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)

Actually adding to the Eric Joyce thing, it's not just nepotism but also a left/right thing - so The Times/ST have ignored it because of nepotism but the rest of the papers have ignored it through a mix of cronyism (mates with India) and because Joyce was Labour so it doesn't fit their narrative.

If it had been a former Tory MP you can bet it would have been a huge story for a number of outlets.

@IheartHarryStyles

I know this will probably sound a klaxon at MN towers somewhere due to a series of threads that were pulled a few years ago... but was Larry Stylinson a thing? 🤔

Never heard about it beyond fan fic

@DreamTheMoors

What are your thoughts on the DM & Sun’s treatment of Meghan and Harry?

I asked before - you must’ve overlooked it.

Sorry I must have missed it but I did answer a similar one up thread.

Again I don't think they've been "treated" any differently to any other members of the RF - Kate, William, Camilla (Camilla!), Charles, even the Queen- have all had to deal with terrible press at some point or another.

The difference is they kept quiet and didn't launch a website ripping into the press (ironically the royal reporters specifically, who are known for being a soft touch when it comes to reporting on the royals anyway cause they don't want to lose access - the more critical stories are always run by news or diary reporters).

The other royals understood if they kept quiet and just got on with things public opinion (and thus media) would eventually change.

They also didn't give lectures about eco-travel and the environment while taking private jets.

[quote lolawasashowgirl]@AprilONeil I always remember in my A Level Sociology classes many moons ago our tutor telling us that all newspapers are biased in some way and it has stayed with me ever since. Am really interested in your comment that The Times is considered to be the most impartial newspaper. Why do you think that is the case? [/quote]

Your tutor was absolutely right!

Re the times, I think because it doesn't sensationalize things - it presents stories calmly and usually gives weight to both sides. And The ST invests heavily in investigate/longer journalism.

@BabyLlamaZen

you said earlier that Ariana Grande is different in real life to her persona - in what way?

Have you met any of the Harry Potter cast? Thoughts if so?

She was a complete diva and this was just before she actually became famous in the UK (people in the US knew who she was already).

Haven't met them but have seen them at things (not always in a work capacity). Emma Watson was an arrogant show off (in fairness this was about 15 years ago) and DR always comes across as very humble and polite.

My sense of some of the others is that Bonnie Wright is friendly with a v v posh crowd (overlaps with Princess Beatrice and Eugenie) - not sure if she was posh to start with - and Rupert Grint seems to want/live a fairly unassuming life.

@TheSpottedZebra

He told me great stories about Diana and one of her BFs (he was best friend of BF). Bring hidden in the boot of a car and driven into KP! grin

That was LITERALLY reported in the... newspapers. Will Carling wasnt it? And probably some others. And old Paul Burrell has sold that story over and over too.

I think it was in her bodyguard Ken Wharfe's book too

@Buzzing54

Thanks *@AprilONeil* it's been a really interesting thread! The letter of journals and schools was an eye opener

For me too! It's why I saved it (on reflection I think it may have been an article in Private Eye)

Sorry you are leaving the thread, it’s been so interesting.

I wanted to ask do you think JD will win his liable case? Would there be any consequences for Dan W?

@Oblahdeeoblahdoe

Great thread OP Do you have an opinion as to why the GRA reform activists are getting such an easy ride in the press? And why such people like Rachel McKinnon /Veronica Ivy and other transwomen in women's sports aren't discussed? Whenever I talk about these issues with friends and family who aren't as politically aware they have no idea this is going on. Is it because the press is owned by misogynists who don't give a damn about women and their sports?

Well, again I think just saying "the press" here isn't correct. It's specifically the left-wing press (Guardian, Independent, BBC) who wont report on this in a balanced way at all. I mean, when the Guardian ventured something that was the tiniest bit questioning of the TRA ideology 300 of its (mostly millennial, mostly American) staff signed a letter criticizing it.

(This has become a huge problem generally in the US at a number of mainstream outlets (all overwhelmingly left wing) inc NYT, WashPo etc that are effectively destroying themselves - and their reputations for good journalism - to bend over backwards for a women contingent. Excellent piece about it here: https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter)

The tabloids/ "right wing" press have covered this issue in a more fair/balanced/critical way and it's why we should all be thankful for plurality of the press - so when we're egregiously let down by the "side" we thought was just and fair there are other publications to challenge an ideology.

The bigger question why/how this has happened is to some extent baffling. It's not just the press - it's complete institutional capture of the judiciary, NHS, public institutions, the police ffs.

I think this is also a helpful read https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26352378

How many of the 'friends' cited as sources are really friends with the person written about? I can't imagine a good friend spilling gossip.

Are there particular dos and don'ts for royal stories? Where does the information come from for articles on royal family members (do they have indiscreet staff?)

Argh *woke contingent" - not "women contingent"

@AprilONeil thank you for answering my question and for the two very interesting articles. I feel really let down by our 'liberal' press which is something I never thought I'd say. Much like having to agree with the Tory Party stance on the issue which gives me nightmares.

@AprilONeil thanks so much for this thread. Before you go, can you shed any light on how Liz Jones has managed to keep her Mail column all this time, despite it being a steaming pile of ill-written ordure?

Oh that's a good question, @BoreOfWhabylon!

@AprilONeil - were your print articles generally sub-edited, and if so, what was your experience of editing like? Did you always agree with the editor? (I'm a copyeditor, but of books, websites, etc., not newspaper articles.)

I only found the thread today and haven't read it all so apologies if you've been asked this before.

