Author Topic: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"  (Read 23809 times)

TheWendybird

  • Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
    • Girl Who Waited
Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2009, 09:07:45 PM »
I guess what both me and Peter Pan think is that the press should be more accountable for false information that they put out there. If something is shown to have no merit or be completely untrue..they should retract and apologize for their error. That's what I've always felt anyhow. I agree with freedom of the press but people should also be accountable and fair. And many times their "speculative" reporting is not fair at all but what they wish to convey. If the media wants the public to view a famous figure a certain way they control it. If tomorrow someone wanted to see oh gosh I dunno....Brad Pitt or someone as a such & such it will happen as long as the media pushes it...it's actually kinda scary.

AlexanderDavid

  • Guest
Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2009, 10:38:39 PM »
I guess what both me and Peter Pan think is that the press should be more accountable for false information that they put out there. If something is shown to have no merit or be completely untrue..they should retract and apologize for their error. That's what I've always felt anyhow. I agree with freedom of the press but people should also be accountable and fair. And many times their "speculative" reporting is not fair at all but what they wish to convey. If the media wants the public to view a famous figure a certain way they control it. If tomorrow someone wanted to see oh gosh I dunno....Brad Pitt or someone as a such & such it will happen as long as the media pushes it...it's actually kinda scary.

Oh, I agree--no arguments there.  I'm just saying that censorship of freedom of the press is not the answer to that problem.  Like Andrew said, libel laws.

TheWendybird

  • Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
    • Girl Who Waited
Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
« Reply #17 on: October 10, 2009, 02:38:30 AM »
I guess what both me and Peter Pan think is that the press should be more accountable for false information that they put out there. If something is shown to have no merit or be completely untrue..they should retract and apologize for their error. That's what I've always felt anyhow. I agree with freedom of the press but people should also be accountable and fair. And many times their "speculative" reporting is not fair at all but what they wish to convey. If the media wants the public to view a famous figure a certain way they control it. If tomorrow someone wanted to see oh gosh I dunno....Brad Pitt or someone as a such & such it will happen as long as the media pushes it...it's actually kinda scary.

Oh, I agree--no arguments there.  I'm just saying that censorship of freedom of the press is not the answer to that problem.  Like Andrew said, libel laws.

Obviously :)

Peter Pan

  • Guest
Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
« Reply #18 on: October 10, 2009, 03:43:17 PM »
A perfect example of why I believe in censorship (or at least punishment when something is shown to be blatantly one-sided) is the way Michael Jackson got treated. The press loved to make him look like a pedophile as much as possible, always deciding to omit all aspects of the story that made him look like he WASN'T one. It shouldn't be legal for the press to present information like this. It's kind of ironic that people are saying that censorship of the press is bad, because censorship is exactly what the press is guilty of doing.

And copied from the Michael as Peter Pan thread... another example of the crap the press gets away with... I wrote the following paragraph:

I would like to see some actual proof that the letter exists. think it could easily be true as well. The existence of the photos anyway. But those photos are actually indicative of absolutely nothing. Unless somehow there's a naked picture of Michael in a playboy bunny pose.   ::)

Now if a reporter were to treat me like Michael Jackson, he would quote me as saying:

"I would like to see", Peter Pan said, "a naked picture of Michael in a playboy bunny pose."

And to do that in reporting is perfectly legal. This is what freedom of the press gets you.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2009, 03:47:36 PM by Peter Pan »

AlexanderDavid

  • Guest
Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
« Reply #19 on: October 10, 2009, 06:19:34 PM »
We'll just have to agree to disagree, then.  I agree with you that the press shouldn't be allowed to do that, but censorship is an extreme and frightening answer to it, and where does it end?

If censorship is allowed, how long does it take before my views are censored because of being unpopular?  That's how freedom dies.

Peter Pan

  • Guest
Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
« Reply #20 on: October 10, 2009, 07:54:44 PM »
Actually, "majority rules" already does that. Sure there were rare reporters who portrayed MJ in a better light, but you couldn't hear them amidst the army of reporters screaming "BURN THE WITCH!"

And in most cases, it all boils down to has more money because all forms of communication institutions demand payment for their services. So if you have the money, you just dominate all the TV channels, radio stations, newspapers, etc. with your ads, and we wind up with the phrase, "Buying the Election." And the little guy who ran for whatever on a shoestring budget... you see him on the ballot on election day and you wonder, "Who the heck is he?"

