Fairly famous person becomes a father for the first time. The newspapers cover it. Fair enough. The punters are provided with a diet of trivia. This is understood. Nothing new there. But, in the case of the birth of a child, can't it be left at a simple reporting of the bare facts? The child's name, birth weight and the fact that mum and baby are doing well. That sort of thing. Isn't that enough? Even in the case of parents who court publicity? Just for common decency's sake? Because it's a special and unique time when perhaps it's in poor taste to use the story to make a point or to poke fun? Right?
No, not for the sort of bloody awful 'papers we have in this country.
Consider the recent arrival in this world of the first-born son of Ms. Georgia McNeil and Mr. Joey Barton, captain of QPR. According to the Daily Mirror, the fact that the boy's name is Cassius "has caused eye-rolling at the registrar's (sic) office". Really? Those of us who are parents will recall that a visit to a register office (get it right, you lazy tabloid hacks) is not something that is usually done within just a few hours of the birth. So, nameless hack at the Mirror, whose eyes have actually rolled? At which register office? Which registrar has been unprofessional enough to comment on a couple's choice of baby name? What is his or her name and when did you do the interview? Ah. So there hasn't been any "eye-rolling" at any register office, then? It was just a crap rhetorical device in your hastily written article? Why do you do that, though? Why just make up imaginary incidents? Is the truth not enough to work with?
Oh, and I see your article claims that Barton's son was named after Cassius Clay. But that hasn't actually been properly confirmed yet, has it? It's just an educated guess isn't it? While it might be true, you are reporting as fact something about which you're not actually certain, right? If you'd been listening in your journalism classes, you would remember that you can hedge your bets simply by inserting a modal verb such as might or could into your sentence. After all, some hacks have mastered this simple technique. On the same day that your piece came out, an unnamed Daily Mail reporter noted that "it is not yet known why the name Cassius has been chose (sic), although Barton is a boxing fan so it could be in reference to former heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali, who was born Cassius Clay."
The Mail, however, was also guilty of making up imaginary details when reporting the birth of Cassius Barton. In a separate article, Kirsty McCormack alleged that though "he's known for his bad boy behaviour... even Joey Barton's fans were shocked when he opted to play in a game while his girlfriend went into labour."
Guess what? Not a single "fan" of Joey Barton is named or quoted. If Ms. McCormack really did find any such "fans" who were "shocked", perhaps she'd be kind enough to name them and let us know when she conducted the interviews. Ahead of such proof being provided, let's just assume in the meantime that she was just inventing this detail of her story. It also seems odd that anyone might have been shocked when a careful reading of McCormack's own article suggests that the real sequence of events probably went more like this:
Why can't tabloid hacks just stick to the facts? Are they absolutely determined to be among the most despised people in the country? A year of Hackgate revelations and the embarrassingly shambolic TV performances of Paul McMullan have done nothing to moderate the routine habit of lying for a living, it seems.
Those of us who are not famous are quite fortunate in some respects. When we experience the joy of a first child coming into the world, we don't have a national newspaper guessing why the kid's name was chosen, even if we tweet about the birth, as more and more new parents doubtless choose to do these days. We also don't have to endure snide comments about our motives around the timing of the new father's arrival at the hospital.
Regarding Barton sr., we supporters of Queens Park Rangers will presumably all be hoping that the new arrival is not causing sleep loss to point of our skipper being tired and listless on the pitch later today. Coming away from the Emirates Stadium with even a single point looks like a big ask. But success away at Arsenal on New Year's Eve is not without precedent. Cast your mind back to December 31st 1994. Gunners fans were pleased to see the goal-shy John Jensen finally hit the back of the net. They were less pleased by the goals from Messrs. Allen, Gallen and Impey. A great day. Oh what fun it was to see the Rangers win away. More of the same, please, with Barton running to the away supporters to lead one of those 'rock the baby' goal celebrations.
U RRRRRRRRRRRRRRssssssssssssssssss
No, not for the sort of bloody awful 'papers we have in this country.
Consider the recent arrival in this world of the first-born son of Ms. Georgia McNeil and Mr. Joey Barton, captain of QPR. According to the Daily Mirror, the fact that the boy's name is Cassius "has caused eye-rolling at the registrar's (sic) office". Really? Those of us who are parents will recall that a visit to a register office (get it right, you lazy tabloid hacks) is not something that is usually done within just a few hours of the birth. So, nameless hack at the Mirror, whose eyes have actually rolled? At which register office? Which registrar has been unprofessional enough to comment on a couple's choice of baby name? What is his or her name and when did you do the interview? Ah. So there hasn't been any "eye-rolling" at any register office, then? It was just a crap rhetorical device in your hastily written article? Why do you do that, though? Why just make up imaginary incidents? Is the truth not enough to work with?
Oh, and I see your article claims that Barton's son was named after Cassius Clay. But that hasn't actually been properly confirmed yet, has it? It's just an educated guess isn't it? While it might be true, you are reporting as fact something about which you're not actually certain, right? If you'd been listening in your journalism classes, you would remember that you can hedge your bets simply by inserting a modal verb such as might or could into your sentence. After all, some hacks have mastered this simple technique. On the same day that your piece came out, an unnamed Daily Mail reporter noted that "it is not yet known why the name Cassius has been chose (sic), although Barton is a boxing fan so it could be in reference to former heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali, who was born Cassius Clay."
The Mail, however, was also guilty of making up imaginary details when reporting the birth of Cassius Barton. In a separate article, Kirsty McCormack alleged that though "he's known for his bad boy behaviour... even Joey Barton's fans were shocked when he opted to play in a game while his girlfriend went into labour."
Guess what? Not a single "fan" of Joey Barton is named or quoted. If Ms. McCormack really did find any such "fans" who were "shocked", perhaps she'd be kind enough to name them and let us know when she conducted the interviews. Ahead of such proof being provided, let's just assume in the meantime that she was just inventing this detail of her story. It also seems odd that anyone might have been shocked when a careful reading of McCormack's own article suggests that the real sequence of events probably went more like this:
- Ms. McNeil checked into hospital on Boxing Day
- Joey Barton went to Swansea to play in QPR's 1-1 draw there
- the match ended
- Ms. McNeil went into labour
- Barton headed to the hospital and was there in time for the birth
Why can't tabloid hacks just stick to the facts? Are they absolutely determined to be among the most despised people in the country? A year of Hackgate revelations and the embarrassingly shambolic TV performances of Paul McMullan have done nothing to moderate the routine habit of lying for a living, it seems.
Those of us who are not famous are quite fortunate in some respects. When we experience the joy of a first child coming into the world, we don't have a national newspaper guessing why the kid's name was chosen, even if we tweet about the birth, as more and more new parents doubtless choose to do these days. We also don't have to endure snide comments about our motives around the timing of the new father's arrival at the hospital.
Regarding Barton sr., we supporters of Queens Park Rangers will presumably all be hoping that the new arrival is not causing sleep loss to point of our skipper being tired and listless on the pitch later today. Coming away from the Emirates Stadium with even a single point looks like a big ask. But success away at Arsenal on New Year's Eve is not without precedent. Cast your mind back to December 31st 1994. Gunners fans were pleased to see the goal-shy John Jensen finally hit the back of the net. They were less pleased by the goals from Messrs. Allen, Gallen and Impey. A great day. Oh what fun it was to see the Rangers win away. More of the same, please, with Barton running to the away supporters to lead one of those 'rock the baby' goal celebrations.
U RRRRRRRRRRRRRRssssssssssssssssss
Back to TOP
0 comments:
Post a Comment