This is a bit off topic, if indeed there ever is a topic on this blog, which there often isn't - no wonder I'm not one of those brilliant professional journalists. Anyway, there's something that keeps rising up in me whenever I listen to people talking about football nowadays, an anger, a stench of bile.
It's generally when they come out with something like this, and I'm paraphrasing obviously, but imagine someone on the radio saying it, who sounds like Steve Claridge: "Course, they're a great team Arsenal, all that pretty football, but you look at their players, and they're not giants are they? Walcot's only five foot nothing, isn't he - how are they meant to play football? Didn't they realise it's only for really tall players? And as for Wigan trying to play football in the Premiership, that's just doomed to failure, it's all very well trying to play football, but look at West Brom - they tried and it didn't work. No, what you need is to smack the ball 90 yards upfield to a really tall player and that'll make everything all right. It's all right trying to play your fancy dan stuff but you'll get found out in this league, just belt it up there to someone really tall and that's how you play football in the top league in the world, forget about anything resembling skill or craft, just boot it up there, that's the best thing to do. You'll only get in trouble if you try and pass the ball around."
Do you know what I mean? There are only two times when I feel the need to throw the radio against the kitchen wall, smashing it to pieces: firstly, whenever Nicky Campbell or Jeremy Vine is having a phone-in and some barely conscious numbskull barks: "Well I don't know anything about the case itself or the details of the story but WHAT ABOUT OUR TROOPS EH? They don't go around complaining. Everyone else in the world should consider themselves lucky and has never been unhappy or experienced anything difficult ever, because they're not them. No-one else should ever have any money or anything or be allowed to have any semblance of fun because I said so, I pay my bills on time, why should I have to subsidise those who don't? I pay my taxes, why should I subsidise people who claim to be disabled who are probably too workshy? Why should I pay for anything except myself? Obviously except for when my house catches fire and then I'll expect the fire brigade to come around and I won't expect to pay the entire bill myself, but apart from that, and all other instances in which I rely on the state, I don't want to pay for anyone else, and the BBC, they're just grabbing my money, IT IS THEFT. If I STEAL from someone else THAT IS THEFT so how is it allowed for the BBC to collect money from me just for owning a television set? I don't watch any of their programmes anyway, except for all of them, and yes I do listen to radio phone-ins just so I can ring in about how much I hate everyone in the entire world, especially the BBC, but still..."
and the other time is when someone says that crap about football. It's as if there's a big unwritten rule somewhere that only a select band of football pundits know about, which basically says: "PICK LOTS OF TALL PLAYERS AND BOOT IT UP THERE", like that's the secret which has won every single team every trophy ever in existence and if you don't do it then you're sadly naive and don't really understand the English game, ignoring the fact that generally the champion sides have played the best football of all teams and haven't necessarily had to cram their teams with 11 freakily tall men to do it.
Seriously though. There really is more to the game of football than simply picking tall players and 'not playing all that fancy stuff'. I don't hear tennis pundits saying "Well of course, what Andy Murray's doing is wrong, what he wants to do is forget all that fancy stuff, spinning the ball, he should just hit it as hard as he can with every single shot, that's the way to do it, and probably be a bit taller, if he wants to win". Although I imagine there are probably some somewhere who think that way. I just want football analysis to be a bit more incisive than that. Is that too much to ask?
It probably is.
Saturday, 28 November 2009
Is blogging journalism?
I think the answer is 'yes' and 'no' and 'it doesn't matter whether it is or not', kind of in that order, but first let me explain what all this is about. I noticed a somewhat outraged piece from the Bristol Blogger the other day about comments made on the Bristol NUJ website, and then went on to read the comments beneath it. I don't really want to wade into that, but I can't leave it alone either, because it infuriates me. And I am also a blogger based in Bristol.
First, the NUJ is plain dumb wrong and outdated to imagine that they can only accept members on the basis of what proportion of their income is derived from journalism - claiming it keeps out 'hobbyists' and keeps in 'professionals'. By that staggeringly flawed logic, Melanie Phillips would be welcomed with open arms despite her fact-free rants which often run entirely contrary to the truth - by dint of the fact some massive corporation is happy to pay her to write her drivel - yet some decent, hardworking blogger working with primary sources, doing impeccable research and attempting to tell the truth, rather than spout misleading polemic, is kept out because they haven't taken payment from an anti-union corporation. Do you see how this doesn't quite work?