Popularity practically rules over truth. For instance, how long did it take for the rainbow to change? It was a symbol traditionally associated with "the bridge to heaven", hope, dreams, fortune, luck, "God's Promise", for thousands of years. The gay community managed to jam a flag into it and claim it as their own symbol in a quarter of a decade, and suddenly anyone with an abundance of color is automatically stereotyped as being a homosexual. How did this happen? Homosexuality was, and still somewhat is... controversial. Controversial sells, it's popular, it has the power. A headline depicting a guilty MJ grabs peoples' attention, depicting an innocent MJ it does nothing.

TheWendybird

  • Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
    • Girl Who Waited
Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
« Reply #21 on: October 10, 2009, 08:03:36 PM »
I think the matter at hand here is Peter Pan is not saying to censor everything just i think we all agree people who print things or say things known to be lies should be held accountable. And majority of the time today they are not. What Peter is saying is there is backward censorship...the media is the ones censoring and they are censoring the aspects of stories and situations that could help people better understand it because they have their own agenda. Hence his Michael Jackson example. They pushed and pushed one view..they didn't show the opposite side of it as well. Or on the flip side..complete lies that they were not held accountable for. I don't think he's saying to censor everyone just that this backward censorship is already going on and people are not being held accountable for doing it. People should be given both sides of a story and left to decide for themselves..instead...the media is trying to sway people into certain views. I don't think many people would argue that one. But I really don't think he's saying to censor the media ;)

Peter Pan

  • Guest
Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
« Reply #22 on: October 10, 2009, 08:13:21 PM »
That's exactly it. The problem isn't that the media needs to be censored. The problem is that the media needs to be UNCENSORED. Reporters are showing the public only the side of the story that they wish the public to see. It's like once the media decides they don't like you, you're the antichrist no matter what you do, and the same goes for the exact opposite. If they like you, you're going to be loved no matter what. Britney Spears, anyone? Or for something a bit closer to MJ's old dilemma... Roman Polanski has been being treated by the press (and consequently, the public) like a innocent Angel.

AlexanderDavid

  • Guest
Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2009, 10:22:47 PM »
That's exactly it. The problem isn't that the media needs to be censored. The problem is that the media needs to be UNCENSORED. Reporters are showing the public only the side of the story that they wish the public to see. It's like once the media decides they don't like you, you're the antichrist no matter what you do, and the same goes for the exact opposite. If they like you, you're going to be loved no matter what. Britney Spears, anyone? Or for something a bit closer to MJ's old dilemma... Roman Polanski has been being treated by the press (and consequently, the public) like a innocent Angel.

I figured that was what was meant, and I'm neither trying to suggest otherwise nor trying to put words into your mouth that you're not saying.

But as you said yourself, the media does its own censoring, and as I've said, I'm against ALL censorship, and that certainly includes the media deciding what's "news" and what isn't, what we need to hear and what we don't.

When the media tries to censor a movie, say, because of its subject matter before it even comes out, that's when we know we need to see the movie--why are they keeping it from us?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2009, 01:37:31 AM by AlexanderDavid »

TheWendybird

  • Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
    • Girl Who Waited
Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
« Reply #24 on: October 11, 2009, 01:01:37 AM »
That's exactly it. The problem isn't that the media needs to be censored. The problem is that the media needs to be UNCENSORED. Reporters are showing the public only the side of the story that they wish the public to see. It's like once the media decides they don't like you, you're the antichrist no matter what you do, and the same goes for the exact opposite. If they like you, you're going to be loved no matter what. Britney Spears, anyone? Or for something a bit closer to MJ's old dilemma... Roman Polanski has been being treated by the press (and consequently, the public) like a innocent Angel.

I figured that was what was meant, and I'm neither trying to suggest otherwise nor trying to put words into your mouth that you're not saying.

But as you said yourself, the media does its own censoring, and as I've said, I'm against ALL censorship, and that certainly includes the media deciding what's "news" and what isn't, what we need to hear and what we don't.

When the media tries to censor a movie, say because of its subject matter before it even comes out, that's when we know we need to see the movie--why are they keeping it from us?

Amen!

