Apalling Times article

[Cathryn]

The following extract on 'the Times', from Campbell's 2006 article in British Journalism Review, seems relevant...

"No responsibility

But the pre-eminence of The Times was earned when it still prided itself on being a paper of record � indeed the paper of record. Sadly, since its acquisition by Rupert Murdoch in 1981, this has steadily ceased to be the case. Murdoch frankly admits that his papers are in the entertainment business. The Times targets a different market from The Sun, but today it feels no more responsibility to print full and comprehensive information than its red-top stablemate. This may make it a livelier read for the impatient modern consumer, who is assumed to get his or her basic news from radio and television; the emphasis now is on comment and polemic, with a heavy preponderance of lifestyle features and pop culture. But this will be of limited use to historians in 50 or 100 years."

John Campbell
Papers of record are history
British Journalism Review
Vol. 17, No. 2, 2006, pages 59-64

www.bjr.org.uk/data/2006/no2_campbell.htm

It's an interesting point here...you can't have failed to notice that the Times has dumbed down considerably over the past 10 years or so. So....political leanings apart, which paper would you say IS the best at recording the news and political comment etc?

 

[simon l& and a half]

the FT

 

[Abitrary]

It's an interesting point here...you can't have failed to notice that the Times has dumbed down considerably over the past 10 years or so. So....political leanings apart, which paper would you say IS the best at recording the news and political comment etc?

I think that The Times has *expanded* rather than dumbed down, in that it has more bits in it this days.

With regard to the political leanings, apart from columists with an obvious leaning, I would defy anyone to detect political bias in the day to day news of any of the broadsheets.

I read the mirror during the week and the Times at the weekend.

Read for entertainment. Write letters if you are political

 

[Pete]

While we're on the subject of the Press in general, this in the Guardian (from Matt Seaton) on the same subject. The comments beneath it are depressing though.

One of the reasons that I originally took up joining of cycling forums a few years ago, was because I felt that 'something must be done' about public perception of cyclists - even after making allowance for the existence of RLJs and the like. I would like to see the same general attitude towards cyclists as there is towards - say - teenagers: 'most are OK' sort of stuff. It seems that we are no nearer that goal now, than we were then.

 

[Fab Foodie]

While we're on the subject of the Press in general, this in the Guardian (from Matt Seaton) on the same subject. The comments beneath it are depressing though.

One of the reasons that I originally took up joining of cycling forums a few years ago, was because I felt that 'something must be done' about public perception of cyclists - even after making allowance for the existence of RLJs and the like. I would like to see the same general attitude towards cyclists as there is towards - say - teenagers: 'most are OK' sort of stuff. It seems that we are no nearer that goal now, than we were then.

Pete, do me a favour and remind me to quote the comments to that article next time we have a debate about cyclists jumping red lights...

Cyclists seemingly are hated by many, it's a sad fact.

 

[spindrift]

Cyclists seemingly are hated by many, it's a sad fact.

Not really. The comments on the Guardian article probably come from safespeeding or ABD members- they have a habit of flooding newspaper letter pages and forums with ignorant anti-cyclist rants, like the one below Seaton's article that compares cyclists with The Taliban. That person's probably mentally ill, or a safespeeding member, same difference.

 

[Twenty Inch]

Excellent response to Seaton's article:

"I too feel slightly ashamed at posting here, but I do object to cyclists being :
* so professional about it all
* having writing and vivid logoes all over their lycra clad torsoes (or is it torsos and logos?)
* wearing those amusing plastic things on their heads

and would like to see in 2008:
* more cyclists wearing three-piece suits and floral frocks
* more cyclists with a wicker basket in front carrying a terrier
* less bloody equipment and the return of the Sturmey-Archer

Cyclists don't have to be visually offensive. But we don't need capital punishment while there are ASBO(e)s. "

 

[spindrift]

I don't see many cyclists in lycra, probably less than half in London.

A girl near tate Modern had those lycra tights cut off at the ankle and she looked splendid.

 

[Pete]

Excellent response to Seaton's article:

I noticed those remarks too - perhaps they need answering individually?

* so professional about it all

Don't know what writer means by 'professional' ... certainly cycling costs me a certain amount of money, as it does all cyclists ... less than the same mileage would by car or public transport, though . And I don't get a penny of extra income for it...

* having writing and vivid logoes all over their lycra clad torsoes (or is it torsos and logos?)

Which reminds me - how are we coming along with the CC jerseys?

* wearing those amusing plastic things on their heads

Well, if the 100% cotton floppy hat which I've taken to wearing to ward off sun and rain, appears as 'amusing plastic' to someone, this is obviously a new meaning of the word.

* more cyclists wearing three-piece suits and floral frocks

It's possible I may have cycled in a suit in the dim and distant past, I don't remember. Certainly I'm not a 'suit' nowadays. And - I fear - me turning out in a floral frock might not have the desirable effect ...

