Precious Williams has emailed to say the letter below is a hoax, but it does reflect her anger at Trelford's Independent piece. I'll keep this posting up for now; plainly mischief is afoot. Precious has written a substantial letter to me but I shall not put it up until or unless she gives me the go-ahead ...
Yet more astounding comments on the Jon Snow/Precious Williams fandango - some more credible than others it must be said. One in particular appears to be a letter from Precious Williams to Donald Trelford who wrote a plainly misrepresentative piece yesterday in the Indie (not the Guardian). Now, if this letter is a hoax, perhaps Precious could email me privately ...
donald.trelford@independent.co.uk
Subject: Indpendent article
Date: Jun 11, 2007 10:37 AM
Dear Mr Trelford
I was astounded by your piece in today's Guardian [it was in the Independent! - ed]. How ironic that a story purporting to be about the ways in which the Mail on Sunday got a story so wrong could itself be so incredibly wrong!
I spoke to Phil Hall this morning and he is adamant that you have taken everything he said out of context. Phil Hall is not and has never been my agent. How could you possibly write a balanced account without even attempting to contact me and ask for my account of events? You have presented "facts" about me that you have made no effort to confront me with. At best this is shoddy journalism but I think it goes further. I consider it libel and in not bothering to even confront me prior to publishing the piece, you appear to have had a very clear agenda.
Precious Williams
The next comment is plainly a hoax, but Donald Trelford is invited to email me privately if he wishes to say anything ...
Don Trelford said... I'm big enough to admit that I got yesterday's story in the Indy wrong. I was misled by several MoS sources, and Phil Hall kept changing his story.
Yeah, right ... and finally for now, an anon comment: it would be helpful to know where or to whom Hall's comments were made ...
Phil Hall is claiming that he never was Williams's agent and that they have a mutual friend in common and he was giving free advice only to Williams. According to Hall, Trelford has grossly misrepresented him and the embarrassment Hall talks about is embarrassment at how the MoS has acted only. Hall also allegedly commented that he's pissed off because Snow will likely not invite him onto Channel Four news again in the foreseeable future. Hall's claiming he did not broker a deal for Williams and that there in fact was no deal at all and that Williams sounded dangerously un-clued up in her phone conversation with him.....
33 comments:
I think the time has come for the sensible colonel from Monty Python to intervene and declare these proceedings too silly for words. Who knows what happened between Precious Williams and Jon Snow? Who cares? I remember a friend of mine worrying one night that someone might find out that he'd spent a couple of hours with a prostitute somewhere in the Middle East. Then it occured to him that the headline would read, "Tired Old Hack has Sex with Whore," whereupon he decided – rightly – that no one gave a flying fuck what he did in his free time. Can we move on now ... please?
No, absolutely not. The story has legs, and why? Because is it possible the Mail on Sunday is telling half truths? How many people buy that paper because it is trusted? Jon Snow is a solid and respected TV journalist. Is he a liar? Precious Williams has a reputation to defend. Is she being straight? I don't know the answers to these questions, I want to know the answers.
This is not really a story about who slept with whom - who cares? - but whom can one trust. I shall stick with this story as long as it sticks with me. Someone's lying and I want to know who.
Very well, you leave me no choice.
Sound of police sirens, screeching tires and slamming car doors.
Graham Chapman: All right, that's it. This controversy is too silly to be allowed to continue. Move along, there ... and that includes you, madame. Come on, jump to it. If this "issue" isn't resolved in the next 30 seconds, I'll have my men open up with machine guns. Don't say you weren't warned.
from Jon Snow's Wikipedia page:
"He was the partner of human rights lawyer Madeleine Colvin for 35 years, but they were reported as having split up in May 2007. On June 3, the Mail on Sunday retracted two stories claiming Snow had an affair and had smoked cannabis. However, Fleet Street sources paint a very different picture, maintaining that Snow is a rampant horn-dog who has shagged so many birds (especially black ones) that not all of their names "ring a bell" with him."
Why have vanilla when you can have chocolate I always say!
I've always noticed there are tasty indiscretions in the english Wikipedia that don't appear at all in the french one. That must be cultural, I guess.
