Rita Skeeter ( WAS: Re: Hermione's growth)

[msbeadsley]

No: HPFGUIDX 82632

In message # 82571, Salit wrote:
> > > The real story was boring? Had she bothered to do some real 
> > > research, she might have been able to write about the saving of 
> > > the Sorcerers' Stone or about the basilisk and maybe even Tom 
> > > Riddle (granted, saving Sirius Black was top secret).

In message #82594, I 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.
 
In message #82601, Salit wrote: 
> I was talking about Rita's behaviour in GoF, not OoP. Was there a 
> ministry party line wrt Voldemort then? That was before his 
> resurection, and initially she wrote positively about Harry, even 
> if she lied a lot.

I understood that you were referring to Rita's behavior in GoF. (I 
used the term "party line" rhetorically, and my "then" refers to any 
time which is prior to the night Fudge saw Voldemort with his own two 
eyes.) The Ministry's reaction to the news of LV's return would have 
been the same regardless of when (in which book) it happened, 
wouldn't it? (The most accurate indicator of future behavior is past 
behavior.) Considering how in bed together the Ministry and the DP 
are in OoP, I can't imagine that they weren't pretty snuggly before 
that, so much so that Rita would have known that as far as Voldemort 
was concerned, "no news is good news." Anything Rita had written 
about the Stone or the Chamber (your for-instances of how she could 
have done some real journalism instead of chosing to trash Harry, 
Hermione, and Hagrid with half-truths and lies) would have had to 
include mention of Voldemort activity of one sort or another and 
therefore was something she couldn't use. (Of course, she didn't know 
that. It's likely she didn't even know about Harry's first and second 
year heroics at all. She didn't bother to check. And that means what 
you suggested made more sense than I got out of it the first time. I 
think.) Does that help?

In message #82594, I wrote:
> > The flipside: didn't Neville say, when he expressed solidarity 
> > with Harry, that his grandmother had stopped taking The Daily 
> > Prophet?

In message #82601, Salit wrote: 
> But this was after Rita Skeeter stopped writing for the Daily 
> Prophet. I was referring to her behaviour in GoF.

I don't think the way Rita or the DP determined what to print changed 
until the end of OoP (not even then: the decision to print the truth 
suddenly was pragmatic, not ethical; too many people knew to try to 
pretend any longer). The DP determines what to print/not to print by 
determining: will it sell papers; will subscribers be happy, or will 
they cancel their subscriptions?

In message #82601, Salit wrote: 
> The Daily Prophet is the "official" news media there. I am not sure 
> the NY Times was a good example - maybe the Washington Post? 
> Anyway, it is the only news source for most British wizards, as it 
> seems. This lays a responsibility on it at least invest minimal 
> effort to substantiate its stories. Instead it acts as a 
> combination supermarket rag and a ministry mouthpiece. But then we 
> see that the wizard administration functions much like the worst of 
> totalitarian states <snip>

I suspect that the DP's near-monopoly on print news is a big part of 
the reason why it *is* such a rag. No competition. The notion that 
being the only game in town increases their responsibility to do 
their job well is kinda idealistic, IMO. (Although in terms of a 
public trust, this is true, I don't really see it in either the WW or 
the RW press.) Even without the comparison with the WW government.

In message #82594, I wrote:
> > And Rita Skeeter is definitely a toe-rag [deleted].
> > On the other hand, Umbridge actually believes in what she's 
> > doing. She believes she is the one who should be ordering things.

In message #82601, Salit wrote: 
> I never tried to equate the two. I agree that Rita and Dolores are 
> on completely different scales. Rita is just a disgusting excuse 
> for a journalist. Dolores is a very frightening person - who will 
> not shrink from anything - including torture and murder - to 
> accomplish her ends. <snip>

I don't think I was suggesting you were equating the two; I was just 
measuring them using my own yardstick (meterstick)?

Sandy, who would like to thank June for her excellent post on Fleet 
Street, but who still felt bound to respond to this without going 
into that...look at the time...ohmigod...zzzzzz