Moondust

  • Guest
Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2009, 01:50:24 PM »
I first read Dudgeon's bitter, twisted nonsense in an article published in the Daily Mail, which says a lot about its objectivity...  ::)


It upset me at first. I actually cried in a library, which was fairly embarrassing. I think it was put down to exam stress by anyone who saw me though, which was OK. I just felt so frustrated that a cruel, misinformed man is entitled to put such slander into the public domain and present it as factual.

Reading his views, I couldn't help but question what he was hoping to achieve by publishing such horrible, biased insults. It was not a piece of literary criticism, or even an informed biographical piece. It was just slander. It was merely accusatory, insulting, inaccurate and all-assuming slander, spewed from the self-indulgent mind of a writer with little or no grasp of what informative journalism or writing ought to provide. I learned nothing from what I read of his piece, nor would anybody; all it had the potential to do is to warp people's opinions and turn them against a figure who, ultimately, none of us TRULY have the right to turn moral judgement on. He lived and died long ago, and why people think they have the right to insult and accuse him of evil when he cannot present a counter-argument eludes me.

Now, I'm all for speculation, exploration of facts, and theorising. But when it comes to pronouncing a widely celebrated and adored late author to be a heartless, loveless, mind-warping monster, I draw the line.

I mean, come on. I learned the concept of objectivity in writing when I was about 12. Surely as an educated man, Dudgeon should be able to comprehend the need for SOME form of subtlety.

Of course, I'm being terribly insulting and harsh towards him, like a hypocrite. But I'm a university student on an affronted rant. He's a published writer. I think I, of the two of us, have the right to be a bit ratty ;)

ecb

  • Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
« Reply #26 on: November 05, 2009, 08:24:41 PM »
Well it's finally come out in the U.S. under a slightly different title:

Neverland: J. M. Barrie, The Du Mauriers, and the Dark Side of Peter Pan

(Probably hoping to cash in on Finding Neverland).  I peeked at the few pages you can look at on Amazon - he sure makes a lot of assumptions based on very little.

Here is the NY Times review:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/books/26neverland.html

You can read the first chapter here - oh and by the way he calls Mary Hodgson , Nanny Hodgson.  I think Mary would have hated hated hated that!
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 09:42:02 PM by ecb »

andrew

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 274
    • View Profile
Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2009, 12:03:59 PM »
Hated it indeed she would - and the whole book by the sounds of it (I didn't want to risk raising my blood pressure by reading the whole thing). 'Tis a pity the NYT critic (and others?) didn't visit this site first before reviewing Dudgeon's turgid tale...

ecb

  • Member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
« Reply #28 on: November 09, 2009, 08:25:21 PM »
I took a look at Neverland (formerly Captivated) at my local bookstore this weekend.  He even gets pictures wrong!  The picture of Michael which Barrie had on his window overlooking the Thames is labeled as being George [note - I reread the thread and see that Andrew picked that out right away].  A picture of Sylvia when she was in her thirties is said to be her in her last illness. Such sloppiness does not produce confidence - and that is even before you get to the equally sloppy text!

And that business of calling Mary "Nanny" throughout the book really sets my teeth on edge - all you have to do is look at this site and read all the many many letters written to her by the boys to see that she was and remained "Mary" to them! >:(

He mentions Daphne coming into town to uncover the blue plaque denoting George du Maurier's residence in London - only a very short time after Peter's death.  Daphne mentions it herself in a letter to Nico.  Dudgeon mentions that Gerald Millar also attended as did "Nico and his two sons".  Now I know that mistake came from a book about Daphne by Janet Cook.  I think it is possible that two of Peter's sons attended with Nico and Ms. Cook was confused.  However Dudgeon even has a family tree where it is very easy to note that Nico did not have two sons - or even one!  Again sloppy sloppy!
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 08:29:09 PM by ecb »

robin bogart

  • Guest
Re: Piers Dudgeon and "Captivated"
« Reply #29 on: January 07, 2010, 05:37:12 AM »
As i sit here reading Neverland, by Piers Dungeon I feel compelled to take the time to vent my outrage.  Where is Dungeon's sense of journalistic ethics when he decides to invent some cockamamie fantasy involving six year old Jamie's culpability in his brother's death?  I've already noticed many inaccuracies, but at this point i feel like throwing this book into my fireplace (unfortunately I can't because I took the book out of the library).  I also blame the publisher (in the states, Pegasus Books).  I guess the lesson is that greed knows no bounds...if you can sell it and make money, to hell with integrity!