The Mail on Sunday's apology to Snow was one of the most insincere apologies in newspaper history. The only thing they are sorry about is the fact that Precious Williams refused to help them back up their story. It's fairly well-known that Snow is lying, that he not only had sex with Williams but that there are also a whole string of other women he had extra-curricular dalliances with. With his pompous actions towards the MoS he has effectively warned off any other papers who may have been considering publishing kiss and tells with other random women Snow has screwed.
I hear that Jon Snow was given his first ever job by none other than John Profumo, shortly after Profumo had of course been sacked for lying about his affair with Christine Keeler.
And that's why the Snow-Williams affair is a matter of highest political importance. Oh tabernak, please stop or I'll die laughing !
Who said it was of the highest political importance? No one. Try to keep up, dearie. This matter is about whether a major national newspaper can be trusted, whether a trusted political journalist can be trusted - it's a media story.
And what's importance? Anything deemed important by His Highness?
<< Who said it was of the highest political importance? No one. Try to keep up, dearie. >>
Ah, sheesh, see what happens when I forget the smiley...
<< This matter is about whether a major national newspaper can be trusted, whether a trusted political journalist can be trusted - it's a media story.
>>
Can ANY newspaper be trusted ?
Besides, I hope you don't judge a rag's trustability by the way they report sex scandals, otherwise... :-)
<< Anything deemed important by His Highness? >>
Not much, as a matter of fact. I'm an incurable skeptic.
The most incredible part of this "story" is the way everyone seems to be taking Jon Snow's denials as the gospel truth. Bwahahahaha
Duralex asks..."Can ANY newspaper be trusted?".
Hope so Duralex, otherwise I'm out of a job.
In the context of the current controversy this makes interesting reading http://www.medialens.org/articles/interviews/jon_snow.php
Liz
> Can ANY newspaper be trusted ?
Yes, but never thoroughly. :-) All the journalists know that, don't they?
When are they trustable, then ? (I'm talking about the serious press naturally, not about the tabloïds, although they tend to mix dangerously nowadays.) Well, that's the question!
I find rather significant that Arcati worries about that. It's a clue that she's probably a fake journalist, or just an amateur. A real one would not be so naïve. I have noticed other proofs of her amateurishness, especially her haste to quote questionable sources without the slightest previous verification. A somewhat embarrassing consequence is that her chickens invariably come home to roost.
In other words, before questioning the reliability of the newspapers, la Donna could question herself first. She might learn a lot. :-)
No, newspapers cannot be trusted but some papers are definitely less trustworthy than others. When I read The Sun, The News of the World, The Daily Mail or The Mail on Sunday, I assume their content is bullshit and I don't trust their so-called revelations and "scoops" one tiny bit. Do you realize how frequently the above-named papers get sued? It's obvious that they just print whatever shit they feel like printing and that they realize they will be sued quite often because they are so untruthful. What I'd say happened here is that there is some truth in the story, ie Jon Snow and Precious Williams had sex at some point or another, The Mail on Sunday blew the whole thing out of proportion as that filthy rag is prone to do and voila, a "scandal".
Personally I treat such rags as the Associated newspapers, The Sun etc as though they are works of fiction. Why? Because for the most part they are.
You'd have to be insane to fully "trust" anything the Mail on Sunday publishes....
Poor Lorenzo, it must be all those magic mushrooms in his pasta sauce.
I should think any journalist - or anyone interested in the media - would be concerned about trust. Without trust, what have you got? How odd that you think professionals would not share this concern. As a notion it's kinky, I'll say that.
And which chickens have come home to roost at Arcati, my sweet? Which questionable sources in which stories - your proof? Are you perhaps writing on empty here? Try a little research, it might reconnect you with some residual talent that has somehow got waylaid.
I almost shiver with delight at your naive and child-like assumption that a "professional" always uses reliable and unquestionable sources. Bless. You need to acquaint yourself with the Press Complaints Comm, and tot up the number of apologies newspapers run per week to lied-about victims.
Lorenzo, if you are any kind of journalist - and may I congratulate you on your persuasive appearance to the contrary - you may find it useful to your trade to quit that comfortable armchair you snooze in once too often. Rise and shine for Madame!
The path from reporter to reader is strewn with the broken glass of rewrites by the newsdesk, copy taster, page editor and sub.
