Join 3,553 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Warning: includes content by Richard Littlejohn
January 17, 2012 7:40 AM   Subscribe

Journalism warning stickers
posted by unSane (33 comments total) 22 users marked this as a favorite

 
Shouldn't that be "newspaper warning stickers?" Calling it "journalism" seems to give it too much credit.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 7:50 AM on January 17, 2012 [6 favorites]


Newscomics beware!
posted by Jehan at 7:59 AM on January 17, 2012


Who is "Richard Littlejohn"?
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:01 AM on January 17, 2012


I was excited about this, but it's not what I had hoped. I think the hostility is seriously misplaced. Yes, journalism needs help. This isn't what helping looks like, though.
posted by Miko at 8:01 AM on January 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


I especially appreciate that both UK and US readers are able to print them up for use. Nice touch. I'm tempted to send a set to my FIL, a former university journalist who was let go for writing actual news instead of PR for the school.
posted by misha at 8:03 AM on January 17, 2012


Yes, journalism needs help. This isn't what helping looks like, though.

I don't think the intent was the help journalism. The intent is to help the journalism's victims.
posted by DU at 8:05 AM on January 17, 2012 [9 favorites]


Miko, I don't really see this as hostile. Seems like good-natured ribbing to me, and also right on target.
posted by misha at 8:06 AM on January 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


Wikipedia Inline cleanup templates has a similar set.[excessive detail?] They seem to work pretty well actually.[opinion] It is one of my favorite but little known things on Wikipedia.[vague]
posted by stbalbach at 8:07 AM on January 17, 2012 [6 favorites]


Who is "Richard Littlejohn"?

Dunno. The google doesn't work on my computer either.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 8:17 AM on January 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


We have some people sticking Occupy-themed versions of these on our local chamber newspaper. I think they should be happy all the press releases are pooling where only the PR people read them.
posted by michaelh at 8:19 AM on January 17, 2012


After "Journalist does not understand the subject they are writing about..." and "Journalist hiding their own opinions...", it needs another sticker: "Sticker writer does not understand principle of object agreeing with subject". And no, pleading "Oxford plural" doesn't work.
posted by Mike D at 8:19 AM on January 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


ARE YOU A VICTIM OF JOURNALISM? WE CAN HELP.
posted by XMLicious at 8:22 AM on January 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


Seems like good-natured ribbing to me

I don't know man, those elbows look mighty pointy.
posted by cashman at 8:23 AM on January 17, 2012


And no, pleading "Oxford plural" doesn't work.

Works just fine over here.

[T]he use of plural pronouns to refer back to a singular subject isn’t new: it represents a revival of a practice dating from the 16th century. It’s increasingly common in current English and is now widely accepted both in speech and in writing.
posted by unSane at 8:34 AM on January 17, 2012 [7 favorites]


Paraphrasing the famous quote:

Q: "What do you think of journalism?"
A: "I think it would be a good idea."
posted by LastOfHisKind at 8:34 AM on January 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


I guess what I don't like here is that newspaper journalism, or old-school news organization journalism anyway, needs support. I know a lot of reporters and editors, and these people are frustrated, angry, miserable as anyone else.The problem is they're not heard. They're not the problem, but they are not easily able to effect any solutions, because they are corporately owned. There are structural divisions between them and ownership, and publishers, hired by corporate owners, call the tune. Journalists march - or they don't work.

There are serious structural problems, but this seems like coming at them from the wrong angle. It's not that the final news output is generally the problem. That's a symptom of a much larger problem - news consolidation and the decline of the independent, locally controlled news organization.
posted by Miko at 8:48 AM on January 17, 2012 [6 favorites]


And no, pleading "Oxford plural" doesn't work.

Works just fine over here.


It's discouraged in journalism because in some cases it can lead to misunderstanding. It's against AP Style, for example.
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 8:53 AM on January 17, 2012


And no, pleading "Oxford plural" doesn't work.

We've been through this.
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 8:58 AM on January 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


I like the idea, but it's needed so much more for television news than for most print media that it comes off as a bit gratuitous.
posted by benito.strauss at 9:03 AM on January 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


For every other Salon.com article:

Warning: Narcissistic Confessional

For Slate.com

Warning: Outrageously Provocative, Counter Intuitive Headline which the subsequent article will not defend.

