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)

Jesus wept. That headline!

Well - if we didn't need confirmation that "women" aren't considered to be "humans" there it is.

The reporting of it has really shaken me to the core and I am much less trusting of what I would considered to be credible journalism before (Guardian - I'm looking at you...)

Thanks for the answers, OP

@AprilONeil

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.

There’s a bit of an inkling here...(James Kirkup has been one of the many more right-wing media supporters of the GC stance)

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists

Loved this thread! No more questions from me, thanks for being so candid, OP!

Stumbled across the Showbiz PR AMA thread earlier and got about halfway through, but lost it now. Has it been deleted, does anyone know? 😢

This one? I was a showbiz publicist AMA http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/thirtydayss_only/4006467-I-was-a-showbiz-publicist-AMA

@ButterflyWitch oh thank you! 🙌

Interesting thread, thank OP.
There were two things that formed my opinion of tabloid news many years ago. One was working directly in a legal field where a new law was being brought in, that affected nearly everyone and was of great public interest in some respects, but in others was rather dry (think 5p plastic bag charge or something but more complex and change to culture). The tabloid press reported the absolute extreme scenario, very inaccurately and strongly suggested this would apply throughout the country (think e.g. everyone being prosecuted if they didn't pay for a plastic bag etc) and ran with this angle for months and months.
Everyone actually in the field knew it was bollocks and misleading and had to constantly correct friends who'd read about it. Everyone I know who works in specific fields, who's read press about it, gets frustrated that they seem to intentionally miss the point for the sake of sensationalism.

Secondly, I saw a documentary about paparazzi. DM photographer absolutely hounding a retired actor by his house. Eventually the poor bloke asked him (along the lines of) "Please, can't you go away and leave me alone?". DM delightfully reported that this actor had 'snarled' 'go away'. The tiniest, potentially subjective, change to how a situation was framed, and I still can't stomach that to be honest. I can't see how that isn't a lie, however small, and seeing any minor disagreement as 'slamming' etc etc just makes me assume anything of actual factual value is reported just as dishonestly. I find honestly reported stories much more interesting (admittedly I don't follow much celeb gossip!) NB I know you'll say the doc was biased itself but I can't think of many situations that would mitigate that casually aggressive behaviour!

Interesting that @AprilONeil highlighted the David and Aimee Challenor cases due to how shocking that was. I agree, and yet I find it's not particularly high profile compared to some other shocking criminals that remain in the 'mind' of the public? No-one else on the thread has commented on it as far as I can see.

Forgot to add to my second point above, that saying someone 'snarled' rather than 'begs' or simply 'said' might seem minor but it will fundamentally change how people view them - just look at the number of people on this thread and the other one asking 'who is nice in real life'? They all want to know who's a goodie and who's a baddie despite knowing life is rarely like that ever, yet the choice of one word can change which 'side' someone ends up on.

@AprilONeil Resurrecting your AMA if you don't mind one random question that didn't merit a thread of its own but has been driving me nuts this morning.

Reading the sidebar of shame today and Jude Law is in there with pictures of him and his massive family (in laws, exes, grandparents, children, the lot - we'll ignore social distancing/household numbers!) at a birthday dinner.

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8724063/PIC-EXC-Jude-Law-animated-son-Rudys-18th-birthday-party.html

Headline is 'Jude Law is VERY animated at birthday dinner'.

I've picked up a bit on different ways tabloids hint at stuff they're not able to say (eg random innocuous stories of man who has got a superinjunction to hide dodgy extra-marital sex out with his 'happy family' etc) but I just don't get this one. Are they suggesting he's on something? Or is there a shorthand here that's going over my head? I appreciate you didn't write it but wondered what you thought.

Fascinating thread btw!

Cocaine, I presume.
(Not clicking it though! )

Is it true that Cheryl and Ashley's Close marriage was a sham? The rumour being he was gay and she had been done for assaulting a black toilet attendant so they 'needed' each other for a positive public image.

*cole

Why is there so much bullying in the press? If they don't like someone (e.g. H and M is one example) then they try to publish daily and sometimes multiple articles about that person giving some information which would encourage further bullying and hatred from the public? Why is it allowed? Don't we fight against bullying at schools and at work and such articles don't help. They show that it's alright to bully.

@WhatifIfeellikeacat

Why is there so much bullying in the press? If they don't like someone (e.g. H and M is one example) then they try to publish daily and sometimes multiple articles about that person giving some information which would encourage further bullying and hatred from the public? Why is it allowed? Don't we fight against bullying at schools and at work and such articles don't help. They show that it's alright to bully.

I assume because lots of people click on it. Either they agree and want to stick the boot in or they disagree and want to see what outrageous thing has been written.

I'd love to see what our press would be like if we had a month of everyone only clicking on accurate articles and demanding links to primary sources!