Kelvin Mckenzie

[Beach Seagull]

That's the point - he was 'fed' the story, by interested parties involved in the incident.

He didn't check it, and he ran it as fact, rather than opinion.

Agreed he was 'fed the story' and given the sources he decided to run with it. I guess as a (tabloid) editor that is one of the risks you take. At the time nobody knew that there were 'interested parties' who were launching a 'cover up' and such was the perception of football fans at the time I would guess it was a relativly easy decision to take to believe the version fed to him by the police / MP.

Agreed the wording was awful but that is the nature of tabloid jornalism.

C'mon if Tony Bloom, Paul Barber, Gus and Martin Perry fed you a 'juicy' story and said they did not mind you airing it on the 'roar' would you?

 

[Tooting Gull]

Agreed he was 'fed the story' and given the sources he decided to run with it. I guess as a (tabloid) editor that is one of the risks you take. At the time nobody knew that there were 'interested parties' who were launching a 'cover up' and such was the perception of football fans at the time I would guess it was a relativly easy decision to take to believe the version fed to him by the police / MP.

Agreed the wording was awful but that is the nature of tabloid jornalism.

C'mon if Tony Bloom, Paul Barber, Gus and Martin Perry fed you a 'juicy' story and said they did not mind you airing it on the 'roar' would you?

As I said in an earlier thread, there was nothing wrong with the agency filing the 'story' with those sources. It's then up to an editor to balance it, or at least cover themselves.

In the example you give, I'm trying to think of an equivalent, agenda-led situation.

I think it would be if a player had been sacked, or accused of serious breaches of club conduct, and you had Bloom, Barber, Gus and Perry all saying the same thing.

Before you put it in the paper or on the radio, you'd want it from the player's side, or their representative.

 

[The Large One]

Agreed he was 'fed the story' and given the sources he decided to run with it. I guess as a (tabloid) editor that is one of the risks you take. At the time nobody knew that there were 'interested parties' who were launching a 'cover up' and such was the perception of football fans at the time I would guess it was a relativly easy decision to take to believe the version fed to him by the police / MP.

Agreed the wording was awful but that is the nature of tabloid jornalism.

That is in no way an excuse for tabloid journalism.

It's understood any newspaper has a bias, be it political, social, environmental, even national. But running that bias is often done in the knowledge that they know largely the whole story first - then they put their spin on it, not listen to one side and make up the rest.

C'mon if Tony Bloom, Paul Barber, Gus and Martin Perry fed you a 'juicy' story and said they did not mind you airing it on the 'roar' would you?

For a start, if any of those people fed me a 'juicy' story to air, my first reaction would be one of suspicion - not least of which because we would not be the first port of call to air a story. Secondly, as TG states, I would check other sources and interested parties. If I can't get that corroboration, we probably wouldn't air it.

I'm not a trained journalist, but am a member of the NUJ, so if I felt there was a story with implications, I'd also seek advice.

 

[Beach Seagull]

That's a poor comparison.

A fan wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) know, so I would require corroboration; a further source. Tony would know.

In the Hillsborough story, the fans knew, as did the police.

I think its a fair comparison (although i acknowledge your right to dispute that) as it comes down to credibility of sources. Naturally (and correctly) you would believe TB's story as opposed to 'a bloke in the pub told me' and back in 1989 given the perception the public had of football fans KM choose to believe the story that was given to him and didn't attempt to gain corrobaration. Dont forget football fans (and football)) had a terrible reputation at the time and hooliganism was almost a weekly occurence and Hillsborough occured only 4 years after Heysel which Liverpool were largely blamed for (I'm not personally apportioning blame btw for Heysel).In this climate I can fully understand why he choose to run with the story and choose to believe the 'pillars of the community' that were senior Police officials and an MP.

There was not nationwide revulsion against KM neither at the time or in subsequent years and he continued to have a high profile media career as a newspaper columnist, newspaper reviewer and a radio station owner. If there was revulsion against him he would've been shunned by media organisations (a la Ron Atkinson).

