c4countdown

As I'm sure you'll have noticed, there's been something of an alteration in the way that news is reported, particularly when it comes to headlines. In the past, it was only the tabloids that went with stuff like this (to take the most famous one):



Now it seems that "serious" newspapers are getting in on the act. My recent favourite - carried seemingly by all the news sources - has to be Noel Edmonds phoned my cat.

But there's more:

People In Pig Masks Terrorise Pokemon Go Players With Lasers Before Having Sex At A Local Landmark

Frozen foods shop Iceland might be forced to change name as country says it's considering lawsuit

Unlikely 'bromance' between goat and tiger soon to end as mating season approaches

And there's loads more out there. It's undoubtedly motivated by the power of clickbait, but I wonder where it'll all end? It's certainly changed since the David Cameron pig story (which was generally subtitled quite demurely), and that was only about a year ago. Where's it going to go next?

Sheep Attacks Rocket.

Well C J de Mooi questioned over twelve bodies in Amsterdam takes some beating

(Obviously totally made up - astonishing that they're legally allowed to get away with publishing what they do, but here's some insight)

Not my favourite headline - that will always go to this one - but that one's not so weird. Just hilarious.

Jennifer Steadman wrote:...(Obviously totally made up - astonishing that they're legally allowed to get away with publishing what they do, but here's some insight)

Thing is, the Sunday Sport doesn't operate in the same way as normal news sources (not that it is one). Like the National Enquirer in the USA, it publishes anything and everything - almost always the invention of their contributors, whether true or not - because they know that they can't be sued; it's assumed that everyone knows that their stories are mainly fantasy. The ones that might actually be libellous never involve anyone of note and due to this country's absurd legal system, they won't sue because they can't afford to do so. And if they do involve people in the public eye who have the money to potentially sue - which are very rare - if you read the stories, they're always worded in a way that implies that the "story" is untrue anyway. And so, anyone attempting legal action against them would just make themselves look daft and would be laughed out of court in ten seconds flat. So no-one does it.

More intriguing, I think, is the way that the mainstream newspapers get away with similar things (the Daily Mail and The Sun are especially good at it). To take a recent example: the Elton John/David Furnish/anal sex/oil baths with various folk story (the precise details I'd rather not explore). The story was true and was backed up by a whole host of protagonists and others who - while not getting directly involved, so to speak - were there and could potentially give testimony within the English court system. So Elton instigated an injunction against it being reported in the English media (that it was widely reported in Scotland and elsewhere made it even better; despite his injunction, everyone who wanted to know about it could find out the details easily). But the English press couldn't directly report it, so instead they went with similar stories - "exposes" of "male brothels" and "dens of iniquity" - and casually peppered such stories with the names Elton John and David Furnish instead, without directly making a causal link.

Once you realise the method, a lot of what are - on the surface - bland news articles become a lot more interesting.