|
silvanthalas
Registered: 07/23/07
Posts: 118
|
 Monday, August 27 2007 @ 03:02 PM EDT |
|
Just a question for you guys, as I am still catching up on episodes of Podshock. Often, when a casting rumor comes along, it's from a tabloid such as the Sun.
Not surprisingly, you guys dismiss them out of hand.
Here I am, listening to episode 82, with the story breaking that Freema was leaving the show. Ken, on cue, completely dismisses the story saying "She's not going anywhere".
And, well, she left the show. Not permanent, but she's still gone.
So, and I'm going to need to take a very cold shower after saying this, at what point do you guys stop dismissing everything out of hand that the tabloids report?
Yeah, there's a lot of crap, but they do get it right now and then. And I don't think the situation is quite so extreme that you're looking for a needle in a haystack when it comes to valid stories. |
|
|
|
|
| |
MikeD
Registered: 01/19/06
Posts: 403
|
| Monday, August 27 2007 @ 03:26 PM EDT |
|
Indeed. I think you'll find that pretty much every major happening of the new series was predicted/reported in the tabloids (usually the Sun) well before it happened. Not everything the Sun prints about Doctor Who turns out to be true but almost every story does have at least a sliver in there that turns out to be based on something true.
We were talking about this once and I think it was Sara Nathan that I cited as often being right on top of things.
Mike |
|
"There are some corners of the universe which have bred the most terrible things. Things which act against everything we believe in. They must be fought."
|
|
|
| |
merlin_mccarley
Registered: 07/30/06
Posts: 733
|
| Monday, August 27 2007 @ 03:51 PM EDT |
|
When news breaks in a Tabloid AND The BBC OFFICALLY DENIES it then, and only then do we KNOW IT'S TRUE  .
Sad but very true,
Mike M. |
|
I'm a Time Traveler, I point and laugh at archaeologist.
|
|
|
| |
Louis
Registered: 01/01/04
Posts: 3075
|
| Monday, August 27 2007 @ 04:10 PM EDT |
|
The reports that Freema was being "fired" were rubbish... but yeah, there was a shred of truth about her "leaving" -- albeit only briefly... and in a sense, she will still be "in the Doctor Who family" -- just in Torchwood while she is away from the programme proper.
Cheers,
Louis |
|
☛ Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LouisTrapani ♥ ♥
|
|
|
| |
MikeD
Registered: 01/19/06
Posts: 403
|
| Monday, August 27 2007 @ 04:24 PM EDT |
|
The (temporary) departure of Freema from the series cannot really be described in black and white terms. She was not fired and she did not quit. However if you absolutely had to pick one of those th truth is far closer to former than the latter. So while it did not turn out to be true that Freema was fired from Doctor Who it is the case that the departure and reduced role was not necessarily her choice.
Mike |
|
"There are some corners of the universe which have bred the most terrible things. Things which act against everything we believe in. They must be fought."
|
|
|
| |
silvanthalas
Registered: 07/23/07
Posts: 118
|
| Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 12:29 AM EDT |
|
Alright, good answers all around.
I just found the situation amusing after it would come up every podcast or three, and then some of the stuff ended up being partially true, if not spot on.  |
|
|
|
|
| |
Tom Hagen
Registered: 04/22/07
Posts: 31
|
| Wednesday, August 29 2007 @ 02:42 AM EDT |
|
| [Quote by: MikeD] The (temporary) departure of Freema from the series cannot really be described in black and white terms. She was not fired and she did not quit. However if you absolutely had to pick one of those th truth is far closer to former than the latter. |
|
Yes, but you don't have to pick one or the other. You could report the truth, or not cover it at all.
Tabloids sometimes get it right. They sometimes get it wrong with a sliver of truth. And they sometimes talk utter nonsense. The BIG problem is that at the time the story is reported there's absolutely no way of knowing which of those three categories a story falls into. Which is why its right to dismiss tabloid stories until we learn something further.
