So yeah, apparently I wasn’t the only one really annoyed about the Game of Thrones spoiler in the Metro yesterday. I spent a lot of last night twitter and facebook stalking their editors and writers who were getting quite a lot of death threats (strangely none of which were from me and I only had a look because I thought it would be funny). So naturally I picked up the Metro this morning to see what their response would be:
Y’know what’s a terrible strategy for a newspaper to employ? Going out of its way to actively insult their readers on their front page. Bravo. You receive the slow clap of complete fucking dickishness……….*clap*…………..*clap*……………*cl*
Yeah we’re moaning but we didn’t “accuse” you of giving away the ending to people who hadn’t seen it you “did” give the ending away for people who hadn’t seen it otherwise people wouldn’t be saying “you gave away the ending for me when I hadn’t seen it” that’s kind of how this works guys…you dicks.
They also published a parody article thing about the supposedly “hysterical” idea of spoilers akin to what I do. Here’s a picture
……..You dicks. You complete dicks….yes I reprinted it for the purposes of criticism and review, this is a valid criticism. You dicks.
You may call double standards because I write dickish parody newspaper articles akin to this and I’m just moaning because its contrary to my opinion but…well yeah just that. This twist wasn’t as obvious as “Sean Bean dies in everything he’s in” not everyone knew it or saw it coming whereas Sean Bean is the one that dies is obvious because there’s a predecent for it. This episode came out the other day and not everyone is caught up with the books. This pisstake article doesn’t work because its not even a similar line of logic. What I do is take a similar line of logic and take it to the most ridiculous of logical extremes…which is kind of what the original article this is based on did so think of this as parody in reverse.
If you read the article response the Metro put out accompanying this, which is actually available here:
It will probably make you want to fling a fistful of dog poo at the Metro editors because its a smarmy load of arse that anyone with two braincells could pick holes in in a matter of seconds but by all means read it. They’re also choosing their words extra smarmily on this one because they want to make themselves look like they already have the high ground when they’re just coming across as utterly smug. You didn’t “reveal the ending to something that had already been broadcast” you ambushed people with it. If it had been a smaller article in the middle, then we could say you revealed it, this was an ambush. We would have accepted an apology but no, you had to be a dick.
The line given is “in the digital age you’re only a few clicks away from spoilers anyway” you are not the internet Metro, you have an internet strand, a website, but this is a newspaper. By nature, people don’t know what they’re going to get. You’ll only stumble on spoilers 1 click away if you type into google “WHAT HAPPENS IN THE LATEST EPISODE OF GAME OF THRONES” you don’t need to do a whole lot to avoid spoilers on a TV show, this is not a justification. No one knew you’d be talking about the other night’s Game of Thrones right the fuck out of nowhere on page 3.
And I see what some people have been saying, its free, you don’t need to read it. Problem with this is what incentive did I have to do otherwise? At least people who are into sport know not to look at the back pages if they aren’t up to date. The Metro is a free bit of reading material on the commute to work, at what point was I supposed to think when opening to that page “gee what if its a slow news day and they decided to ambush me with a spoiler for Game of Thrones on the inside cover?”
And even though I didn’t pay for it, I have every right to be fucking mad. If someone knocked me over in the street and shoved his balls in my face then do I have no right to complain because he didn’t charge me for it?
The article doesn’t even work once you have actually seen it, its just reiterating what people who had seen it already knew, its not “discussing” the event its just reporting on it quite massive and right at the front of the paper in an important section. Who was this article actually for? People who aren’t into Game of Thrones and reporting what Game of Thrones fans think about a twist in it? Who would care about that? Who wants to see it in a newspaper? Why is it vital to your demographic?
Your demographic by the way (in case whichever tosspot decided this would be a better stance than actually saying sorry for a dick move) is people who commute into and around London. People with 9-5 jobs who spend at least an hour a day travelling and have time to kill and a newspaper to read. People with families, people with lives, people with other shit to do who don’t always have time to watch Game of Thrones when its broadcast, or they don’t have sky or want to save it for later. It doesn’t matter if it had ALREADY BEEN BROADCAST and…seriously you bunch of fucking dicks. There is no excuse you can come up with that will make me shut up and stop demanding an apology.
And so because the Metro never admit that they’re wrong, which they are, we’re never going to get an apology and are just going to be told to get over it.
I’m still going to keep reading it because 1: its free and gives me something to write about and 2: its owned by the same company that owns the Daily Mail and therefore is more likely to be a perfect example of English tabloid journalism at its absolute worst, most crass and venal.
Also let it be noted I would still accept an apology if you’d get off your high bloody horse that’s probably penetrated the ozone layer by this point.