* more cyclists with a wicker basket in front carrying a terrier

As in - pit-bull ...?

* less bloody equipment and the return of the Sturmey-Archer

Having dismantled a Sturmey Archer in the past, I can assure you that it is 'equipment' in the full sense of the word.

Cyclists don't have to be visually offensive. But we don't need capital punishment while there are ASBO(e)s. "

Talking of which - this Parris bloke has conveniently fled the country has he not... But when he returns ...

 

[piedwagtail91]

just got this reply from the pcc, no reply from the cops yet.

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding a Matthew Parris column in the Times headlined ‘What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?’. The Commission has received a high volume of complaints about this piece.

Consequently, the Commission is shortly to consider whether the article breached this Code of Practice (http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html). We will endeavour to revert to you with the outcome of the Commission’s assessment just as soon as possible.

Do let us know if you have any queries in the meantime.

Yours sincerely



Patrick Evenden
patrick.evenden@pcc.org.uk

 

[Cab]

So... If we were to start a petition to ask for Parris to be dismissed from his little column on the Times, where would be the place?

 

[Pete]

The problem with the PCC is that it is so restricted in its remit.

Looking through the above link, the only clause which might apply here is:

1. Accuracy

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.

It was clearly inaccurate to accuse all cyclists of

chucking their empty cans of hi-energy drinks into hedgerows as they pass.

etc. etc.

But why, oh why, isn't there a clause on 'incitement to violence, criminal acts, racial hatred' etc.? Is it just because these are already adequately covered by criminal code? Over to the Met, it seems.

 

[Lurker]

Standard response from Times Editor duly received to my earlier missive - here's my response to that (thanks to others for ideas and inspiration)... this could run and run:



Dear Mr Harding,

Thank you for your stock response to my email concerning Mr Parris' rant against 'cyclists' as a group.

My reading of your response and of Parris' apology is that you really don't understand the significance and potential for harm of what you have published. Please understand that it's not *cyclists'* sense of humour that is primarily at issue here. My main concern is that your columnist will have incited people who take his article at face value to carry out his suggested 'remedy'.

I'm not sure of the relevance of your comments about the environment, since they don't address Mr Parris' unsubstantiated assertion that cyclists are significant agents in spoiling our environment. In my own experience (and I imagine yours too, since you ride a bicycle), motorists routinely throw litter out of car windows. But apparently these individuals' behaviour doesn't 'count' and therefore doesn't require any sanction; that would seem to be the logic of Parris' twisted metrics.

It's also not clear why Mr Parris chose to single out cyclists for his vitriol since surely, as a consequence of their trips to Spain, he and his family are directly responsible for significant environmental pollution - or does this environmental impact also not count?

Your implication that cyclists are to blame for 'los[ing] our sense of humour' is offensive and is the typical mantra of the playground bully when challenged. Following your logic, I'd expect to read in 'the Times' a similarly headed article by a writer who objects to traffic noise encouraging people to throw bricks onto passing cars from motorway bridges... would you also be surprised that people wouldn't find that suggestion remotely amusing? I can't imagine that Mr Parris would have dared to test the 'sense of humour' of (for instance) Muslims, Jews or gay people in a similar fashion, and rightly so.

I very much hope that the criminal justice system will deal appropriately with Mr Parris. It's a great shame that, from the evidence of this article, the editor of 'the Times' appears willing to allow such bigotry to be given free rein and, further, seeks to defend such vicious writing.

I remain yours in disappointment etc.

 

[roshi chris]

My twopenneth -

Mr Harding

I would imagine you have had many emails and letters recently regarding Mr Matthew Parris, specifically regarding his article regarding cyclists, printed in your paper on I believe the 27th December. The article has me rather worried, as it appears to incite hatred and violence toward my family and myself.

I believe that Mr Parris has recently issued some kind of statement claiming that the article was intended to be taken as a joke. However If this is true I would like to point out that any regular cyclist will be familiar with frequent verbal and physical abuse, and they will certainly be offended by an article encouraging such behaviour, much as a gay man would no doubt object to a article jokingly encouraging beating gay people to death, or a black person would object to an article jokingly encouraging stringing black people up from trees.

To publish an article of this nature in a quality newspaper is therefore either extremely poor journalism (as any decent journalist would be aware of such sensibilities), or deliberate incitement to hatred. I hope you will issue a statement of your own in The Times, clarifying which of the above was the case, poor journalism or deliberate incitement to hatred. Anything less will destroy the credibility of your newspaper in my eyes. I will also be pursuing this matter with the Press Complaints Commission and the Police.

Regards

OTT?

 

[andy_wrx]

Is this Ravenbait thing someone trolling I wonder ?

(how many Ravenbaits are there in Scotland ?)