THE DAILY Star had to apologise yesterday after publishing a story which claimed that Rockstar Games was planning to call their latest release "Grand Theft Auto Rothbury".
The Star also paid "substantial damages" to the games company which has donated the money to charity, a generous act and the total antithesis of the newspaper's grubby attempts at journalism.
My earlier critique of the coverage of the Raoul Moat manhunt focused mainly on the broadcasting arm of the media.
But it forgot about the tendency of the national written press to go one worse in the lack of professionalism stakes - and this story in the Star comfortably accomplishes that.
In the apology, the Star states: "We made no attempt to check the accuracy of the story before publication and did not contact Rockstar Games prior to publishing the story.
"We also did not question why a best selling and critically acclaimed fictional games series would choose to base one of their most popular games on this horrifying real crime event."
The level of care - or lack of it - is absolutely ridiculous from a publication which still purports to be a national newspaper even though it looks more like a comic strip.
It places major questions marks over the extent of the fact-checking in any story in the tabloids, a matter which has already been investigated in the Chris Atkins documentary, Starsuckers.
In Starsuckers, the documentary production team planted a series of made-up stories about celebrities by calling up the 'Got A Story' telephone numbers which can be seen in all the tabloids.
It was a brave project which eventually landed the makers an email from Max Clifford's preferred law firm Carter-Ruck threatening them with an injunction.
But the papers, with plenty of white space to fill, had already lapped up the 'tip-offs' when a simple fact-check on each occasion would have proven the story was a fabrication.
And so, reports emerged of Avril Lavigne falling asleep in a London nightclub, of Amy Winehouse's hair catching fire, of Guy Ritchie receiving a black-eye after drinking too much at a restaurant, and of Girls Aloud's Sarah Harding taking an interest in astronomy.
Of course, while the Starsuckers documentary was a valid expose, it simply reaffirmed much of the justified public cynicism about so-called 'celeb news'.
The problem with the Star's GTA Rothbury story is that it cannot just be cast off as filler on the celeb pages.
The newspaper clearly believed that this was a proper news story - they even went as far as "soliciting critical comments from a grieving family member".
But not as far as actually checking for any truth behind the story.
The banner on the Star's website claims that it is "Simply the Best". In reality, this was simply not good enough.
Showing posts with label raoul moat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label raoul moat. Show all posts
Sunday, 25 July 2010
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
Raoul Moat and the Rothbury media circus
THE MANHUNT for Raoul Moat gripped the nation this time last week as, with little else to report on, the 24-hour news channels went into overdrive.
Sky News and the BBC News Channel analysed every single emerging aspect of Northumbria Police's attempts to apprehend a man who had killed one and severely injured two others.
The level of coverage has drawn criticism from Martin Robbins on his blog post, titled Seven Questions for the Media.
In response, the excellent FleetStreetBlues blog has provided answers to each point, concluding that "the implication that journalists were too intrusive, too inquisitive and too obstructive to police is just inaccurate".
Personally, I thought the level of coverage was largely acceptable. This was a major news story - it involved one-tenth of the total police force in England and an RAF Tornado.
The nature of the manhunt, with details of locations, vehicles and letters, slowly seeping out, also suited a 24-hour news platform.
The climax to the case was utterly compelling viewing, and even though the ending was somewhat unedifying, it was also predictable.
However, my issue with the media on this case is not that the coverage was there but how it was conducted. Many of my gripes relate to the age-old problem of inaccuracy.
As a north east lad, I suppose I am at an advantage in that I know how to pronounce Ponteland (not 'Pontyland'), where Northumbria Police has its HQ. Or Seaton Delaval (not 'Seaton De-la-val'), where Moat allegedly held up a fish and chip shop.
Additionally, news presenters and reporters will presumably now be aware that the 'o' in Rothbury is pronounced like the one in hot, and not as in go.
These mispronunciations may seem a little persnickety on my part but place names are absolute basics of reporting and the continued errors were rather embarrassing.
Surely it was not too much to ask somebody local if they were getting the name of their town right.
Unfortunately, the inaccuracy did not just end with reporters getting a little tongue-tied and the geography of north east England was pulled apart at its seams.
At one stage, the BBC News Channel reported that Wrekenton was part of Newcastle even though it is south of Gateshead. The same channel also moved the border of North Tyneside so that it included the A1/A69 roundabout where PC David Rathband was shot.
Sky were no better, highlighting Birtley on a map as being to the west of Newcastle when again it is to the south of Gateshead, near Chester-le-Street.
But the big individual prize for inaccurate reporting goes to Sky's Kay Burley.
Burley repeatedly told us she was in Rothbury, "25 miles to the north east of Newcastle upon Tyne", even though that location would mean she was standing in the middle of the North Sea.
