Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Presentation on the S*n's coverage of Hillsborough


Recommended Posts

Hi everyone.

 

I have to give a 10 minute presentation in my Media, Communication and Context class and I’m considering talking about the S*n’s coverage of the Hillsborough disaster, basically analysing how a blatantly disrespectful coverage of the disaster has resulted in the S*n losing all its credibility (if it had any in the first place!), how it has affected the relationship between the medium and society. I’m just a bit afraid that I might end up talking about mackenzie and how much of a c*** he is as he is the main culprit, but I’m not sure that’s a good idea since my presentation is an academic exam. Therefore, any input/ideas/etc. on the angle of the topic will be greatly appreciated (my professor has never heard of Hillsborough so obviously I need to enlighten him a bit!).

 

 

Also, these are my guidelines:

 

You should strive to narrow your research question as much as possible. It is better to deal with a narrow topic in-depth, rather than trying to cover too broad a topic superficially. I can provide assistance with this.

Your presentation should be analytical in nature, and not simply descriptive. You should be arriving at a meaningful conclusion(s), which is supported by your research.

You should have some theoretical basis for your analysis. As you choose and refine your topic, I will assist you individually with this.

It is suggested that you consult 5-10 quality academic sources, beyond the course texts, for your presentation.

 

Your topic may deal with either an historical or contemporary issue. You may also compare periods.

Your topic may deal with a specific medium or technology.

Your topic may deal with a specific theory or theorist.

You may deal with a specific media artifact, i.e. publication, ad, commercial, film, TV show etc.

Your presentation may be comparative in nature, but considering the time limitations, be careful not to attempt covering too much.

Your topic must have relation to English language media or communication. In other words, you may not choose to focus on media or media artifacts that are not in English.

 

 

Just to clarify, I'm not looking for anyone to my dirty work or anything, but some of you have a lot of knowledge about the topic that could indeed help improve my presentation.

 

Many thanks in advance,

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my professor has never heard of Hillsborough so obviously I need to enlighten him a bit

 

Whereabouts are you based, out of interest?

 

Loads of papers carried allegations similar to those made by the S*n, by the way - the big difference was one of tone and I suppose prominence the S*n gave to it.

 

Even one of the local Merseyside papers, the Daily Post, carried some hugely disatseful stuff.

 

Not that I'm saying for a second that the S*n wasn't the worst,nor that it doesn't deserve the revulsion with which it is held.

 

Have a look here - it might be of some use.

 

Get a copy of this as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whereabouts are you based, out of interest?

 

Loads of papers carried allegations similar to those made by the S*n, by the way - the big difference was one of tone and I suppose prominence the S*n gave to it.

 

Even one of the local Merseyside papers, the Daily Post, carried some hugely disatseful stuff.

 

Not that I'm saying for a second that the S*n wasn't the worst,nor that it doesn't deserve the revulsion with which it is held.

 

Have a look here - it might be of some use.

 

Get a copy of this as well

 

I'm Danish. Unfortunately, Danes with no interest in football generally don't know anything about the disaster.

 

I'm aware of other papers carrying allegations, but to me the difference is that the S*n presented the allegations as THE TRUTH, unlike other papers, or am I wrong? Also, I reckon it would be too superficial if I were to focus on the general coverage of the disaster? Ideally, I would also like to focus on the role of the police and all the lies as they obviously play a major part, but again I'm afraid it's not close enough to the course description and goals.

 

Cheers for the links, kop205!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some quick points as I head out of the office...

 

First up, what is the presentation actually on?

 

You've already jokingly suggested that paper never had any credibility. If that's your starting point, you're in trouble. This is an academic study, and as such that rag's place in the media history of this country needs to be observed impartially. Not easy I know, but your work needs to be balanced.

 

To look at that headline, you have to understand where it came from - lies sread by the establishment and an editor's acceptance of those lies without checking them. A good place to get an angle on this would be both the BBC Panorama programme and the subsequent special by The Anfield Wrap team.

 

As kop205 says, while that rag took the hit, others were guilty of spreading the same lies. The Star is one that springs to mind.

 

I'm also not sure that paper's coverage had much impact in a wider context. Yes the families suffered and the whole of the Liverpool community turned their back on it, bit across the nation people just went about their daily lives. The phone hacking scandal has had far more impact on society than that headline did at the time I think.

 

 

 

Anyhoo, bank holiday working over, I'm off home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also mention the recent phone hacking scandals. The rag and it's owners have tried to point the finger at other authorities but they couldn't give a f***. They sold millions of papers and still do, with circulation figures of 2.4 million.

