SubScribe
  • Home
  • General Election 2019
    • Random thoughts
    • Guest blog
    • Daily Express
    • Daily Mail
    • Daily Mirror
    • Daily Telegraph
    • i
    • Metro
    • The Guardian
    • The Sun
    • The Times
  • Brexit
    • Whitetops immigration
    • Theresa's travels
    • Gove and Trump
    • Theresa May's trousers
    • Brexit blog
    • Events
    • Daily Express
    • Daily Mail
    • Daily Mirror
    • Daily Star
    • Daily Telegraph
    • i
    • The Guardian
    • The Sun
    • The Times
    • Daily Star Sunday
    • Mail on Sunday
    • The Observer
    • The People
    • Sunday Express
    • Sunday Mirror
    • Sunday Telegraph
    • Sunday Times
    • Sun on Sunday
  • The schedule
  • Blogs
    • Editor's blog
    • Gameoldgirl's Notebook
    • Pictures and spreads
    • Press box
    • General Election
    • Ukraine revolution and the threat to the West >
      • Putin wants more than Crimea, he wants half of Ukraine
      • Putin, the Man of Destiny, and dreams of a Eurasian empire
  • The industry
    • The nationals
    • Press freedom >
      • Attacks on the Press
      • Al Jazeera on trial: why should we care about journalists? >
        • Al Jazeera on trial: Peter Greste
        • Al Jazeera on trial: Abdullah Elshamy
        • Al Jazeera on trial: the court hearings
        • Al Jazeera on trial: the final session
      • RIPA
      • RIPA and the protection of sources
      • RIPA and the Press: guest blog
      • Journalists under surveillance
      • World Press Freedom Day
      • Surrendering press freedom: guest blog
      • Michael Wolff and the free Press
    • Press regulation >
      • From Milly Dowler to Sir Alan Moses
      • Letter to Murdoch
      • Leveson inquiry: an expensive hiding to nothing
      • Press regulation, history, hysteria and hyperbole
      • Parliament, Hacked Off and self-regulation of the Press
    • Journalists in the dock >
      • Too embarrassed to look in the mirror?
      • The tally
      • Operation Elveden
      • Phone hacking
      • Operation Tuleta
      • Journalists on trial 2014 archive
    • Local papers matter >
      • Local newspapers have to change
      • Monty's vision
      • The Full Monty: the Local World vision put into practice
    • Whistle-blowers
    • Journalism shouldn't be for the elite
    • A question of trust
    • News judgment >
      • Daily Star Hallowe'en special
      • Tesco profits scandal
      • Manchester kennels fire
      • Lambing Live
      • Lottery winners separate >
        • Love and the lottery winners, part 2
      • Give us news not puffs
      • April Fool >
        • The giant banjo
        • Deceived or deceptive, the paper must take the rap
      • The art of Sunday editing
    • Peter Oborne quits >
      • Guest blog: Why I resigned from the Telegraph
      • Peter Oborne: The Telegraph strikes back
      • advertising v editorial
    • Award winners >
      • Regional Press Awards 2013
    • Obituary
  • SubScribe commentary
    • Paris terror attacks
    • Mohammed Emwazi and Isis killings >
      • James Foley murdered
      • The murder of Steven Sotloff
      • David Haines and Isis propaganda
    • Charlie Hebdo massacre >
      • Charlie Hebdo aftermath
    • Kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls >
      • Nigeria's abducted girls and massacre
    • Ebola
    • Frontline reporting
    • Typhoon Haiyan
    • Obama's selfie
    • It takes all sorts to make a family >
      • This is what a flawed feminist campaign looks like
      • A level results day: bring on the token boys
      • Kellie Maloney faces the world
      • Women in trouble for getting ahead
      • Pregnant soldiers
    • Ashya King and the force of authority >
      • Stephen's story: did the Press help his cause or take over his life?
      • Colchester cancer scandal
    • Poppymania
    • Cameron's tax cut promise >
      • The blue-rinse bingo Budget
      • Politicians need their holidays too
      • Cameron's reshuffle: bring on the women
    • Brooks Newmark sting
    • Scottish referendum >
      • Scottish referendum: the final editions
      • Scottish referendum miscellany
      • The Queen speaks
    • The European elections audit >
      • Election audit: the last wordle
      • Election audit: Daily Mail
      • Election audit: The Times
      • Election audit: Daily Express
      • Election audit: Daily Mirror
      • Election audit: The Independent
      • Election audit: Guardian
      • Election audit: Daily Telegraph
      • Election audit: The Sun
    • Maria Miller
    • Harman, Hewitt and the paedophiles >
      • Hewitt apologises and the Sun picks up the cudgels
      • Mail v Labour trio, day 6: Harman capitulates and the bully wins
    • Immigration >
      • Katie Hopkins and drowned refugees
      • A year of xenophobia
      • The Express and immigration
    • Prince Charles and the floods >
      • Prince George
    • Food banks
    • Why is football more important than all the news? >
      • Cheerleading
      • Kelly Gallagher beats the world
      • Jenny Jones struggles against Kate and ManU
      • Reading Chronicle and football hooliganism
    • The weather
  • Odds and sods
  • OpEd
    • Oped December >
      • Politics 22-12-15
      • Brexit: 21-12-15
      • Politics 18-12-15
      • Politics 17-12-15
      • Politics 16-12-15
      • EU referendum: 15-12-15
      • Politics 14-12-15
      • Right-wing politicians 11-12-15
      • Donald Trump: 10-12-15
      • Donald Trump: 09-12-15
      • Politics: 08-12-15
      • Politics: 07-12-15
      • Syrian airstrikes 04-12-15
      • Syrian airstrikes: 03-12-15
      • Syrian airstrikes: 02-12-15
      • Labour and Syria: 01-12-15
    • OpEd November >
      • Syrian air strikes: 30-11-15
      • Autumn Statement: 27-11-15
      • Autumn Statement: 26-11-15
      • Russia in Syria: 25-11-15
