AIBU - to be tired of being manipulated by the press?

[plinkyplonks]

Example - Nigella and Saatchi's 'argument':

Mumsnet discussion at the time:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a1780735-Fucking-hell-Nigella-picture-WTF-includes-links-to-upsetting-images

The 'truth':

His 'claims': hillgrove-news-opinion.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/nigella-lawson-and-her-publicist-mark.html

Vanity Fair expose planned:

womansday.ninemsn.com.au/celebrityheadlines/8746573/nigella-lawson-dismisses-new-truth-claims

If what was alleged to have happened (from 'his' side) is true, AIBU to think its shocking for the media (photographers, journalists etc) to knowingly peddle a story that wasnt true on behalf of someone's PR agent? AIBU to feel just a lil bit manipulated?

Maybe I am old fashioned in that i think telling the truth should be valued?

To be clear this isn't another thread to call either of them a or some of the other offensive language chosen by posters in the original thread. I want to keep this about the press, whether it be photographers, publicists or otherwise willing to abuse their position of trust to defame and manipulate people. And whether we should feel cheated by that?

I can't speak to the incident you cited, but here in the United States the media is anything but unbiased. Especially when it comes to politics. I agree that it's frustrating.

errrrrrrr

I am not sure this is a prime example, that blog post looks a bit unhinged.

I don't want to be manipulated into believing it is ever OK for one person to physically assault another person.

Oh, it's from Richard Hillgrove, the "PR guru" who champions the causes of enormous cowboy hats and tax fraud. I take it he didn't get sent to prison then?

This smacks of a transparent ruse to 'expose' scurrilous rumours.
Saatchi comes out of this very, very badly & this certainly won't help his case

Agreed braininabox probably not the best example but it is interesting that I've struggled to find a balanced piece of news on this story without judgement and blame being implied or stated.

braininabox - Maybe so, but that's the point though .. every "news" piece these days to have a slant or an agenda.. I thought the news was meant to inform not manipulate people or make the 'facts' fit the story. Again maybe that's not realistic to expect the news to be factual and as accurate as possible... however, these days I read an article and think - whose benefiting from this story.. or what's their agenda? So far removed from the concept of news.. and I do feel cheated by it.

I think the Madeleine McCann case would be a better example

currentbuns I used this example because I remembered when this story broke it brought up a lot emotional upheaval on this board. Lots of people got angry about it, got very emotionally involved and posted some very personal responses to it. When people have reactions to it like that, then it got me wondering whether if the story had been fabricated in some way or told dishonestly whether people would feel cheated or manipulated?

Another example could be the proposed military action in Syria. We started to see much more graphic and gratuitous imagery posted in national news papers of victims of rape, torture, gas attacks etc. I wondered why we were starting to see such imagery when acts like this occur every day in countries we count as allies never mind enemies. A few days later we start to hear from politicians that we must take action in Syria.. When they realised that there was little public support for military action, we didn't see as much news coverage for Syria anymore.. even those vile war crimes are being committed by the hour.

I just want my news to be news, factual and without agenda. I do think PR agents, Westminster and advertisers are pretty much driving the news we see and the agenda behind them. But it seems that it is just accepted now thats how the news is.

currentbuns Agreed about McCanns. I wonder if they would have got such favourable treatment in the press if they had been obese? Or if she was of a different ethnic origin? The sad fact is children go missing every day, but only a select few make the papers. Maybe its missing white girl syndrome, who knows :/

Well PP if you want to be like that, the blog you linked insinuates that Nigella is a criminal drug user whose children procure drugs for her, and that Saatchi was stopping her nodding out outside the restaurant then pled guilty to assault so that no one would find out she was a drug user - frankly that's libellous as well as manipulative. I would not even call it reporting because it's not - it's someone's blog. I think the fact that there is no 'other side' from the slavering journos implies that there really isn't a case for one.

I am not a fan of Nigella's as such but I think that Hillsgrove is, well, unhinged.

Completely factual news without opinion pieces is impossible, unless you want several years' delay while cases go to court etc. Eg no one could report anything on the McCann case beyond 'child disappears'. Operation Yewtree wouldn't even have been in the news till Stuart Hall went down (if he even would have without the massive publicity leading to others stepping forward), etc.

I do think there is a lot of dead wood in news reporting, mostly government and Taxpayers' Alliance press releases. Wouldn't miss those - and they are not exactly factual. Can we compromise and get rid of those but keep Glosswitch and Laurie Penny et al?

YABU -

you have brain, you read, you make your own mind up & where applicable, decide its tosh

No manipulation achieved

I personally enjoy reading the DM because I enjoy a good comic & tend to like something I can disagree with

Just realised how aggressive I seem at the start of my last post - apologies to op, its not aimed at you but the tone of that blog really narked me off!