 

Right today, wrong tomorrow.

 

Might have to watch The Paper later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you search randomly within the HIP report you will find reams of documents that will have reference not only to that aspect but also to other issues relating to media coverage. The written down attempts to shut down and discredit The Cook Report for instance, as he attempts to unravel the original mackenzie story.

 

I think you may need a bit more than 10 mins too!

 

 

Yeah man.

 

it's one of them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, thank you for your replies.

 

Some quick points as I head out of the office...

 

First up, what is the presentation actually on?

 

You've already jokingly suggested that paper never had any credibility. If that's your starting point, you're in trouble. This is an academic study, and as such that rag's place in the media history of this country needs to be observed impartially. Not easy I know, but your work needs to be balanced.

 

To look at that headline, you have to understand where it came from - lies sread by the establishment and an editor's acceptance of those lies without checking them. A good place to get an angle on this would be both the BBC Panorama programme and the subsequent special by The Anfield Wrap team.

 

As kop205 says, while that rag took the hit, others were guilty of spreading the same lies. The Star is one that springs to mind.

 

I'm also not sure that paper's coverage had much impact in a wider context. Yes the families suffered and the whole of the Liverpool community turned their back on it, bit across the nation people just went about their daily lives. The phone hacking scandal has had far more impact on society than that headline did at the time I think.

 

Well, my initial idea was to show how the S*n ignores all ethics in order to publish a story and gain attention/sell papers, with Hillsborough being the most obvious example. Of course my presentation has to be impartial (which, as you say, isn't very easy), but on here is a different matter. :) Maybe I could look at how all the different media covered the disaster? I mean, the Beeb coverage was most likely way more neutral, and it could serve as a comparison maybe?

 

I'm not sure of the rag's credibility pre mackenzie, but I reckon he's the main culprit in relation to its lack of credibility of today. Also, I've seen a few episodes of BBC Panorama but I've never heard of an episode involving the S*n?

 

I don't think whether or not it had a great impact on society is that important in relation to my conclusion. And by this I mean that if it turns out that it hasn't really affected society (on a national level), well, then the S*n has succeeded in spouting b******s without any real consequences. A very sad conclusion indeed, but a conclusion nonetheless.

 

I considered doing a presentation on the phone hacking scandal, but since it was already covered in class the professor rejected the idea. :P

 

have you got a (i know not really) comparable cover-up scandal in danish history you could link or compare it to? and then expand on it?

 

Fortunately, there has been no such thing in Denmark (yet). An option could be to compare it with another UK or US cover-up scandal maybe?

 

Also mention the recent phone hacking scandals. The rag and it's owners have tried to point the finger at other authorities but they couldn't give a f***. They sold millions of papers and still do, with circulation figures of 2.4 million.

 

Right today, wrong tomorrow.

 

Might have to watch The Paper later.

 

The S*n was part of the phone hackings? The continuing 'shifting the blame' and 'I'm also the victim' is what really makes mackenzie stand out, I think, with "it's the police's fault that I printed 'THE TRUTH'" being one of his prime piss-takes.

 

If you search randomly within the HIP report you will find reams of documents that will have reference not only to that aspect but also to other issues relating to media coverage. The written down attempts to shut down and discredit The Cook Report for instance, as he attempts to unravel the original mackenzie story.

 

 

Will take a look at that, cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm also not sure that paper's coverage had much impact in a wider context. Yes the families suffered and the whole of the Liverpool community turned their back on it, bit across the nation people just went about their daily lives. The phone hacking scandal has had far more impact on society than that headline did at the time I think.

 

I live in the south of England and a number of fans of other teams, plus some Liverpool fans, still think that 'The Truth' was accurate. I obviously let them know what really happened, and the recent coverage over the last 12 months has pushed home that point. However mud sticks - the wider context being reputation of Liverpool fans which possibly created difficulty in getting traction in the Justice campaign earlier. It is ridiculous that it took as long as it did to reveal the failings and cover up, despite a lot of it being known years ago. It is clearly speculation the extent to which perception caused by 'The Truth' helped the establishment maintain the cover up, but it clearly did not help - the families were fighting an uphill battle as soon as that was printed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in the south of England and a number of fans of other teams, plus some Liverpool fans, still think that 'The Truth' was accurate. I obviously let them know what really happened, and the recent coverage over the last 12 months has pushed home that point. However mud sticks - the wider context being reputation of Liverpool fans which possibly created difficulty in getting traction in the Justice campaign earlier. It is ridiculous that it took as long as it did to reveal the failings and cover up, despite a lot of it being known years ago. It is clearly speculation the extent to which perception caused by 'The Truth' helped the establishment maintain the cover up, but it clearly did not help - the families were fighting an uphill battle as soon as that was printed.

