Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Angus Deayton vs. The Tabloids

09:31 / 30.10.02

Looking at the headlines in the newsagents this morning, I noticed that several of the tabloids are very pleased indeed about the sacking of Angus Deayton from "Have I Got News for You".

Now, I haven't been following the story particularly closely, and I've got no particular feelings about Deayton either way, so I'm curious: what did the tabloids have against him? Was he particularly rude about a few editors on air? Was it because he sneered at the wrong targets?
Or, given that it was the stories they ran on him that were cited as the reason for ditching him, are they just chuffed to have had a direct effect on the world? The Sun's headline today, which claims victory in their efforts to force a government u-turn on proposed customs laws suggests that papers like nothing more than Influencing Things, and jump up and down like jubilant toddlers when they get their own way. Is it just that, or what?

Please answer and discuss, with tangential bits about newspaper campaigns.

The Return Of Rothkoid

09:59 / 30.10.02

From all reports, Deayton was a deadshit off-camera, and difficult to work with - at least, that's what The Guardian was suggesting, anyway... perhaps his demeanour to people at work also had something to do with it?

Either that or Merton and Hislop got arsey and threatened to walk. Not that I know what sort of weight that'd carry with the Beebers.

pointless and uncalled for

10:53 / 30.10.02

The basic premise is that as a commentator on the headlines and news in general he should not be the subject of them and thus the BBC closed his contract under a standard public image clause.

The tabloids are happy because a) they were making him headline news and the story goes further and thus make him a cash cow for them and b) Deayton and HIGNFY in general have used tabloid journalism as the butt of a countless number of jokes. It's like a vicarious revenge coated in chocolate and nuggets of stem ginger.

Hmmm, chocolate ginger.

11:23 / 30.10.02

The Sun's view of this matter.

So revenge on Dayton for dissing them and the infleunce.

Most journalists like to think they're "influential". Influence is to power what methadone is to heroin.

Plus you have to remember that The Sun (or more specifically it's boss, Rupert Murdoch) doesn't like the BBC - because it's a state-backed organisation that is in direct competition with his satellite offerings. So the idea of the beeb's head honchos cowing down before his organ is worth crowing about.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

11:59 / 30.10.02

Bearing in mind the whole 'pot, kettle' aspect of the whole thing, last week Hislop especially seemed to be extremely pissed off with him, and there seemed some rather sharp comments made.

12:39 / 30.10.02

I heard from a few media people that there was more to the Deayton/coke/hooker story than was reported, which might explain the BBC's sacking him. *shrug* Just rumour, though. I think the "being rude about them on TV" and "gives an excuse to slag off the BBC" explanations for tabloid commentary are the significant ones.

13:11 / 30.10.02

Plus you have to remember that The Sun (or more specifically it's boss, Rupert Murdoch) doesn't like the BBC - because it's a state-backed organisation that is in direct competition with his satellite offerings.

An idea supported by the fact that Sky News were giving it about the same amount of coverage as 9/11 last night.. they were going on about it for, like, 20 minutes or something.. very silly..

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

15:23 / 30.10.02

Piers Morgan hates him for a start...

To be honest, I think it's all a bit silly. Yeah, I think infidelity sucks. But it's not like he had a job as a vicar... he was employed to be a git.

You think Major'd've been fired if we'd known he was fucking Currie?

Well, actually, he was fired anyway, just for being crap. But you know what I mean?

09:56 / 31.10.02

To go back a bit; I do think part of the reason for the tabloids glee is because it's perceived as a victory for them, that by breaking the story and running it so prominently they've affected the course of it. In fact, I'd say their joy is doubled because Deayton escaped censure last time.

Tabloids nowadays have more interesting in being part of the story than in reporting it, the lamp not the mirror. You can't open one nowadays without them running some campaign or, even worse, claiming victory in something which blatantly has nothing to do with them (The Sun patting itself on the back for 'helping' to keep Mark Chapman in prison recently struck me as particularly, well, feeble).

10:39 / 31.10.02

It might be fun to set up an investigative website uncovering the hypocrisy of tabloid reporters.

11:40 / 31.10.02

I heard from a few media people that there was more to the Deayton/coke/hooker story than was reported

They're well-practised at excusing themselves. One once told me the reason they produce rants about e.g. ""asylum seekers"" (double-double quotes intended) is to raise the political consciousness of the proletariat and to get them talking about current affairs. They were thereby an important public service. Ha ha!

Seriously though (?), sack everyone who's cheated and/or done a bit of charlie. It would practically empty the tube carriages of a morning and I'd have a nice, comfortable journey into work. Oh, wait a minute ...

08:41 / 05.11.02

Mmm … I tend to agree with Pepsi Max that the huge amount of Murdoch-owned media coverage is probably because Murdoch loaths the BBC, + what could be more BBC than Have I Got News For You? However, I think there is a more sinister side to all this, +that is the now unprecedented power of the tabloid media to make or break (usually break) anyone or anything it wants to at any time.

Our ‘lynch-mob tabloids’ are tolerated by the establishment, the government+other powerful institutions because, on the whole, they are right wing mouthpieces, often arch-defenders (+frequently instigators) of gutter politics+racist+sexist ideas. The media scream that our cherished “free speech” is under attack if even minor criticism is aired about their power, or if they are ticked off by the deliberately toothless Press Complaints Commission. Yet, how can we have a truly “free” media when it is owned by only a handful of multinationals?

The tabloid are the rotweilers who helped destroyed British socialism+is notorious for their hysterical “coverage” of trade unions, left-wing councils, asylum-seekers, womens groups, black groups, gays, lesbians+even single mums! They go where many right-wing politicians dare not because they are pretty much untouchable. How many careers have been destroyed by trial by tabloid? When was the last time a journalist, ANY journalist been exposed for anything?