Talk:Wapping dispute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
There are a couple of problems here, otherwise okay article.
Firstly, para 2 focuses on cost savings for journalists keying in directly. Reality is that journalists and editors loved the ability to be able to change things right up to the last minute, which is of course of importance in a newspaper trying to have the latest info and competing with TV and these days the internet. On this point too it allowed for the use of colour and other graphic changes eg the Today newspaper. By failing to adopt this new technology, and even dominate it as they had done with typesetters, the unions inevitably lost when journalists, editors, publishers, owners, advertisers and even readers all supported it for the many advantages it would bring.
Secondly, the last paragraph is pretty erroneous, listing only the Sunday Correspondent and The Independent. There has also been the previously mentioned Today newspaper, and The Post both set up by Eddie Shah and which predated Wapping; The European, which though no longer existing, was an interesting attempt to develop a multi edition, multi language pan European newspaper only possible through use of the new technology; and the short lived News on Sunday.
Other papers set up since have included the Daily Sport and Sunday Sport.
This is not bad as before then Fleet Street had string of newspapers which had shut down, and no new ones eg News Chronicle, Daily Sketch and mergers eg London's Evening Standard/Evening News. So choice was quite significantly enlarged ie about 50% enlarged compared to existing titles, and in fact revolutionised the UK newspaper industry in terms of style and content. The fact that not all were successful illustrates that choice alone is not the sole factor. The new production methods and technology have allowed use of colour, and multiple sections amongst other things - hardly trivial.
The new production methods of course also allow the printing of newspapers and magazines in more than one centre at once, even abroad.
But choice has certainly spread in the plethora of magazines that are now available - the press is all print, not just newspapers. The "media" of course encompasses not only print, but film, TV and now internet. But the technology is pretty much the same for TV and internet, and that has led to an enormous increase in choice, though as we know, not always better quality eg satellite TV <g>.
The truth is, as Steve Jobs of Apple Computer put it, the new technology and production methods empowered the rest of us, and it's results are long lasting, and led to a bigger media. Along the way, it let all of us produce newsletters and other media unthinkable in pre-Wapping days, which has allowed the internet to develop in the way it has, and ultimately onto blogging.
Thinking you could stop this technological juggernaut was a loser from the start.
Tony Spencer. (16+ years as a Production Editor).
Someone knowledgeable might like to write an article about the industrial dispute (I seem to recall debate as to whether it was a strike or a lock-out) immediately preceding (and enabling) Murdoch's purchase of The Times. Omicron18 15:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Wapping Dispute origins
I wrote the original text for his piece, and agree that some of the subsequent changes are not wholly accurate, although not wholly inaccurate either. The piece seems to hold together pretty well, though, and I've been loathe to add much more detail for fear of making an informative piece rather flabby. I have written elsewhere in more detail about the dispute and there is a nice piece in John Pilger's "Hidden Agenda", now listed as an online resource, although the definitive works on the Dispute are Suellen Littleton's "Wapping Dispute" and Linda Melvern's "End of the Street". There's other stuff around but it is mostly derivative or narrow in scope, and the Wapping Dispute does feature in literature in the writings of Tim Lott and Bill Bryson, and possibly others. Does anyone feel we need more detail on the piece here?
[edit] Prop: R Murdoch
He's actually chairman and chief exec - not precisely proprietor. There are shareholders... --Cunningham 11:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possible copyright violation
This article appears to be heavily based on the page at http://www.oatridge.co.uk/wapping.shtml , which is marked © Nic Oatridge 2003. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.30.241.45 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
I'm the author, Nic Oatridge. I'm happy to see the material reproduced here and, as amended, see it in the public domain. --NicOatridge
[edit] Right wing
The idea that most UK newspapers are right wing is rubbish. Most UK newspapers are reactionary, perhaps, but can hardly be described as right wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.250.228 (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Personal opinion really doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. Zchris87v 00:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Missing information
This article really doesn't mention the location. Since I don't know much about the geography of where it took place, I don't feel I'm quite qualified to add in this information. Granted that unless you're reading something about Wapping, you won't have much interest in this article, but I stumbled upon it and if it weren't for the fact that I'd only once heard of Wapping before, I'd have no idea. For example, the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 mentions the location of Tianamen Square and the city, but as Beijing is well enough known, it doesn't need a country location (hopefully you can figure out where London is, in this instance). Zchris87v 00:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The article refers to the location as Wapping, which has a full listing in Wikipedia and a link. There is also references to the specific streets which featured prominently in the dispute. I think this is probably OK for a piece of this length. However I will look at clarifying the location. nicoatridge 21 Jan 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicoatridge (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