I disagree with braininabox, I think it is possible to have something at least approaching unbiased reporting. In Australian newspapers you are not allowed to present your opinion in the main news bit of the paper. There is a separate opinion section for that. And in a decent newspaper non emotive language is used. Sure, you still have bias in terms of what is and isn't reported but it is nowhere near as bad as here. I was pretty shocked when I first started reading the paper here.

YABU. Someone can only be manipulated if they take one version of a story in isolation and/or believe everything they read in the papers or online as gospel. Personally, I try to stay away from the celebrity stuff because I know that much of it - good or bad, ironically - is engineered.

Oh I dislike the media. This is going to be a rant! The UK has some of the most rabid judgemental reporting in the world. I found the quality of NZ reporting when I lived there puerile and childish aside from national radio. Even radio 4 sometimes gets me and the BBC uses all these headlines like 'terror attack' etc designed to keep a population in fear. Look at the Snowdon witch hunt or the News of the World Brookes/Coulsdon debacle. Or title for tat in Syria. Freedom of the press is an illusion. I live in blissful ignorance in Holland as I don't understand a word on the news and my life is much more peaceful as a result!

Don't get me started on the Mcann thing and I know this isn't the thread for it. But if you look at it from a media perspective... Because of their negligence their poor innocent daughter went missing. If that had been an ethnic minority family or from a different social background they would have been hounded and arrested rather than millions spent on police trying to find her. All missing children should be given that level of attention not just one. I hope she is found of course but the level of media attention was 1000000% disproportionate. I never understood why.

And as for all the celebrities in the press gaaaa! But I like Nigeria though and have always thought Saachi a bit creepy. That blog post is just odd.

So no YANBU :)

braininabox No offence taken at all! Nice to see some responses about the news as I was worried it was going to turn into a Nigella thread!

Maybe the truth in the Nigella/Saatchi is perhaps somewhere between the two pieces.. but who knows? Only those two know what happened in their marriage. Still I suspect we news agencies reporting the 'facts' of the story based on 'sources' (likely their PR reps, perhaps even fabricated - quite frankly a source could be my 7 year old nephew.. does anyone actually regulate sources?!), with the story slanted to favour one particular party. I guess in a way the blog in a way is more honest' as is it an intended opinion piece. Where as the sites such as the Mail, Mirror, Guardian often post news articles when they are in fact just 'opinion' pieces or advertisements.

Nigeria!!! Autocorrect doh! Nigeria! Although I am sure Nigeria is lovely :)

Oh god I nearly give up one more attempt. NIGELLA

theduchesse that is what I meant. I can't stand DM-style tugging on heartstrings and purple prose, keep it bloody separate in the editorials where it belongs!

I will say in my defence I only really read guardian online which (in the actual news stories if you avoid the comment section) is written in quite a neutral way although what they choose to report on is an indicator of their political stance in itself. I used to live in Australia and did like the papers there.

Guardian has a habit of doing goady "opinion" features when writers have a book out which is annoying but easy to spot.

DM does this too, one day I read the front page and counted TEN "immigrant/forriner/non white person does bad thing" stories, none of them particularly newsworthy or notable and all with words like "chilling", "horrific" or "hardened criminal" in the title. And some people actually take it as gospel.

clap for livingzuid my phone likes to call Lidl, Keith, so I sympathise. Just off to Keith to get some milk, dear...

If you ever actually know anything about a news story, you realise that news stories are always just that--a story. I've read things about me/people I know that bear zero relationship to reality. In fact I've never read anything accurate.

It's all just gossip and politics and agendas. Media personalities are not real people, they are constructed identities that act out storylines, aspects of humanity embodied, just like the old Greek gods. None of it's real.

Rock I too read femail as a complete guilty read sometimes. Or because I have a few celebs I like and want to read up a bit more on them. But it's the dm and I take it with a bucket of salt.

The problem is that there are many of their readers who think it is the gospel truth. Back in the day I worked with a woman who was lively but regularly waved the dm around to hilight all these immigrants coming in and taking jobs black blah blergh.

Not everyone does differentiate between real reporting and trash that the likes of Murdoch and Dacre peddle.

Brain I think it's early Saturday morning for me and my phone :) lovely not lively for goodness sake! Glad it is not just me!

I've always been sceptical about what I read in some of the press but in the last few weeks, I was close to a real story. Lordy, the utter rubbish that was printed/discussed on here/even on r4 which bore no relation at all to what actually happened.

And stories regarding celebs, well, I'm always very sceptical indeed. So much stuff going on behind the scenes. What did Max Clifford say - that he got paid to keep the real story out of the press. Although that's not worked out terribly well for him.

I think the social networking sites feed hysteria and misinformation btw A small something and nothing story that might have been and gone in the past becomes a massive outrage simply because it's snowballed through Twitter or generates hundreds of responses on Mumsnet. The response becomes the story, there are no journalistic standards applicable and it's bigger than the original. I remember when the McCann case hit the headlines, seeing some vicious comments online & being utterly horrified that anyone would be less than sympathetic. When gunman Raoul Moat was holed up the sick FB pages supporting him were as much part of the story as the hunt itself.