I'll give you a real example. Look at the front page of today's Daily Express, a national newspaper:
Who knew? Who knew that breakfast was good for you? Why haven't we been told this before? What a startling revelation! I'm surprised that media outlets around the world haven't picked up on this stunning story - eating breakfast is good for you - nay, it's the 'secret' to being healthy. A story which, when you read it, has no research other than large sections of a press release copied and pasted and a quote from a nutritionist, who is delighted to extol the virtues of breakfast cereals. You'll see that the article is rather similar to this one, also published today. So not exactly deep digging from the Express to uncover that, was it?
What of the Express's other source, 'independent nutritonist' Lynne Garton? Well, look at her personal profile and you'll see she is:
Ah. I see. She also puts together content for Nestle's "Whole Grain" website. Now there's nothing wrong with that of course but here's someone who's being billed by the paper as an 'independent nutrionist'. Perhaps not so independent, if a lot of your time is spent promoting wholegrain cereals for huge corporations?
So, the journalist who didn't spot that (or did, and couldn't care less) would be welcomed into the NUJ quite willingly because although they're simply copying big chunks of press releases - they got paid for doing so.
Compare the Express's 'Ooh, aren't cereals good?' story to the blogger Unity, who over at Liberal Conspiracy is doing a stellar series of posts - unpaid - about the truth about immigration, exploding the myths created by those paid journalists, who'd be welcomed into the NUJ, who regularly mislead, tell lies and distort the true picture as regards immigration. Anyone who thinks bloggers shouldn't be called journalists should read it - look at the primary source information, the research, the hard work that's gone into that.
Which one would you prefer to be called a journalist? Someone who C&Vs press releases and rings up rentaquotes to put together tediously banal stories that tell us nothing except 'please buy cereals', but who gets paid; or someone who works hard researching and writing pieces on important issues, because they believe in it, because so many paid journalists have told lie after lie after lie regarding the subject in question?
But then there's another sense in which bloggers aren't journalists. When you're not getting paid, you can write what you like, when you like. There's no need to 'come up with a story' when there isn't one. There's no-one telling you to write something you don't believe in. There's no-one telling you to write something a certain way, because that's how they see the story and they don't care what you think, or what you might uncover. In that sense, bloggers aren't journalists.
My argument, though, is that it doesn't matter how you define a journalist. Anyone is capable of producing good journalism and incisive writing - some may not like it, but that's the truth. Good journalism happens where it happens; it may happen in a corporate environment by paid reporters; it may happen elsewhere, by 'hobbyists' who happen to see the story first, and write about it first, or write about those things that don't float the boat of the mainstream media. Journalism isn't just about research and news, either; it's also about opinion and argument. That has always been the case and it always will, and it's totally disingenuous to imagine otherwise.
And yes, some bloggers have spelling mistakes - God knows I make enough - and some may get things wrong occasionally. What you'll find with bloggers is that on the whole we're happy to engage with our readership, no matter how aggressive they are (up to a point) and happy to correct when things go wrong rather than scuttle under the stone of the self-serving PCC, designed to protect journalists from real scrutiny. That's the nature of the medium and it's important to get it right. And yes, we swear, just like those pros in the beloved Guardian who do it every week. And yes, some of us are anonymous - not just the NightJacks of this world, who had to do it for obvious reasons, but the rest of us who would be accused, wrongly, of wasting work time on our blogs if we wrote under our real names, and just don't fancy the hassle of doing it as ourselves. There's nothing wrong with that - if you want to get rid of pseudonymous authors then you'll strike out some of the master works of literature, let alone we mere mortals.
I think the answer is this: bloggers can be journalists. Journalists can be bloggers. Good journalism can come from all sources, both amateur and professional. In the end, the readers will decide whether we're good or not, not us. I think the NUJ's attitude comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what blogs are, particularly political blogs, and that's disappointing, as someone who reads both the dead-tree press, watches the news, listens to the radio *and* reads blogs. There's a hell of a lot of good writing out there that isn't produced for someone willing to make a profit; it's about time the NUJ woke up to it. And if you don't want us, it doesn't matter, because we're coming anyway, and we can succeed with you or without you.