Its the police who fed him lies to cover their failings and inadequacies who should be villified (and subject to criminal proceedings) not a newspaper editor who choose at the time with what seemed like a credible story.

 

[Beach Seagull]

That is in no way an excuse for tabloid journalism.

It's understood any newspaper has a bias, be it political, social, environmental, even national. But running that bias is often done in the knowledge that they know largely the whole story first - then they put their spin on it, not listen to one side and make up the rest.



For a start, if any of those people fed me a 'juicy' story to air, my first reaction would be one of suspicion - not least of which because we would not be the first port of call to air a story. Secondly, as TG states, I would check other sources and interested parties. If I can't get that corroboration, we probably wouldn't air it.

I'm not a trained journalist, but am a member of the NUJ, so if I felt there was a story with implications, I'd also seek advice.

Was not 'excusing' tabloid journalism but saying that is the 'nature' of it and a tabloid will word their headlines and story in a different way to a quality newspaper. They are aimed at different demographics and a tabloids headlines / stories will always be couched in 'plainer' english than a quality paper.

As for 'make up the rest' KM didn't......he repeated the lies that were told to him by what he felt were credible sources.

Perhaps my use of the word 'juicy' wasn't the most appropriate in my previous reply as that implies TB etc feeding you a scandalous story, but say he was to say to you 'watch out for exciting transfer news breaking tomorrow' surely you would run with it?

 

[The Large One]

Its the police who fed him lies to cover their failings and inadequacies who should be villified (and subject to criminal proceedings) not a newspaper editor who choose at the time with what seemed like a credible story.

Indeed the police are and will be villified.

When you've got something so sensational, so outrageous that every logical thought dictates that 'surely this is bollocks...' - you check your facts - that's a page one lesson. He did no such thing.

It's not the fact that he ran the story - many papers ran it as an uncorroborated story, and quoting 'Police sources said...' McKenzie chose to run it as a true story - as fact. Sure he was fed a pack of lies, but to exonorate him when he ran it as sensationalised fact rather than opinion is ludicrous.

His behaviour was appalling.

 

[The Large One]

Perhaps my use of the word 'juicy' wasn't the most appropriate in my previous reply as that implies TB etc feeding you a scandalous story, but say he was to say to you 'watch out for exciting transfer news breaking tomorrow' surely you would run with it?

I know you're saying it's the 'nature' of tablloid journalism. And it's that nature - that they deliberately appeal to the most gullible and easily-outraged - that has remained unchecked for far too long.

Perhaps my use of the word 'juicy' wasn't the most appropriate in my previous reply as that implies TB etc feeding you a scandalous story, but say he was to say to you 'watch out for exciting transfer news breaking tomorrow' surely you would run with it?

I would say something like "Tony Bloom states says we're to watch out for transfer news breaking tomorrow, though he wouldn't elaborate on whom, even when asked..."

 

[The Large One]

Right, I'm off for my supper.

I'm making spicy lamb kebabs tonight.

 

[Beach Seagull]

Right, I'm off for my supper.

I'm making spicy lamb kebabs tonight.

Enjoy your dinner mate and will look forward to listening to the roar on Saturday.

 

[Adsgull]

Originally Posted by Beach Seagull
I agree with. His sources were 4 police chiefs an MP and it was via a highly credible news agency. You cannot blame him for going to print with it as indeed some other newspapers did albeit in a in a more sensitive way.

Such was the climate at the time and the perception of football fans as hooligans and scum, the story didn't really need a great deal of 'standing up'. And other than in Liverpool (very understandably so) I dont remember much of an outcry against Kelvin Mackenzie at the time or in the intervening years before the findings of the enquiry two weeks ago.

I would agree he is probably wrong to take action against the YP but as a tabloid editor he took a decision to run a story that was fed to him by credible sources.

100% this,,,but it's far easier to just slag the guy off and jump on the bandwagon. It's in vogue to call Mackenzie a scumbag and a wanker, despite thinking what a lot of people would have done, at the time, in the same situation.

