I used to be a tabloid reporter AMA

[AprilONeil]

Been meaning to offer up a thread on here for a while but tbh have been too nervous, since I know how people round these 'ere parts feel about the tabloids.

Anyway, I used to work as a showbiz reporter on a British tabloid newspaper (would rather not say which one because potentially outing) and have since moved into a more 'worthy' area of journalism.

AMA...

(Dons hard hat)

I believe that the lack of reporting (ie only telling one side of a story to get headline sales, rather than telling both sides/investigating other sides) is one of the biggest contributors to the Brexit situation. Do you agree? Do you think individual journalists have a role to play in telling the truth or does the remit come from the editors to create one sided versions of life? Thanks. I may come and ask more gossip questions but I‘m so angry with the media at the moment that have sensible head on.

@BoreOfWhabylon I can tell you that Michael Palin is a gem of a gentleman. I have met hime and he is so is.

@AprilONeil, have you seen this Julie Burchill article about the silence of the Press due to nepotism etc? It seems to chime a bit with some of what you've told us.

Great thread, btw, thank you!

It sounds like you spent a very short time at the peripheries.

You also sound very naive.

I think this could be an interesting AMA when you’re 30 years into your career.

I have to admit that I am also curious as to what is going on with Ian Beale.

Any gossip about Geordie Greig and Ghislaine Maxwell and Prince Andrew? The DM have been going after PA pretty hard.

The strictly beale thing is a funny connection.

trixie That feels a bit much.

@trixieMixie Miaow

Thanks for doing this OP, fascinating! Just wish you could say more about William and Kate

@OhioOhioOhio

The strictly beale thing is a funny connection.

trixie That feels a bit much.

Agreed, completely. How bloody patronising!

@Fromadistance1

How come there is alway a lot in the press about the children of Katie Price but not about the children of other celebrities? Is it because she has featured them in her TV shows?

If so, how sympathetic should we be when they get negative press? Is she hypocritical when she claims she or her children are being harassed?

What would a celebrity have to do to ensure their children weren't written about in the press?

Yes the reason Katie Price's children are written about (usually quite kindly though I think?) are because they've appeared in public with her (eg on tv/social media/at events). That's usually considered fair game.

It's very easy to make sure your kids' faces never appear in public btw if you're famous - as long as you don't 'promote' them in anyway (as above - on tv/social media/at events) and usually one polite letter to the legal dept of the tabloids just saying 'please don't publish my kids' faces' will do it. Even on MailOnline you'll see plenty of celebs whose kids' faces are blurred or only pictured in a way that doesn't show their faces.

There was one celeb who did the above (sent a letter + kept her kid out of the limelight) then as soon as she turned 16 got her a modeling deal and she was everywhere Still, better than being paraded round her entire life.

Sorry, kind of lost my place with the questions so apologies if I've missed one

What are your thoughts on journalists taking stories and publishing them from Mumsnet?

@yellowmugmug

This thread is brilliant. I went to school with Rachel Riley. I thought she was lovely at school but then years later someone who went to the same school told me she bullied her for years and I had no idea. I lost touch with RR when she became famous and came off of 'ordinary' sm to pursue the fame.

I've seen a few famous people through various work events but I'm pretty socially inept so I've also walked past say footballers and haven't had a clue. I did used to take pictures of them if someone told me they were famous (yes I'm embarrassing I know) if you were somewhere famous is it of any value to have a picture of a celeb? Ie can I sell these pictures?

Yes you can absolutely sell your pics although it depends on whether they're doing anything interesting and also the circumstances in which it was taken (because right to private life vs public interest). Also how blurry the pics look.

So if it's a celeb sniffing white powder from a table at a nightclub in full view of anyone the pics could be grainy AF and they'd still be very sought after.

It also depends on the celeb. Some are endlessly fascinating eg British A-listers who are a bit enigmatic so rarely seen out and about.

And if it's something unexpected eg a super rich footballer waiting in line at Poundland that could also make a fun story.

@Grrrpredictivetex

What are your thoughts on journalists taking stories and publishing them from Mumsnet?

Ha I was wondering if someone was going to ask this.

I can see both sides of it. In that it's completely legal and no different to taking them from Twitter or Instagram. You don't even need to be logged in to see threads on MN - they pop up in google searches etc so they're completely fair game.

On the other hand, I'm a regular MN user (have obv namechanged for this) and would not want my post on a national website. So what I do if I'm posting something more personal is change UN and also certain details (eg # of kids and their sexes or whatever) so if it did ever get picked up it hopefully wouldn't be too outing.

But I can tell you that writing "Fuck The Sun and The Mail, you're not allowed to re-print this" at the top of a post has absolutely no legal standing and I doubt makes much difference to those who are on the hunt for stories.

@wewillmeetagain

OP I'm a middle aged mum, currently doing a degree, how do I become a journalist?

Is your degree in journalism? You definitely don't need one but if it is try and hit your lecturers etc for contacts/referrals as much as possible.

The Spectator does a blind, paid internship which is open to everyone - regardless of age or sex - and absolutely brilliant: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/starting-again-at-48

And then, although this is a double edged sword, mining your life for first person stories, usually based on newsy pegs can be lucrative although also a bit cringey (eg if Liz Hurley started dating a 20 year old and you're a similar age and have dated a 20 year old you could email a bunch of editors suggesting you write a first-person piece pegged to that.)