First, the NUJ is plain dumb wrong and outdated to imagine that they can only accept members on the basis of what proportion of their income is derived from journalism - claiming it keeps out 'hobbyists' and keeps in 'professionals'. By that staggeringly flawed logic, Melanie Phillips would be welcomed with open arms despite her fact-free rants which often run entirely contrary to the truth - by dint of the fact some massive corporation is happy to pay her to write her drivel - yet some decent, hardworking blogger working with primary sources, doing impeccable research and attempting to tell the truth, rather than spout misleading polemic, is kept out because they haven't taken payment from an anti-union corporation. Do you see how this doesn't quite work?
I'll give you a real example. Look at the front page of today's Daily Express, a national newspaper:
Who knew? Who knew that breakfast was good for you? Why haven't we been told this before? What a startling revelation! I'm surprised that media outlets around the world haven't picked up on this stunning story - eating breakfast is good for you - nay, it's the 'secret' to being healthy. A story which, when you read it, has no research other than large sections of a press release copied and pasted and a quote from a nutritionist, who is delighted to extol the virtues of breakfast cereals. You'll see that the article is rather similar to this one, also published today. So not exactly deep digging from the Express to uncover that, was it?
What of the Express's other source, 'independent nutritonist' Lynne Garton? Well, look at her personal profile and you'll see she is:
Nutrition consultant for the Wholegrain for Health Campaign; responsible for communicating the health benefits of whole grains through consumer media.
Ah. I see. She also puts together content for Nestle's "Whole Grain" website. Now there's nothing wrong with that of course but here's someone who's being billed by the paper as an 'independent nutrionist'. Perhaps not so independent, if a lot of your time is spent promoting wholegrain cereals for huge corporations?
So, the journalist who didn't spot that (or did, and couldn't care less) would be welcomed into the NUJ quite willingly because although they're simply copying big chunks of press releases - they got paid for doing so.
Compare the Express's 'Ooh, aren't cereals good?' story to the blogger Unity, who over at Liberal Conspiracy is doing a stellar series of posts - unpaid - about the truth about immigration, exploding the myths created by those paid journalists, who'd be welcomed into the NUJ, who regularly mislead, tell lies and distort the true picture as regards immigration. Anyone who thinks bloggers shouldn't be called journalists should read it - look at the primary source information, the research, the hard work that's gone into that.
Which one would you prefer to be called a journalist? Someone who C&Vs press releases and rings up rentaquotes to put together tediously banal stories that tell us nothing except 'please buy cereals', but who gets paid; or someone who works hard researching and writing pieces on important issues, because they believe in it, because so many paid journalists have told lie after lie after lie regarding the subject in question?
But then there's another sense in which bloggers aren't journalists. When you're not getting paid, you can write what you like, when you like. There's no need to 'come up with a story' when there isn't one. There's no-one telling you to write something you don't believe in. There's no-one telling you to write something a certain way, because that's how they see the story and they don't care what you think, or what you might uncover. In that sense, bloggers aren't journalists.
My argument, though, is that it doesn't matter how you define a journalist. Anyone is capable of producing good journalism and incisive writing - some may not like it, but that's the truth. Good journalism happens where it happens; it may happen in a corporate environment by paid reporters; it may happen elsewhere, by 'hobbyists' who happen to see the story first, and write about it first, or write about those things that don't float the boat of the mainstream media. Journalism isn't just about research and news, either; it's also about opinion and argument. That has always been the case and it always will, and it's totally disingenuous to imagine otherwise.
And yes, some bloggers have spelling mistakes - God knows I make enough - and some may get things wrong occasionally. What you'll find with bloggers is that on the whole we're happy to engage with our readership, no matter how aggressive they are (up to a point) and happy to correct when things go wrong rather than scuttle under the stone of the self-serving PCC, designed to protect journalists from real scrutiny. That's the nature of the medium and it's important to get it right. And yes, we swear, just like those pros in the beloved Guardian who do it every week. And yes, some of us are anonymous - not just the NightJacks of this world, who had to do it for obvious reasons, but the rest of us who would be accused, wrongly, of wasting work time on our blogs if we wrote under our real names, and just don't fancy the hassle of doing it as ourselves. There's nothing wrong with that - if you want to get rid of pseudonymous authors then you'll strike out some of the master works of literature, let alone we mere mortals.
I think the answer is this: bloggers can be journalists. Journalists can be bloggers. Good journalism can come from all sources, both amateur and professional. In the end, the readers will decide whether we're good or not, not us. I think the NUJ's attitude comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what blogs are, particularly political blogs, and that's disappointing, as someone who reads both the dead-tree press, watches the news, listens to the radio *and* reads blogs. There's a hell of a lot of good writing out there that isn't produced for someone willing to make a profit; it's about time the NUJ woke up to it. And if you don't want us, it doesn't matter, because we're coming anyway, and we can succeed with you or without you.
Friday, 27 November 2009
I know I'm supposed to be angry, but I'm not sure why
This story over at the Mail today
has the unfortunate effect of not being direct enough with its readers about what they should be outraged about. Sure, they know they should be angry: it's about the BBC, for goodness' sake. So they know the BBC has done something wrong. But what have they done wrong - attempting to show the programme in the first place, or not showing it?
Bonus points for slagging off NuLabour as well as the BBC, and implying they have a joint agenda with Auntie. Maybe they don't have an agenda at all, which is why they can drop things? But then, it might just be Labour's fault entirely:
No wait, it's the BBC:
Ron gets voted down for this:
while this provocative comment
draws a furious response
which appears to be saying: "I hate the principle of the BBC and therefore everything they do, regardless of whether I find those decisions positive or negative". Which is ideal for this kind of story, where it's not obvious whether you're meant to be outraged by the BBC or the ballet company. This is the problem the Mail encounters when it's that little bit too subtle for the commenting chumps.
But here is an occasion where the Mail and its friends have won. The BBC has dropped something controversial for fear of having just this kind of story being trotted out by the usual suspects, you can't help feeling. And yet even that isn't good enough to escape the condemnation.
has the unfortunate effect of not being direct enough with its readers about what they should be outraged about. Sure, they know they should be angry: it's about the BBC, for goodness' sake. So they know the BBC has done something wrong. But what have they done wrong - attempting to show the programme in the first place, or not showing it?
Bonus points for slagging off NuLabour as well as the BBC, and implying they have a joint agenda with Auntie. Maybe they don't have an agenda at all, which is why they can drop things? But then, it might just be Labour's fault entirely:
No wait, it's the BBC:
Ron gets voted down for this:
while this provocative comment
draws a furious response
which appears to be saying: "I hate the principle of the BBC and therefore everything they do, regardless of whether I find those decisions positive or negative". Which is ideal for this kind of story, where it's not obvious whether you're meant to be outraged by the BBC or the ballet company. This is the problem the Mail encounters when it's that little bit too subtle for the commenting chumps.
But here is an occasion where the Mail and its friends have won. The BBC has dropped something controversial for fear of having just this kind of story being trotted out by the usual suspects, you can't help feeling. And yet even that isn't good enough to escape the condemnation.
It's not about the truth
You have probably read by now the tale of Sue Reid's appallingly misleading and woefully inaccurate story regarding births at a London hospital. Tim at Mailwatch offers a letter to Daily Mail readers while 5cc does an excellent demolition job, and Uponnothing says Paul Dacre must die.
Reid, of course, has previous. Back in 2007 she offered money to Polish people to break the law, so she could write a story about Polish people breaking the law. The knowledge that a journalist could stoop so low didn't stop newspapers from publishing her articles, of course. Perhaps it was with a teenager's 'meh' shrug or a thought of 'There but for the grace of God...' that potential publishers looked the other way and pretended they hadn't seen anything wrong. This isn't about Reid, though, and it would be wrong to demonise one journalist. It's not the writers who decide what goes in the paper - those decisions are made above their pay grade.
But it's not about the truth. Journalism, at the level of the tabloids and even the 'quality press' from time to time, is about finding a convincing 'line'. If you can find a way of portraying a version of the truth in which a London hospital is swamped by foreigners and no British mums are giving birth there, and that chimes in with a newspaper's record of reporting immigration as a scary, overwhelming thing that's out of control, then that will do. But is it true? I doubt anyone even asked. It doesn't matter.