I agree but good journos should check BOTH sides of the story. It just so happens that the disaster did happen when fans had a poor reputation and it was the easy option to blame the fans as they had some previous for violence. It was a stitch up from all angles (police, government and press).

 

[Twinkle Toes]

I thought my opinion on this hideous piece of Über Scum couldn't possibly be any lower, but clearly I underestimated the depths that he was - & evidently is - willing to sink to. Truly horrible.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The Daily Mirror was fed the same pack of lies but refused to publish it without checking some facts. Their headline was vastly different 'Fury as police claim vicitms were robbed'

Read this report
Hillsborough report: why the Mirror refused to accept police spin | Media | guardian.co.uk

 

[Beach Seagull]

Indeed the police are and will be villified.

When you've got something so sensational, so outrageous that every logical thought dictates that 'surely this is bollocks...' - you check your facts - that's a page one lesson. He did no such thing.

It's not the fact that he ran the story - many papers ran it as an uncorroborated story, and quoting 'Police sources said...' McKenzie chose to run it as a true story - as fact. Sure he was fed a pack of lies, but to exonorate him when he ran it as sensationalised fact rather than opinion is ludicrous.

His behaviour was appalling.

The fact that 'many papers ran with it' (albeit in a different way to the Sun) surely shows they didn't think 'this is bollocks' and they must've thought there was a grain of truth in it, otherwise why run it. I bet if a senior police figure approached them that week and said 'there's a guy who works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis' they would not have ran it as surely they would have thought that was 'bollocks.'

His behaviour was not appalling, his behaviour was a 'newspaper editor' the Police's behaviour was appalling.

I bet if you took the street shortly after the publication of the article and asked a random sample 'do you believe the Sun's story?' i bet a majority %age would have replied 'yes.' Obviously thats just my opinion and i could not prove it but i'm old enough to remember how football fans were viewed throughout the 80's.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The fact that 'many papers ran with it' (albeit in a different way to the Sun) surely shows they didn't think 'this is bollocks' and they must've thought there was a grain of truth in it, otherwise why run it. I bet if a senior police figure approached them that week and said 'there's a guy who works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis' they would not have ran it as surely they would have thought that was 'bollocks.'

His behaviour was not appalling, his behaviour was a 'newspaper editor' the Police's behaviour was appalling.

I bet if you took the street shortly after the publication of the article and asked a random sample 'do you believe the Sun's story?' i bet a majority %age would have replied 'yes.' Obviously thats just my opinion and i could not prove it but i'm old enough to remember how football fans were viewed throughout the 80's.

Read my post above and also take into account the journalist Harry Arnold, who wrote the article didn't see the headline of 'The Truth' until it was going to print and begged McKenzie not to add that to his article.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

The fact that 'many papers ran with it' (albeit in a different way to the Sun) surely shows they didn't think 'this is bollocks' and they must've thought there was a grain of truth in it, otherwise why run it. I bet if a senior police figure approached them that week and said 'there's a guy who works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis' they would not have ran it as surely they would have thought that was 'bollocks.'

His behaviour was not appalling, his behaviour was a 'newspaper editor' the Police's behaviour was appalling.

I bet if you took the street shortly after the publication of the article and asked a random sample 'do you believe the Sun's story?' i bet a majority %age would have replied 'yes.' Obviously thats just my opinion and i could not prove it but i'm old enough to remember how football fans were viewed throughout the 80's.

As editor, he is responsible for every word in the newspaper, whether it is true or not. As such, when the shit hits the fan, he has to accept whatever comes his way. He admits he's made a big mistake and STILL feels hard done by?

It was a one-sided story, which he specifically changed the headline on, much to the reporter's unease, and he was purely thinking of selling papers. He COULD have taken the same approach as other titles (who had exactly the same information), but chose it to go down the sensationalist route.


Well boo-f***ing-hoo, McKenzie. You're getting zero sympathy from me.