      • Comment awards 24-11-15
      • Paris attacks: 23-11-15
      • Politics: 20-11-15
      • Paris attacks 19-11-15
      • Terrorism: 18-11-15
      • Paris attacks 17-11-15
      • Paris attacks 16-11-15
      • Politics: 13-11-15
      • Politics 12-11-15
      • Politics: 11-11-15
      • Britain and Europe: 10-11-15
      • Remembrance: 09-11-15
      • Sinai jet crash: 06-11-15
      • UK politics 05-11-15
      • UK politics: 04-11-15
      • State surveillance: 03-11-15
      • Poliitics: 02-11-15
    • OpEd October >
      • Politics: 30-10-15
      • Tax credits: 29-10-15
      • Tax credits: 28-10-15
      • Tax credits: 27-10-15
      • Lords v Commons: 26-10-15
      • UK politics: 23-10-15
      • Politics: 22-10-15
      • Xi Jinping: 21-10-15
      • Xi Jinping: 20-10-15
      • China visit: 19-10-15
      • Politics: 16-10-15
      • Politics 15-10-15
      • Politics: 14-10-15
      • EU referendum 13-10-15
      • Europe: 12-10-15
      • Politics 09-10-15
      • Cameron's speech: 08-10-15
      • Conservatives: 07-10-15
      • Conservatives: 06-10-15
      • Conservatives: 05-10-15
      • Politics 02-10-15
      • Labour conference 01-10-15
    • OpEd September >
      • Politics 01-09-15
      • Europe 02-09-15
      • Migrant crisis 03-09-15
      • Migrant crisis 04-09-15
      • Migrant crisis 07-09-15
      • Migrant crisis 08-09-15
      • OpEd: Drone strikes 09-09-15
      • OpEd: Migrant crisis 10-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 11-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 14-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 15-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 16-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 17-09-15
      • OpEd: Labour 18-09-15
      • OpEd: Politics 21-09-15
      • OpEd: "Pig-gate" 22-09-15
      • OpEd: Politics 23-09-15
      • OpEd: VW 24-09-15
      • OpEd: Volkswagen 28-09-15
      • OpEd: Politics 25-09-15
      • OpEd: Politics 29-09-15
      • Oped: Labour conference 30-09-15
    • OpEd August >
      • OpEd: Calais 03-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 04-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 05-08-15
      • OpEd: Kids Company 06-08-15
      • OpEd: Kids Company 07-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 10-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 11-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 12-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 13-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 14-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 17-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 18-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 19-08-15
      • OpEd: Student debt 20-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 21-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 24-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 25-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 26-08-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 27-08-15
      • OpEd: TV shootings 28-08-15
    • OpEd July >
      • OpEd: Grexit 01-07-15
      • OpEd: Heathrow 02-07-15
      • OpEd: Greece 03-07-15
      • OpEd: Taxation 06-07-15
      • OpEd: Greece 07-07-15
      • OpEd: Budget 08-07-15
      • OpEd: Budget 09-07-15
      • OpEd: Budget 10-07-15
      • OpEd: Greece 13-07-15
      • OpEd: Greece 14-07-15
      • OpEd: Iran 15-07-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 16-07-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 17-07-15
      • OpEd: Boris Johnson and Greece 20-07-15
      • OpEd: counter-terrorism 21-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 22-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 23-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 24-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 27-07-15
      • OpEd: Lord Sewel 28-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 29-07-15
      • OpEd: Calais 30-07-15
      • OpEd: Calais 31-07-15
    • OpEd June >
      • OpEd: Fifa 01-06-15
      • OpEd: British politics 02-06-15
      • OpEd: Charles Kennedy 03-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 04-06-15
      • OpEd: Fifa 05-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 08-06-15
      • OpEd: Europe 09-06-15
      • OpEd: politics 10-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 11-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 12-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 15-06-15
      • OpEd: Social mobility 16-06-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 17-06-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 18-06-15
      • OpEd: Greece 19-06-15
      • OpEd: Greece 22-06-15
      • OpEd: Greece 23-06-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 24-06-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 25-06-15
      • OpEd: Brexit 26-06-15
      • OpEd: Tunisia 29-06-15
      • OpEd: Grexit 30-06-15
    • OpEd May >
      • OpEd: Election 01-05-15
      • OpEd: Election 05-05-15
      • OpEd: Election 06-05-15
      • OpEd: Election 07-05-15
      • OpEd: Election 08-05-15
      • OpEd: Scotland 11-05-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 12-05-15
      • OpEd: The Labour party 13-05-15
      • OpEd: The Labour party 14-05-15
      • OpEd: Ukip and Labour 15-05-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 18-05-15
      • OpEd: The NHS 19-05-15
      • OpEd: The Labour party 20-05-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 21-05-15
      • Oped: UK politics 22-05-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 26-05-15
      • OpEd: Europe 27-05-15
      • OpEd: The Queen's Speech 28-05-15
      • OpEd: Fifa 29-05-15
    • OpEd April >