No wonder there is sometimes blood on the floor.
Wrong to assume journalists have an agenda because we haven't. Try rattling off eight editions a day and updating the internet half a dozen times with running stories/pictures/video and you can see how easily it can all go wrong.
I do around three interviews a day with my other hat on, as director of Bullying Online (www.bullying.co.uk), and I deal with all the nationals, TV, radio, newsagencies, documentary makers, local media etc, often on controversial stories. Believe me, they're all very good, particularly the NOTW, Sun and Guardian.
When stuff is wrong it's often a genuine misunderstanding, a mishearing on the phone or something has been cut out of the story in haste, accidentally changing the meaning.
I just don't share the cynicism about the media because I think we do a great job, particularly when we use FoI to expose stuff people would like to keep quiet.
Anonymous asks whether people realise how often newspapers get sued.
The answer is not often because people with empty pockets try it on. Threats of legal action are an occupational hazard but as lawyers want £40,000 up front to start a High Court action unless you're super-rich and can risk that sort of dosh to win £3,500 forget it.
How curious, I would have sworn that this article with all its comments had been removed, but it’s still there. I must have been hallucinating. It’s those mushrooms, you know. ;-)
Anyway...
> How odd that you think professionals would not share this concern. (ie trustability).
Don’t pretend you didn’t get me, please. I never said nor thought that. I just said it’s interesting that you, the less trustable blogging “journalist”, worry about it in the official press. Does it make more sense now?
> I almost shiver with delight at your naive and child-like assumption that a "professional" always uses reliable and unquestionable sources.
Neither did I ever assume that, on the contrary. Hell, I ought to know! Can you read?
Apart from that, I came across Clive Davis’ (wise) opinion about the current topic:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/clivedavis/31958/private-lives.thtml
I quote his conclusion: “All in all, a tale worth bearing in mind next time you hear a journalist complaining about the slapdash work habits of bloggers.” Approximately what I was saying ironically the other day.
Then Arcati asked foolhardily:
> And which chickens have come home to roost at Arcati, my sweet? Which questionable sources in which stories - your proof? Are you perhaps writing on empty here?
Arcati, your self-indulgence (or is it blindness?) just stuns me – it’s not the first time: remember the Jonathan King debate.
One name, cara: Perez Hilton. Does it ring a bell to you? On may 23, you quoted him as gospel, laying yourself open to ridicule in case an innocent observer would publish the whole interview PH used – and abused… – which inevitably happened. Of course, the actual tenor of this interview was in complete contradiction with PH’s shameless manipulation.. and your own giddy assumptions. So much for your demanding intellectual honesty, signorina.
I won’t tell you “go in peace and don’t sin again”, because I know you can’t help it. There’s no cure for such a foolishness. :-)
Dear Lorenzo, plainly you're not used to being contradicted, the sign of an armchair critic if ever there was one.
As to my dear friend Mr Hilton, that's all a matter of interpretation. Spacey's words were plainly coded. He may as well have said "I will survive!". It's subtextual, so that may have passed you by, you being one of the trustees of culture who just love this site.
As to slapdash bloggers - well, the dead tree hacks would say that wouldn't they? Let's forget about the daily newspaper apologies to lied about victims and the many complaints to the Press Complaints Comm, and not forgetting the many examples of inaccuracy, fiction and prejudice that maybe daily discovered in the prints.
Your quoting Clive Davis quoting Donald Trelford is doubly risible. The Trelford piece - on Snow/Williams - is widely regarded as rubbish, fed to him by persons at the Mail on Sunday. Trelford's time as Observer editor was not a high point of British journalism.
The great thing about blogs is that highly paid editors can no longer control what will be published or not - and messages are no longer manipulated by establishment assumptions.
> As to my dear friend Mr Hilton,
He'd certainly be flattered if he knew he's your "dear friend".
> that's all a matter of interpretation.
You said it, not me.
> Spacey's words were plainly coded. He may as well have said "I will survive!". It's subtextual
Too much "Da Vinci code", carissima. :-)
> The great thing about blogs is that highly paid editors can no longer control what will be published or not - and messages are no longer manipulated by establishment assumptions.
