Cryptic Articles used to give the UK a free press
May 8, 2011 12:04 AM Subscribe
Cryptic Articles are used by the UK press to circumvent legal constraints on publication of particular stories.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Cryptic Daily Maily post needs some more context or explanation. Or not be from the Daily Mail. -- vacapinta
If I said what I think the article was saying then I would be in contempt of court at the very least.
posted by priorpark17 at 12:14 AM on May 8, 2011
posted by priorpark17 at 12:14 AM on May 8, 2011
Oh, baloney.
Is there something to this post? The article just seems to natter on about some other article nattering on about nothing much at all.
Which is to say, you appear to have linked to the Daily Mail. And?
posted by Sys Rq at 12:16 AM on May 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
Is there something to this post? The article just seems to natter on about some other article nattering on about nothing much at all.
Which is to say, you appear to have linked to the Daily Mail. And?
posted by Sys Rq at 12:16 AM on May 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
Sys Rq: That is why it is cryptic."If he could change one thing about himself it would, he says, be to stop himself impulse-buying."
posted by priorpark17 at 12:18 AM on May 8, 2011
posted by priorpark17 at 12:18 AM on May 8, 2011
Gossip columns have always dropped cryptic hints about the state of people's relationships. Whoop-de-doo.
A good post about this would at least explain something about what the legal constraints are.
posted by robcorr at 12:19 AM on May 8, 2011
A good post about this would at least explain something about what the legal constraints are.
posted by robcorr at 12:19 AM on May 8, 2011
You just don't understand the cryptic codes. When he says his wife drives a Volvo, that means that she's having sex with a Swedish guy that's built like a tank.
Stig of the dump captured his imagination means that he had homosexual fantasies about dirty cavemen.
And he wants to stop himself 'impulse buying'. Uh huh.
posted by Not Supplied at 12:21 AM on May 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
Stig of the dump captured his imagination means that he had homosexual fantasies about dirty cavemen.
And he wants to stop himself 'impulse buying'. Uh huh.
posted by Not Supplied at 12:21 AM on May 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
This had better not be another Osama Bin Laden post in diguise
posted by KokuRyu at 12:21 AM on May 8, 2011
posted by KokuRyu at 12:21 AM on May 8, 2011
The REAL Secret Life: Hugh Bonneville is really Hugh Grant. Okay? I'm an American Citizen; the British Courts can't touch me. And they don't have Navy Seals, right? Anyway, when this post is deleted, it will leave behind no trace that it ever existed, because the Deleted Posts blog is still down. So Hugh Bonneville and everyone else who has gotten preventative restraining orders from British Courts (I think Cory Doctorow used it on reviewers of his last book) are perfectly safe.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:21 AM on May 8, 2011
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:21 AM on May 8, 2011
It might be useful to know that in the UK, there is currently a lot of discussion of 'superinjunctions', which not only prevent a story being told but also prevent people commenting on the fact that someone has an injunction. Journalist Andrew Marr recently took one out and then had it rescinded.
posted by elephantday at 12:23 AM on May 8, 2011
posted by elephantday at 12:23 AM on May 8, 2011
Back when he was a Daily Show correspondent, Stephen Colbert had better ways of getting around those legal constraints...
posted by rolandcrosby at 12:24 AM on May 8, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by rolandcrosby at 12:24 AM on May 8, 2011 [2 favorites]
Superinjunction Junction what's your function?
Protectin' famous people
With questionable lawses.
posted by amyms at 12:37 AM on May 8, 2011
Protectin' famous people
With questionable lawses.
posted by amyms at 12:37 AM on May 8, 2011
I'm not sure this is a good post for Metafilter. I know what it's about, as I'm sure a lot of other Mefites do, but noone can say so because it's covered by a superinjunction.
posted by alby at 12:40 AM on May 8, 2011
posted by alby at 12:40 AM on May 8, 2011
That is why it is cryptic."If he could change one thing about himself it would, he says, be to stop himself impulse-buying."
Yeah, fine. But it's the Daily Mail. I wouldn't believe anything they wrote explicitly in plain and direct language; why should anyone put any stock in something they're *allegedly* implying?
posted by Sys Rq at 12:44 AM on May 8, 2011
Yeah, fine. But it's the Daily Mail. I wouldn't believe anything they wrote explicitly in plain and direct language; why should anyone put any stock in something they're *allegedly* implying?
posted by Sys Rq at 12:44 AM on May 8, 2011
To be fair, don't most US states offer some legal recourse if an ugly, true, but non-newsworthy fact about your private life is published? UK law goes a bit further, but it seems to me the greatest differences are that we tend to think even apolitical celebrities have fewer rights and that sex scandals are always newsworthy. I'm not certain we achieve a better result.
posted by Monsieur Caution at 12:52 AM on May 8, 2011
posted by Monsieur Caution at 12:52 AM on May 8, 2011
Wait, is the Daily Mail the racist paper or the crazy insane one? I can never remember which is which.
posted by ryanrs at 12:52 AM on May 8, 2011
posted by ryanrs at 12:52 AM on May 8, 2011
Oh, I see. His wife "drives a Volvo," eh? I get it now.