For the record, Rothbury is north-north-west of Newcastle. Again, the media fell foul of some fundamental inaccuracies - was it really too much work to ask?
Of course, Burley is not a particularly well-liked figure, her reputation having suffered further after the General Election when she was embroiled in an unseemly spat with an interviewee protesting in favour of proportional representation.
Burley was cleared this week by Ofcom of having breached impartiality rules but she provided plenty of ammunition for her detractors from her spell in Rothbury.
She veered from the completely inane - "If Moat is on the move, he could be absolutely anywhere, couldn't he?" - to the overly-dramatic, asking one resident, "Have you got enough food in to just sit this out? It could take hours."
Worst of all, as matters came to a head last Friday, she cut to an advertisement break with an unforgivably tactless line. "It's tense, it's dramatic, and it's live here on Sky" - it was as if she were introducing a top-of-the-table Premier League clash.
Little wonder that the satirical online newspaper The Daily Mash felt quite comfortable suggesting Burley should be taken down by taken down by armed police.
Elements of the media clearly attempted to create their own narrative, causing some harassment to the residents of Rothbury - probably more than the situation itself.
A low-point was reached by the BBC on Friday evening shortly after news broke of Moat having been located near the river in Rothbury and a police cordon was set up.
The cordon caused one woman, Paula, to become rather distressed as her elderly mother was effectively trapped inside her house.
She willingly gave a short, emotional interview but, as he broke off to speak to her mother on her mobile phone, the interviewer asked her to put the call on Speakerphone before taking the phone off her and doing it himself.
Attempts to script a narrative about anxiety among the Rothbury people had gone on all week but Paula's reaction was an exception.
As events between Moat and the police came to a head on Friday, the broadcasters ramped up the fear factor once more. One such exchange on Sky:
Interviewer: "This must be quite surreal for you."
Resident: "Yes", followed by a long pause.
Interviewer: "Are you frightened?"
Resident: "No, there's plenty of police about."
There was a similar interview on the radio with a resident whose house has been used by police to gain access to the area where the stand-off with Moat happened:
Interviewer: "So they screamed at you to go back in?"
Woman: "No, they just asked quite normally."
Interviewer: "And they (the police) rushed through your house?"
Woman: "No, they walked through very carefully."
The story was surely dramatic enough without the media needing to put words in the mouths of Rothbury residents.
At least the media adhered properly to the blackouts requested by the police on matters such as the hostage situation in the opening days - for that, they deserve credit.
Reporters were also right to ask questions of the police about their lack of response to the warning from Durham Prison, the length of time over which the investigation took place, and the use of Taser guns.
These were legitimate enquiries and it would be a strange world if journalists were not seeking answers to them, even though it is likely they will have to wait for the reports from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
Until then, idle speculation and misguided commentaries are likely to be the order of the coming weeks, the worst of which makes Moat out to be the victim in this saga.
Several sick Facebook groups have already sprung up with thousands of members, many ready to acclaim Moat as some kind of anti-hero. Particular credit is given to Moat for his maiming of a police officer for life.
Moat's attention-seeking 'woe is me' attitude was evident in his 49-page letter and, at times, the media encouraged the idea that he was a victim of society.
Unfortunately, the brain-dead idiots of this world have picked up on this and made him a martyr with flowers left at the Rothbury riverside and outside his front door in the west of Newcastle.
Of course, some of the cretinous oxygen-wasters would have supported him anyway but the media must take some of the blame for him becoming such a cause célèbre in death.
Moat was a violent man, and a killer, for whom no sympathy should be reserved. He may have defied the police for over a week but he failed to terrorise the residents of Rothbury.
These are the only current known facts of this depressing (though fascinating) case - and they are enough of a story without the need for additional narratives.
Sky News and the BBC News Channel analysed every single emerging aspect of Northumbria Police's attempts to apprehend a man who had killed one and severely injured two others.
The level of coverage has drawn criticism from Martin Robbins on his blog post, titled Seven Questions for the Media.
In response, the excellent FleetStreetBlues blog has provided answers to each point, concluding that "the implication that journalists were too intrusive, too inquisitive and too obstructive to police is just inaccurate".
Personally, I thought the level of coverage was largely acceptable. This was a major news story - it involved one-tenth of the total police force in England and an RAF Tornado.
The nature of the manhunt, with details of locations, vehicles and letters, slowly seeping out, also suited a 24-hour news platform.
The climax to the case was utterly compelling viewing, and even though the ending was somewhat unedifying, it was also predictable.
However, my issue with the media on this case is not that the coverage was there but how it was conducted. Many of my gripes relate to the age-old problem of inaccuracy.
As a north east lad, I suppose I am at an advantage in that I know how to pronounce Ponteland (not 'Pontyland'), where Northumbria Police has its HQ. Or Seaton Delaval (not 'Seaton De-la-val'), where Moat allegedly held up a fish and chip shop.
