Is this appropriate?

[alison]

Pardon me for bordering on politics yet again, but I could really do with some input on this.

 

Yesterday, I found in my junk mail folder an email from the editor of a certain national newspaper to which I am signed up, pleading with me to vote a certain way.  Fortunately, although it had been sent the day before, I hadn't spotted it because it wasn't in my inbox, and I had already voted, so I'm pleased to say that it had no influence on me whatsoever, but I feel distinctly disturbed that this should have been sent to me.  I must be signed up to 4 or 5 different newspapers, yet it was only this one which presumed to attempt to influence my vote so blatantly (leaving aside the possibility that I might have been reading its election coverage and being influenced by its bias).

 

Do you think this is an appropriate way for a senior representative of a newspaper to behave?  I have been in email correspondence with my MP in recent years: *he* didn't try contacting me by email to get me to vote for him.  I'm not even sure how legal this would be under the Data Protection Act.

[Fiz]

No, I think it very inappropriate and intrusive.

[Jan McNulty]

I think it is totally inappropriate and absolutely appalling

[Lisa O`Brien]

Same here.

[taxi4ballet]

Nothing surprises me any more... I agree though, totally inappropriate.

[sarahw]

Agree totally unacceptable

[sarahw]

And yes not allowed under data protection act - just done my training! Maybe you could email him and let him know?

[LinMM]

I agree Alison.

 

I was even shocked when I picked up the Standard in London on Wednesday and the whole paper was directly urging Londoners to vote Conservative in quite a blatant way.

I know most newspapers are biassed but I'm sure Ive never seen the Standard quite so blatant.

[alison]

I don't think I've ever seen any of the papers *quite* so blatant as this election: from the "Red Ed" and general character assassination of the tabloids upwards, I've been left wondering whether I could trust any of them.  In the end, I don't really think I've read any political coverage from any of them in the last 5 weeks!  But yes, the Standard has noticeably got more right-wing - while staying more liberal on certain other issues.

[Sunrise]

I agree :-( In my home country, we have one english language paper that is fairly moderate with the odd government interference now and then. But I was pretty shocked when I first came to the UK to see how partisan the newspapers are. I try to read a broad spectrum of media to get a rounded view of things, but it makes me ill when "news" and front pages turn into one opinion piece after another, supporting one party. Why can't they just leave their opinions to one editorial before the poll?

[Anna C]

Highly inappropriate IMO. I would suggest complaining to IPSO but I'm not sure they'd do anything. :-(

[Ian Macmillan]

Alison:  I'd be a little surprised if a national paper had deliberately flouted the Data Protection Act after all the ups and downs of recent years.  Perhaps you checked a box or, more probably, did not uncheck one, pertaining to permitting further communication from them?

[alison]

I'm sure I did, Ian - I'm not disputing that.  I'm asking whether it's appropriate (and possibly legal) for an editor to be taking this action.  It seems highly dubious to me.

[Melody]

Is there some new free-speech law that overrides the Data Protection Act in this respect by any chance?

 

Over here, "free speech" seems to cover a multitude of things that are highly dubious where elections are concerned.

[MAB]

I've spoken to a lot of people on both sides of the political divide that are uncomfortable about political bias in newspapers.  It's one of the reasons I prefer TV to find out what's happening in the news and why I've stopped buying papers, just occasionally picking up one of the free ones.

 

Journalists go on and on about falling circulation but I think they should examine what they write and start to realize that for a lot of people this political partisan attitude isn't what they want to read.

[alison]

Journalists go on and on about falling circulation but I think they should examine what they write and start to realize that for a lot of people this political partisan attitude isn't what they want to read.

 

It's not what I want to read, either.  Nor is 22 pages on football on a Monday while the sports I'm actually interested in get a paragraph or two at most.  Nor do I want to see endless "celeb"-style coverage on the front page when there are *important* things happening in the world.  Nor do I want to be forced to go hunting online for the things I *do* want to read because someone has decreed that they're not going in the print edition - and especially if I'm expected to pay again for the "privilege".

 

Anyway, getting back on topic ...

[Vonrothbart]

It's not what I want to read, either.  Nor is 22 pages on football on a Monday while the sports I'm actually interested in get a paragraph or two at most.  Nor do I want to see endless "celeb"-style coverage on the front page when there are *important* things happening in the world.  Nor do I want to be forced to go hunting online for the things I *do* want to read because someone has decreed that they're not going in the print edition - and especially if I'm expected to pay again for the "privilege".

 

Anyway, getting back on topic ...

 

 

I agree with a lot you say alison, maybe you should stop buying it. The problem is, a lot of people want half of the issue to be full of junk, for instance, the biggest selling newspaper in the UK has / or maybe had, a picture of a naked lady, and a crossword that a chimpanzee could complete. Unfortunately those two things alone, made it the success it is, maybe a sign of the times we live in.