The most contempt for readers ever?
Pretty par for the course complaint about a celebrity magazine lying on its front cover, it's the response of the magazine and the editor which rises this above the usual standard of contemptible "journalistic practice":
Straight forward then - magazine lies with a view to giving the impression to the layman that they have the exclusive scoop on a celeb pregnancy. You would expect the magazine and the editor to be grudging and admit that they're a bunch of cocks, generally, but no:
Ah you see, this isn't us lying in attempt to boost sales - it's the reader being too damn stupid to distinguish between a single quotation mark and double quotation marks! How could they be so foolish?! Never mind that there is no industry-wide usage of double quotation marks to make clear that it's a direct quote, and single quotes for paraphrases, it's not our fault, it's hers!
Wait though, it gets ever better:
Of course not: that's why they put a lie on the front page and then excused it to the PCC on the grounds that the reader was too stupid to realise it was a paraphrase due to the single quotation marks. You can understand that those working on such horrible magazines are big on self-loathing; they probably dreamed of being investigative reporters, and there they are, reduced to reporting on which celeb is fat/thin this week, when they're not producing sticker sets insulting disabled children and conniving to portray them as bad parents that is. You would have also thought though that actually projecting this loathing onto those who buy the magazine might not necessarily be good for business.
Still, at least Mrs Elaine Benton can be happy with her settlement from the magazine:
Spend that £1.40 wisely!
Complainant Name:
Resolved - Elaine Benton v Look Magazine
Clauses Noted: 1
Publication: Look Magazine
Complaint:
Elaine Benton of Berkshire complained that the front cover of the magazine pictured Jennifer Aniston with the caption ‘I’m having a baby!’. However, the article itself made clear that Jennifer Aniston was only thinking about having a baby with her partner.
Straight forward then - magazine lies with a view to giving the impression to the layman that they have the exclusive scoop on a celeb pregnancy. You would expect the magazine and the editor to be grudging and admit that they're a bunch of cocks, generally, but no:
Resolution:
The magazine argued that single – as opposed to double – quotation marks would have distinguished the claim as a paraphrase rather than a direct quotation.
Ah you see, this isn't us lying in attempt to boost sales - it's the reader being too damn stupid to distinguish between a single quotation mark and double quotation marks! How could they be so foolish?! Never mind that there is no industry-wide usage of double quotation marks to make clear that it's a direct quote, and single quotes for paraphrases, it's not our fault, it's hers!
Wait though, it gets ever better:
However, the editor emphasised that the magazine valued its relationship with its readers and that it would never seek intentionally to mislead them.
Of course not: that's why they put a lie on the front page and then excused it to the PCC on the grounds that the reader was too stupid to realise it was a paraphrase due to the single quotation marks. You can understand that those working on such horrible magazines are big on self-loathing; they probably dreamed of being investigative reporters, and there they are, reduced to reporting on which celeb is fat/thin this week, when they're not producing sticker sets insulting disabled children and conniving to portray them as bad parents that is. You would have also thought though that actually projecting this loathing onto those who buy the magazine might not necessarily be good for business.
Still, at least Mrs Elaine Benton can be happy with her settlement from the magazine:
The editor was happy to write to the complainant to apologise and assure her that her comments and concerns had been taken on board for the future. The complainant accepted this, along with the reimbursement of the cover price, as a resolution to her complaint.
Spend that £1.40 wisely!
Labels: celebrity culture, contempt, how journalism works, Look magazine, media reporting, Press Complaints Commission
| Permalink
Hee! I like to delve into the toothless mouth of the PCC from time to time. I remember referring to one where the complainant accepted an apology (more a 'leaving a note in file')and the military book they had based their story on. Pretty sure it was the Mail.
I do have a current recurring dream whereby the complainant was satified with Richard Littlejohn being paraded around town with a cardboard sign saying, "I am a lazy, cottaging-obsessed bastard and I'm on my way to the gallows" but that would just be wrong.
Posted by
eric the fish |
Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:57:00 pm
Aside from the blatent and wanton lying, the quotation mark thing actually quite annoys me.
I was always told at university that single quotation marks are the correct way of indicating a direct quote, and double quotations are for quotes within quotes.
Granted, it's (literally) an academic point in this case, but the magazine could at least get its facts straight if it's going to spin some lame excuse for objectionable content. Eejits.
Posted by
D. Quail (expat) |
Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:41:00 pm
Post a Comment