What Do You Think Today?

[peter]

Every day a lorry or large van delivers news-papers and magazines to our shop. Todays delivery is a typical example. I unpacked three 'tote-boxes', each one say 2 foot [ish] square. Two had only one magazine in each, the other was maybe one quater full. Later in the day I sent back the unsold magazines in the same boxes from a list of 'returns' our supplier had sent us. Some 80% of all the magazines supplied were sent back, sale or return, to the supplier. At the end of the day about 50% of the daily newspapes sent for the day will be bundled and returned. The returns - magazines and papers - will be pulped, remashed and made into more paper to repeat the process [or sold into third world landfill sites if more economical]. This is in our small local shop.

The proceedure will be repeated for every outlet in my town - perhaps what, 50 or so. it will be repeated for every town and village in the UK - a thousand or more? Every single shop will have hundreds of hundredweights of paper made from chopped down trees with the attendant poisoning of air and river, It will have that tat carted to it's door - and then carted back again, all of which will burn fuel adding to it's footprint; and it will all be for nothing. And those who do shell out their hard earned will at the end of the day be that much wiser about how much Katie Price's boob-job has cost her; what Brad and Angelina are spending on their childrens shoes and how wide Kim Kardashians wedding-dress will need to be to accomodate her ever broadening arse. Never in the history of human folly has so much been spent on so little to the bennefit of so few.

[aliantha]

The solution, I guess, would be electronic subscriptions. But then you get into the environmental damage caused by making the e-reader's innards. And your shop would have that much less to sell.

But I agree with you on the useless tabloidy nature of news today. I couldn't care less about the Kardashians....

[peter]

There is no question Ali that the electronic purveyance of media is where the future lies. The industry itself is aware of the potential to hugely increase it's own profitability by being able to cease hard copy production and shift entierly to subscription via peoples electronic devices - and this rather than the will to reduce environmental damage will of course be the driving motive behind the change. I suspect that the quality of the content will however *not* improve as a result; Kim Kardashians £11 million wedding will always be more interesting than the errosion of hard won civil liberties in Russia.

[aliantha]

You got that right.

Newspapers are having a hard time here, though. Never particularly forward-thinking, the owners originally set up their websites to feature some of their paper's content as a freebie enticement to subscribe. Readers, not being stupid, soon realized that if they could get the top news for free online, they didn't need to subscribe to the paper anymore. So papers are gradually installing paywalls and hoping they don't tick off too many of their readers in doing it. At least one big daily here has gone to an online-only model, with subscriptions.

I think you're right that it's a matter of time. But people are going to complain about it because they got used to getting it for free.

[peter]

UK papers are already heavily ad dependant. My guess is that the free route with massive ad content is how the papers will be forced to go.

[Sorus]

The publishing industry has always been wasteful. That's speaking as someone who worked in a bookstore for many years and saw every unsold magazine, newspaper, and mass market paperback stripped (only the cover retained), and put into a garbage compactor - not even recycled, as that could lead to the material being salvaged.

I do agree that the quality of 'news' is going downhill. Not only with tabloid-fodder becoming front-page news, but the overall quality of the writing and editing is not what it used to be.

Maybe I'm just getting old.

UK papers are already heavily ad dependant. My guess is that the free route with massive ad content is how the papers will be forced to go.

The online version of my local paper sells copies of the photos that accompany its articles. I've always wondered how successful that is for them. I mean, who could resist a framed picture of the friendly neighborhood meth lab being raided by federal agents? The fanciest version is only $130.

[peter]

My work collegue has severe depression as a result of being heavily in debt to 'payday' loan companies. She went to the doctor who advised a course of therapy, not covered by the NHS and costing £60 for each of ten hour long sessions. Catch 22 is alive and well and lives in the West of England.

[Iolanthe]

Oh, honestly, how ridiculous. She should go to the Citizens Advice Bureau about the loan. At least they will be able to give her some decent advice.

[peter]

My thoughts exactly Io.

[peter]

Fail in any and every way possible exept one - don't fail as a human being. As the man said "The line between good and evil is drawn through every human heart".

[A reminder to myself]

[peter]

This week in The Sun newspaper, I think the 2nd largest circulation paper in the UK, they ran the front page headline 'FOUR YEAR OLD BOY HAS MARK OF THE DEVIL'. To accompany this, they had a picture [dark and fuzzy] of a sorrowfull tear stained child complete with an expanded inset of two concentric circular marks with a cross superimposed [for all the world like the 'sights' of a gun], the flesh mark which had inexplicably appeared in the boys chest. The headline and picture combined to give a quite shocking impact, and to read full details the reader was instructed to 'turn to page 5'.

On doing so the imagery and tone employed changed somewhat. Under the page heading 'Boyelzebub' a picture of the boy and his mother side by side was presented, with the lad pointing proudly to the spot where the [now dissapeared] mark had manifested. The story related how the mark had 'simply appeared' with no explanation being able to be forwarded by the boy, his parents or teachers at school. The mark [said to be an exact replica of the sign of Mammon, one of the seven Princes of Hell] had baffled the boys GP, who said there was no pain or inflamation associated with the mark. Three weeks after appearing the mark had dissapeared and so ended the account on page 5.

That this shocking abuse of the boy and his mother [who had clearly sold the story without giving a moments thought to the future effect on the boy - a measure of her level of judgement if not intellegence] should have featured on the front page of a newspaper with a circulation of over 5 million people in my view beggars belief. The positively medieval conotations of the front page were accompanied by as egregious an example of 'volta face' in tone inside [ie from serious on the front page to jocular on page 5] giving evidence of even the papers own embarrasment at itself at using such a shoddy tactic of attention grabbing and heartless exploitation of the ignorant. The cynicism of the tabloid press in it's constant battle to grab sales has rarely been so sorrowfully demonstrated.

That the mark had been occasioned by some playground battle or some sutch there was no doubt to any right thinking reader [but this of course was not itterated in the story], and there is little doubt that the story was first presented to one of the beastly 'reality' mags that now flood the shelves of newsagents, before being 'picked up' by the large circulation daily it featured in. That it was so can only ever reinforce the absolute truth that 'freedom of the press' does not mean freedom to print whatever you choose without responsibility for doing so and my sincere hope is that as a result of such shocking and irresponsible abuse of these terribly important rights, The Sun will pay the ultimate price and 'go to the wall'.

{Sorry this account is so badly composed - I'm so short of time that I had to rush it, hence it's shocking grammer etc.}

[Cord Hurn]

That the mark had been occasioned by some playground battle or some sutch there was no doubt to any right thinking reader [but this of course was not itterated in the story], and there is little doubt that the story was first presented to one of the beastly 'reality' mags that now flood the shelves of newsagents, before being 'picked up' by the large circulation daily it featured in. That it was so can only ever reinforce the absolute truth that 'freedom of the press' does not mean freedom to print whatever you choose without responsibility for doing so and my sincere hope is that as a result of such shocking and irresponsible abuse of these terribly important rights, The Sun will pay the ultimate price and 'go to the wall'.

I hope The Sun gets sued for this and loses enough money over it to make the Sun people responsible for this quite uncomfortable.

[ussusimiel]

[Anyday now, peter, you'll lay aside your habit of self-deprecation and we'll all be shocked by how much of an arrogant ar*&hole you really are! Until then we'll just have to tolerate your rather wearing humility ]

This is one of the places where the displacement of 'elitist' thinking in favour of the more democratic 'populist' position bites back. Put simply, when you follow a 'populist' path in relation to something like the news you end up with stuff like this. (And the knock-on effect is that to compete the other mainstream news outlets have to behave in kind to. A sordid race-to-the-bottom that pleases no one except people like Rupert Murdoch.)

The critique of the promotion of 'elitist' values is valid. Those in power will always act in their own interest. However, following the 'market' has the massive disadvantage that most of the drives and impulses of the 'mass' are unconscious and so can be easily manipulated in a selfish, mercenary and amoral manner. So we move from a situation where we are controlled by the 'elite', to a situation where we are controlled the wealthy.

Neither of these outcomes are desireable and any sort of decent political system would constantly work to mitigate the whole situation to the betterment of everyone. But, needless to say, our 'blessed' 'public servants' (politicians ) have either always been drawn from the 'elite' (the Old School Tie brigade) or more recently, are so in the pockets of the rich as not even deserve the title 'lackey'. (The whole spin industry just deepens the connection in the media sector.)

We've been talking about something like this in ali's thread:

• - Our automated future and the human cost

It's long past time, peter, that you did your duty and joined us in the 'Tank.

You've probably been following the Whither the Watch? thread. The Watch is currently undergoing a transition/renewal and one of the effects of this has been renewed interest and activity in the 'Tank. People, who had been avoiding it for various reasons, have started posting in there again, especially women e.g. ali, lorin, Ananda. This has already changed the atmosphere in there and any additional voices would add to that and increase the diversity.

This latest post of yours is a perfect example of something that could start of a really good 'Tank thread.

C'mon, peter, you know you want to!

We'll hold your hand and keep you safe!

u.

[aliantha]

Indeed we will.

I've pretty much decided that the way to take back the Tank is to start a bunch of threads about stuff that we liberals (and I don't use scare quotes when I use that word in relation to myself ) care about -- and then ignore the usual suspects when they make their usual comments.

I'd be happy to lop off these few posts and send 'em over to the Tank -- with your permission, of course, peter.

As for the elite/masses in what passes for journalism these days: I have a thing or two to say about that.

The problem is that the Elite are still in control. And their overriding interest is in getting the masses to spend their money on their papers and whatnot, any way they can, so that the shareholders can get a good return on their investment. Hence, the celebrity gossip and the miracle "cures" and the Jesus-on-a-piece-of-toast stories and the rest of that crap.

Here in the US, we have several bottom-feeding tabloids that are stocked in racks by the registers at the grocery store. They publish these kinds of fake stories all the time. Most people know, I think (I hope!), that the pictures are Photoshopped and the stories are made up. But somebody must be buying them because they're still in business.

