The Off Topic Topic

[Sheilbh]

If you are published weekly and a major news item JUST lands before you go to print perhaps indicate that fact? But no, a grabbing headline was just as important back then as it is now. That's my point. Grab the attention, clarify/disclaimer later. Just as nowadays. Same standards.

I think it slightly depends. If you're, say, the London Review of Books or the New Yorker then you can take your time. If your purpose is to be a newspaper then I think you have to scramble and go with what you've got at the point you're going to print - so if you're a Sunday and there's a terrorist attack like the Bataclan say on Saturday evening you have to scrap the front page you've got and go with what's breaking.

And I think in general it is right for people to be informed if imperfectly than news not to be reported. But again I think the news culture of that time matters. There were many, many papers coming out throughout the day - so the same paper might run several issues on the same day (like Syt's example of that Hong Kong paper doing three issues). Even within single runs it might change so it was really common for the headline of the first editions to be very different from the headline by the end of the run (which must be an archivist's nightmare). But even if the paper didn't run several issues each day - the "Daily" in Daily Express means it would be a morning paper - it was going to press with the understanding that there were loads of other afternoon and evening papers to go. There were kiosks and there were the newsboys running round shouting "extra!" for extra additions, new developments.

Because we now live in an age of immediate news cycles I think we view all newspapers as to some extent "of record". They're all fossilised in a moment. That was true for some newspapers in the 30s and 40s (like the Times) - but the vast majority were basically the equivalent of the liveblog or scrolling on social media. They were part of a dynamic, updating, rolling news ecosystem. But also because of that no-one's really going to wait another day for you to get it right when there'll be an update in the morning, lunchtime, evening etc.

Do we think that? I think we see all the time that initial reporting is inaccurate and even when the narrative coalesces we are left with open questions.

I actually was thinking less about reporting. In a way I think the sheer volume of immediately available information increases our suspicion of reported news and creates a (in my view) false impression that we are able to know ourselves because it's all there.

I'm not sure when actual knowledge arrives given it will always continue to be revised.

Oh yeah - totally agree. I don't think the first revision is conclusive I think knowledge may be building up all the time but not sure we ever reach actual complete knowledge.

It's interesting to think how papers would have worked in earlier times. Pre radio, pre telegram....
Something happened in the US!... Last week.

Not just in relation to news. You see it in the creation and running of large trans-contnental colonial empires. "Since my last letter, which you won't have yet, we are now at war with China" (genuine example in the First Opium War - although that's not the actual quote). Ambassadors, plenipotentiaries etc had huge power and importance.

But totally the case - I just looked up The Times archive in July-August 1789. I think the first reporting of the Bastille is on July 22. Interestingly (to Tamas') point it starts with a bit of fact-checking running a "Lies of the Day" article about the "daily prints [that] teemed with them". The World had the "most numeorous and conspicuous [lies], not having a single article accurately stated". It then goes on to quote the World, e.g.: "The Count D'Artois is fled towards German - False. [...] The Queen is gone for Germany - False. [...] The King has retired to Compeigne - False, he is at Versailles." Then in a further article notes "a very curious report has gone abroad of the Bastille's having been demolished during the riots in Paris" - this again is actually to fact-check it and say it's not been pulled down that's just a conflation from the "wretched inhabitants" having been freed by the crowds. This actually seems to become a bit of an idee fixe for the Times - they return to it on August 6 noting that "notwithstanding the assertion of some in the prints a fortnight since" that the Bastille had been demolished "our last letters from Paris state that 500 workers are constantly employed on its demolition" - which seems to be missing the woods for the trees They have lots and lots of other reporting on France atthe time but nice to see that the need to be right v Fleet Street rivals is also a venerable tradition. It's very "well actually" on Twitter.

It is really interesting just how much it foregrounds the nature of the reports they're getting flagging the best letters, the most recent letters etc. In a way I think this is something the press should do more of now.

[Sheilbh]

I can tell that you came of age during the time when communications were instantaneous.

When I began practising law, we still relied on something called the postal acceptance rule.  I won't get into the details of what the rule was, but suffice it to say that it was necessary because communications were delayed by the time it took the post office to deliver a letter.

And that was in the early 90s. Think about how much more inefficient communications were during the time you are being critical of.

It's not often an issue nowadays but you still learn the postal acceptance rule here that an offer is accepted at the point the letter is posted even if it is delayed or doesn't get to the person. I remember my contract tutor giving us an essay on the postal acceptance rule and Trollope - which was great.

It's a long time ago but I think the relevance is that Trollope worked or the Post Office and timing of post is important in a number of his novels. But I think the essay basically argued that the invention of a reliable, trustworthy, affordable, quick postal service across the country was a huge information revolution. So offer could be accepted at the point of posting because it would get to the offeror and it would get their quickly.

[crazy canuck]

I can tell that you came of age during the time when communications were instantaneous.

When I began practising law, we still relied on something called the postal acceptance rule.  I won't get into the details of what the rule was, but suffice it to say that it was necessary because communications were delayed by the time it took the post office to deliver a letter.

And that was in the early 90s. Think about how much more inefficient communications were during the time you are being critical of.

It's not often an issue nowadays but you still learn the postal acceptance rule here that an offer is accepted at the point the letter is posted even if it is delayed or doesn't get to the person. I remember my contract tutor giving us an essay on the postal acceptance rule and Trollope - which was great.

It's a long time ago but I think the relevance is that Trollope worked or the Post Office and timing of post is important in a number of his novels. But I think the essay basically argued that the invention of a reliable, trustworthy, affordable, quick postal service across the country was a huge information revolution. So offer could be accepted at the point of posting because it would get to the offeror and it would get their quickly.

Yes, exactly so.  The post became so dependable that an assumption was built into the law that the post had been delivered by a certain point.  Syt, interesting that when you were taking your exams, in your country it was three days.  Here it was, iirc, two weeks.

[Tamas]

Tamas, you ought to write their editor a letter.

It is going to be strongly worded!

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

And signed in beet juice blood!

[Sheilbh]

I'd go for green ink to really hit the point home

[Grey Fox]

A facet, I find that, we often forget about media before easy & fast communications is how no one outside your area of information travel was going to critic you.

People possedding better information than the Daily Express about Finland, didn't know what DE was publishing nor had anyway to communicate it rapidly.

It was all small bubbles, all slowly travelling on the highway of news of the time without any concern where any other bubbles where going.

[Syt]

Yes, exactly so.  The post became so dependable that an assumption was built into the law that the post had been delivered by a certain point.  Syt, interesting that when you were taking your exams, in your country it was three days.  Here it was, iirc, two weeks.

Tbf, at the time you would expect a letter from one end of Germany to take one, max two days, so at the time I thought three days were quite generous, esp. with most cases being fairly local, i.e. sending a letter within the same community or the next tow  over.