Mixed reactions to yesterday’s missive arguing that The Sun was right to run its scoop about the murders in Ben Stokes’s family history.
Flaks find those stories uncomfortable and feel sorry for the people named. Moreover, they can’t understand why individual hacks would want to do that sort of work in the first place.
Tabloid hacks say I’m right. More sensitive Fleet St souls think that the trouble with these invasive pieces is that they undermine the whole standing of the trade with the public. Which is a point.
My man with a conscience writes: “I’m not saying The Sun isn’t free to do it, I’m not saying there wasn’t a lot of work that went into the story and I’m not saying the result is anything other than fascinating for us readers. But should The Sun have published? I’m not so sure it should have.”
What’s certainly true is that any editor or reader thinking The Sun, uniquely, deserves to be pilloried for this is guilty of hypocrisy. Most other papers followed the story, under the guise of covering the coverage.
The Guardian, most predictably, devoted all of page 14 to a story knocking the tabloid and quoting Hacked Off at its self-righteous best.
TB accuracy watch: Thanks to the readers who kindly took the time to point out that I don’t seem to know the difference between historical and historic.
Flaks find those stories uncomfortable and feel sorry for the people named. Moreover, they can’t understand why individual hacks would want to do that sort of work in the first place.