It's not about the truth. It's about a version of the truth that you can stack up for a few paragraphs, maybe with a supporting quote from someone who'll definitely agree with you (and that tedious business of getting a 'response', yawn yawn, which might contradict your story altogether but which you shove right at the end in the hope your readers won't get that far and will be convinced that what you've told them is what's actually the case.) In the case of the Sue Reid story, the response from the hospital is, I'd have thought, rather more important than something that should be bolted on to the end. Because it kind of contradicts quite a lot of what has been previously stated as a fact.
But no. It's not about the truth, or balance, or fairness, or accuracy. It's not about representing things as accurately as you can. It's about dancing around all of that to make your line as impactful as possible. Yes, you must try to get a response from people about whom you tell a pack of lies, so they've had a 'right of reply' - and if it appears to torpedo what you've written so far? Ah well. Just bung it on at the end and leave everything you've written intact.
It's never about the truth, and it's not quite about fiction. It's about painting the ghost-train so it scares you the most. It's about representing a version of reality in which your worst fears come true - in the case of the Daily Mail, it would appear to have decided that its readers' worst fears consist of immigrants and foreign people. I don't know what that says about Mail readers - I'm not so sure the readers are really that venomous, despite what you reader underneath stories sometimes - or about the paper itself.
If we assume that it's not trying to tell the truth - a simple FOI request to find out numbers would have provided more accuracy as would listening to what the hospital had to say and putting it in context rather than shoving it at the end of the story - then what is it trying to do? Is it trying to mislead, or scare, or enrage, or what? I think the answer might be that it is trying to tap into people's fears. In the case of its readers, it assumes they are afraid of foreigners and immigrants and so creates a world in which foreigners and immigrants are taking over, everyone is powerless to stop it because of the spectral PC Brigade, and guess who's paying?
I think it also assumes they're afraid of cancer, women having jobs, gay people adopting, technology, the internet, socialism, taxes and a whole host of bogeymen - though foreigners and immigration are pretty high up the list. I don't know if it's right, but I think that's what it's trying to do. If you like, you can look at the Mail as a kind of voluntary participation in Room 101 - all the things you fear are in there. Maybe people read it for the same reason they step into the ghost train or ride the rollercoaster or watch a horror movie - you can be confronted with your fears, and see them off, and then return to normal life. That is, if you understand you're being misled and suspending your disbelief.
What if people really believe it? What then?
Reid, of course, has previous. Back in 2007 she offered money to Polish people to break the law, so she could write a story about Polish people breaking the law. The knowledge that a journalist could stoop so low didn't stop newspapers from publishing her articles, of course. Perhaps it was with a teenager's 'meh' shrug or a thought of 'There but for the grace of God...' that potential publishers looked the other way and pretended they hadn't seen anything wrong. This isn't about Reid, though, and it would be wrong to demonise one journalist. It's not the writers who decide what goes in the paper - those decisions are made above their pay grade.
But it's not about the truth. Journalism, at the level of the tabloids and even the 'quality press' from time to time, is about finding a convincing 'line'. If you can find a way of portraying a version of the truth in which a London hospital is swamped by foreigners and no British mums are giving birth there, and that chimes in with a newspaper's record of reporting immigration as a scary, overwhelming thing that's out of control, then that will do. But is it true? I doubt anyone even asked. It doesn't matter.
It's not about the truth. It's about a version of the truth that you can stack up for a few paragraphs, maybe with a supporting quote from someone who'll definitely agree with you (and that tedious business of getting a 'response', yawn yawn, which might contradict your story altogether but which you shove right at the end in the hope your readers won't get that far and will be convinced that what you've told them is what's actually the case.) In the case of the Sue Reid story, the response from the hospital is, I'd have thought, rather more important than something that should be bolted on to the end. Because it kind of contradicts quite a lot of what has been previously stated as a fact.
But no. It's not about the truth, or balance, or fairness, or accuracy. It's not about representing things as accurately as you can. It's about dancing around all of that to make your line as impactful as possible. Yes, you must try to get a response from people about whom you tell a pack of lies, so they've had a 'right of reply' - and if it appears to torpedo what you've written so far? Ah well. Just bung it on at the end and leave everything you've written intact.