It's a mystery isn't it?

[quote BoreOfWhabylon]@AprilONeil thanks so much for this thread. Before you go, can you shed any light on how Liz Jones has managed to keep her Mail column all this time, despite it being a steaming pile of ill-written ordure?[/quote]
Quite agree. The woman is barking mad.

@fatgirlslimmer

Sorry you are leaving the thread, it’s been so interesting.

I wanted to ask do you think JD will win his liable case? Would there be any consequences for Dan W?

The belief among many journos is JD will scrape a win but his damages will be minuscule to reflect that it was by a whisker. Because AH comes across as an unreliable witness but equally there's evidence to suggest enough erratic/aggressive behaviour on JD's side that could potentially have extended to violence.

The trial is a great example of why suing newspapers is often a bad idea - both he and Heard came out of it with their reputations absolutely shattered.

And no I don't think there'll be consequences for DW - for one he's one of the paper's top reporters (he broke Megxit) and for two DW wasn't the only to report that Heard had accused JD of hitting her: lots of papers did (not to mention social media). JD's real aim wasn't to put The Sun on trial but to put AH on trial - The Sun is just collateral damage.

JD is suing her in the US too I think.

@Onestepup

How many of the 'friends' cited as sources are really friends with the person written about? I can't imagine a good friend spilling gossip.

Are there particular dos and don'ts for royal stories? Where does the information come from for articles on royal family members (do they have indiscreet staff?)

Well we don't always put "friend" - sometimes it'll be "says a source" or "says my spy". Quite often a "friend" might be the person's publicist or it may well be a friend - a lot of journos are pretty posh and move in the same circles as celebs. So they do hear things from mutual friends.

As for royals, stories can come from anywhere. Occasionally from staff, from friends or neighbours, from publicly accessible documents (eg company records, court records), from social media.

[quote Oblahdeeoblahdoe]@AprilONeil thank you for answering my question and for the two very interesting articles. I feel really let down by our 'liberal' press which is something I never thought I'd say. Much like having to agree with the Tory Party stance on the issue which gives me nightmares.[/quote]

This is off topic but in a way I feel the TRA stuff has been a really important lesson in partisan politics. Most of us are now single issue voters (even where it may be multiple single issues) and no one party represents them all.

Also, personally, I've always associated the far left with authoritarianism and being anti-democratic - there isn't one socialist or communist country that is or was also a functioning democracy.

Unfortunately, for some unfathomable reason, the far left have taken over the moderate/centre left and this is where we are.

[quote BoreOfWhabylon]@AprilONeil thanks so much for this thread. Before you go, can you shed any light on how Liz Jones has managed to keep her Mail column all this time, despite it being a steaming pile of ill-written ordure?[/quote]

I actually once spoke to someone who had good insight on this. Apparently LJ was very worried when a new editor took over the mag but she still managed to escape the culling - I think it's a combo of her being a minor celeb now/enough people hate-reading her column and they actually were worried for her if they did let her go.

But cuts have been announced at the MOS/You so it's questionable how much longer she'll survive.

I used to really enjoy her column but I agree it's just a broken record now.

@tenlittlecygnets

Oh that's a good question, *@BoreOfWhabylon*!

@AprilONeil - were your print articles generally sub-edited, and if so, what was your experience of editing like? Did you always agree with the editor? (I'm a copyeditor, but of books, websites, etc., not newspaper articles.)

I only found the thread today and haven't read it all so apologies if you've been asked this before.

No worries, nope it hasn't been asked.

Yes all my print articles are edited/sub-edited and how happy I am usually depends on how good the editor is. A good editor will polish the story or push me to make it even better - a bad one will hack it up, rearrange it (so that the paragraphs don't even make sense) and, occasionally, introduce a glaring typo

I almost never say anything except for typos because I don't want to be seen as difficult (yay female socialization).

JD's real aim wasn't to put The Sun on trial but to put AH on trial - The Sun is just collateral damage

I think this too, their relationship was toxic. He was clearly prepared to have his life and behaviour exposed to out her as an abuser and I think he did this to help his case in the USA. I think it was worth his while suing NGN.

Thanks for the thread!

I have found the reporting on trans issues to be baffling. I thought that I was quite a critical thinker when reading newspapers but realised that I really did have a level of trust. However, the reporting on this has really made me question that.

My first WTAF was seeing reports about Martina Navrat being "widely criticised" and upon doing some of my own research discovering that someone who was not very successful in the academic world with very little standing and credibility and a very clear, obvious and dubious self interest was having a rant. I was shocked about the way it was reported. And also that I am yet to see a report on JKR which refers to her comments as being about women's rights.

Thanks again!

Oh also that piece on mass migration was very interesting

@FFSFFSFFS

Thanks for the thread!

I have found the reporting on trans issues to be baffling. I thought that I was quite a critical thinker when reading newspapers but realised that I really did have a level of trust. However, the reporting on this has really made me question that.

My first WTAF was seeing reports about Martina Navrat being "widely criticised" and upon doing some of my own research discovering that someone who was not very successful in the academic world with very little standing and credibility and a very clear, obvious and dubious self interest was having a rant. I was shocked about the way it was reported. And also that I am yet to see a report on JKR which refers to her comments as being about women's rights.

Thanks again!

Absolutely agree re mis-reporting. Just look at this headline on Vanity Fair - again, it's from the website so standards are lower, but still it's appalling.

Anyway, thanks all for the mostly gentle questions and responses - I was quite nervous when I first posted!