Saying Freema was fired is not getting it nearly right about the situation - its getting it wrong. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Louis
Registered: 01/01/04
Posts: 3075
|
| Wednesday, August 29 2007 @ 11:38 AM EDT |
|
For the most part, anytime there is a "news story" which source originates from a tabloid, we never report the "news story" as news, but rather we report to our listeners that the tabloid is reporting it. We always give our listeners the fact that we are stating that a tabloid is reporting a particular story... and let everyone know that you have to 'take it with a grain of salt' so to speak. Listeners can take it for what it is, something a tabloid is reporting... in other words, take it all with a measure of healthy skepticism.
Cheers,
Louis |
|
☛ Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LouisTrapani ♥ ♥
|
|
|
| |
MikeD
Registered: 01/19/06
Posts: 403
|
| Wednesday, August 29 2007 @ 02:20 PM EDT |
|
[Quote by: Tom Hagen]Yes, but you don't have to pick one or the other. You could report the truth, or not cover it at all.
Tabloids sometimes get it right. They sometimes get it wrong with a sliver of truth. And they sometimes talk utter nonsense. The BIG problem is that at the time the story is reported there's absolutely no way of knowing which of those three categories a story falls into. Which is why its right to dismiss tabloid stories until we learn something further.
Saying Freema was fired is not getting it nearly right about the situation - its getting it wrong. |
|
Having a knee jerk reaction that a story must be untrue because it appears in a tabloid is also wrong. Especially since so often it turns out that the story was true.
The headline on the Freema story is sensational and meant to sell papers. I will not defend that but it is reality and it's not only tabloids who do it. "Freema Demoted" or "Freema Pushed Aside for Bigger Star (TBA)" would have been more accurate in retrospect but it's tough to know what was known or even decided on at the time about her future involvement with the series.
Criticizing a paper for over sensationalizing a story is one thing but saying that because it is from a tabloid it must be untrue is something else.
Part of the problem here is the term tabloid. It has all sorts of connotations and is considered by some to be a pejorative. There are all sorts of tabloids and they are not all the same thing. It's a common bond that tabloids are often by their nature sensational but to very different degrees. People in different countries will not always know the context of a particular paper and will have the same reaction regardless of the paper.
The Independent is not the Daily Sport, The Sun (UK) is not the News of the World just as The New York Post is not the National Enquirer...but they are all tabloids. Some people just hear the word and they automatically assume it's from the bottom of the pile.
My point is not to defend sensational headlines but that I agree with silvanthalas that we should not be so quick to dismiss stories just because of the format of the newspaper, especially when every major change over the last few years has in fact been accurately predicted by a tabloid.
Mike |
|
"There are some corners of the universe which have bred the most terrible things. Things which act against everything we believe in. They must be fought."
|
|
|
| |
Tom Hagen
Registered: 04/22/07
Posts: 31
|
| Thursday, August 30 2007 @ 03:19 AM EDT |
|
| [Quote by: MikeD] Having a knee jerk reaction that a story must be untrue because it appears in a tabloid is also wrong. |
|
It's not a knee-jerk reaction that it "wrong" - its a knee-jerk reaction that because it is in a tabloid, it cannot be trusted.
| [Quote Especially since so often it turns out that the story was true. |
|
And the same applies in reverse - its right not to trust the tabloids because so often it turns out that they misreported the story or simply made something up.
That's why we didn't just have the Doctor played by Paul Daniels regenerate in James Nesbitt, alongside his ex-Hollyoaks companion - as they faced a waxwork dummy of David Beckham in alliance with Joan Collins.
| [Quote Criticizing a paper for over sensationalizing a story is one thing but saying that because it is from a tabloid it must be untrue is something else. |
|
I'm not saying that. I am saying that because it is in a tabloid like The Sun - then it shouldn't be trusted because they've made stuff up or got stuff wrong. The Freema headline was wrong.
"Sensationalising" in this case meant making stuff up! Its impossible to know how they came to that story - likely because they got a leak of the final scenes in the script and put 2+2 together to make 5 - so its impossible to know how well it can be trusted.
I think what Podshock does makes sense - report the story but cite the source. The origin of a story in the Sun should make you skeptical! Unless David Bowie is playing an alien abductor in an Agatha Christie two-parter!
|
|
|
|
|
| |
