-
I'm not defending unacceptable behaviour or journalists writing and doing what they like, or justifying it purely by saying it's what people want to read.
But if you go after the bad outlets most ways of doing that are blunt instruments and you'll end up going after the good ones too.
On the specific point of death knocks, I don't believe that the majority of the public think that sympathetic, well-handled ones should be banned. The former chair of the PCC said in post that "it's absolutely legitimate and right to report on the death of someone in the community" and "absolutely in the public interest that people know how members of the community have died".
Death knocks aren't some terrible, out-there journalistic practice. That was my main point.
Fox-
On the specific point of death knocks, I don't believe that the majority of the public think that sympathetic, well-handled ones should be banned.
That's the point though. In my mind there is no concept of a "sympathetic, well-handled" death knock. Just leave them the fuck alone. What journalists think are "sympathetic, well-handled" death knocks are probably far from the truth.
Going back to a previous post:-
I'd say it's pretty balanced and sensible. And I'd say he's right: if you were bereaved, and a journalist took a load of untrue stuff off social media about your loved one without asking you, wouldn't you be pissed off that they hadn't spoken to you first?
It's this that pisses me off about modern day journalism. It's the justification for death knocks (or similar) because without them they could print stuff they've found online without running it past you first.
I can print a load of shit about you because, even though I haven't bothered to really check whether it is true before possibly printing it, I'm transferring the responsibility onto you for not being there to be able to correct me. Fuck that and, with all due respect, fuck you (well, me in this case).
How about not printing the unverified stuff in the first place! How simple is that?
Death knocks aren't some terrible, out-there journalistic practice. That was my main point.
Death knocks as a journalistic practice are an abhorrence to many. That's the point of many people in this thread.
Greenbank
I'm not sure @Fox ever will realise it. And that's why the mainstream press will never improve, they really don't understand the public's view of them and genuinely think they are doing a good thing.
Writing and doing what they like, justifying it purely by saying it's what people want to read. It's fucking horrible.
To reduce the phone hacking thing to Max Moseley says it all. What about Millie Dowler?
Still, as you say, to everyone outside the press you win and @Fox loses. Hopefully he'll realise that at some point.