They Don't call them hacks for nothing.

As someone who has considered a future in journalism (although my spelling and grammar will need a lot of work) it comes a no surprise to me that the hacking scandal is now spreading to other papers apart from the News of the World. This has now been going on, for what seems like, time immemorial. Will it ever end? How did anyone not think that the NOWT (i understand that this is acceptable) were using underhand tactics is beyond me, it is, sorry was, full of trash, stories that no one would really like to admit to and most of it definitely would not come under the heading of news. It has long been a fact that tabloids as well as the broadsheets would pay rewards for stories, probably bribes for leads and have had a close relationship with the fuzz (or police if you will), all to help with circulation numbers. Toady a man won a settlement to be paid compensation by eight newspapers because of the reports that he was a murderer, a line feed to the papers by the Bristol police, and the number of papers is also expected to increase. This seems to be just another sign of irresponsible reporting by some of the national papers.

At the head of the hacking scandal is what i consider to be the lowest of the low papers (apart from the Sunday sport (a newspaper?)). Although I know people who read it I must always ask myself why. This dirt is now spreading to papers such as the Daily Mirror with the most hated figure of Piers Morgan rearing his head. Could this be a witch hunt for some of the most hated men in the mass media? Well if it is i can’t blame them. So why did the NOWT and, supposedly, other papers use such underhand tactics and why O why did the NOWT hack the phones of the victims of the 9/11 tragedy? The answer dear friend is readership. These kind of stories sell the paper, these stories are what you want to read. Aren’t they? Well I can only really answer for myself, in which case the answer is no. I really don’t care about many of these stories that came from the hacking scandal, the only story I care about is the hacking scandal, exposed wonderfully by some pure investigative journalism by the guardian. The stories that came from phone hacking are much the same as the stories that were covered by the recent ‘super injunction’ fiasco. Stories about who is sleeping with who and so on and so forth, then again I suppose this is exactly the kind of place that the gutter press should be in.

So what is the answer? Greater regulation? An independent board much like OFCOM? I don’t think so. These kind of solutions in many ways will challenge the freedom of the press, self regulation then seems to be the way forward, self regulation with an enforced greater transparency. Tell us at least how information was gathered, trawling through bins, interviews, paid informants, whatever, just tell us and tell us that it is legal even if it is a bit underhand.

And now it has been announced that the police, and soon I guess the FBI, are launching a new investigation into the computer hacking that has allegedly been taking place and all to bring us the ground breaking stories of who is sleeping with who. With that kind of in-depth investigative Journalism I am surprised GRAZIA hasn't been frayed into this whole episode.

Just one more thing, it has been announced today (friday the 29/07/2011) that as of next year the BBC will no longer be the main holder of the F1 rights in the UK and that sky will now be showing every race live and the BBC will only have every other race. This I think is a real shame and a little of a strange decision on the part of the F1 rights holder. Why would you change a sport that relies on viewer numbers for the sponsorship etc to a pay channel and whats worse one that has adverts, I mean adverts in the middle of a race how stupid. I hope that this decision gets over turned by FOTA as it seems to me that this is in breech of the concord agreement between the F1 teams and the FIA and Bernie Ecclestone. Wankers!!!!!

THAT IS ALL.

and now, you lucky sods, TODAYS RECIPE.

Hot Spicy Asian Broth.

Create a stock base with chicken bones, half an onion, two mushrooms, salt and pepper a stalk of celery and a hand full of kaffir lime leaves. Bring to the boil and simmer for roughly twenty minutes then add dried chilli flakes, a really large pinch, and simmer for a further five minutes. Pass through muslin and keep the stock. Fry onion and garlic with 3 fresh chilli's, when the onions are caramelised add enough stock for a bowl of soup, and reheat, strain the stock and discard the onion etc and add cooked noodles to the stock ( in a bowl) add some sliced spring onion and a few drops of sesame oil to garnish. To make a mightier soup you could add some nice shredded lemon chicken.

And the award goes to....

And the award goes to.

So another day another dollar, or in the correct parlance, another pound. So what could get to me today you wonder! Well I tell you, it's this countries appetite for celebrity stories. Why O why do I give a crap if a certain footballer ( I understand an injunction is still in place) sleeps with some bit of nonsense off of a shitty channel four poop hole of a program. I know this comes kind of late in the day for such a rant but still it is shocking. What is so special about these people that they should be hounded? Where does 'in the public interest' come in? Yes the 'public' maybe interested but is this information important? Is it really in the interest of the public? Is this information for the public good? What difference does It make to my life if a kicker of inflated pigs bladders goes sleeping around? I would more like to kick his inflated ego until it's a bloody pulp!

         I'm not saying that I agree with so called super injunctions, not if they get in the way of of something that the public has a right to know. Something like a corruption case involving public officials or public funds but if these injunctions protect a private citizen's rights to a bit of peace and quiet while they try to sort things out then that is a worthy purpose surely. How would you feel if the local rag reported on how many number twos you do in one day. (2)

        In the case of this well published case of the urine bag kicker and a Miss something or other it is reported that the injunction was taken out to avoid blackmail. If that was the case why not file a charge of blackmail? The case would not have been allowed to be reported on and the press would have still been gagged but following a correct and fair procedure. 

        The real reason behind this recent farce is the publics unending need to know all the ins and outs of any semi-famous persons ins and outs. In the case of the footballer it is not as if he choose the limelight, football is what he is good at, it is not his fault that football happens to be the nations favourite sport, even though we are pretty bad at it. If I am good at accountancy ( which I am not) would it be my fault to enter that profession? All I am saying that being a celebrity because of being good at something is not the same as being a celebrity for being a celebrity i.e Jordan or someone else of that ilk. These people need the investigation into their private life in much the same way as I require food to live, without it they will die the torrid death of the forgotten and their natural home is inside the pages of tabloids, the home of the terrible, dull, unintelligent and needy. 

So just remember that footballers are footballers and accounts are accounts. They are not role models they do not choose to be stared at and interrogated by plebs who feel they have a right to judge, they just do what they do. If you really are interested in the lives of the famous then read tabloids and read the stories placed by the managers of the 'celebrity celebrity' let them have the limelight they crave and keep all this kind of chatter out of my view. 


THAT IS All.