Rita Skeeter - the background in the British Press (Longish)

[junediamanti]

No: HPFGUIDX 82598

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "msbeadsley" <msbeadsley at y...> 
wrote:
>> She wasn't about to write about narrowly averted disasters (unless
> they were averted by the Ministry). She wants to sell papers, and 
the
> atmosphere then is one where denial of any activity by LV is the 
> party line. The idea is to titillate readers, not scare them 
silly. 
> The flipside: didn't Neville say, when he expressed solidarity 
with 
> Harry, that his grandmother had stopped taking The Daily Prophet? 
In 
> most other households, any suggestion that LV was back would have 
> been grounds to cancel their subscription. Or so the paper 
thought, 
> anyway. With Fudge and the Ministry acknowledging, the party line 
has 
> changed.

...(Snip)
>> Of course she did. People love dirt, and watching other people 
fall 
> from grace into it. It makes them feel so superior and sage. They 
eat 
> it right up, just like children who have a chemical imbalance and 
who 
> are found eating mud.
> 
> Salit con't:
> But the Daily Prophet is something like the NY Times 
> > here. One would expect some level of responsibility on the part 
of 
> > the editors and its writers.

June:  I live in the UK and may therefore have more experience of 
the UK press.  I also suspect that JKR is using these aspects of her 
writing to "get back" at the press.  She did have a privacy suit or 
something recently - a magazine printed a picture of her daughter - 
so I don't blame her in the least.

IMHO the Daily Prophet is not the Times.  It is the Daily Mirror or 
the Daily Mail (these are tabloid newspapers and therefore 
downmarket) the Mail is conservative aligned and the Mirror is 
largely pro-Tony Blair.  The broadsheet press do not largely employ 
the likes of Rita Skeeters.  
> 
> I think it's more like the New York Daily News, personally. I don't
> The WW *has* a NY Times.
> 
> And Rita Skeeter is definitely a toe-rag (what precisely *is* a 
toe-
> rag, please? Is it like a snot-rag here in the U.S., a bit of 
grossly 
> grubby rubbish?) 

June:  OK hold your breath and grab your sick bag.  Here is the 
definition directly from George Orwell "Down and Out in Paris and 
London" - toe rags were used by tramps to to bind their feet with in 
lieu of socks.  Not nice.

The British tabloid press is obsessed with celebrity and often seems 
to exist solely to create celibrity and then cynically tear them 
down if they do not play the game by the rules set by the press.

This is precisely what happens to Harry.  He is the darling of the 
press from the moment he becomes "the boy who lived". Until it 
ceases to become appropriate to regard him as such. 

The Daily Prophet, in common with the British Tabloid press is 
subject  to certain pressures.  I'll give an example and I believe 
it is on-topic in a roundabout way so bear with me watching elves - 
I have a point and it's relevant.  British newspapers represent the 
views of their owners.  These owners usually want something in 
return for pedalling a certain political ideology or viewpoint - and 
its usually a British title or similar (Conrad Black - a Canadian 
who owns the Daily Telegraph - became Lord Black as a grateful gift 
of Margaret Thatcher because he represented her views).  This is the 
way that government can subtly (or not so subtly) exert pressure on 
the "free press".  The former press secretary to Tony Blair, 
Alastair Campbell did in fact come from the tabloid press and was in 
a position to ring any Fleet Street (our term for the press) Editor 
and get a story removed, changed whatever.  JKR is cleverly echoing 
this in her depiction of the way Harry is pilloried by the wizarding 
press.  Fudge has obviously been leaning on the Editor of the DP.  

By and large, the broadsheets (the Times, the Guardian, the 
Independent and the Telegraph) are not so bothered about breaking 
the reputations of ordinary people.  They know their readers are not 
idiots and will tend to make their own minds up. The tabloid 
newspapers are different.  In 1992 the Sun claimed to have actually 
determined the outcome of the general election.  The tabloids 
ruthlessly take up celebrities and just as ruthlessly drop them.  
There is an occupational hazard to this - UK libel laws - but libel 
is a very expensive casino to play in and only the very powerful and 
wealthy have this option at their disposal. I don't know whether the 
WW has a legal structure, but it is unlikely that Harry has this 
option!

The spectacularly nasty bit to me is that no one is truly safe in 
the UK from tabloid treatment.  Being in the wrong place at the 
wrong time is enough - and this is precisely what happens to Harry. 
There are moves to introduce privacy laws but as yet, they have come 
to nothing.  Many people absolutely believe everything that they 
read in these papers - and this is why their influence is so 
pernicious. It would be regarded as "out of order" to do these sort 
of things to a child, but then we don't really have a celebrity 
child equivalent apart from royalty - and sometimes the press have 
been seriously rebuked with regard to the Princes of Wales. 

In addition to this, leading columnists can wield considerable 
influence on public opinion.

If JKR has done anything to open debate on this, I for one, am very 
glad.

June