      • OpEd: Election 01-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 02-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 07-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 08-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 09-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 10-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 13-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 14-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 15-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 16-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 17-04-15
      • OpEd: SNP 20-04-15
      • OpEd: Refugees 21-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 22-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 23-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 24-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 27-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 28-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 29-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 30-04-15
    • OpEd March >
      • OpEd: Election 31-03-15
      • OpEd: Depression 30-03-15
      • OpEd: Prince Charles 27-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 26-03-15
      • OpEd: David Cameron 25-03-15
      • OpEd: Singapore 24-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 23-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 20-03-15
      • OpEd: the Budget 19-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 18-03-15
      • OpEd: race in Britain 17-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 16-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 13-03-15
      • OpEd Jeremy Clarkson 12-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 11-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 10-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 09-03-15
      • OpEd: Scotland 06-03-15
      • OpEd: Isis 05-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 04-03-15
      • OpEd: Radicalisation 03-03-15
      • OpEd: Russia 02-03-15
    • OpEd February >
      • OpEd: UK politics 27-02-15
      • OpEd: minority party leaders 26-02-15
      • OpEd: the Greens 25-02-15
      • OpEd: Rifkind and Straw 24-02-15
      • OpEd: world affairs 23-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 20-02-15
      • OpEd: Chelsea and racism 19-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 18-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 17-02-15
      • OpEd: Copenhagen 16-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 13-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 12-02-15
      • OpEd: politics 11-02-15
      • OpEd: politics 10-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 09-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 06-02-15
      • OpEd: Isis atrocity 05-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 04-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 03-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 02-02-15
    • OpEd January >
      • OpEd: rape law 30-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics, 29-01-15
      • OpEd: Greece 27-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 28-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 26-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 23-01-15
      • OpEd: Chilcot inquiry 22-01-15
      • OpEd: Page Three 21-01-15
      • OpEd: anti-semitism 20-01-15
      • OpEd: religion and freedom 19-01-15
      • OpEd: world politics 16-01-15
      • OpEd: election debates 15-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 14-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 13-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 12-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 08-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 09-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 07-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 05-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 06-01-15
  • You have to laugh
  • Backnumbers
    • Front pages December >
      • Front pages Dec 27-31
      • Front pages Dec 20-26
      • Front pages Dec 6-12
    • Front pages November >
      • Front pages Nov 29-Dec 5
      • Front pages Nov 22-28
      • front pages Nov 15-21
      • Front pages Nov 8-14
      • front pages Nov 1-7
    • Front pages October >
      • Front pages, Oct 25-31
      • Front pages Oct 18-25
      • front pages Oct 11-17
      • Front pages Oct 4-10
    • Front pages September >
      • Front pages Sept 27-Oct 3
      • Front pages Sept 20-26
      • Front pages Sept 13-19
      • Front pages Sept 6-12
      • Front pages Aug 30-Sept 5
    • Front pages August >
      • Front pages August 23-29
      • Front pages Aug 16-22
      • Front pages August 9-15
      • Front pages Aug 2-8
    • Front pages July >
      • Front pages July 26-Aug 1
      • Front pages July 19-25
      • Front pages July 12-18
      • Front pages July 5-11
      • Front pages June 28-July 4
    • Front pages June >
      • Front pages June 21-27
      • Front pages June 14-20
      • Front pages June 7-13
      • Front pages May 31-June 6
    • Front pages May >
      • Front pages May 24-30
      • Front pages May 17-23
      • Front pages May 10-16
    • Front pages April >
      • Front pages May 3-9
      • Front pages April 26-May 2
      • Front pages April 19-26
      • Front pages April 12-18
      • Front pages April 5-11
      • Front pages Mar 29-Apr 4
    • Front pages March >
      • Front pages Mar 22-28
      • Front pages Mar 15-21
      • Front pages Mar 8-14
      • Front pages Mar 1 - 7
    • Front pages February >
      • Front pages Feb 22-28
      • Front pages Feb 16-21
      • Front pages Feb 9-15
      • Front pages Feb 1-8
    • Front pages January >
      • Front pages Jan 25-31
      • Front pages Jan 18-24, 2015
      • Front pages Jan 11-17
      • front pages Jan 4-9, 2015
      • Front pages Dec 29-Jan 3
  • About SubScribe
  • Join the SubScribers
  • Contact us
  • Subscribe to SubScribe

