After the closure of the 168 year-old News of the World amidst shocking allegations of widespread phone hacking, ELL reporters went out onto the streets of south London and gauged the reaction to the end of Britain’s biggest selling Sunday newspaper.
James Fekaruvhovo, 32, student, Lewisham.
“They got their just deserts. When you spend your life looking and judging others you get it back- they deserved it. If you can’t dish it, don’t take it. From the paper, I like reading the sports and the drug stories. I think the editor is wholly responsible for this unethical action. It’s sad that the many [500] people lost their job but if you work with the devil you can’t complain when he stabs you back.”
Kai Bichard, 20, New Cross, student.
“I will miss it, I do read it, especially the sport section. It is down to the newspaper on the whole but it is down to us as they are doing it for us. I will fight for it though. The new one won’t be half as good or sell as much, but they will be doing the same thing, selling stories, just not as successful. The government press regulation would be a bad thing; we shall leave the press to do their thing.”
Delroy Salmon, actor, 35 years old, Surrey Quays.
“News of the World going down is great. Being an actor I have seen both sides and it is disgraceful. Football is my favourite part of the newspaper-not their personal lives though, plain football.
“I think the replacement paper would just be a watered down version of News of The World. If I wanted information I would go on the Internet as it gives an unedited account, before it has been changed. The media now influences what people do. I think the papers are already regulated, they just decide what they put in and what they don’t. There is no such thing as ‘free journalism’ as long you have an editor.”
Ben Gwalchmai, 26, writer, London and Wales.
“Complex as its history is, it stank for ages. Goodbye, good riddance; good Guardian.”
Words: Barsha Gurung and Myozen Ingram-Peters
Hello,
Sorry to quibble but I did try to make it clear to the reporters that the News of the Worlds origins were 167 years old and that it was a shame it had got to the point where it had to be closed down – i.e. somewhere along the line, 40-50 years ago, it went sour. That is to say…a long time ago. Sorry, no, that is to say it’s unfortunate that it became the way it is 40-50 years ago.
I don’t personally think it a shame that the magazine is closing down [indeed I probably did call it a magazine as it hasn’t reported news for those 40-50 years] in fact, I’d be quite happy to see it, The Sun and The Times close.
Notably also, I said that I enjoyed reading its foreign affairs reporting from the 167 year old versions available in archive for my research purposes. I also tried to encourage the reporters to consider the complexity of the situation – something unaccomplished by their four sentences.
Unfortunately, I think the reporters enthusiasm for precis may have meant I’ve been massively misquoted here.
Ben,
Apologies for the somewhat clunky version of your comments. As you may or may not have realised the students who interviewed you were sixth formers on a summer school project at Goldsmiths – which runs East London Lines – and did not really have a lot of experience of journalism. I can’t obviously know if they misquote someone, not being there at the original interview. I took the ‘magazine’ reference to relate to their glossy supplement.
Would you like to submit your own version of what you would like to say in two or three lines and I will post it.
Apologies again.
Terry Kirby, supervising tutor, Goldsmiths
Tutor, Department of Media and Communications, Goldsmiths.
Terry,
Thanks for getting back to me – here’s something in its stead:
‘Complex as its history is, it’s stank for ages. Goodbye, good riddance; good Guardian.’