Hamster/News of the world

[fussycat]

No iea if this is on the net so I'll pop it on here for you lot.

Carole Malone: August 17 2008 News of the World.

JUST HAM NO GLAM.
Richard Hammond is a little man with a very large ego.
And I suspect that ego was pretty damn huge long before the car crash that nearly killed him. But it was that car crash and the ensuing publicity that catapulted Mr Hammond into the public eye in a way that mere talent previously hadn't.
I say talent- I'm not exactly sure what Hammond's talent IS other than as a sidekick for the humongous talent that is Jeremy Clarkson.
Yes. he's a likeable chap and yes, he's easy on the eye but that doesn't constitute talent and it's certainly no basis for the £25,000 an episode he demanded - and got- for the latest series of Top Gear.
Because, let's face it, if Clarkson wasn't on Top Gear neither Hammond nor the other - even duller one-, is capable of carrying the show.
Now we learn that the Hamster- silly name- has also been paid a whopping £750,000 for doing a Morrisons ad- money that no doubt went towards paying for his £2 million pound castle.
Hammond needs to be careful. No one likes a little man with a little talent getting too big for his boots.
If the idea was to compete with Clarkson - who has a much smaller house and patently doesn't give a stuff about size-it'll never happen.
Clarkson IS the talent and if he decides he's had enough of Top Gear there'll be a For Sale board on that castle before you can say "arrogant little t**ser"!


WHAT DID HE DO? WHAT DID HE DO? Look if hamster had been shouting his mouth off claiming to be God and slagging his fans then yep I'd agree with Carole Malone about the t**ser bit. But he hasn't he's bought a better home castle whatever Do I detect a little jealoulsy here? Oh she should also remember he made a huge amout of money from his best selling book, with another on the way, plus his wife has been approached to write novels. AND the other tv work Mr Little Talent has will ensure the For Sale sign can stay in the shed for a little while longer. What a MEOW!! ;D

[kirstie42]

I must admit I read that today and thought 'what has he done to upset you'. And she describes James as the duller one!

I think you're right Fussycat the green eyed monster is well and truly on the prowl.

[stigalicious]

How that is the most bitchy, biased and unresearched column EVER. The house is meant to be worth closer to £1 mil aint it?

[Deleted]

That bloody woman! I've seen Richard work first hand and he works bloody hard! And he is normal and very nice (I've met him so I know) and as buying that new property (until it's acknowledged by him I'm not sure) it is the most sensible thing to do with that amount of money. Investing it in bricks and mortar and considering the credit crunch the new property should increase when the market returns to its normal level.

Very savvy if you ask me and no doubt he was advised. He has enough depreciating cars at the moment so property was inevitable.

What wasp flew up her arse! (sorry but grrrr )

And as calling James the 'duller one' , yes I'm biased but come on! James isn't dull he's James! When he isn't being the one picked on and doing his stuff on his own he's articulate, funny, charming, witty and knows his stuff.

If you ask me she found what no one else was commenting on and filling up her column inches. As for Jeremy he really wouldn't give a toss. It goes for Richard too, as long as their families are safe and secure that is what matters the most for them.

This smilie goes here

This woman does nothing for our sex. She makes us look bad.

[lindenchase]

Thse kind of articles only make me wonder once more why Jezza and Richard would want to write for rags like this. (The Daily Morror and The Sun are no better.) There is no doubt that the pay is terrific, but neither of them need the money and you would think there is such a thing as self-esteem.

I would be utterly dissapointed in James if he took up a column in one of them.

[fussycat]

Well I posted a comment on The News of the World site. I said a couple of things including how he may be easy on the eye but her jealousy is darn right ugly. Bet it doesn't get put up.

[nobody]

God what is wrong with her i have never heard of him going off on one and if someone wants to pay him a lot of money to do a ad he would be a fool to turn it down.
Do these two people know each other makes me wonder if he turned her down.
BTW Is this the women who was on big brother and who also had a show on sky one that sunk with out a trace i think it was called guilty.

[cantervilleghost]

If I were to really say what I think of her "writing", I'd get banned from the board. How dare she attack Richard like that!!!! GRRR That ignorant, no talent, hack, bit*... ok.. I better stop now. *mumbling under my breath*

[lindenchase]

I'm really sorry to disagree. As long as Richard and Jeremy continue to write for such rags as the Daily Mirror and the Sun, I can't feel sorry for them when they are being unfairly attacked by one of the other tabloids.

[dutchdiva]

looks like somebody is a little jealous

[dutchdiva]

yes it's also online. to bad you can't leave a comment (or else I haven't seen it)

www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/columnists/article14172.ece

[stigalicious]

I agree with LC. U can comment but you have to email on the contact us bit and say something about how the column seems biased/inaccurate and based on nothing solid. And then complain that there is no comment section for the column!

[suzie]

THE EVEN DULLER ONE!!!!!!
Well, really.
Humph.