 

Yeah. The paper's circulation was about 4 million back then and it wasn't just that one issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, my initial idea was to show how the S*n ignores all ethics in order to publish a story and gain attention/sell papers, with Hillsborough being the most obvious example. Of course my presentation has to be impartial (which, as you say, isn't very easy), but on here is a different matter. :) Maybe I could look at how all the different media covered the disaster? I mean, the Beeb coverage was most likely way more neutral, and it could serve as a comparison maybe?

 

I'm not sure of the rag's credibility pre mackenzie, but I reckon he's the main culprit in relation to its lack of credibility of today. Also, I've seen a few episodes of BBC Panorama but I've never heard of an episode involving the S*n?

 

Broadcast last Monday evening - revealed more facts and truths, as well as pointed the finger at who started spreading the lies that were then published in that rag and other papers. I'm sure it could be found somewhere.

That'll also show some of the BBC footage from the day of the tragedy and after. And like I said, The Anfield Wrap also did a very good podcast on the programme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Broadcast last Monday evening - revealed more facts and truths, as well as pointed the finger at who started spreading the lies that were then published in that rag and other papers. I'm sure it could be found somewhere.

That'll also show some of the BBC footage from the day of the tragedy and after. And like I said, The Anfield Wrap also did a very good podcast on the programme.

 

 

It's become even more clear, those who've called us out for 23 years don't watch programmes which confirm what we've known all along, that they're just c*nts with an agenda. I was on the end of a crack about us standing at Fulham the other week apparently it was to hide those fans who'd 'jimmied in without tickets again'

 

I f*cking erupted, literally, then realised I was wasting my breath and just told him to f*ck off whilst our wives looked on. I never bring Hillsborough up nowadays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should watch this from the night of the disaster. Fair, obecjtive reporting of the tragedy. " No violence of any kind " repeated.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypE5TG2UPNk

 

How stark in contrast between that and the agenda created " truth " of that rag and the SYP. Within days, the rest of the media was following their lead, even the BBC.

 

.

Edited by Earl Hafler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also mention the recent phone hacking scandals. The rag and it's owners have tried to point the finger at other authorities but they couldn't give a f***. They sold millions of papers and still do, with circulation figures of 2.4 million.

 

Right today, wrong tomorrow.

 

Might have to watch The Paper later.

 

and The Front Page

 

and the one with Kirk Douglas in it

 

and The Sweet Smell of Success

 

and then read Die Verlorene Ehre Von Katharina Blum (in the original German of course, to get a better feel for it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm Danish. Unfortunately, Danes with no interest in football generally don't know anything about the disaster.

 

I'm aware of other papers carrying allegations, but to me the difference is that the S*n presented the allegations as THE TRUTH, unlike other papers, or am I wrong? Also, I reckon it would be too superficial if I were to focus on the general coverage of the disaster? Ideally, I would also like to focus on the role of the police and all the lies as they obviously play a major part, but again I'm afraid it's not close enough to the course description and goals.

 

Cheers for the links, kop205!

Perhaps you should focus your report on the boycott and the effectiveness of concentrating it on The S*n?

Edited by cymrococh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and The Front Page

 

and the one with Kirk Douglas in it

 

and The Sweet Smell of Success

 

and then read Die Verlorene Ehre Von Katharina Blum (in the original German of course, to get a better feel for it)

 

Had a good weekend, have we ?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Finally, I'm (almost) done with my presentation (which is about time as the exam's tomorrow!).

 

If any of you want to add/correct anything or just read it, you can take a look at it here:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ihfknjq6ffjki03/5HeDwvfVed

 

I would like to say that is has been a tough (the Beeb's documentary was extremely difficult to watch!) but also rewarding process, as I've learned even more about what happened, who's to blame, etc. Also, I'm pretty pleased that tomorrow two more people will be aware of what happened. :)

 

And finally: THANKS a lot for your help!

 

 

JUSTICE FOR THE 96!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soundo

 

Was gonna say to check your spelling (where-were) but well in lad.

 

Cheers!

 

I've pulled a few all-nighters which is (I hope) why there are a few mistakes (like where-were, emotionAL point of view, Coverage of football matches IS and not are), but as long as I don't have any mistakes in the presentation it should be fine.

 

My biggest worry now is having to cover everything in only 10(!) minutes! :ohmy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...