Ched Evans and lonely hearts matches of the day

6/1/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
I wonder what human-robotic combo at the Pulitzer prizewinning Guardian decided it was a good idea to sandwich a jumping-in point for its lonely hearts enterprise Soulmates between comments on a story about convicted rapist and sometime footballer Ched Evans and 'related content'.
0 Comments

Question and properly nominate

13/10/2014

1 Comment

 
I had promised myself when I was about 30 that when I got to a certain age I wouldn't mither on about how things had got worse.

Now that I have almost reached my BlankZero birthday, I am convinced that one thing has got worse, or at least not improved. I refer to the relative illiteracy and lack of thoroughness of the apparently well-educated.

One way in which this manifests itself in journalism is the inability to get names, aka proper nouns, right. Now I have no prejudice as such against those with degrees (I have two, thanks). However, I have become increasingly old-fart intolerant of the youngish unteachable graduate who knows everything but is cavalier about names. One way to labour the point is to call the sinner Sebastian "Simon" or miscreant Clarissa "Carol" a few times.

Fewer and fewer young hacks now undergo ordeal by grieving family. This scenario involves being sent to cover a local funeral, getting the misspelt name of the deceased into print, and then fielding an irate phone call or being at the wrong end of a face-to-face verbal mauling from the dead person's burly, overwrought brother.

In my relative yoof, I once revise-subbed (a synonym for "fiddled with") a headline on a page lead at the Times and managed to render a French presidential surname, Mitterrand, minus the second R. It did not get into the hands of the readers, having been stopped in time, but the foreign chief sub rightly bollocked me (albeit in front of all my colleagues, following the finest Voltairean tradition of pour encourager les autres).

Now that such open, personal reprimands would probably be deemed bullying or harassment, they either occur in private or not at all. Paradoxically, in this age of electronic transparency, many an organ now hangs its dirty linguistic laundry out to dry online, so to speak.

Regular confessions of shortcomings appear under "corrections", "clarifications" and the like. A surprising number involve getting names wrong. I say "surprising", as many are mistakes that I think ought to have been prevented by proper subediting/copy editing.

Sadly - a frequent theme of my mutterings these days - globally known organisations and titles have decided to cut back on in-depth subbing/copy editing and have thrown nearly everything at producing more and more content. As the computer programming saw has it, "rubbish in, rubbish out". Most naming errors start with writers, but can be finished before the reader sees them by judicious editing.

There now follows a short stroll through the Proper Noun and Associated Adjective Hall of Shame. Giggle and/or wince as the mood takes you.

From the Guardian: "Colombia was misspelled as Columbia in a panel accompanying an article about security lapses involving the US president ('Red faces at White House over intruder failure', 1 October, page 21)."

From the Daily Mail: "A report of the Derby County v Reading match last Tuesday mistakenly referred to Derby player Will Hughes as Lee Hughes."

From the Wall Street Journal: "The first name of Vicente Fox, the former president of Mexico, was misspelled as Vincente in a Thursday Personal Journal article and accompanying photo caption about diplomats staying at hotels in New York for the UN General Assembly."; and "Belinda Ellis was a consultant with White Lily flour. A Sept. 6 Off Duty article about biscuits incorrectly referred to the brand as Lily White flour."

And another from the WSJ: "A Palladian window was incorrectly identified as a palladium window in a Spaces column on Tuesday."

I suspect, or at least hope, there is a business case to be made that publishing such blunders does reputational damage to established news brands and reduces the credibility gap between them and the start-up upstarts.

It may even mean that ageing pedants like me continue to find gainful employment, continuing to sort out copy and enlightening the younger generations about how to do the same. 

But if the old school continues to construct its hall of shame in the palladium style, it could prove a costly mistake.
1 Comment

What the McCanns teach us about press law

8/10/2014

1 Comment

 
Picture
Kate and Gerry McCann, the parents of the missing Madeleine, have featured at least twice in more serious news outlets over the past few days. The couple received £55,000 in libel damages from the Sunday Times; and Brenda Leyland, accused of trolling the McCanns online, was found dead in a hotel.

When compulsory redundancy came knocking at the start of 2012, I had spent almost a decade as chief revise editor at the Times. During those years, I did a lot of hands-on subbing/copy editing, proofreading, tinkering with the style guide, dishing out advice - some of it solicited - and sending "encouraging" global emails to colleagues about producing a better-written newspaper.

I shared a small office most days with a fellow pedant or two, and between us we gave the pages a final polish, and occasionally saved a bylined writer's sorry tale/tail. And our daily guest was the duty night lawyer, one of a roster of outside barristers and solicitors hired by the in-house legal department for their expertise in media law.

They would read the pages as we did during the afternoon and into the evening, and between us we aimed to ensure as sparkling a read as possible that would not attract the attentions of Sue, Grabbit and Runne.

A stock-in-trade of the in-house media lawyer is preventing a broadcaster or publisher being sued for defamation, defined by the Oxford dictionary as
"the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel". Slander refers to anything spoken, libel to anything written.

There now follows a lawyerly caveat. Despite my years of witnessing the nightly practice of newspaper law, it has plenty of mysterious nooks and crannies, so everything I note beyond here is subject to generalisation and simplification.

However... for newspapers, a key way to prevent being sued for libel is to print what is true and to have credible proof, which can be presented in court if necessary, that what is printed is true. The onus in English defamation law is on the publisher, not the complainant.

(Thus Robert Maxwell successfully sued Private Eye for its suggestion that he was, er, borrowing and redirecting, aka stealing, from the Mirror Group Newspapers pension fund. The allegation was true, but Lord Gnome's organ has insufficient evidence at the time.)

Additionally, even if something is defamatory, a night lawyer will dispense on-the-fly opinion about the relative risk of legal action being taken. Traditionally, for example, politicians have been less likely to sue for defamation than showbiz types.

And so to the McCanns. They are parents whose child went missing on a beach holiday in Portugal. The couple came in for criticism and judgement at the time of Madeleine's disappearance from people who said, in effect: "If we were abroad in a child-friendly country, we would not leave our children in an apartment on their own. We would either stay with them or bring them to dinner with us, and really nobody would mind if they fell asleep at the table."

The McCanns are also doctors. I do not know them personally, so my view of the couple comes through the prism of the media. In my opinion, they seem somewhat cold and distant. But to make allowances, the way in which they have come to the public's attention is exceptionally unusual, and none of us knows how we would appear in similar circumstances.

Clearly the McCanns are entitled to the same fair scrutiny that anybody else is. They have instructed lawyers on several occasions regarding defamatory articles, and have won substantial damages. The McCanns have become prominent in the Hacked Off campaign for a post-Leveson settlement that increases press regulation. I understand their position, but fundamentally disagree with it.

A statistic I am fond of repeating relates to the classic textbook McNae's Essential Law for Journalists. It is almost 500 pages. We have an abundance of laws controlling the press, and by extension what is written on Twitter, Facebook and the rest of social media.

I am entirely in the Ian Hislop camp on the state of press regulation, and state press regulation. As the Private Eye editor has said, we do not need any more media regulation (as advocated by Hacked Off and the McCanns). What we do need is the huge corpus of current media law to be properly policed, cases to be brought appropriately to the courts, and punishments to fit any proven offences.

If I choose to break the law for journalistic reasons, I would not deserve or expect special treatment from the law, and would have to be prepared for the consequences.

There is a fine balance to be struck in defending freedom of speech on the one hand and individual rights on the other. The McCanns and the wider Hacked Off movement seem oddly fond of citing cases in which the law appears to deal adequately with press shortcomings as evidence that we require yet more press regulation.

 


 
1 Comment

Brooks Newmark and a light to lighten the genitals

2/10/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
Older men and younger women: now there's a subject I know something about.

First, let me declare an interest. I am an older man, metaphorically hurtling towards a BlankZero birthday, but I think I'm relatively safe in mixed company. And, by the way, I probably won't contemplate voting Liberal Democrat while Chris Rennard continues to enjoy the party whip in the Lords.

Of course, I'm nowhere near as ancient as the Methuselah Vince Cable, but I am the youthful Brooks Newmark's senior by about 0.35 of a decade.

I mention these two gents of the Commons political classes as they have both fallen foul of one of the oldest tricks of espionage and journalistic practice. It even has a name: honeytrap, defined by the Oxford dictionary as "a strategem in which an attractive person entices another person into revealing information or doing something unwise".

Dear old Vince, fairly newly installed in ministerial office in 2010, decided to show off to a couple of young women who came calling at one of his constituency surgeries. He strayed into heady political territory, mouthing off inappropriately -
given his Cabinet responsibilities - about Rupert Murdoch, and of course the two young persons were really undercover reporters for the Telegraph, posing as supporters of Mr/Dr Cable's party, the Liberal Democrats.

There followed Vincesque wailing and gnashing of teeth. Moans were made about this and that Telegraph report to the Press Complaints Commission, and editorial knuckles were duly rapped.