[Wyvern]

Aug 17, 2008 14:29:44 GMT lindenchase said:

Thse kind of articles only make me wonder once more why Jezza and Richard would want to write for rags like this. (The Daily Morror and The Sun are no better.) There is no doubt that the pay is terrific, but neither of them need the money and you would think there is such a thing as self-esteem.

I would be utterly dissapointed in James if he took up a column in one of them.

First of all there is exposure. You are only successful in the media for as long as people know who you are and what you're doing. Yes, these papers are rags, but they are also the most widely-read newspapers in the UK. They are populist, but nobody ever said populism was a crime. It just happens that more people choose to read them than other papers, dare I say it, at least in part because the people who write for them are entertaining. For a lot of people, these papers, with their photos, celebrity columnists and gossip stories, are like a mini "Heat" magazine. They certainly aren't reading them for the news. There is a certain elitism that says people who read these papers must be brainless idiots. I'm a bit of a snob about certain things myself, but on this issue (as on all of those low-brow gossip magazines) I say, fair enough. I don't choose to read them myself but there are too many readers for them all to be morons - and in fact, I know a few people who are educated, well off, ABC1/2 types who dip in (some of them read The Sun specifically for Jeremy Clarkson).

If you want your writing to be read, these are the papers to go for. And because a good celebrity columnist will add to the circulation, they get paid well to do it. I would argue that knowing your work is going to reach the biggest possible readership is actually a positive influence on self-esteem. Writing for a tabloid is not like torturing puppies or small children, and it is no more prostitutional than any other kind of media work. Are our boys media whores? Well, actually, yes, insofar as their main marketable commodities are themselves, whether they choose to make themselves available for television programmes, commercials or newspaper columns. It's work, at the end of the day, and as long as they aren't encouraging anyone to do anything they shouldn't, there is no harm in it.

Secondly, Jeremy wasn't in anything like the position he is in now when he started writing for The Sun, well over a decade ago. That he now writes for The Sunday Times as well isn't all that surprising - although these papers are at opposite ends of the UK's marketing strata, they are actually "sister publications", and both produced by News International. I suspect back then a frizzy-haired oik in his mid-thirties wouldn't have been a popular choice with the Times readership, but it only took a little while for The Times to catch up with him

However, Carole Malone's columns in the News of the World (another News International publication, btw) do tend to get a bit personal, and she does seem to have a bit of a vendetta against Richard Hammond. I don't know why - maybe she looks at Piers Morgan's current success, thinks about his former position with Mirror Group Newspapers, and his long-running spat with JC and thinks she might one day reach the heady heights of presenting, er, "America's Got Talent" by laying into a Top Gear presenter working for the opposition... It's just the way she is. I'm not defending her - I don't think there's a need for anyone to write anything that venomous - but it's funny the way it all hangs together.

[lindenchase]

Everything you say is completely true. My problems with the tabloids are based on different objections.

They have for decades now on a regular basis destroyed people's reputations and lives by printing juicy stories based on half truths, just in order to sell more papers. They have invaded people's privacy even in hours of sorrow just in order to get some good gossip and the best pics, just in order to sell more papers.

I don't think people who are reading these tabloids are morons. I just wish they would read a proper newspaper as well to get informed about what's going on in the world. Because their lies my second BIG problem with the tabloids. With all their shouting and black/white reporting about the real news they leave little room for proper debate and nuanced opinions. Something today's society desperately needs if you ask me.

So once again, I have no problems with the people reading them, I have a huge problem with the people in charge of them. And that's why I wouldn't want to work for them, no matter how much exposure it would bring or how much money.

(And now I'm going to get myself a nice glass of Cabernet Sauvignion. An Organic one to be precise, 'cause as you will have guessed by now I'm a leftwing ecomentalist. ;D)

[Deleted]

Sadly that is what the tabloids are there for, to bring in vast amounts of money at whatever cost. However even the broadsheets can get it wrong not as badly and as frequently as the tabloids where they can print whatever they like with very little/no fact or a diluted version of the truth. They are vehicles for people's profiles to be increased and in the world of celebrity all publicity is good publicity.

I agree a line should be how a person's life is invaded by the hacks or paps (even Jeremy having his garage invaded and photographed, is appalling) . As with the pieces which destroy peoples lives, it is just wrong.

Some journalists/celebs who dictate over the phone, have a voice and what they can have is a power to influence the readers of their columns and then it is taken as law. The voice can be good too to raise the profile of charities or events.

[Wyvern]

When I was a media student, many, many years ago, we did comparisons of newspapers within the same publication group to see how they handled the same stories. It was quite interesting to see how the papers within the same group published broadly the same facts but in vastly different styles and yet still managed to put the same editorial slant/bias on them. In a way, they were both telling their readership what to think about the story, but the higher brow papers were a lot more subtle about it! It was as if The Sun was saying, "Oi, you! This is what's happened, crap, innit?!" while The Times was more, "Hmm, isn't it terrible what happened?"