 

[Beach Seagull]

Read my post above and also take into account the journalist Harry Arnold, who wrote the article didn't see the headline of 'The Truth' until it was going to print and begged McKenzie not to add that to his article.

Obviously after the result of the findings of the enquiry Harry Arnold was correct, but at the time KM choose to take the risk and run the story choosing to believe what he thought were credible sources, unaware that his newspaper was being used as part of the 'cover up'. As the editor it was his call and at the time he believed it was the right one. The previous revulsion of KM prior to the publication of the article was largely confined to Liverpool and indeed he continued to edit the Sun until 1994 when it was the nations largest selling newspaper. Surely if there was nationwide anger towards him and his newspaper he would have at least fallen on his sword (as Piers Morgan did over the fake 'prisoner of war' pictures) or in the extreme the Sun would've been forced to close (as per the NOTW over phone hacking).

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Obviously after the result of the findings of the enquiry Harry Arnold was correct, but at the time KM choose to take the risk and run the story choosing to believe what he thought were credible sources, unaware that his newspaper was being used as part of the 'cover up'. As the editor it was his call and at the time he believed it was the right one. The previous revulsion of KM prior to the publication of the article was largely confined to Liverpool and indeed he continued to edit the Sun until 1994 when it was the nations largest selling newspaper. Surely if there was nationwide anger towards him and his newspaper he would have at least fallen on his sword (as Piers Morgan did over the fake 'prisoner of war' pictures) or in the extreme the Sun would've been forced to close (as per the NOTW over phone hacking).

There were a lot more people than just Liverpool supporters who were revulsed by the Sun at the time, but even now you get people who say the football is better coverage and liking page 3.
Kelvin McKenzie went for sensationalism despite Harry Arnold's judgement and is now paying the price for it.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

The fact that 'many papers ran with it' (albeit in a different way to the Sun) surely shows they didn't think 'this is bollocks' and they must've thought there was a grain of truth in it, otherwise why run it. I bet if a senior police figure approached them that week and said 'there's a guy who works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis' they would not have ran it as surely they would have thought that was 'bollocks.'

His behaviour was not appalling, his behaviour was a 'newspaper editor' the Police's behaviour was appalling.

I bet if you took the street shortly after the publication of the article and asked a random sample 'do you believe the Sun's story?' i bet a majority %age would have replied 'yes.' Obviously thats just my opinion and i could not prove it but i'm old enough to remember how football fans were viewed throughout the 80's.

Unlike the former Editor of The Scum, you should get your facts right before coming out with such ill-informed bollocks. The truth is out there: & it sure as Hell ain't that difficult to find.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Obviously after the result of the findings of the enquiry Harry Arnold was correct, but at the time KM choose to take the risk and run the story choosing to believe what he thought were credible sources, unaware that his newspaper was being used as part of the 'cover up'. As the editor it was his call and at the time he believed it was the right one. The previous revulsion of KM prior to the publication of the article was largely confined to Liverpool and indeed he continued to edit the Sun until 1994 when it was the nations largest selling newspaper. Surely if there was nationwide anger towards him and his newspaper he would have at least fallen on his sword (as Piers Morgan did over the fake 'prisoner of war' pictures) or in the extreme the Sun would've been forced to close (as per the NOTW over phone hacking).

What? Unaware his paper was being used as part of the cover up? The most telling fact is he ran the story with a different angle than EVERY other media outlet. If he hadn't, they wouldn't be part of the "cover up". The outcome is not anyone's fault but his.

Morgan walked - should he be demanding an apology from the photographers?

 

[Beach Seagull]

There were a lot more people than just Liverpool supporters who were revulsed by the Sun at the time, but even now you get people who say the football is better coverage and liking page 3.
Kelvin McKenzie went for sensationalism despite Harry Arnold's judgement and is now paying the price for it.

Maybe there was but it was still britains biggest selling newspaper after 1989 and upto 1994 when KM left.

Jesus so people were are prepared to forget their principles and 'revulsion' of the Sun for a glance at a pair of t*ts everyday??