For both:

Warning: Multiple Clicks Ahead
posted by Trochanter at 9:16 AM on January 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Previous, related, and a bit more serious.
posted by ropeladder at 9:23 AM on January 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


It seems to me that "Richard Littlejohn" is just a placeholder. When you download the PDF and make your own you replace it with a real name, for example, "Christie Blatchford".
posted by beau jackson at 9:29 AM on January 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


I had assumed that the above commenters had googled "Richard Littlejohn" and found nothing. He's real after all.
posted by beau jackson at 9:34 AM on January 17, 2012


I guess what I don't like here is that newspaper journalism, or old-school news organization journalism anyway, needs support. I know a lot of reporters and editors, and these people are frustrated, angry, miserable as anyone else.

Judith Miller? Wait, Judith Miller isn't a true journalist?
posted by ennui.bz at 9:36 AM on January 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Richard Littlejohn is the British newspaper equivalent of Glenn Beck.

"In the past year's Sun columns, Richard has referred 42 times to gays, 16 times to lesbians, 15 to homosexuals, eight to bisexuals, twice to 'homophobia' and six to being 'homophobic' (note his scornful inverted commas), five times to cottaging, four to 'gay sex in public toilets', three to poofs, twice to lesbianism, and once each to buggery, dykery, and poovery. This amounts to 104 references in 90-odd columns — an impressive increase on his 2003 total of 82 mentions. There is, alas, no space for us to revisit the scientific study which found obsessive homophobes more responsive to gay porn. But Richard, we're begging you: talk to someone."
posted by ArkhanJG at 9:47 AM on January 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


I've considered making one for the Wall Street Journal that says "Fox News lies: Print Edition".
posted by just sayin at 9:54 AM on January 17, 2012


When having to choose between the cumbersome "he or she" versus the un-grammatical "they", you may instead simply use the pronoun "it". This has an additional benefit of conveying a metamessage about the authors opinion on the human race and the grammarschutzstaffel.
posted by Xoebe at 10:03 AM on January 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


In the past year's Sun columns, Richard has referred 42 times to gays, 16 times to lesbians, 15 to homosexuals, eight to bisexuals, twice to 'homophobia' and six to being 'homophobic' (note his scornful inverted commas), five times to cottaging, four to 'gay sex in public toilets', three to poofs, twice to lesbianism, and once each to buggery, dykery, and poovery

Even so, kids, they're not nearly as exciting & interesting as this accounting makes them sound.
posted by chavenet at 10:35 AM on January 17, 2012


I only know Littlejohn from this hilarious bit from Stewart Lee about political correctness.
posted by winna at 12:37 PM on January 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


"Some people claim" isn't always hiding opinion. Sometimes, it's the exact opposite -- a misguided attempt to introduce "balance" or "fairness."

"While donkey punching is generally understood to be a bad idea, some people claim the practice has its merits."
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:41 PM on January 17, 2012


I worked for Richard Littlejohn once. Briefly. On his TV show.

He struck me as a nice enough guy. No obvious raging ego like the big shot political broadcaster he shared the studio with. It's a big, lucrative game to him. Repellent, yes. Influential? Less so now, but not unimportant.

But his TV producer? An almost comically rabid Daily Mail-esque disgusted of Tunbridge Wells type. Littlejohn played the cariacture. This man was the cariacture. I'm convinced Littlejohn's columns are basically ghostwritten and the pattern of three mentions of poofs to every 2 mentions of swampies or immigrants is basically some lazy hack trotting out numbers and wondering aloud why they did three years of PPE at Balliol for this shit.
posted by MuffinMan at 1:10 PM on January 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


If I see one more nerd pull the "BUT JUDITH MILLER!!" card out of his manure-port I will commit serious crimes.

Also, [this is stupid].
posted by mr.marx at 2:03 PM on January 17, 2012


Littlejohn played the cariacture. This man was the cariacture.

That's a funny observation in light of the Stuart Lee bit that winna linked to, which ends with: "Yours, Richard Littlejohn, Cunt. (Not someone who works as a cunt.)".
posted by benito.strauss at 2:21 PM on January 17, 2012


« Older Shakespeare's The Tempest banned by Arizona school...  |  I'm Human... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments