This Just In!

[monkers]

The question remains, should Wootton have been named by Byline Times?

Possibly so. It's interesting to look at the two cases side by side, but there are distinctive differences.

 

[matticus]

WTF are you on about?

I was merely giving Claud the credit for bringing to my attention a good story that I might not have otherwise spotted - depending on whether other media follows it.

The question remains, should Wootton have been named by Byline Times?

Others will no doubt discuss that question; but you never did answer the one about your "in the public interest" test.
(Each case on its own merits, surely?!? )

 

[Pale Rider]

Others will no doubt discuss that question; but you never did answer the one about your "in the public interest" test.
(Each case on its own merits, surely?!? )

Answering a question with a question won't get us anywhere.

You choose to keep your view hidden, which is obviously your right.

As I've said, I doubt public interest will become a meaningful question in Edwards' case.

It's merely a stick which people on here and in the media are using to beat The Sun, but the blows will never land.

One thing's for sure, there won't be the same bellowing on here or elsewhere against Byline Times.

Why is that?

Well, Hugh is nice and cuddly, and that Wootton is a right wing git who deserves all the stick he can get.

Which is a spectacularly dense way to assess press ethics.

 

[matticus]

Answering a question with a question won't get us anywhere.

Well you started it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Blimey, you think you've seen everything on the internet, and then ...

 

[winjim]

No doubt you are trying to make an anti-newspaper point, but the short answer is 'yes'.

In 30+ years I've seen all manner of resistance, including strikes, to the introduction of new technologies which were obviously going to revolutionise publishing.

Journalists generally were technological Luddites, so any change had to be forced.

That is changing now, but there are plenty of people who are still well ahead of the mainstream media when it come to social media and online publishing.

I suspect that's due to the difficulty of making any money from it - most attempts at charging a subscription have failed miserably.

The ingrained notion that all stuff on the internet is 'free' is proving a hard one to get over.

Not really anti-newspaper as such but wondering to what extent they're exercising plausible deniability. They must be aware that they don't have to publish a name these days, gossip isn't restricted to the pubs of Fleet Street. All they've got to do is publish an allegation and the name will be all over social media within 24hrs, then they can hold their hands up and say it wasn't them, their story was anonymous.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Do you think it was in the public interest for Byline Times to name Wotton in the er, interesting story helpfully linked by Claud?

Byline Times are, from the get go, clearly asserting that Wootton has committed criminal offences; they've sent a dossier to the Met.

That's something the Sun didn't do with Edwards and may be a justification for naming.

Article is first of a series so may be a 'watch this space' moment.

 

[Pale Rider]

Not really anti-newspaper as such but wondering to what extent they're exercising plausible deniability. They must be aware that they don't have to publish a name these days, gossip isn't restricted to the pubs of Fleet Street. All they've got to do is publish an allegation and the name will be all over social media within 24hrs, then they can hold their hands up and say it wasn't them, their story was anonymous.

There is no conspiracy to name Edwards.

The Sun or any of the mainstream media didn't name Edwards until after he named himself, so what happens on social media is irrelevant to them.

Clearly 'we can now name that BBC bloke who we couldn't name' is a decent follow-up, even if the BBC bloke named himself.

The fact that unregulated posters on social media can 'shake out' names the press cannot could be seen as an argument for less press regulation.

Worth bearing in mind any regulation that clips the wings of the hateful Sun also does the same to your favourite newspaper.

 

[spen666]

I didn't try to 'link'it. Please stop making stuff up - you really should know better, and joining with others that do, just isn't a good look.

I think that is of interest because it was another high profile case of press intrusion into private lives. And despite your Pale Rider style bluster and bullshit, I'm sticking with that view.

Oh its another old tactic = call it bluster when someone shows that your post is irrelevant to the issues being discussed.

BTW You are linking it again here - by talking about ANOTHER case of press intrusion.

Yes, the press did intrude into the privacy of Mosley.
The press did not intrude into the privacy of Edwards. The press did not name him and therefore cannot in law have intruded in his privacy

 

[matticus]

Worth bearing in mind any regulation that clips the wings of the hateful Sun also does the same to your favourite newspaper.

Bring it on.

 

[multitool]

All they've got to do is publish an allegation and the name will be all over social media within 24hrs, then they can hold their hands up and say it wasn't them, their story was anonymous.

Nothing to stop them publishing the name themselves on twitter with a sock account either.

 

[monkers]

BTW You are linking it again here - by talking about ANOTHER case of press intrusion.

Get lost. I'm no more interested in your opinions than you are in mine.

 

[Pale Rider]

Nothing to stop them publishing the name themselves on twitter with a sock account either.

Conspiracy theories continue to amuse.

Nothing to stop the evil empire doing what you say, but to what end?

The post would just be another from an anonymous knacker on the internet with all the credibility of a Russian stunner who wants to marry you.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Conspiracy theories continue to amuse.

Nothing to stop the evil empire doing what you say, but to what end?

The post would just be another from an anonymous knacker on the internet with all the credibility of a Russian stunner who wants to marry you.

Aside from socks there's other stuff including facilitating jigsaw identification.

The press have long posted something about alleged misdeeds, usually of a sexual nature, by an unnamed star of stage, studio or sport. The juxtaposed another, apparently unconnected article about the person concerned. Then there's a string of articles all with a wee bit of info which, particularly to aficionados of footie or whatever, give all the clues needed.

The internet probably makes it easier to join up the dots.

HAs anybody tried suing a publication on that basis? I suspect though that if they did the modern equivalent of paying a sum into court as an offer of settlement on pain of costs if the judge doesn't beat it would stop it actually getting to trial.

 

[spen666]

Get lost. I'm no more interested in your opinions than you are in mine.

Oh dear, getting upset at someone who has a different view to you.

II am interested in your opinions. I do not have to agree with someone.


Remember we all have the right to express our views as I seem to remember someone mentioning recently. So not I won't get lost

 

[spen666]

...

The internet probably makes it easier to join up the dots.

....

It most certainly does, but it also makes it easier to join them up wrongly.

How many named Jeremy Vine, Rylan Clarke and others by joining up the dots