Daily Mail in reaching a new low shocker

Naomi00

Dudess wrote: »

Most people who express views like that don't have a clue about journalists/journalism.

She messed up. I don't get why people are calling her a heartless scumbag who had an agenda to sell more copies when they don't know her and know nothing about what led to her writing it.
Some of what was said today was retracted, then verified. There were mixed messages going around all morning/afternoon - and some people on social media seemed to be keen to "break" something without getting full verification, so it's not just journalists. I know the Mail is a rag, but something like this - I really doubt there would be liberties taken deliberately. Look at the trouble it would get the company into. It's a moralising type publication, unlike e.g. the Sun which moralises when it suits but behaves sensationalist then at other times without giving a toss - and that's even toned down considerably since the 80s.
Her career could be under threat now - why would she risk that? And I know she wrote it, but it would have been checked by others before going to press. For all we know, she could have checked with a reliable source or sources.
Why do people WANT her to have been a callous, ruthless vulture?
People need to start realising that the unethical scummy hacks out there working of their own volition are one group, those just doing their job without a sinister agenda are another. I know this because I've actually worked in the industry.

Ironically, all the gleeful witch-hunting and assumptions are worthy of the worst kind of rag. It's like there's an insatiable need to be cynical. I agree with other posters: vile as the Mail is, it's not going to have an editorial meeting with a plan to hurt the family of a missing lad hitherto unknown. People can pretend that's bullsh1t all they like, but the fact is: they don't have a clue.

I agree the paper should apologise though.

I wrote a proper post explaining that but pressed the back button

So quickly; this story should have been kept private. Obviously if someone is missing it should be advertised to try and find them (the facebook one was a good way). But do you really think that this guy's family and friends want to see this story splashed all over some cheap tabloid newspaper just to make money? I think that's disgusting.

If it was a local newspaper it would make more sense, even though that's bad enough. But what purpose do these national newspapers have in publishing stories like this other than to sell newspapers?

It's not just this story, this happens all the time. Journalists are far too quick to write up these things, I don't understand how they can do that without feeling at all guilty. Do they never consider how they would react if it was someone they knew in the story?

Anyway obviously there are journalists who do lots of proper journalism (e.g Channel 4 have done a lot through tv, I think they're generally the most honest), but they're very much in the minority. I wouldn't buy one of those if you paid me, unfortunately we still have to hear about these newspapers all the time, on facebook etc.

Dudess

You can think all you like that journalists who are unethical, indecent people are a majority, but it's incorrect. Why state something as a fact when you don't know? And opinion doesn't come into it - there either is a majority of nasty, agenda-pushing reporters or there isn't. And there isn't. The vultures - reporters and photographers - exist for sure, but they are not the sum total of the tabloid media, which itself is only one part of the wider media.
The paper itself needs to be considered, not always the individual reporter, who is often just doing as they are instructed. They're not working in the sales or circulation departments.

I'm not defending this - it was a horrible error and unnecessary hurt for Caolan's family and friends, but I think people should consider the bigger picture rather than leaping to assume it was a calculated plan rather than a mistake. A stupid, careless mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

expectationlost

journalists really have problem with the concept that if you put your name on something you take responsibility for it, blame the editor they cry!

while only seeing this http://i28.lulzimg.com/5550211b02.jpg is it possible that the no reference to the body being found in the body of the article only in the headline?

that it was ultimately her editors choice but

she should take responsibility for what she wrote

i don't hope she's fired i hope she quits

Biggins

expectationlost wrote: »

she should take responsibility for what she wrote

IF she hasn't by now, she simply is a cheap coward I feel and won't from here on in I suspect.

Dudess

expectationlost wrote: »

journalists really have problem with the concept that if you put your name on something you take responsibility for it, blame the editor they cry!

Not always, but yes, it's relevant sometimes. They are instructed to write certain stuff and if they don't, they're not doing their job. I don't think someone who is unfamiliar with the process is in a position to dismiss this. A lot of people love scapegoating and thus don't like to admit that a lot of the time the reporter was just doing as they were told to do.

Mike 1972

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

Supported the Nazi's in the 1930's -Havent changed much since !

goose2005

Kold wrote: »

St Finbarres isn't on the north side of the city...

WHAT CITY??

<-- cark forum

Dave!

The Mail is one of many disgusting rags that people, even intelligent people, can't resist buying for some reason. My parents buy this tripe, as well as the Herald, and if they're desperate they'll get the Sun or some other such bollix.

Can't fathom it myself. I can't help but get angry when I see the sh*te masquerading as legitimate journalism printed in these rags. But then I can't sit through half an hour of Coronation Street, Eastenders or Home and Away either.

Terry

Dudess wrote: »

You can think all you like that journalists who are unethical, indecent people are a majority, but it's incorrect. Why state something as a fact when you don't know? And opinion doesn't come into it - there either is a majority of nasty, agenda-pushing reporters or there isn't. And there isn't. The vultures - reporters and photographers - exist for sure, but they are not the sum total of the tabloid media, which itself is only one part of the wider media.
The paper itself needs to be considered, not always the individual reporter, who is often just doing as they are instructed. They're not working in the sales or circulation departments.

I'm not defending this - it was a horrible error and unnecessary hurt for Caolan's family and friends, but I think people should consider the bigger picture rather than leaping to assume it was a calculated plan rather than a mistake. A stupid, careless mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

So they were just following orders?
You know who else were just following orders?
Yeah! The NAZIs.

Sorry. I always wanted to Godwin a thread.

NAZI stuff aside, I disagree with your point of view on this.
This chick should not have allowed a story as sensitive as this go to print. It was just a hack looking for a few quid and name recognition.

Dave! wrote: »

The Mail is one of many disgusting rags that people, even intelligent people, can't resist buying for some reason. My parents buy this tripe, as well as the Herald, and if they're desperate they'll get the Sun or some other such bollix.

Can't fathom it myself. I can't help but get angry when I see the sh*te masquerading as legitimate journalism printed in these rags. But then I can't sit through half an hour of Coronation Street, Eastenders or Home and Away either.

Yeah. My parents used to be cool too.

expectationlost

Dudess wrote: »

Not always, but yes, it's relevant sometimes. They are instructed to write certain stuff and if they don't, they're not doing their job. I don't think someone who is unfamiliar with the process is in a position to dismiss this. A lot of people love scapegoating and thus don't like to admit that a lot of the time the reporter was just doing as they were told to do.

if you put your name on something you take responsibility for it, its a concept _everyone_ can understand.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Terry wrote: »

So they were just following orders?
You know who else were just following orders?
Yeah! The NAZIs.

Sorry. I always wanted to Godwin a thread.

NAZI stuff aside, I disagree with your point of view on this.
This chick should not have allowed a story as sensitive as this go to print. It was just a hack looking for a few quid and name recognition.




Yeah. My parents used to be cool too.

"Chick"...?!

Seriously, though, if no apology from the paper is forthcoming, then I'm with Dudess. The buck stops with the editor, and either he comes forward and distances himself and the journalist from the article by apologising for it, or people are going to assume -perhaps rightly - that they are behind her 100%.