The Diana non-story continues
Like most rational human beings, I gave up on the Princess Diana “story” a long time ago. Although my very first reaction when I heard about her death was to assume that the secret services had bumped her off, the idea of the Duke of Edinburgh as some sort of murderous eminence grise is simply not credible.
So I reckon Roy Greenslade’s call for editors to stop reporting the increasingly tedious Diana Inquest is probably quite timely.
But it seems to me there is a slightly deeper issue here to do with the nature of modern journalism which I am surprised that Greenslade, as a media commentator, does not address more fully. It concerns what I would term “journalism without context.”
Only this week, for instance, we have witnessed newspapers and broadcasters alike getting all excited over the second-hand “revelations” from the Princess’s allies that she did not think Charles would become King, ignoring the fact that this ground was extensively covered by the Princess herself in her notorious 1995 Panorama interview.
Similarly, there has been much made in recent days of the infamous “Mishcon letter” in which the Princess aired the fear that her car would be tampered with in order to cause her to have an “accident.” This too has been in the public domain for a number of years.
Maybe the press and broadcasting organisations think that the British public really does have the attention span of a gnat, and that after a certain amount of time has elapsed, any old rubbish can be presented as news on the basis that we’d all have forgotten about it first time round. Maybe they are adopting a “year zero” approach to journalism, where everything that happened before a given date is simply ignored.
I have known this to happen on papers, for instance when the editor changes, and unscrupulous news eds try to hoodwink the new guy by presenting an old story as freshly-minted.
Or maybe it’s just that news organisations everywhere are still in thrall to the idea – almost certainly mistaken if the sales figures of the Daily Express are anything to go by – that Diana still sells papers.
(cross-posted from my blog)
---------------------------
| Tweet |
Paul Linford is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He is a digital publishing manager and former Parliamentary Lobby journalist where he was political editor of the Newcastle Journal for seven years. He has an 18-year career in newspaper journalism and lives in Belper, Derbyshire, with his wife and two children. A committed Christian, his faith informs his own belief in progressive politics and the view that a society must always be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members. His eponymous blog combines a mixture of the personal and the political and has become particularly renowned for its commentaries on liberal-left politics. He is also a leading voice in support of an English Parliament and other democratic reforms. Also at: Paul Linford blog
· Other posts by Paul Linford
Story Filed Under: Blog ,Media
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
Fair point and I don’t believe in any conspiracy either. I mean, if you want to kill someone you blow them up and blame terrorists, right? Cars, tunnels, press etc. All waaaay too complicated.
But then again I don’t believe it shouldn’t be reported. It seems like a highly important hearing and if it achieves nothing more than burying conspiracies then I welcome it.
How about, instead, not reporting Britney Spears or anything related to reality tv?
Our man comment. Why is it a highly important hearing. What about other issues? For instance; Talk about Global warming and recycling. What has the true consuption and and unnecessary use of resources been to follow this very unnecessary debacle. Common sense , as you intimate in you opening paragraph, is a reasonable indicator that you would need to be some fantastic genius to orchestrate a car accident, in a tunnel that would be terminal for it;s occupants! That also presupposes that you the when, where how etc. to ensure it went like clockwork. How much evidence do people need. More importantly want.
Phil Mathers
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Nine things you can do to halt Lansley’s destruction of our NHS
» Incidents like this shame us all
» Taxpayers Alliance want to cut taxes, mostly for the rich
» We’re turning The Spirit Level into a film: help us in that goal
» I love the counter-productive attitude of right-wing commentators
» Watch out for the TPA’s report arguing for more cuts tomorrow
» The resurgence of bigoted conservatism in Ireland
» What’s the point of being ‘British’?
» The tragedy behind the Sam Hallam case
» Will JP Morgan be able to walk away from billion dollar losses?
» Labour is now even more reliant on left-wing voters
|
9 Comments 12 Comments 52 Comments 38 Comments 19 Comments 13 Comments 30 Comments 116 Comments 25 Comments 33 Comments |
LATEST COMMENTS » vimothy posted on Public DOES want gay marriage, Lords reform » Robin Levett posted on Incidents like this shame us all » BenM posted on Funny bits of TPA report you probably missed » Shatterface posted on Incidents like this shame us all » MarkAustin posted on Economic credibility: Tories & Labour (chart) » Robin Levett posted on Public DOES want gay marriage, Lords reform » Robin Levett posted on Public DOES want gay marriage, Lords reform » Shatterface posted on Frank Field wrong on workless households » Mr Grunt posted on Incidents like this shame us all » Planeshift posted on Incidents like this shame us all » vimothy posted on We're turning The Spirit Level into a film: help us in that goal » vimothy posted on Public DOES want gay marriage, Lords reform » Mr Grunt posted on Incidents like this shame us all » Luis Enrique posted on Incidents like this shame us all » Planeshift posted on I love the counter-productive attitude of right-wing commentators |










