Heard him on radio 4 yesterday morning on this very subject.
He has no answer to one simple question.
"How cost effective are advertisements placed in Newspapers that are currently running hostile and critical articles about your business"
He sounded slightly deranged on the radio. He has a personal crusade against the Barclay Brothers, owners of the paper.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 19 Feb 15 at 10:15
|
>> He has a personal crusade against the Blacks, owners of the paper.
!!Update alert.
!!Update alert.
Barclay brothers.
|
Damn meant the Barclays!!!!
I can't update it because you replied!
|
Peter Oborne: consistent in all he says:
D Cameron is great,, no he's pants. About a month apart iirc.
He rants well.
|
>> Damn meant the Barclays!!!!
>> I can't update it because you replied!
Edited for you.
|
>> Or maybe it's not just him...
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31529682
Or maybe heresay and coincidences bigged up to try and justify the BBCs original article.
Or maybe everyone conveniently forgets that a newspaper is a commercial operation designed to make money.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 19 Feb 15 at 11:12
|
Latest Private Eye has a good article about the Telegraph facts avoidance in their Street of Shame page......
....the nub being that the outcome has left HSBC happy but the paper,s editorial integrity in tatters...as an earlier story about the bank had led to an advertising boycott by the bank costing the Telegraph a million pounds in lost revenue.
|
Quote
In February 2015, Oborne wrote an article for The Spectator, arguing that the Labour leader Ed Miliband had been a consistent and strong leader of the Opposition. In particular, he stated that, like Margaret Thatcher, Miliband has forged his own course, changing the terms of the debate on big business, foreign policy, Israel-Palestine and the power of the Murdoch press.[22] He also stated that Miliband is the most accomplished Opposition leader since the Second World War.
He is clearly deluded.
|
|
He must be thinking of someone else.
|
"a newspaper is a commercial operation designed to make money. "
Yes of course it is. A serious newspaper does however have to maintain credibility with its readership to maintain sales figures and exposure to a a sophisticiated readership is after all what its advertisers are seeking to buy.
Once it becomes known that a paper is easily open to censorship by its advertisers all credibility is lost sales and will fall. It's a difficult balance that a serious newspaper needs to maintain. I fear that the Telegraph is descending a slippery slope.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Thu 19 Feb 15 at 12:08
|
>> A serious newspaper does however have to maintain credibility with its readership to maintain sales figures and exposure to a a sophisticiated readership is after all what its advertisers are seeking to buy.>>
That applies to ANY newspaper. Journalists should never be influenced by advertising related matters and a responsible editor will stand by them if and when necessary.
|
Anyone but anyone who believes anything a newspaper writes and does not check on other sources is a naive idiot..
With the internet, checking is easy: and paper sales are slowly collapsing.
The DT is just a way of selling advertising... as are most papers.
I stopped buying it a year ago: since then it has gone downhill.
Obergine was a ranter.
Last edited by: madf on Thu 19 Feb 15 at 13:53
|
but what these "other sources" to which you refer? TV News companies, other newspapers government spokesmen? They are hardly neutral dispassionate sources of information themselves. Newspapers have always played a vital role in a democracy. Thieir disappearance would be a disaster.
|
>> Anyone but anyone who believes anything a newspaper writes and does not check on other sources is a naive idiot..
I wish I was as tough-minded and sceptical as you madf. It would save me quite a lot of money since the comic costs a small fortune. But you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
I have a soft spot for Peter Oborne. He's tough-minded too, but has an endearing soppy side. I can only agree with him on the ghastly Barclay brothers, but what's new? I can't think of a single newspaper proprietor who wasn't/isn't an utter toerag.
And there's the rub: hacks are paid by these people and have to take orders from them or lose their jobs. Not all hacks will find other work as easily as Oborne will.
All the print media have been going downhill for some time. It's because people can't read but think they understand pictures. However the electronic media are generally just as bad or worse. And frankly I think the internet is a thoroughly unreliable source of hard news. Some things are easy to find and check, others surprisingly difficult.
|
www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/19/telegraph-250m-loan-hsbc-editorial-changes-yodel
The owners of the Daily Telegraph secured a £250m loan from HSBC for a struggling corner of their business empire shortly before the newspaper’s reporters were allegedly “discouraged†from running articles critical of the bank, the Guardian has learned.
The timing of the loan deal for Yodel, a loss-making parcel delivery firm owned by the Barclay brothers, raises fresh questions over the influence of commercial considerations on the Telegraph’s editorial coverage of HSBC.
|
in the 1930s the UK press bowed to political pressures and did not report the affair of Mrs Simpson and the Prince of Wales.
Now they don't report commercial issues.
So what's new?
|
Tax dodging press cover up - Zero