It's never about the truth, and it's not quite about fiction. It's about painting the ghost-train so it scares you the most. It's about representing a version of reality in which your worst fears come true - in the case of the Daily Mail, it would appear to have decided that its readers' worst fears consist of immigrants and foreign people. I don't know what that says about Mail readers - I'm not so sure the readers are really that venomous, despite what you reader underneath stories sometimes - or about the paper itself.
If we assume that it's not trying to tell the truth - a simple FOI request to find out numbers would have provided more accuracy as would listening to what the hospital had to say and putting it in context rather than shoving it at the end of the story - then what is it trying to do? Is it trying to mislead, or scare, or enrage, or what? I think the answer might be that it is trying to tap into people's fears. In the case of its readers, it assumes they are afraid of foreigners and immigrants and so creates a world in which foreigners and immigrants are taking over, everyone is powerless to stop it because of the spectral PC Brigade, and guess who's paying?
I think it also assumes they're afraid of cancer, women having jobs, gay people adopting, technology, the internet, socialism, taxes and a whole host of bogeymen - though foreigners and immigration are pretty high up the list. I don't know if it's right, but I think that's what it's trying to do. If you like, you can look at the Mail as a kind of voluntary participation in Room 101 - all the things you fear are in there. Maybe people read it for the same reason they step into the ghost train or ride the rollercoaster or watch a horror movie - you can be confronted with your fears, and see them off, and then return to normal life. That is, if you understand you're being misled and suspending your disbelief.
What if people really believe it? What then?
Winterval card, Nov 27
Today's Winterval delight is sent in by reader Mark Pim. It has the Christian imagery that so many anti-PC types would love to see on Christmas cards, and I'm sure they'll be delighted by the sentiment as well:
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Listeria
It's that time of the year, when journalists cobble together some lists to fill some space so they can go out and get ratarsed every lunchtime produce exciting lists of culturally important things so they keep their finger on the pulse and provide vital information for their readers.
This being the end of the decade*, there are even more lists. Thankfully we're spared the 'best stuff of the Millennium' drivel - remember Robbie Williams being listed as more important than Schubert? - but now is just the beginning. The coming weeks will see dozens and dozens of the blighters.
Here's the first I've seen so far, at the NME. 100 tracks of the decade. I suppose the whole point of these things is to create debate and make you sneer/cheer at the choices, but I can only find 14 in there that I actively like. Do I have rubbish taste or is it the NME who are rubbish? I am guessing it's probably a bit of both.**
Anyway, there will be more to come. More horrors to encounter. More lists to read. So I thought I'd come up with one myself. Here is my list of top 10 things I've hated reading in the newspapers this year:
1. Jan Moir and Stephen Gateley
No surprises here, the sheer sneeriness of it and corpse-being-barely-cold wins hands down.
2. The Scottish Sunday Express and Dunblane
How dare those kids be allowed to be normal 18-year-olds?
3. Jab 'as bad as the cancer'
Except no-one even said that.
4. Jan Moir and Zoe Ball
Second entry in the top 10 for Moir, who managed to imply that Zoe Ball somehow had something to do with female violence. Bonus points for a 'no-one is implying that Zoe Ball is responsible for this' then going on to imply that she might well be.
5. Sticking the boot into missing woman Claudia Lawrence
A truly unpleasant article about the missing woman's lovelife, with an anonymous 'friend' doing the kicking.
6. Jan Moir and laughing at the poor
Not just a crock of shit, but the same crock of shit twice. Well done to Jan for getting three appearances in the list though.
7. Daily Telegraph and 'benefits system favours migrants'
Yes, stated as fact despite the Telegraph's own stories providing the evidence to the contrary, it's a welcome appearance from the broadsheets. Well done for stooping so low!
8. Melanie McDonagh asking for a 'middle-class baby boom'
Lovely to see the Telegraph sneering about 'the Somali mothers you see in West London'. What a wonderful credit to its claims to be a quality newspaper.
9. Amanda Platell: If Melanie McDonagh can do it, I'm having some of that
Immigrant Amanda Platell lays into immigrants, sniping: "it is not the indigenous middle-class, hard-working, tax-paying population that's exploding." Could you be a bit more specific, Amanda? I can't quite work out what you're trying to say.