My favourite example of editorial crossover was an article in the early 80s in the Financial Times. The Sun had been struggling to go to press because of industrial action and was running on a skeleton staff and eventually they had to admit defeat and they didn't put out an issue. This was reported in the FT because it was the first time in the paper's history that they had failed to put out an edition and the article mentioned this, and the background to the industrial action, and then went on to quote that the reason for the paper not going to press was that the editor was "knackered". Not what you expect from the FT!

But yes, without commenting on the actions of any journalist, be it one of the TG3, Carole Malone or the lowliest junior reporter, I agree entirely with both of you on the issue of the scruples of the people running the papers. It baffles me that they feel they can have such differing approaches within their own organisation though.

And yes, I firmly believe there should be a line beyond which they don't cross when it comes to people's personal lives. However, Jeremy's recent Times column on journalistic freedom vs personal privacy was very interesting as he is one of the few people in the press properly qualified to comment on both sides of the debate. Personally, I don't need to know what is in Jeremy's garage (especially as that was part of another stupid press vendetta thing), or that Kerry Katona is considering weight-loss surgery or that Max Mosley has some unusual tastes.

On the other hand, I do fear that any controls on the press need to be carefully considered. It would be fantastic if they couldn't stick their long lenses into the bedrooms of famous people's children or destroy people's relationships by publishing gossip stories about who did what to whom, but at the same time I would be concerned that people in positions of power would use these controls to hide behind if they did something that was in the public interest to reveal.

Part of the purpose of editorial writing is to influence ideas and opinion, though, and I think MG makes a very good point that it can be used for good as well as ill. If nothing else, it underlines what a powerful weapon the press can be - and like all weapons, it should be handled with very great care.

Anyway, the whole issue of freedom of the press is a fascinating field for debate, even if this is not the forum for it. My personal opinions often differ radically from what I might say on any given matter as I'm a bugger for playing Devil's advocate, so I apologise if I've been provoking anything

[lindenchase]

No probs, I like this debate. I have been working in the publishing industry for ages, not as an editor but in marketing. My job has always simply been to make money, but I feel pride in the fact that I have always worked for magazines and newspapers that mattered.
Jezza is special, but how on earth can he complain in the Sunday Times about people sneeking into his garage, when knowing fully well that The Sun does the same thing with other celebrities?

[Wyvern]

That was the interesting part of the article. The inference was that as a celebrity, he wanted his privacy protected, but as a journalist he understood why stopping the press from doing these things could have potentially negative implications. I don't think I'd like to be a celebrity journalist, to be honest.

I don't read newspapers at all, funnily enough. I used to read The Guardian as it has a good arts section, but I found it too left-wing and that although it is supposedly a "quality" paper, the editorial bias was too overwhelming. In many ways it took the issue to far in the other direction; I don't want to read an entire paper filled with stories about what is happening in a women's co-operative in Togo and how the state of the world is entirely the fault of one Texas oilman. I'd much rather have an emphasis on news that actually affects me, placed in the wider context of global events, without too much bias in either direction. I suppose I could read The Independent, but unfortunately the editorial team seem to have mistaken "unbiased" for "boring".

I suspect we would have some interesting discussions if we ever met, Linden... we obviously come from very different angles on certain subjects, especially politically

[stigalicious]

Aug 19, 2008 20:55:13 GMT lindenchase said:

So once again, I have no problems with the people reading them...

Sorry, I do. The reason they exist in the first place is because people buy them. Of course I go by the old adage 'If you dont like what they say, then dont buy them' and thus I dont. In fact I dont buy ANY papers, cos as Wy says, they all have a bias. I only watch tv news because I need to know the headlines.

If people didnt buy the sun, they'd have to reassess their content and find out why they werent making any money and maybe then make some changes. Maybe even go out of business. But sadly people do because they thrieve on the gossip. Thats all their is to it. The editors/writers know that what they print will sell. Its that simple and its disturbing....



Again, thats just my opinion. I was a media student too Wy! *flashbacks to news analysis*

[lindenchase]

Newspapers can give you the in-depth analysis that the TV News doesn't have time for. Politicians talk in sound bites these days because they know televison will only broadcast 10 seconds of whatever they are saying. Why stick to one paper, just switch between two or three.

And yes, freedom of speech and press are insanely important to a democracry. And I am well aware that one of the side effects is that such waste-of-papers as The Sun and the Mirror have every right to exist and do what they do. As long as they don't expect me to to get them the subscribers. (And hell, I am good at that. )

[fussycat]

I've just remembered that I put up a comment to Carol's colum. Anyway I checked and go be blowed I'm on! They put my comment up! It's a bloody devil to bring the comments page up thought! By the way ( old bag that I am) when I was at school we didn't have any media studies courses. I wish we had though, I'd have loved that!

[lindenchase]

James would disagree. Remember TopToys when those kids didn't manage to put the meccano cranes together. James said afterwards with much contempt: "No wonder everyone is doing media studies these days." ;D