Am I poisoning the minds of the young?

I had an interesting Twitter exchange with former senior journalist at the News of the World, Jules Stenson, at the weekend.

To be fair, I started it when I tweeted the following:

If you were starting to feel sorry for tabloid journos, listen to ex NOTW hack Jules Stenson on Media Show Pod. What a turd #journalism

Stenson took great exception to this and replied. I have to say I am impressed by his dedication to Twitter – he does not follow me, my tweet was not retweeted and I didn’t tag him directly. One can only assume he regularly searches Twitter – and perhaps the internet at large – to see what people are writing and saying about him.

His reply:

@MBradbrook Your students must be proud to have such an articulate man as a lecturer.

First off I have to say. It’s a fair cop. I was not at my most eloquent when I described Stenson as a ‘turd’ – but then, in my defence, neither was I at my most inaccurate.

I should add that I don’t personally know him so perhaps I should amend my description to ‘professional turd’, because for all I know he might be lovely to kittens and a perfect delight in his home life.

What was it about his interview that irked me so? Well, it was his lack of honesty. By that I don’t mean that he outright lied but, like many tabloid journalists, he failed to tell the whole truth.

Two examples:

1) Hugh Grant was a legitimate target for press intrusion because he supported greater regulation of the press.

2) Steve Coogan was a legitimate target for press intrusion as he gave Piers Morgan a ‘laddish interview’ in which he talked about his private life.

What is the dishonesty here? Well how about:

1) Hugh Grant has had his private life ‘investigated’ by the tabloids for far longer than he has supported press regulation. It’s not a chicken and egg situation here people – he has been a topic of fascination for 15 years plus.

2) Likewise, Coogan has also been on the receiving end so often before the interview with Piers Morgan that it renders Stenson’s argument disingenuous in the extreme.

To be honest I was a little embarrassed at being caught descending to the level of name-calling but replied to Stenson as follows:

@julesstenson sometimes it's just best to tell it as it is. There are worse crimes in #journalism than a lack of articulation

He was on no mood to debate journalistic crimes however and went on the offensive:

@MBradbrook Staggered they let you teach journalism.

Presuming ‘they’ to be the University of Gloucestershire (my employer) it seems an incredible statement to make on the basis of a 140 character tweet. But then again, doesn’t that just sum up the issues with tabloid journalism? No research, no analysis just a snap judgement.

But no problem , I thought. I’m better than this so I invited Stenson to debate the issue at the University of Gloucestershire – I’m sure that while he was here he could probably even find a couple of students willing to describe me ‘a turd’ just to add balance.

But no. Debate was not high on Stenson’s agenda:

@MBradbrook You just carry on filling young minds at the University of Gloucs with poison and feel very proud of yourself.

Poison! Many of my students will be willing to testify that I fill their minds with boredom but poison seems a bit strong. Perhaps he thinks that Grant, Coogan and myself are to form a lunatic fringe of the Leveson Inquiry and start firebombing the temples of St Rupert?

Not a bad idea. Perhaps then we’ll get the journalism we deserve rather than the patronising, celebrity-filled, dishonest tat that gets served up right now.

What’s Stenson up to now? Well he’s tweeting about Christopher Jefferies of course. He’s tweeting about the most undeserving victim of press intrusion and monstering in history.



What a nice man.

Mind you. I am smiling because I have written the name Stenson so often now that all I can think of is Fenton, the deer-herding labrador.

15 comments:

  1. One observation straightaway - like who are you? How can you teach journalism when you failed at it yourself? Too many nobody's trying to become somebody's through Leveson/Hacking debate - you are a case in point.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for taking the time to comment Anonymous. You and I obviously have a different definition of failure.

    I'm not too sure how this blog will make me a somebody but if you have suggestions I'd be pleased to hear them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am intrigued at how someone like you thinks he can sit in judgement of hard-working journalists when you're not fit to lace their boots? Or for that matter clean their turd. Your criticism quite clearly stems from your own bitterness at becoming a two bob lecturer at some mickey mouse college rather than a real journalist.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is this a different Anonymous or the same one? So difficult to tell when one doesn't have the courage of their convictions to put their name - or even be bothered to come with a decent fake name!

    My reply would be that I am a reader and as such I have the right to comment and judge to my heart's content. I understand that it is hurtful to be criticised (however constructively) but I'm afraid tabloid hacks will have to toughen up and take it on the chin.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I just had sex with a horse!

    ReplyDelete
  7. How can someone sit in judgement from the side-lines and criticise hard-working teachers. The commenter's criticism clearly stems from bitterness at becoming a turd.

    As an aside, I'm not sure what "clean their turd" means. Is it some kind of journalist thing? I mean, I can imagine an editor looking at some tabloid stories and saying "[the journalist] better clean that turd".

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Spudman101 I think everyone knows you can't clean (or at the very least, polish) a turd. Perhaps Anonymous means I am not fit to roll their turds in glitter?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I just had sex with another horse! I am the king of horse-sexing!

    ReplyDelete
  10. In response to 'anonymous'. I would imagine that this 'two bob college' will create scholars and professionals alike that will be stated into careers that will require them to spend more time successfully working and paying takes than sitting alone and afraid on a laptop spinning insults at someone with clearly more useful opinion than you have manhood.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "some mickey mouse college" - I don't think so anonymous! For one, UoG is a university, not a college. Get your facts right.
    And secondly, "two bob lecturer"; that Malcolm isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Are your students aware that nobody has ever heard of you?

    Do they know that the person lecturing them is a complete and utter nobody in this industry?

    And what's all this "turd" business?

    Teach them a longer word... like charlatan.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks for your comment News Editor.

    If you are indeed a news editor then you have my respect - very hard job, especially in these difficult economic times.

    Probably to respond fully I would have to better define your understanding of the term 'industry'. Do you mean journalism as a whole? National journalism? Tabloid journalism? Or perhaps even more specific, the News of the World Industry?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I imagine the vast majority of students know a far more extravagant way of insulting someone online than describing them as a turd...

    ReplyDelete