Similar anguish about alleged press entrapment surrounds last weekend's (snigger, snigger) tale of Mr Newmark, who sent an online snap of his winky (qv), it is said framed by a fetching glimpse of his paisley pyjamas, to a "young woman" who was actually a male undercover (sic)
reporter. The full tabloid exposé got an airing in the Sunday Mirror.

I got into a bit of a Twitter spat on Sunday with a Zoe Williams, of the Guardian, after I took issue with her piece suggesting that Mr Newmark should not have resigned his ministerial office for his action. I say "a", because I was as unfamiliar with her and her oeuvre as I'm certain she is of me and mine.

My own view is that Mr Newmark is now unfit even to be an MP on the ground that he is guilty, by his own admission, of an act of gross stupidity: "a complete fool". Of course, he also appeared to have undergone an irony bypass. He requested i
n a resignation statement that his privacy be respected.

Even people with the disadvantage of being Harvard-educated multimillionaire government ministers ought to be capable of exercising some judgement in answer to the question: "Is it OK for me, a married man with five children and with a brief in the Conservative Party for encouraging more women into Parliament through Women2Win, to send a picture of my schledium to a complete stranger?"

(My screen grab, above, of the organisation's website is from before Mr Newmark was semi-airbrushed out of its history. Then you saw him, now you don't. Although he still gets a text credit. Awww.)

Those of us who are often at the end, so to speak, of the journalistic production line need to have similar concerns as editorial lawyers about the likely provenance and veracity of copy. After us, stories are in the hand of the reader, the written-about and their lawyers.

Yes, some journalistic methods are underhand, but then so can be those of parliamentarians who, say, cook up expenses claims, incubate dodgy dossiers or take inappropriate advantage of their position.
 
Journalistic sting operations tend to be targeted and, whatever the protestations of the alleged victims and their apologists, often illuminate and amuse the rest of us while embarrassing the stung. I have no sympathy for senior politicians who display unacceptable naivety and get caught out.

The Newmark saga shows an imperfect, supposedly free, robust and knockabout press doing its work: keeping professional politicians with an apparently heightened sense of entitlement on their toes.

We should be grateful that stingers are often playful, investigative journalists who do care about accountable democracy in Britain and are not agents of hostile governments and groups.
0 Comments

Nice tale, shame about the sidehead

26/9/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
First, credit where it is due: Channel 4 News had a terrific story last night about the scandal of hospital building funded by the so-called private finance initiative (PFI) programme, with the focus of this exclusive tale on the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham.

PFI seems to resemble a bit of a wheeze in which public hospitals got built very quickly, making politicians such as Gordon "Referendum Resurrection" Brown look incredibly brilliant, clever and caring; and their private financiers continue to get rewarded handsomely over decades from taxpayers' money, making them look incredibly brilliant, clever, rich, grasping and greedy.

The "furniture" on a story has a job to do, whether on the interweb or newsprint. A headline should draw the reader in, being eye-catching and full of SEO (search engine optimisation/sexy exceptional oohs) goodies.

A good standfirst will give a bit more context, and the byline and any accompanying mugshot will reassure that here is someone I like reading and trust - a no-brainer in the case of the excellent Cathy Newman.

So then we come to the crossheads (type centred) or sideheads (type set left): the mini-headlines or, if you prefer, large bits of text that break up chunks of copy, tell you what's coming in the next few paragraphs and should encourage you to read on. Should.

I think this story is so good that little coaxing is needed to read on. But whoever wrote the unbelievably dull and jargon-rich "Ongoing investigation" in this sidehead needs to go on a refresher course.

We old-school subs are programmed to replace "ongoing" with "continuing" in all circumstances. "Ongoing investigation" is pure essence of plodspeak. Just because most of the Old Bill, as my detective father used to tell me about his colleagues, can't speak or write proper English in public does not mean that journalists have to regurgitate their mangled notions, especially in sideheads.

Maybe something like "Fire safety fears" would have been a little more to the point.


0 Comments

Redundantly going backwards with moving forward

23/9/2014

0 Comments

 
I have to sort out - as in viciously and unmercifully cut - plenty of management-speak in the commercial copy that I edit. It goes with the territory, and I am happy to do it.

You really wouldn't want to hire me for financial advice, as I'm almost a complete klutz in the investment department. In turn, I don't expect too much from business types when they try to write. They pay me to make their jargon-rich nonsense fit for human consumption - and so perhaps more likely to persuade someone to buy their message and their brand or product.

What is almost unforgivable is when people who should know better - journalists, broadcasters, lawyers, politicians, advertising copywriters and academics - insist on persisting with the linguistic redundancies of the commercial classes.

I have a number of bêtes noires, and among them are "going forward" and "moving forward". The redundant use of these phrases has reached global epidemic proportions.

