to dig themselves out of their fantastically bad reporting in the immediate aftermath of the police riot. More, and more, and more data has come out which illustrates that they were a, wrong and b, blood-thirsty in their early reporting. It seems their spin is to focus on the only thing they can legitimately report on without being hoist on their own petard: the hiding of identity numbers. Old news to anyone who was watching at the time, but at least the Standard will be putting a lot of people’s eyes on the problem who wouldn’t even remotely believe it if it weren’t in the Standard, the Torygraph or the Times.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Context, Signal

2 responses to “JQP in brief

  1. bensix

    The Standard has an interesting habit of coming over all creative…

    “Dear Ms Wadley

    I wonder whether I could express my concern about a couple of headlines that the Standard has run in the last few days.

    On the morning of Friday 22 July a young man, Jean Charles de Menezes, was shot dead at Stockwell Tube station. Later that day, on newsstands all across London, hoardings for your newspaper read as follows:

    BOMBER SHOT DEAD AT STOCKWELL TUBE

    At the time this headline appeared nobody was in a position to say that Mr de Menezes was a bomber…”

    • johnqpublican

      Indeed. Partly, that’s a problem caused by their very nature; they have to scoop the next morning’s papers on anything which happens prior to about 2pm. That means they would either have to be astoundingly rigorous at the editorial level, or have a flexible conscience when it comes to reporting accurately.

      Since they, like every other newspaper, have no actual ethics other than increasing shareholder value [1], they’d rather go for the sensational than the accurate. It’s true of the whole spectrum of papers but it’s hugely amplified with the Standard. The same can be seen with both thelondonpaper and LondonLite.

      [1] Note, I say newspapers, not newspaper journalists. I personally make a clear distinction between the vast majority of the professional British press, and the corporate overlords who determine their editorial and fact-checking policies.