Additionally, news presenters and reporters will presumably now be aware that the 'o' in Rothbury is pronounced like the one in hot, and not as in go.
These mispronunciations may seem a little persnickety on my part but place names are absolute basics of reporting and the continued errors were rather embarrassing.
Surely it was not too much to ask somebody local if they were getting the name of their town right.
Unfortunately, the inaccuracy did not just end with reporters getting a little tongue-tied and the geography of north east England was pulled apart at its seams.
At one stage, the BBC News Channel reported that Wrekenton was part of Newcastle even though it is south of Gateshead. The same channel also moved the border of North Tyneside so that it included the A1/A69 roundabout where PC David Rathband was shot.
Sky were no better, highlighting Birtley on a map as being to the west of Newcastle when again it is to the south of Gateshead, near Chester-le-Street.
But the big individual prize for inaccurate reporting goes to Sky's Kay Burley.
Burley repeatedly told us she was in Rothbury, "25 miles to the north east of Newcastle upon Tyne", even though that location would mean she was standing in the middle of the North Sea.
For the record, Rothbury is north-north-west of Newcastle. Again, the media fell foul of some fundamental inaccuracies - was it really too much work to ask?
Of course, Burley is not a particularly well-liked figure, her reputation having suffered further after the General Election when she was embroiled in an unseemly spat with an interviewee protesting in favour of proportional representation.
Burley was cleared this week by Ofcom of having breached impartiality rules but she provided plenty of ammunition for her detractors from her spell in Rothbury.
She veered from the completely inane - "If Moat is on the move, he could be absolutely anywhere, couldn't he?" - to the overly-dramatic, asking one resident, "Have you got enough food in to just sit this out? It could take hours."
Worst of all, as matters came to a head last Friday, she cut to an advertisement break with an unforgivably tactless line. "It's tense, it's dramatic, and it's live here on Sky" - it was as if she were introducing a top-of-the-table Premier League clash.
Little wonder that the satirical online newspaper The Daily Mash felt quite comfortable suggesting Burley should be taken down by taken down by armed police.
Elements of the media clearly attempted to create their own narrative, causing some harassment to the residents of Rothbury - probably more than the situation itself.
A low-point was reached by the BBC on Friday evening shortly after news broke of Moat having been located near the river in Rothbury and a police cordon was set up.
The cordon caused one woman, Paula, to become rather distressed as her elderly mother was effectively trapped inside her house.
She willingly gave a short, emotional interview but, as he broke off to speak to her mother on her mobile phone, the interviewer asked her to put the call on Speakerphone before taking the phone off her and doing it himself.
Attempts to script a narrative about anxiety among the Rothbury people had gone on all week but Paula's reaction was an exception.
As events between Moat and the police came to a head on Friday, the broadcasters ramped up the fear factor once more. One such exchange on Sky:
Interviewer: "This must be quite surreal for you."
Resident: "Yes", followed by a long pause.
Interviewer: "Are you frightened?"
Resident: "No, there's plenty of police about."
There was a similar interview on the radio with a resident whose house has been used by police to gain access to the area where the stand-off with Moat happened:
Interviewer: "So they screamed at you to go back in?"
Woman: "No, they just asked quite normally."
Interviewer: "And they (the police) rushed through your house?"
Woman: "No, they walked through very carefully."
The story was surely dramatic enough without the media needing to put words in the mouths of Rothbury residents.
At least the media adhered properly to the blackouts requested by the police on matters such as the hostage situation in the opening days - for that, they deserve credit.
Reporters were also right to ask questions of the police about their lack of response to the warning from Durham Prison, the length of time over which the investigation took place, and the use of Taser guns.
These were legitimate enquiries and it would be a strange world if journalists were not seeking answers to them, even though it is likely they will have to wait for the reports from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
Until then, idle speculation and misguided commentaries are likely to be the order of the coming weeks, the worst of which makes Moat out to be the victim in this saga.
Several sick Facebook groups have already sprung up with thousands of members, many ready to acclaim Moat as some kind of anti-hero. Particular credit is given to Moat for his maiming of a police officer for life.
Moat's attention-seeking 'woe is me' attitude was evident in his 49-page letter and, at times, the media encouraged the idea that he was a victim of society.
Unfortunately, the brain-dead idiots of this world have picked up on this and made him a martyr with flowers left at the Rothbury riverside and outside his front door in the west of Newcastle.
Of course, some of the cretinous oxygen-wasters would have supported him anyway but the media must take some of the blame for him becoming such a cause célèbre in death.
Moat was a violent man, and a killer, for whom no sympathy should be reserved. He may have defied the police for over a week but he failed to terrorise the residents of Rothbury.
These are the only current known facts of this depressing (though fascinating) case - and they are enough of a story without the need for additional narratives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)