Media bleating

[hissingsid]

The press are complaining because they cannot sell their rags of papers because they are banned from naming accusers, hard luck, it is about time the gutter press were held to account. Innocent until guilty it should be, many decent people and their families have been dragged through the mud by the Manx press because of the appetite to sell the papers whatever the truth or outcome of a situation may be.   Good for Dr Allinson and good for Tynwald for backing this law.   I have always hated the way anyone accused has been tried by media, pictures and addresses in the paper etc even before the case has gone to court.   The standard of reporting generally has deteriorated in the past years but if scraping the barrel has been somewhat contained then ......brilliant.

[woolley]

Hear, hear! It is a disgrace that any person can have their reputation traduced in the press on the basis of an unfounded allegation. Worse, such an individual can be at risk of misdirected retribution through extreme nutjob vigilante action. Innocent until proven guilty.

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, hissingsid said:

The press are complaining because they cannot sell their rags of papers because they are banned from naming accusers, hard luck, it is about time the gutter press were held to account. Innocent until guilty it should be, many decent people and their families have been dragged through the mud by the Manx press because of the appetite to sell the papers whatever the truth or outcome of a situation may be.   Good for Dr Allinson and good for Tynwald for backing this law.   I have always hated the way anyone accused has been tried by media, pictures and addresses in the paper etc even before the case has gone to court.   The standard of reporting generally has deteriorated in the past years but if scraping the barrel has been somewhat contained then ......brilliant.

Bravely written by 'A Reporter', I notice.  Anonymity all right for us, just not you plebs.

The awkward reality is that people will still buy the papers if they provide proper reporting of the court cases, but they don't.  They only publish details of the accusations.  If someone is convicted they can publish as many details as they want.  Even if someone is found innocent they can publish details of what happened without the acquitted person's name (if for example the prosecution was ineptly carried out or malicious).  

An example I came across by accident recently.  A police officer was accused of serious fraud in 2018.  The media reported various court appearances between May and December.  He pleaded non guilty, but there is no report anywhere I can see of the actual trial.  If he was found guilty, justice has not been seen to be done; if he was found innocent people will see no record of it and his name will still be smeared; if the trial still hasn't taken place after a year, then justice certainly isn't being done either and the delay should be reported and explained (note that this doesn't need the name of the accused to be published). 

This isn't an isolated instance, but something I see all the time whenever you google the name of someone ever accused of crime.  It may be that there are full and accurate reports of the eventual trials in the papers or on air (though I doubt it), but they never make it online.   By reporting the accusations and not the consequences, the media are condemning anyone accused, whatever the outcome.   It's just lazy and structurally  biased reporting and (as so often with the British media) when caught out they are now whinging about press freedom, which would be more convincing if they had ever properly used it.

[kevster]

34 minutes ago, MrPB said:

Yes I fully agree with you. The fact that they have anonymized their “reporter” for the ”story” as well is somewhat ironic for a paper that clearly sees blackening people’s names and publicly pillorying them even if ultimately proven completely innocent as the way to drive clicks and advertising revenue. 

Usually only senior reporters get a byline naming them. Look at UK nationals. 
Plenty of other articles on the website have that byline. 

[Derek Flint]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

Bravely written by 'A Reporter', I notice.  Anonymity all right for us, just not you plebs.

The awkward reality is that people will still buy the papers if they provide proper reporting of the court cases, but they don't.  They only publish details of the accusations.  If someone is convicted they can publish as many details as they want.  Even if someone is found innocent they can publish details of what happened without the acquitted person's name (if for example the prosecution was ineptly carried out or malicious).  

An example I came across by accident recently.  A police officer was accused of serious fraud in 2018.  The media reported various court appearances between May and December.  He pleaded non guilty, but there is no report anywhere I can see of the actual trial.  If he was found guilty, justice has not been seen to be done; if he was found innocent people will see no record of it and his name will still be smeared; if the trial still hasn't taken place after a year, then justice certainly isn't being done either and the delay should be reported and explained (note that this doesn't need the name of the accused to be published). 

This isn't an isolated instance, but something I see all the time whenever you google the name of someone ever accused of crime.  It may be that there are full and accurate reports of the eventual trials in the papers or on air (though I doubt it), but they never make it online.   By reporting the accusations and not the consequences, the media are condemning anyone accused, whatever the outcome.   It's just lazy and structurally  biased reporting and (as so often with the British media) when caught out they are now whinging about press freedom, which would be more convincing if they had ever properly used it.

Kevin Williams has not been tried yet. March apparently.

[gettafa]

In its reporting one could argue that a newspaper is only acting as an extension of the court, which most are open to the public.

[Amadeus]

Instead of complaining that other papers can still name defendants and call on Tynwald not to bring in this law, shouldn't the paper call on the other papers to have a voluntary code on this? Like nobody reports suicides anymore because of copycats.

[WTF]

the paper seems to go up in price by 10p every 6 months,  that is why they aren't selling.  the usual manx business model,  less sales , increase price, even lower sales,  rinse and repeat.

[finlo]

10 minutes ago, WTF said:

the paper seems to go up in price by 10p every 6 months,  that is why they aren't selling.  the usual manx business model,  less sales , increase price, even lower sales,  rinse and repeat.

An art perfected by H&B!

[pongo]

Beer and newspaper sales are not being impacted by price.

Normal people don't drink much anymore. Today it's about quality, atmosphere, food etc. The people who used to spend a significant amount of their income in the pub (alcoholics) are dying off. Or they are banned from driving.

And newspapers are going the way of radio. Really just for the elderly now.

[gettafa]

I enjoy my pint in the pub reading the newspaper

(actually the pubs are nice and quiet these days)

[pongo]

The vinyl revival has been an affectation which will quickly seem daft. As soon as it went mainstream it was doomed. Millennials will all soon be middle aged.

Newspapers and magazines are not coming back into fashion.

[pongo]

10 minutes ago, MrPB said:

Even vinyl LPs are coming back amongst the millennials and generate more profit than online downloads for the record companies too. 

It's a fairly meaningless stat though. Because downloads are no longer a thing. Subscription streaming is how people listen to paid-for music now.

Downloads were an intermediate technology and have now gone the way of CDs.

[doc.fixit]

57 minutes ago, WTF said:

the paper seems to go up in price by 10p every 6 months,  that is why they aren't selling.  the usual manx business model,  less sales , increase price, even lower sales,  rinse and repeat.

Since the papers went up above a pound I've stopped buying them. The £2 a week goes into savings and helps pay the car tax. win, win.

[gettafa]

I have to say one of the  reasons I buy the newspaper is for the obituaries. Say what you like about Facebook, Twitter etc, apart from Rock stars and actors, it's not good for obituaries.