Thursday 29 October 2009

Journalism Now

Rupert Murdoch and The Sun

 

Rupert Murdoch is an Australian born American, who owns a number of the world’s top media outlets. Murdoch, who is the 132nd richest person in the world bought ‘The Sun’ newspaper in 1969.  He transformed The Sun into a red top tabloid, which was, and still is primarily aimed at the working class.

 The common formula in the early days was ‘Sensation, Sex and Sport’, under the editorship of Larry Lamb. This shocked the nation at first, particularly with the inclusion of topless models in the paper; but sales of the tabloid soared.

 On taking over the paper, Murdoch was quoted as saying that he would publish a 'straightforward, honest paper’.

However, The Sun has always carried an obvious media bias in terms of politics. In 2007 Murdoch was quoted as saying he considered himself to be a traditional proprietor, which means that he has control over which political party The Sun backs, as well as other major issues.

Initially, the tabloid supported the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and the Conservative party. In the late nineties Murdoch and The Sun infamously changed their allegiance to the Labour party ahead of the 1997 general election. However, in 2009 Murdoch, once again changed back to the Conservative party, who are currently favourites for the next general election. Many people believe that Murdoch plainly supports the party which looks most likely to win, as this gives him the chance to influence government policies. 

 There have been six editors during Murdoch’s reign as owner of the paper. The longest serving and arguably most controversial was Kelvin MacKenzie, who was appointed in 1981 and held the post until 1994.  During this time The Sun became established as the nation’s best selling newspaper. However this was also arguably the most controversial era of The Sun under Murdoch’s ownership. MacKenzie was held responsible for some of the most shocking and damaging Sun stories. One of the most controversial  stories was run by MacKenzie at the beginning of the Falklands war, when the General Belgrano was torpedoed by British troops. ‘Gotcha’ was the headline in the first edition which caused great controversy, as it was understood that the attack on the ship was unlawful, which made the headline all the more insensitive. However in ‘Stick It Up Your Punter’ a book which labels itself the 'Uncut story of the Sun newspaper' stated that when questioned about the headline, Murdoch remarked; ‘I rather like it’.

The most damaging times during Murdoch’s reign was the coverage of the Hillsborough football stadium disaster in 1989. MacKenzie ran a story headlined ‘The Truth’, and gave a highly controversial account of what happened, with little of what was written based on fact. The story caused uproar, and was considered completely inaccurate by both the government inquiry as well as the Press Council. Murdoch later ordered Mackenzie to apologise live on national radio. He was encouraged to leave his post five years later by Murdoch and there have been four other editors since his departure.

 Rupert Murdoch has successfully used The Sun to help him dominate the world of media, as it has given him the platform to have an impact on the world of British politics. 

 

 References

-wikipedia.com

-BBC News archive at bbcnews.co.uk

- ‘Stick It Up Your Punter’ by Peter Chippingdale and Chris Horrie

- thesun.co.uk

Saturday 17 October 2009

The Sun is barking mad.

The experts can say what they want about The Sun. One might even liken it to takeaway food. Despite this though I often open up the pages, and it makes me smile, just like I smile when open up a Pizza box or a kebab container. This story though made me smile like I do when i have an Indian takeaway!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2686792/Roy-Keanes-barking-dogs-keep-neighbours-awake.html

However I'm not convinced by the accuracy of the piece, largely because I don't think anyone in Aldeburgh reads this particular red-top, and thus wouldn't make the complaint to the Sun. Infact the residents are probably too busy looking down on people to have time to look down at newspapers at all.

Thursday 15 October 2009

A typical conversation with a Sun reader.

After todays 'Precison English' lesson with Mr Mole, I have decided it would be appropriate to keep this blog post to the point.


My Mother phoned me this evening, and asked if my Journalism Tutor was on the One Show this evening.

I replied: yes it was the gentleman criticising the Sun
Mum: So he was the one criticising the Page 3?
Me: yeah..thats him
Mum: Is he gay then?

I may be in trouble now, because I have no record of this conversation due to my lack of shortand!

Locked into an interesting lecture!

Tuesday’s history and context lecture was truly fascinating in my opinion.
The talk was focused around the work and ideas of John Locke, a man regarded as being one of the most influential of enlightenment thinkers, who had some bizarre ideas about the importance of property. Locke argued that property is a ‘natural right’ and that it is derived from labour.

Locke was a strong believer that power in society comes from the people, but they give it up all of their power to the King who is like a ‘mortal God’.
Locke was very much opposed to the idea of royalty having the ‘divine right’, and instead believed that everyone has the right to freedom and equality as long as they obey natural laws, as Locke believed that we are born with a ready-made knowledge of right and wrong. I understand and appreciate many of Locke’s ideas, particularly his opposition to the idea of the divine right of royalty. This is because I believe this sort of thinking contributed to what was a particularly unfair capitalist society at the time.

However I do find Locke slightly baffling as a character. This is largely because although Locke was a great believer in equality, he was also a particularly sexist character. A slightly hypocritical man; possibly a Sun reporter of his time!


Brian then went on to talk about Issac Newton, who obviously needed no introduction to us academics.
Despite this though I was sincerely amazed by the details of Newton’s work, and my imagination ran away from me… and there I was making scientific breakthroughs in a farmhouse in sleepy Suffolk, after The University of Winchester was shut down after a serious Swine Flu outbreak! In truth I was actually thinking about which pub in Woodbridge I would go to first to celebrate my good fortune!! (I had to add that last bit in, because earlier on in the day I learnt about the serious repercussions of lying in my journalism.)
On a more serious note though I was truly amazed by the fact that Newton made the following breakthroughs in just two years in his youth:

- The Laws of Gravity
- The three laws of motion
- Calculus discipline in mathematics.
- Foundation of modern ethics.

The most astonishing aspect of the lecture though for me was the fact that Newton waited for twenty years before publishing his findings. My fascination with this is largely down to the fact that my Father was once a scientist himself, and I can remember how keen he was to get his idea’s out there as quickly as possible. Although this may have been because it was his job, but even so; 20 years?!

Mikey

Wednesday 14 October 2009

Even the knighted aren't safe from Libel Law!


Tuesday’s media law was based around Libel, and the important distinction between facts, and opinion (‘bollocks’).
From reading McNae’s ‘essential law for journalists’, it became obvious to me just how much care should be taken when criticising other people in journalism, because everyone has a default right to their reputation.
Your reputation is mainly made up of facts such as your academic achievements and official statistics, which go together with the opinions of people who have met you to create your own reputation. If you are not careful, and make defamatory comments you risk libel damages.

Defamatory comments involve at least one of the four things listed;
- a statement that exposes a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt
- Causes them to be shunned or avoided
- Discredits them in their trade or profession
- Lowers them in the eyes of others.


An example of Libel in the news currently is the case of Sir Alex Ferguson criticising the fitness of premiership referee Alan Wiley in a post-match interview.
Ferguson was caught on camera commenting that Wiley ‘wasn’t fit’ and ‘needed a rest’, which are particularly defamatory remarks given the profession of Alan Wiley. This is because he was discrediting the ability of Wiley in his profession, and consequently exposing Wiley to ridicule..
According to The Independant newspaper on Wednesday ‘the law of libel stipulates that Wiley does not need to prove that his reputation has been damaged, only that the comments were made’. However it is believed Wiley will not be taking this case to the higher courts unless he feels that Ferguson is not punished severely enough by the FA.
The FA is expected to wait 48 hours before making their decision after receiving Ferguson’s statement of defence.


I will finish this blog with a quick question;

Would Sir Alex be in trouble if he made a cartoon for the next Man United programme implying that Wiley was unfit, instead of making the defamotory comments on Television?


Monday 12 October 2009

Media Law, Lecture 2.

In the media law lecture last Tuesday, we learnt about the British justice system, and the rights that the journalists have before a suspect is convicted of a crime.

During the committal proceedings only the name, age, address, occupation, charge, date and place of crown court hearing, bail and legal aid conditions and the names of counsel can be revealed by the press. This is because when the case becomes active it is incredibly important that nobody can cause prejudice amongst the jury.
Any breach of court order has been strictly forbidden, since the contempt of court act- 1981. Journalists though effectively have the right to say what they want about convicted criminals, and of course they duly oblige because they can officially be considered guilty!
However there have of course been cases in the past where suspects have been wrongly convicted, and so didn’t deserve the guilty portrayal from the press.
An example of the British justice system failing which sticks in my mind is that of British teenager Derek Bailey; who was convicted of the murder of a police officer during a robbery. Bailey was consequently hanged, despite the fact it was known that he didn’t shoot at the victim, and it was questionable that he encouraged his accomplice to do so either. Many people believed that he was unfairly convicted and because of the nature of the crime was treated as a guilty party throughout the trail. This was later proved to be the case, when a ‘posthumous pardon’ was secured in 1966, and then a ‘royal pardon’ was also secured 27 years later.
However in British law this doesn’t quash the conviction for murder, and the conviction wasn’t lifted until 1998 when it was set aside by the court of appeal.

However the British justice system should always based on the presumption of innocence, hence the phrase; ‘innocent until proven guilty’. This must be respected by journalists, who can be punished incredibly severely for contempt of court. However of course it is not just journalists who can be punished for contempt of court. A rather humorous case of contempt of court is that of the Islamic woman who was charged and put before a judge because she was found to be listening to her MP3 player underneath her hijab during a high profile murder case.
The full story is available here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2049678.ece

Back blogging after illness and absence.

Yes I have been neglecting my blog, but don't write about this in your blogs or I'l have you all done for libel.
A blog about Chris Horrie's media law lecture will follow shortly.