They're saying that the royal family are shape-shifting reptilians from the astral plane.
posted by "Elbows" O'Donoghue at 12:55 AM on May 8, 2011
They're saying that the royal family are shape-shifting reptilians from the astral plane.
posted by "Elbows" O'Donoghue at 12:55 AM on May 8, 2011
You either know what they are implying or you don't. The purpose of the such press articles is to confirm the rumours that the reader may have already heard. The purpose of this post is to point out to how the domestic press has to operate in the UK compared to other countries. There is a distinct difference between cryptic articles confirming a rumour and the gossip teasers seen in the US press .
posted by priorpark17 at 12:55 AM on May 8, 2011
posted by priorpark17 at 12:55 AM on May 8, 2011
Is there something in there that's kinda like saying Imogen Thomas had a passion for live musical performances?
posted by ambient2 at 1:01 AM on May 8, 2011
posted by ambient2 at 1:01 AM on May 8, 2011
Cryptic Articles used to give the UK a free press
Cryptic MeFi posts used to give ... wait, can someone tell me?
posted by bluedaisy at 1:10 AM on May 8, 2011
Cryptic MeFi posts used to give ... wait, can someone tell me?
posted by bluedaisy at 1:10 AM on May 8, 2011
Wait, is the Daily Mail the racist paper or the crazy insane one? I can never remember which is which.
I will consider using this as an exemplar of a false dichotomy.
posted by jaduncan at 1:11 AM on May 8, 2011 [2 favorites]
I will consider using this as an exemplar of a false dichotomy.
posted by jaduncan at 1:11 AM on May 8, 2011 [2 favorites]
The purpose of the such press articles is to confirm the rumours that the reader may have already heard.
Ha! No. Their purpose is to exploit those rumours for maximum profit with minimum liability. That's what's so great about rumours: You don't have to actually repeat them, since they're already out there. Just a nudge and a wink will suffice, with absolutely nothing actually said.
There is no 'confirmation' going on here. At best, there is little more than an implicit acknowledgment that the faintest whiff of a rumour might exist.
posted by Sys Rq at 1:16 AM on May 8, 2011
Ha! No. Their purpose is to exploit those rumours for maximum profit with minimum liability. That's what's so great about rumours: You don't have to actually repeat them, since they're already out there. Just a nudge and a wink will suffice, with absolutely nothing actually said.
There is no 'confirmation' going on here. At best, there is little more than an implicit acknowledgment that the faintest whiff of a rumour might exist.
posted by Sys Rq at 1:16 AM on May 8, 2011
Sys Rq: The issue is over how to circumvent the legal constraint on the newspapers not the daliences or otherwise of anybody.
posted by priorpark17 at 1:24 AM on May 8, 2011
posted by priorpark17 at 1:24 AM on May 8, 2011
I think the issue is that there are those of us who have read the link and the comments and still have no idea why this was posted to MetaFilter.
Stunt post is stunty.
posted by auto-correct at 1:35 AM on May 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
Stunt post is stunty.
posted by auto-correct at 1:35 AM on May 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
They saved the best until the end:
But then Hugh’s devotion to wife Lulu is so strong it is understood he is known to fellow thespians as the Ryan Giggs of the showbusiness world, after the famously family-orientated footballer.
posted by greycap at 1:37 AM on May 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
But then Hugh’s devotion to wife Lulu is so strong it is understood he is known to fellow thespians as the Ryan Giggs of the showbusiness world, after the famously family-orientated footballer.
posted by greycap at 1:37 AM on May 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
Sys Rq: The issue is over how to circumvent the legal constraint on the newspapers not the daliences or otherwise of anybody.
Yes, and I'm saying that the result of any attempt to do so is never worth reading--nevermind reading into--because it necessarily contains nothing of substance. If it's not worth reading, it's can't possibly be worth writing--unless there's a quasi-juicy headline over it in the form of a technically-not-libelous question that might get gullible idiots to buy the paper.
There's nothing bravely journalistic about circumventing the law like this, unjust though the law may be; the nudge-nudge rumour-mongering is far yellower than all that other yellow crap filling up the rest of the Daily Mail.
If the law is worth breaking, break it. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
posted by Sys Rq at 1:50 AM on May 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
Yes, and I'm saying that the result of any attempt to do so is never worth reading--nevermind reading into--because it necessarily contains nothing of substance. If it's not worth reading, it's can't possibly be worth writing--unless there's a quasi-juicy headline over it in the form of a technically-not-libelous question that might get gullible idiots to buy the paper.
There's nothing bravely journalistic about circumventing the law like this, unjust though the law may be; the nudge-nudge rumour-mongering is far yellower than all that other yellow crap filling up the rest of the Daily Mail.
If the law is worth breaking, break it. Anything short of that is a waste of time.
posted by Sys Rq at 1:50 AM on May 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
Warning: spoilers, NSFUK, etc. Click to un-rot13.
V unir ab shpxvat pyhr rvgure. Guvf vqrn vf gung zbfg bs lbh jvyy pyvpx gur genafyngr yvax, juvpu tbrf gb gur Evpx Nfgyrl ivqrb. V jnf guvaxvat bs znxvat vg tbngfr, ohg V qba'g jnag gb frr gung rvgure. (Ol gur jnl, lbh fubhyq qrsvavgryl ovgpu nobhg guvf va-guernq.)
posted by ryanrs at 1:52 AM on May 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
V unir ab shpxvat pyhr rvgure. Guvf vqrn vf gung zbfg bs lbh jvyy pyvpx gur genafyngr yvax, juvpu tbrf gb gur Evpx Nfgyrl ivqrb. V jnf guvaxvat bs znxvat vg tbngfr, ohg V qba'g jnag gb frr gung rvgure. (Ol gur jnl, lbh fubhyq qrsvavgryl ovgpu nobhg guvf va-guernq.)
posted by ryanrs at 1:52 AM on May 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
« Older The Miscreants of Taliwood | Happy Mother's Day, from the songwriters of the... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Saydur at 12:09 AM on May 8, 2011