It's much more trustable, of course, when they are manipulated by anonymous and masked amateurs... On the web anybody can say whatever they want about whoever they want, it's just meaningless.
You and your breed are living in the delusion of being very influential, whereas you're nothing but a pointless scum. No one takes your blather seriously, but you're irritating enough to draw an intrigued attention. That's all.
"As to my dear friend Mr Hilton, that's all a matter of interpretation. Spacey's words were plainly coded. He may as well have said "I will survive!"
With due respect, madame, an argumentation based upon mere imagination is the weakest you can develop. Words are words.
But you're right : Spacey will survive, whether his stalkers like it or not, and he'll keep teasing them until death – their death, natch ;-).
What were we talking about, again?
Madame A "a pointless scum"?
Way, way too harsh, surely?
Lorenzo's principal folly is that he thinks he knows what I am - in fact he knows nothing. But guess work does not thwart his sense of certainty. He wouldn't know whether the man who calls himself Perez Hilton is a friend or not, and he certainly has no idea about Spacey, the poor sap - is it possible Lorenzo lives in a maximum security twilight home? Does Lorenzo toil for Reader's Digest?
If Arcati is without influence why do so many newspaper and magazine journalists visit it? - I tot up the numbers each day on Google Analytics. They leave a great many comments too. Perhaps they have too much time on their hands or they come here to learn something or be entertained. Who knows?
Lorenzo admits to being "intrigued" by Arcati. This is flattering indeed from someone who otherwise could pass credibly as roadkill.
"Roadkill", oh dear, I'm on my ass laughing ! Bravo, Arcati, stick to your guns ! My grandmother always told me: "When you can't defend yourself, attack."
But don't exhaust yourself please, chérie, I'd be so sorry !
<< He wouldn't know whether the man who calls himself Perez Hilton is a friend or not >>
If Perez Hilton is actually a friend of yours, well, that means something, and I wouldn't boast about it if I were you. It's a matter of credibility : that guy is a complete and utter douchebag.
<< Perhaps they have too much time on their hands or they come here to learn something or be entertained. Who knows?
>>
All the journalists are voyeurs, you ought to know. :-)
< Lorenzo's principal folly is that he thinks he knows what I am - in fact he knows nothing. >
But apparently some others do...
Lorenzo,
If you don't like MA why are you spending so much time on the site? Find some daytime telly to watch instead.
MA is far from being 'amateur', she's a great writer with first class contacts and a big following in the media.
Stop being so grumpy.
Hmmm, Arcati has her lap dogs, as we can see, and my bet is she won't complain if they believe they know her much better than I do. :-)
> MA is far from being 'amateur,' she's a great writer
Not so bad as a writer, I don't deny. But definitely an amateur as a journalist.
> with first class contacts and a big following in the media.
Yeah, according to her.
Arcati said:
> He wouldn't know whether the man who calls himself Perez Hilton is a friend or not, and he certainly has no idea about Spacey
Not really as a matter of fact. But at least I can read properly, and I don't need... which word did Duralex say?... ah yes, douchebags, LOL... to tell me what to think before I read.
Law, politics, PR & marketing, sales, education ... oooh, just as bitchy. It's just journalists express it better.
As for Lorenzo, would someone scrape him off the road and give him a decent burial. He deserves that at least.
Ah, hush, Madame. When you wish someone's death, it means that they scare you, don't you know ? I must say that Lorenzo's sharp eye is quite disturbing. Perhaps you should improve your working methods, after all. :-)
Going back to the original subject matter, Donald Trelford. I've read quite a few of his columns and he seems to have a real penchant for writing misleading, poorly put-together bullshit. Here's a commentary on another one of his little gems:
http://mediastandardstrust.blogspot.com/search/label/Trelford
"they come here to learn something or be entertained. Who knows?"
Resentment (or even hate) might be a reasonable hypothesis too. I'm surprised you didn't think of it :-)
> As for Lorenzo, would someone scrape him off the road and give him a decent burial. He deserves that at least.
I'm moved to tears by such a solicitude. But you would miss me, carissima, wouldn't you?
Don't worry, I'll be back! Godfathers never die. :-)
Marlon Brando to star in the upcoming Terminator 4, wow!
Post a Comment