10. The Express reaches out to international readers
by telling them that "BRITAIN IS FULL UP", coincidentally the same slogan used by the BNP.
* I know. I know that technically there was no Year 0, etc etc, but it's always more exciting when the numbers tick over, isn't it? YES IT IS.
** In case you're interested, I like numbers 1, 14, 18, 30, 33, 42, 47, 48, 61, 74, 76, 83, 92 and 99.
This being the end of the decade*, there are even more lists. Thankfully we're spared the 'best stuff of the Millennium' drivel - remember Robbie Williams being listed as more important than Schubert? - but now is just the beginning. The coming weeks will see dozens and dozens of the blighters.
Here's the first I've seen so far, at the NME. 100 tracks of the decade. I suppose the whole point of these things is to create debate and make you sneer/cheer at the choices, but I can only find 14 in there that I actively like. Do I have rubbish taste or is it the NME who are rubbish? I am guessing it's probably a bit of both.**
Anyway, there will be more to come. More horrors to encounter. More lists to read. So I thought I'd come up with one myself. Here is my list of top 10 things I've hated reading in the newspapers this year:
1. Jan Moir and Stephen Gateley
No surprises here, the sheer sneeriness of it and corpse-being-barely-cold wins hands down.
2. The Scottish Sunday Express and Dunblane
How dare those kids be allowed to be normal 18-year-olds?
3. Jab 'as bad as the cancer'
Except no-one even said that.
4. Jan Moir and Zoe Ball
Second entry in the top 10 for Moir, who managed to imply that Zoe Ball somehow had something to do with female violence. Bonus points for a 'no-one is implying that Zoe Ball is responsible for this' then going on to imply that she might well be.
5. Sticking the boot into missing woman Claudia Lawrence
A truly unpleasant article about the missing woman's lovelife, with an anonymous 'friend' doing the kicking.
6. Jan Moir and laughing at the poor
Not just a crock of shit, but the same crock of shit twice. Well done to Jan for getting three appearances in the list though.
7. Daily Telegraph and 'benefits system favours migrants'
Yes, stated as fact despite the Telegraph's own stories providing the evidence to the contrary, it's a welcome appearance from the broadsheets. Well done for stooping so low!
8. Melanie McDonagh asking for a 'middle-class baby boom'
Lovely to see the Telegraph sneering about 'the Somali mothers you see in West London'. What a wonderful credit to its claims to be a quality newspaper.
9. Amanda Platell: If Melanie McDonagh can do it, I'm having some of that
Immigrant Amanda Platell lays into immigrants, sniping: "it is not the indigenous middle-class, hard-working, tax-paying population that's exploding." Could you be a bit more specific, Amanda? I can't quite work out what you're trying to say.
10. The Express reaches out to international readers
by telling them that "BRITAIN IS FULL UP", coincidentally the same slogan used by the BNP.
* I know. I know that technically there was no Year 0, etc etc, but it's always more exciting when the numbers tick over, isn't it? YES IT IS.
** In case you're interested, I like numbers 1, 14, 18, 30, 33, 42, 47, 48, 61, 74, 76, 83, 92 and 99.
Today's outraged Xmas card
I'm going to try and do one of these a day (or until you and I both get fed up with it, which may well be this afternoon), but here it is:
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Winterval cards
I was thinking after this morning's post that there's a missing market for Christmas cards - disgruntled Mail reader types who are annoyed with the lack of traditional imagery and imagine it's the fault of the ever-present evils of the PC Brigade.
The comments have arrived on the PC Dave story, and as you'll see, as predicted most of them didn't bother to read any of it before adding their 1p's worth:
So using a well-known greetings card company, I've come up with a couple of ideas - see what you think.
I'm sure others can do better than me. But it's a start.
The comments have arrived on the PC Dave story, and as you'll see, as predicted most of them didn't bother to read any of it before adding their 1p's worth:
So using a well-known greetings card company, I've come up with a couple of ideas - see what you think.
I'm sure others can do better than me. But it's a start.
Disturbing sentence of the week
is this, from the Mail's latest story about Suri Cruise's shoes:
'She's looking a little grown-up for a three-year-old' - try saying that without vomiting blood.
'She's looking a little grown-up for a three-year-old' - try saying that without vomiting blood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