[quote OnceUponACat]@BoreOfWhabylon I can tell you that Michael Palin is a gem of a gentleman. I have met hime and he is so is. [/quote]
I knew it!

Thank you for confirming @OnceUponACat

@Fromadistance1

How do you think BLM has changed things? Do you think people like Cheryl Cole would have been able to come out of her court case and become the nations sweetheart today?

Do you think we will see a lot of the current celebrities dropped from their shows? I'm thinking about Williams on BGT after the black face incident. Louis Walsh after the accusations of racism from previous X factor contestants.

It's a good question and I just don't know I'm afraid. Fame is so fickle - look at what happened to Tulisa. So it's conceivable that if you're "cancelled" you drop out of the spotlight entirely but it also might make you a compelling subject for newspapers.

Hard to tell and depends very much on the celeb in question (and also how they handle their PR crisis).

What about editorial bias and a specific angle on a story, politicial or otherwise bias being The Way Things Are Done?

Hello OP
Are stories hinting at the illicit (e.g. Oti and Kelvin) placed as

1. clickbait for all fans
2. designed to draw out denials for a new headline
3. hoping to bring out kiss n tells e.g. sexting

If a celebrity is not publicly 'out' but a story would effectively out them, even if said story proved they were a dick (threatening their ONS to keep their mouth shut) would the tabloids have to shut the story down?

@Guylan

The Sun famously switched allegiance every election to whichever party they think is going to win, rather than the party they want to win.

I watched the Rupert Murdoch doc that was on recently and it did not seem so clear cut. It suggested to me it was only with the support of widely read tabloid papers would a govt win. Tony Blair courted Murdoch and his policies were not going to change structures significantly so Murdoch gave his blessing. The Sun crucified Neil Kinnock in 1992 election which he subsequently lost.

You also argue that the papers give what the readers want. Again the reality seems more nuanced. Sure papers know the angles their readers will support, but papers heavily direct their readers on what issues to focus on.

If a paper supports the govt in power I feel it also can quite overtly guide its readers to support changes that a govt was planning. Eg the 2011 Welfare Bill led by George Osborne made significant cuts to many benefits including sickness benefits. Reducing support for the sick and disabled could expect possible dissent across the political divides. However, between 2010 to 2012 the Daily Mail ran frequent articles (felt almost daily at times) on people claiming DLA for say poor mobility and then being found to play in the local five a side football team. It gave the impression many people receiving DLA were lying in their applications. Yet govt’s own reports showed fraud was actually low. These stories though meant when DLA was switched to PIP and the criteria narrowed meaning many lost disability support there was less dissent as the readers had been persuaded many of the claimants ‘didn’t deserve it’. Once the Welfare Bill had passed it was noticeable how Daily Mail stopped running their stories on DLA applicants. I found it grim.

Well the Murdoch doc was on the BBC so don't forget that has its own biases too.

In terms of the benefits changes/DM - you might be right but it starts to dip into conspiracy theory. It's honestly so hard getting a story published at a newspaper - even if you work there - because of various things like the news cycle, pictures, other stories in the paper, the editor simply got bored of it etc (every reporter regularly experiences working their arse off for a story then having it killed at the last minute for the most spurious reason) and the idea that someone in government could persuade an editor to run daily stories about a subject for two years honestly seems laughable to me.

I would also point out that unless you literally read the paper every day and personally saw those stories appearing 5-6 times a week, how you can confidently say it was "daily" as opposed to, say, people posting screenshots/links on social media every day but the stories they're linking to are actually from totally different time periods, ifyswim.

@pleasehelpwi3

Why does the DM and Sun consistently refer to migrants arriving from France as ‘illegal immigrants’ when this is both wrong and inflammatory? They are asylum seekers as you have to physically arrive in the UK in order to claim asylum. You only become an ‘illegal immigrant’ once your asylum claim has been denied and you go underground to avoid deportation. In your opinion do these newspapers merely reflect the racism of many of their readership or deliberately stoke it? How do journalists who are presumably quite intelligent square writing incorrect racist headlines about desperate asylum seekers to please their bosses with their moral conscience?

I never did hard news (too grim ) but you might be interested to read this thread from a journalist who covers this exact beat https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1296029833928081408.html?fbclid=IwAR0mQRopqG665MEg8ZPc3tnx4ceOabP7lDCiotWZ2IDX98FfV-ovkFEtPIY

We would, however, run pics that we knew were unflattering (this was absolutely not my decision btw, way above my pay grade) but we would never make overt comments about them - either falsely positive or negative (which would be just plain rude)

Maybe not in your paper OP but I know what bloodydiet means - it has happened in the past on DM's ''Sidebar of shame'', they always seem to print a photo of Judy Finnegan and rave on about how great she looks (when it's always the least flattering pic of her ever and the woman's 72!)

@AprilONeil

Sorry, kind of lost my place with the questions so apologies if I've missed one

It was a trivial one but please don't forget my Atomic Kitten question (several pages back).

And my Julie Birchall article!

@NoseRinger

Odd one, but did you ever meet Atomic Kitten and what was your impression of them?

No I didn't - I think they were more relevant before my time as a journo (I used to listen to them at school lol) - my journo era was more 1D and Little Mix in terms of pop stars but my beat tended to be slightly older celebs, mostly actors. I did meet Britney though, which was a dream come true. (She literally said like 5 words during the whole press event and seemed incredibly fragile the entire time).