They do not need to be banned. They are perfectly acceptable, for example, in commentaries for any sport where territory is gained with possession of the ball or its equivalent, such as football ("soccer"), rugby union, rugby league, (field) hockey, (ice) hockey and American football (ritualised violence with side-effects including head injuries, buggered-up knee ligaments and domestic abuse).

That leaves a vast arena where permanent exclusion of these management-speak favourites is essential. In a metaphorical sense, "going forward" and "moving forward" imply something that is going to happen. The future is being talked of. So, logically, they become redundant when, say, a tense points to the future or when a noun or verb - plan, prospect, hope etc - looks ahead.

I had a bizarre exchange on Twitter a few months ago (below) when I tried to make this rather simple point to someone at the illustrious Brookings Institution think tank. (This was, by definition, a public conversation, so I have no hesitation in reporting it here.)

I had no idea that, more than 30 years after I bailed out of academe into what many would consider to be the more turbulent and intellectually shallow waters of journalism, my mental flabber would be somewhat gasted.
Picture
0 Comments

Size matters: don't be out of kilter on opinion polls

17/9/2014

2 Comments

 
Picture






As a pedant of a scientific bent, I'm seizing this eve-of-Scottish-referendum moment to try to explain - simply, I trust - the basics of opinion polls, specifically sample size and accuracy.

For an opinion poll to be believable, at least two conditions must be fulfilled.

First, the people being polled - the sample - must be representative of the wider population as far as possible, on criteria such as anno domini and gender. Or, as we self-appointed wags like to say, appropriately broken down by age and sex. This is known in the political polling trade - psephology - as "weighting".

Second, the sample needs to be of sufficient size to tease out any significant trend in the sample, and hence the population. Hold on to your school desks, children, as I take you through this tiny step by step.

It is logical that the smaller the sample, the dodgier the conclusion. If I have a crowd of representative Scots crammed on to a football pitch and ask only the bloke on one of the penalty spots for his voting intentions in the #indyref, I may conclude that there will be a 100 per cent Yes, No or Don't Know result when the referendum refs blow their whistles for full time tomorrow night.

The trick with sampling is to poll the smallest number of people you need to get a meaningful - that is, "statistically significant" - result. Asking a million people for their opinion when you only need to ask 10,000 will waste time and money. So far, so bleeding obvious.

Now for the tiny bit of maths. The magic phrase to grasp is "1 over the square root of n". That is how you calculate how much you can trust the result of an opinion poll, where n is the size of the sample: what pollsters call the error.

Suppose, foolishly, you poll only nine people from your sample on the simple Yes/No question "Do you ever wear a kilt?" and don't allow any Don't Knows. You calculate the error as 1 divided by the square root of  9; that is, 1 divided by 3. So the error is 1/3 - a third, or 33.33333 etc per cent. Not much Kop, in footballing parlance, and deserving of a statistical yellow card.

Most reputable polling organisations go for samples of 1,000 - in which case, the error is about 1/32, around 3.1 per cent - or spend more for samples of 1,500 (error about 2.5 per cent), or even 2,000 (error about 2.2 per cent).

So if I can poll a weighted sample of 1,000 in Sutherland, my favourite rural destination in Scotland, and 73 per cent say they sometimes wear a kilt, I can be confident I have obtained a statistically significant result.

The calculated error of 3.1 per cent suggests that my figure for kilt wearers could be as small as about 70 per cent or as high as 76 per cent. The 27 per cent figure for those who say they never wear a kilt could be as high as 30 per cent or as low 24 per cent. The difference between the two responses is said to be "statistically significant" and I can have high confidence I am not talking sporran-adjacent nonsense.

I hope this explains why there can be controversy when a sample size in an opinion poll about #indyref voting intentions is only 500, with an error of about 4.5 per cent. If I obtain a 54-46 split from my sample, the ranges can be 58 to 50, and 42 to 50, respectively. I cannot have great confidence that I am sampling anything other than error in my methodology.

Anyway, come Friday morning, the opinion polls and their sampling errors will be ancient history because - as we all know in that politician's cliché - it's only the real vote that counts. Until the next opinion poll, anyway.
 

2 Comments

Tracking the geographically challenged

16/9/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
While a news story should always correctly answer the curiosity of readers about the who, what, when, how and why, they can get especially irritated if the where is wrong.

The slightest error about local geography can prompt a flurry of complaints. Often there are nuances about which street is in, say, the hypothetical town of Seaville and which in its dock area, Seaport, that only locals can discern.

A distant journalist at a newspaper office in London, with only an online map for guidance and a deadline five minutes away, can be on a hiding to nothing.

So some geographical faux pas are more understandable than others. This recent example, openly confessed by the Guardian, is particularly bizarre.

St Pancras station is only six minutes' walk from the newspaper's office, which is just over the London borough border at Kings Place, in Islington. I think. At least, according to the red dotted line on Google Maps.


Picture
0 Comments

Tautology corner: added bonus

12/9/2014

0 Comments

 
Guardian






















Beginners, start here. Yes, that's something of a tautology.

