Nick Davies-Flat Earth news

[DotCommunist]

this is a good book. I fuckin knew the papers were full of shit.

 

[agricola]

this is a good book. I fuckin knew the papers were full of shit.

It is a great book, but it does by the end feel like a really well written comprehensive exercise in shooting fish in a barrel. The Daily Mail bits are very scary though.

 

[belboid]

superb book, just finished it, exceedingly well written. The only weakness, imo, is actually in the most newsworthy section (well, its the one the papers are going on about), concenring the Observers' Alton & Ahmed. It relies almost entirely on 'my mates, who I can't name, at the Observer said he said...' which leaves Davies wide open to the kind of attack launched by Peter Preston in his review of the book in the Observer last week. I strongly suspect Davies is right and Preston is wrong in what he says, but none of us can really know, as we weren't there, and neither Alton or Ahmed are likely to admit their failings (unlike David rose, who did, fair play to him). The first six chapters are suoperb and really expose the massive weaknesses and failings of the media.

Five minutes to write a headline precis, a four paragraph story AND contact the main participants to check the facts? No wonder so much shit gets published.And the sheer number of 'spook stories' which get through is justscary.

 

[agricola]

Oddly enough, his one mention in the latest Eye is very negative, which is strange given the prominence it was afforded in the last couple of issues.

 

[belboid]

eh? the only mention I can see is of the Indie review - where the reviewer is slagged off for sucking up to Alton

 

[llantwit]

Oddly enough, his one mention in the latest Eye is very negative, which is strange given the prominence it was afforded in the last couple of issues.

Is that in this Eye (the one with Fayed on the cover) or the one before?

 

[agricola]

Is that in this Eye (the one with Fayed on the cover) or the one before?

sorry, just seen the two above posts - its in the Fayed one (1204), on page 10 just below the "crimewatch" cartoon

 

[laptop]

Oddly enough, his one mention in the latest Eye is very negative, which is strange given the prominence it was afforded in the last couple of issues.

The Eye, for all its merit as a necessary British Institution, blah de blah, also has the distinction of frequently doing a reverse ferret in less time than it takes a tabloid editor to get her trousers off.

 

[belboid]

it's written by a vast hoard of people, not all of whom share the same 'line' by any means, It frequently 'contradicts' itslef in such a way, and no harm in that. A lot of it is snobby wank that needs pricking.

Wish I'd read that bit about the 5 minutes to get a story up, before submitting my review of the book tho - it opens with the bit now being criticised as rather false. Aaah, well, hardly anyone will read both

 

[DotCommunist]

The black propaganda stuff is fairly sobering. I'm never believing anything in a newspaper ever again.