[peter]

I think Ali, the kind of tabloid paper you are refering too is one degree lower than titles like The Sun and The Star in the UK, which still on the face of it present them selves as purveyors of actual news rather than the type of fabricated [and clearly so] stories you refer to - and this for me is what makes the papers actions so culpable. If you buy The Sport on a Sunday and read the Headline DOUBLE-DECKER BUS FOUND IN ARTIC ICE-BERG you know the kind of terratory you are in, but the titles above do not present themselves as adherents of this genre of journalism. [by the way Ali - of course, shift any posts wherever you think apprpriate]

re going back into the Tank, I'm flattered that y'all think I have a contribution to make over there - and not to be stubborn about it of course I'd like to pitch in my penno'worth over there. But the reasons I gave to Av the other day when he asked the same question still hold. It's a personal choice based on a decision I came to at the time when the Tank became a 'members only' forum [which I believe it still is]. At that time there was discussion within the pages as to how the quality of the submissions were often ill-researched or 'off the cuff' and how this was degrading the whole quality of the exchange in what, after all, was supposed to be a serious debating forum. I could not but hold up my hands as 'guilty as charged' - and more to the point - I agreed with this position. People who research a reasoned and high quality post backed up by references deserve to have a place where responses to what they post will conform to the same high standard and I saw the closure of the Tank as an 'open forum' as an attempt to emphasize this to prospective contributors. I think it was right to do this and I still do. But having said that - that is not really the kind of posting I like to do myself. I like the freedom of being able to 'dip' as and where I choose. Most of what I want to say I find somewhere or other to stick it - and what I can't find a place for I bung in here. And it seems to work out ok.

U. - my capacity fot arrogant a***holeness knows no bounds at times, but I do try to temper it with a bit of humility in this place [I was once threatened with a beating by a very large skin-head who claimed I had been laughing at his dancing in a night-club (I had been). In a display of acting worthy of an Oscar I reassured him that I had merely being saying to my girlfriend that I bet she wished I had a body like his [he had a muscle wrapped torso of which judging by his cut-away T-shirt, he was very proud]. He looked slightly confused and turned back to his mates at which point I thought it politic to leave. The moral of this story; a bit of well placed servility can save you a heck of a mauling from time to time

[ussusimiel]

It's a personal choice based on a decision I came to at the time when the Tank became a 'members only' forum [which I believe it still is].

Dunno about this. See if you can reply to a post there. If it blocks you out let us know and we can talk to Hashi about changing it.

People who research a reasoned and high quality post backed up by references deserve to have a place where responses to what they post will conform to the same high standard and I saw the closure of the Tank as an 'open forum' as an attempt to emphasize this to prospective contributors. I think it was right to do this and I still do.

People have a right not to be annoyed by and not respond to posts that don't meet their particular standard. There is not a''Tank standard' that has to be met by people posting there. If you can't stand your posts being ignored then it's best not to post in the 'Tank. Most regular posters (myself included) only respond to substantive posts (rather than purely opinion-based ones).

However, this is no reason for a person not to post in the 'Tank. At worst you will be ignored and at best someone will point out some obvious errors in thinking and direct you to where you can find out more about the topic.

One of the best aspects of good debate is that it can have a really powerful and stimulating educational effect. I have been motivated regularly to educate myself on topics from being involved in discussions where my basic assumption have been shown to be false.

a bit of well placed servility can save you a heck of a mauling from time to time

You are unlikely to be mauled anywhere outside of the 'Tank, peter. And as ali and myself have said we'll look after you in there

Come on, give it a go! If you find that it really sucks you can always just stop. (Although it can become an addictive form of masochism )

u.

[aliantha]

The Tank is still members-only, as far I know. Maybe Hashi will stop by and confirm.

As for moving part of this thread, I'm leaving it up to you, peter. It's your thread -- I'm not going to move anything into a forum you're not likely to visit. And as for "well-researched" Tank threads, well, there still seem to be a fair share of folks who post their opinions without any sort of backup. So don't let that stop you from throwing in your two pence worth.

To the subject at hand: Sounds like The Sun is similar to the New York Post, then -- some serious journalism (well, more or less) along with some tabloidy crap. And yeah, it's a shame that journalism is sinking so far. It's part of the reason why I got out of the business. I wish I knew what to do about it. But absent several million dollars to start a "Newsroom"-style news operation....

Also: peter said y'all.

[Avatar]

Tank hasn't been members only for well over a year.

--A

[lorin]

And as for "well-researched" Tank threads, well, there still seem to be a fair share of folks who post their opinions without any sort of backup. So don't let that stop you from throwing in your two pence worth.

ummmmm.........that would be me for one.............

[ussusimiel]

And as for "well-researched" Tank threads, well, there still seem to be a fair share of folks who post their opinions without any sort of backup. So don't let that stop you from throwing in your two pence worth.

ummmmm.........that would be me for one.............

Now, now less of the self-deprecation (leave that to peter, he is the undisputed Master )

Your posts have the research that comes from long experience and involvement. That counts for a huge amount and is always a substantive addition to any debate. You're smart too!

u.