This is sick and totally beyond the pale. It lends credence to the heartfelt belief of many newspaper readers that the assassination of George W. Bush is the secret wet dream of every journalist...

Give me a break. This wrap is on a paper whose stated and sole market is London commuters. This 'mockumentary' has been so well advertised on the London Underground, buses, in 'normal' print ads and on TV that you would have to try pretty hard to find someone who couldn't put a pretty obvious two and two together.
Aside from that, I don't really get the point of the post above -- it's an ad.

I wonder if newspapers would allow a front page wrap for the NRA with Charlton Heston holding a gun over his head. Or and anti-abortion ad? Or an ad for "The Passion of the Christ?"
Maybe you have to be the only righty in a room full of leftists -- as I frequently am -- to get it.

I wonder if newspapers would allow a front page wrap for the NRA with Charlton Heston holding a gun over his head. Or and anti-abortion ad? Or an ad for "The Passion of the Christ?"
Maybe you have to be the only righty in a room full of leftists -- as I frequently am -- to get it.

I also live in the UK, and it has been advertised all over the country with that photo, so I recognised it as an advertisement immediately, and the London Paper's readership probably would too.

In this day and age who finds out about breaking news, like the assassination of a major world leader, from the newspaper? Chances are you'd find ourt about it while at work from the internet, tv, radio or even a co-worker before you made it into the subway to pick up your free newspaper for the subway ride home. It's also pretty obvious this is an ad or story about the docudrama/mockumentary by the TONIGHT 9PM in the headline.

Also worth noting is that The London Paper is owned by noted bleeding heart liberal Rupert Murdoch. Judging by Mr. Murdoch's properties in the U.S. I seriously doubt he and his staff are in league with leftists and journalists around the world to topple George W. Bush.

Are you guys seriously arguing that it's OK to replace the entire front page of a newspaper with an ad that looks like the newspaper's front page? The fact that it's lefty Bush assassination porn is what they call aggravating circumstances.

regardless of the ad's conent or one's political leanings... the wrap and faking news is just wrong. but some will justify it by saying it made money.

and as a "lefty," i don't want bush assassinated. that's all i'll say since this isn't the forum for that. =)

*content

Two arguments here -- politics and credibility.

It's a fake story, but if it were real, it would warrant this treatment. Heston/Anti-abortion/Passion are hardly in the same league in terms of news values so you're comparing apples with 'liberal media' conspiracies.

As for credibility, is it the first wrap ad? No. Does the londonpaper hold itself up as a bastion of investigative journalism? No -- it's a light, consumer-driven commuter read, not the NYT.

It's a free paper -- if you don't like its politics, its news values or its advertising policies, don't pick it up.

I have no desire to get into a running gunbattle over this. But, I think my point is not getting across.
I didn't say anything about left-wing media conspiracies. My point is that people who work in the newspaper industry are left-leaning (multiple studies confirm this) and that ideology creates blind spots. No doubt, the editors thought that the Bush assassination porn movie is clever and "wouldn't it be wacky if we let the ad run, and gee our readers will feel the same." They would be unlikely to allow the same type of ad if it is something that is ideologically unpalatable, say an ad for the NRA.
Do you really think this is not the case?

My guess would be that the editors had no choice in whether or not the ad ran as shown. I imagine they raised an objection or 2, but ultimately were facing a battle they couldn't win especially when you realize that this is a free paper and More4 probably shelled out a ton of cash to buy that spot.

IMHO running gun battles are what these posts are all about but anyway, I think david's point came across loud and clear.

'Allowing' the same type of ad doesn't arise -- the NRA are unlikely (we can but hope) to ever be as newsworthy as the assassination of a US president -- any US president -- so they would never make it as a single-pic, screaming headline front page.

The conceit of the ad is that this could be a real front page. If you were to pick a different example (such as BBC's docudrama Silent Weapon http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/smallpox2002/ ) you might get my point -- a real smallpox outbreak in England would merit front page treatment, therefore a wrap ad for a fictionalised 'what if?' show about a smallpox outbreak would work.

The examples you have chosen advertise an ideology (NRA, anti-abortion) that large swathes of the population would have problems with. The Bush page is an event -- it's not glorifying the perpetrator or applauding his work it's reporting an, admittedly fake, event.

In closing, 'people who work in the newspaper industry are left-leaning (multiple studies confirm this)' is a broad, ill-evidenced and sufficiently unprovable statement that I would certainly class it as a conpiracy theory, and a pretty clapped-out one at that.

Finoreilly: I don't know where you are, but apparently, you're not paying attention. At least here in America, the numbers skew left in a big way, whether it's a Pew study or a Media Research Council probe. I'm not sure why, but at least three-quarters of America's journalists identify as "liberal." And since they're insulated from the rest of the world, whether they hang out with other journos or with their friends on the Upper East Side, after a while they start thinking everyone thinks the way they do. Bernie Goldberg was right... and you should read his books, "Bias" and "Arrogance." I don't have a problem with someone having political leanings, but we should be up front about them with the consumers of information we generate.

i feel like jumping in, even if somewhat after the event. the original blog was lamenting the demise in media veracity and the broadening gulf between news and truth. i think it misses the point.

the image of george bush (resembling in some way lee harvey oswald) would not have misled anyone in london who picked up the paper - the film had already been aired several months earlier and the ad was promoting the freeview premiere.

further, anyone actually watching the program would recognise it as a provacative, thought provoking examination of an imagined response to the US-led actions post 9-11. the use of the US president (i.e the office) was intended to shock. it wouldn't have elicited the same reaction if an actor was used.

the use of this front page image doesn't drive a wedge between reality and the presentation of news. what is harmful, in my opinion, is the attempt to silence a dialogue that examines the west's role in iraq (and afganhistan). surely a discussion of that issue is more important than whether the press panders to left-wing sentiment.

and thanks finoreilly for some genuinely interesting analysis.