One of the many tasks of the proper subeditor/copy editor is, to use the technical term, cut the crap.

It may be invidious to pick out an individual. John Harris, of the Guardian, is merely another of the countless exponents of "added bonus".

A bonus is "an extra and unexpected advantage", says the Oxford. Since the meanings of "added" and "extra" are synonymous, young JH could have saved himself five keystrokes by simply writing "bonus". And many more in future if he follows my advice for most of the times that he writes "bonus".

Deliberate deployment of tautology is best left for the poetic, eg, the "bosky wood" of Rupert Brooke.

Tautology is likely to be a recurring theme in these pages. One of my favourites is "ruling military junta", which can invariably be rendered accurately as "junta". Well done, the Wall Street Journal and no end of others. 

0 Comments

Daily Mail temporarily liberal with literal shock

11/9/2014

1 Comment

 
Daily Mail
My attempts to stop literals popping up in copy that I have subbed mean I'm a day late to this particular mock-the-Daily-Mail party.

But comparison of the first (top) and second (above) versions of the shouty WOB (white-on-black) furniture serves as a painful reminder to all of us handling the written word in a rush: there is a universal rule of journalism that stories about illiteracy are subject to typo karma.

And of course I've read these few lines through a ridiculously obsessive number of times because I know I'm in danger of overlooking my own typos or worse.
1 Comment
<<Previous

    Author

    Richard Dixon has
    been a journalist
    since 1979 despite having a PhD
    in fish glands.

    Most of his alleged career has been
    spent sorting out others' copy as a subeditor/
    copy editor, sometimes with a fancy title, although he has occasionally deviated into scribbling, and inexplicably was Medical Journalist of the Year
    as recently as 1984.

    As @Linguagroover
    Dixon displays all the signs of an advanced,
    possibly incurable, Twitter obsession.

    Archives

    January 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    Academics
    Accuracy
    Added Bonus
    Advertising
    Anders Fogh Rasmussen
    Bill Deedes
    Birmingham
    Bobby Moore
    Bosky Wood
    Bouverie Street
    Brenda Leyland
    Broadcasters
    Brookings Institution
    Brooks Newmark
    Byline
    Camden
    Canterbury Tales
    Caption
    Carry On Films
    Cartoon
    Cartoonist
    Cathy Newman
    Channel 4 News
    Chaucer
    Ched Evans
    Chris Rennard
    Chronicle Live
    Clarifications
    Cock-up
    Colin Hook
    Copywriters
    Corrections
    Crosshead
    Daily Express
    Daily Mail
    Department
    Diana
    Donald Saunders
    Editorial
    Entrapment
    Environment
    Espionage
    Facebook
    Football
    For
    Funeral
    Furniture
    Genitals
    Geography
    Going Forward
    Gordon Brown
    Guardian
    Hacked Off
    Harold Evans
    Hartlepool Mail
    Headline
    Heysel Stadium
    Honeytrap
    Hospital Building
    Ian Hislop
    Illiteracy
    Illiterate
    #indyref
    IPPR
    Islington
    Jargon
    John Harris
    Journalists
    Kate And Gerry McCann
    Kevin Maguire
    Kevin O'Sullivan
    Kings Place
    Lawyers
    Libel
    Libel Damages
    Liberal Democrat
    Literal
    Lord Gnome
    Madeleine McCann
    Matt
    Matt Dickinson
    McCanns
    McNae's Essential Law For Journalists
    Metaphor
    Middle English
    Miracle
    Mirror
    Mitterrand
    Morris Bishop
    Moving Forward
    Mugshot
    Names
    Nato
    Nato Summit
    Naughty
    Night Lawyer
    Northern Echo
    Of
    Ongoing
    Oxford Dictionary
    Palladian
    Palladium
    Paul Hayward
    PFI
    Philanthropist Of The Year
    Plodspeak
    Politicians
    Prepositions
    Press Complaints Commission
    Private Eye
    Private Finance Initiative
    Proper Nouns
    Psephology
    Pulitzer
    Queen Elizabeth Hospital
    Quotation Marks
    Redundant
    Reference Tip
    Referendum
    Robert Maxwell
    Ruling Miltary Junta
    Rupert Brooke
    Sample Size
    Scandal
    Schledium
    Schumacher
    Scottish Independence
    Search Engine Optimisation
    SEO
    Sidehead
    Skiing
    Slander
    Spooky Woo
    Sport
    Square Root
    Standfirst
    Sting
    St Pancras Station
    Sun
    Sunday Mirror
    Sunday Telegraph
    Sunday Times
    Taste
    Tautology
    Telegraph
    Terrorism
    The Miller's Tale
    Think Tank
    Times
    Tony Blair
    Troll
    Twitter
    Vade Mecum
    Vince Cable
    Wall Street Journal
    Wapping
    War
    West Ham
    WOB
    Women2Win
    Zoe Williams

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.