A new low
Posted by: Paper Plane on 18 March 2014
I detest all the tabloids anyway, for their sensationalising of trivia, shallow celebrity glorification, closet racism, homophobia and sexism (Page 3 is abhorrent), muckracking and hypocrisy.
However, I think they have sunk to new low when they publish on the front page a picture of a man who has just been told his partner has died, at the moment he was given the news, just to sell a few more papers.
That stinks.
steve
However, I think they have sunk to new low when they publish on the front page a picture of a man who has just been told his partner has died, at the moment he was given the news, just to sell a few more papers.
That stinks.
steve
What is the paper of which you speak? I presume the man in question is Jagger?
According to the BBC:
Many newspapers use an image they claim shows Jagger at the moment he was told the news.
The race to the bottom continues unabated.
Nothing surprises me anymore.
If people didn't read this drivel, it wouldn't be published. The readers have only themselves to blame.
Quite so. If content is being commented on, people must still be reading them. Why? Or perhaps some are commenting on what they have heard about the content? Again why? Ignore them, render them irrelevant, not worthy of appraisal, and perhaps in time they will lose efficacy, or better still won't exist. Now that's got to be worth the effort. No effort involved at all here.
Agreed, Steve, a new low. I dislike it as much as you do and would let the editor of which ever paper it was that you will no longer be buying his product. In my experience they are incredibly commercially savvy and this always hits home.
The problem is that many will say they disapprove of this paper's behaviour, yet continue to buy it. This I can't get my head round. Well, I sort of can but I'm not going to do it because it would look I'm trying to defend the paper, which I'm not.
Chris
Don't read gutter press. If you do, don't be surprised at what you see.
According to the BBC:
Many newspapers use an image they claim shows Jagger at the moment he was told the news.
Yes but you're just repeating what someone says that someone else is claiming. You don't know if it's true, you don't even know who the papers concerned are. While your outrage is understandable (and it wouldn't surprise me if this is what certain disreputable papers did), you don't provide any sources and you really are just rehashing unsubstantiated rumour.
For your outrage to ring true, you need to actually tell us who the guilty parties are.
Come on - share your outrage and post the picture....
I haven't seen he picture in question but completely concur that such journalism is tasteless, debased and morally wrong. I'm not a great fan of Jagger as a man but this is still outrageous.
If the press end up suffering greater restrictions due tho their behaviours they will only have themselves to blame.
Quite honestly my interest in the news has waned and I'm now selective to the point where I only occasionally read a broadsheet (usually the Guardian) and occasionally tune into the Today Show on BBC R4. Most of the time I would rather enjoy music and film!
Jonathan