awesomelies: (Default)
[personal profile] awesomelies
I suspect you see a perfect circle. I see a downward spiral. I see a cascade of shit pirouetting from your penthouse office, caking each layer of management, splattering all in between.
You may have heard the phrase, "The flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil sets off a tornado in Texas." Well, try this: "The lies of a newspaper in London can get a bloke's head caved in down an alley in Bradford."

From this resignation letter, an instant classic of the genre.

Date: 2011-03-06 12:30 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I miss you. I wish you posted more often, J.

What's the real story on this resignation letter? I'm guessing there are (at least) two stories here, though the truth may not lie smack between the two.

Date: 2011-03-09 02:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Aw, ta. Most of my interwebular rantings happen over on Twitter (!/grouchotendency) these days because 140 characters is just about perfect for the mix of semicoherent swearing and Cool Stuff Found On The Net that constitute my contribution to the world. But, y'know, I'll see what I can do.

[also, sorry for delayed reply - I didn't notice this comment. Is it just me for whom the LJ email notifications only work on some mysterious pattern related to the phases of the moon?]

As for your actual question, I can only really offer guesswork - the days when we hacks would all gather together in Fleet Street boozers are long gone, alas. But, well. I can't see anything obviously unbelievable about his claims - the Daily Star really is that vile, many papers really are that understaffed, underfunded and desperate for copy, and the redtops' sports desks and celeb gossip columns are notorious for making up the most outrageous stories they can get away with and not get sued.

Meanwhile the Daily Star's rebuttal is, well, carefully worded not to be as strong as it might sound:

worked purely as a casual reporter - so? I think most papers operate this way now, with a tiny core of staff jobs and a huge pool of underpaid and insecure casuals - if the Guardian do it the Daily Star almost certainly do. They're clearly trying to insinuate something about his experience/competence but being a casual just puts more pressure on him to write what he's told;

The Kelly Brook "story" - well, he says one thing, they say another, but even the Sun expects its reporters to show some kind of evidence to the news editor to back up a contentious story, I think. For the Daily Star to accept a casual's word that their story's true is, ah, not best practice.

we have discovered that he was privately warned very recently by senior reporters on the paper after suggesting he would make up quotes - that could mean anything, couldn't it? My guess is it means he was warned: "Make up quotes by all means but for god's sake stop saying out loud that you're doing it".

never voiced either privately or officially any disquiet over the tone of the coverage - Unless my skim-re-reading is suspect I don't think he claims to have done. But if he had I suspect he'd have been out the door sharpish.

For the record, the Daily Star editorial policy does not hold any negativity towards Islam and the paper has never, and does not endorse, the EDL - I'm only copy/pasting this here as an experiment to see if my computer bursts into flames at the shame of being asked to reproduce such an outrageous fib.


awesomelies: (Default)

October 2011

1617 1819202122

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 01:27 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios