Mailwatch(ed) Forum

I still have my copy of Fritz Spiegl’s wonderful “Keep Taking the Tabloids”, an invaluable guide to the peculiar language used by the red tops and fascist tabloids posing as respectable (Mail, Express). You can currently pick up a pre-loved copy from Amazon for less than three quid.

I’ve fallen to wondering about how tabloid-speak manifests itself in the on-line age in which we find ourselves in the 21st century, with all of the popular tabloids now giving great attention to their online presence.

Reach websites, of course, are fucking awful in terms of both content and usability, but what of the others ? The Mail’s “sidebar of shame” for instance, that does so much to make it the most visited online newspaper site in the world (I think).

One example ? Nobody ever just says anything any more. No, they “open up”, or “break their silence” (what silence?). Over to the teams .

I'm becoming nostalgic for snappy tabloid headlines to draw you in. Don't have any patience for this clickbait format of 'Look what Meg thinks about Kate.' Only to read a big nothing after scrolling through a clunky site full of ads.

The other headline that winds me up is 'Meghan's 5 word response to ' 'William's 6 word response to' . Most of the time the stories are utter tosh but presumably it lures in plenty of on-line readers.

One lazy tabloid cliche that winds me up much more than it should is describing musicians as 'the [name of hit] singer'.

Will AI lead to more hits for Elvis? Sources at the estate of the Heartbreak Hotel singer...

Etc.

Stop it.

Similarly, "crooner", or "funnyman" (in the case of comedians).

There's a theory that it's born of the innate snobbery of journalists and the grating frustration that they will never be particularly remembered (and if they are, chances are not fondly). Therefore reduce everyone to the level of "paid to goon about and be silly".

The Mirror had a habit of referring to David Bowie as "the Ch-ch-ch-changes singer".

Anyway, a few:

"Tributes poured in", often spotted close to "Celebrities took to X, formerly known as Twitter...", when someone famous dies. I've always wondered where these tributes pour into - I could understand people sending messages to the family of the deceased, or their agent. Even to a news agency at a push. But they don't. People just go online and say stuff.

The standard photo. It seems to be the law that any story about the workplace has to be accompanied by a picture of Ricky Gervais as David Brent, a sort of shorthand for "toxic workplace/bad boss". Ditto Fawlty Towers as the standard for bad holidays. For several years, the Express would always accompany any story about terrorism with the same file photo of Osama, with the caption "TERROR: Bin Laden", just in case you might spot him wandering around the precinct.

Being told what to think. By this I don't mean the use of persuasive language or arguments. I mean the fucking sledgehammer approach taken when dealing with kids, killers, and especially killers of kids. Brave Tots, So Sad, Evil Murderer etc. Killers writing from prison always whinge in scrawled notes, even if they're writing comedy gold in copperplate handwriting. They're Beasts, clearly a different breed to Lags, who are people who have just carried out understandable crimes against adults or property. It's just unnecessary. Do we really need to be told that a guy who rapes and murders kids is evil?

May I recommend, for those who haven't read it, Romps, Tots and Boffins: The Strange Language of News, by Robert Hutton

Pre-cyber but good.

May I also quote Roger McGough:

We've had our clichés framed,
And hung upon the wall,
So now for conversation
We don't have to speak at all.

Killer Whale wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2024 8:55 am One lazy tabloid cliche that winds me up much more than it should is describing musicians as 'the [name of hit] singer'.

Will AI lead to more hits for Elvis? Sources at the estate of the Heartbreak Hotel singer...

Etc.

Stop it.

Even worse is slotting a +50 year old hit in the headline; 'Mick can get no satisfaction' 'She loves you, Paul.' Just fuck off.

“Gemma Collins and her husband, Humphrey Bumphrey, share two children together.”


Share? What - she has them Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, and he has them the rest of the week?

It's the redundancy of 'share ... together' that gets my pants in a twist.

Your acting career defined by a stint in a TV show that doesn’t have many letters in the title, ‘Dr Who star,’ ‘Bill star.’

The Onion once nailed that with "Dan 'Ghostbusters' Aykroyd adopts film title as middle name". Following the example set by Jamie Halloween Lee Trading Places Curtis.

Also, the "[franchise] actor" thing means that a lot of the time they'll be linked to their most high profile or recent roles. Maggie Smith being a great recent example. Downton and Potter, that was it.

Another book on the subject I keep on my shelf (along with the the two already mentioned) is How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World by Francis Wheen.

How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World by Francis Wheen

Good read at the time but the review pull quote from the future is 'mate, you haven't seen nothing yet.'

Youngian wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 6:16 am Your acting career defined by a stint in a TV show that doesn’t have many letters in the title, ‘Dr Who star,’ ‘Bill star.’

And star is usually pushing it, tends to be one episode.

Ten years in Corrie.

Recurring character roles on Brookside, Hollyoaks, and The Bill.

Rock climber #3 in an episode of Casualty.

BBC Star in Hookers and Blow Scandal

Or, as Littlejohn likes to reminds us; “…..starred in that memorable episode of Minder”