The press, what they knew and how they knew it.

[Sally]

By all means, lets dispense with vague insinuations, if you choose to insist Isaacs was under arrest when you claim he was, bring forth the official record.

Care to pick up the gauntlet?

Well I could, certainly - wouldn't be difficult. But in the light of the present, thus far fruitless discussion regarding the Morning Adveertiser, the question I have to ask myself is - 'Is it worth my time and effort?'

I'll let you know what I decide.

[Sally]

It would help immensely if you could stay focused.

Well, I don't have a suspect to endorse, so yes, I suppose that does mean that I'm not as 'focussed' as some. Oh well...

The Morning Advertiser, as I stated from the start, was financed by the Licensed Victuallers, but as a mainstream morning newspaper, sold and distributed as such, not an, 'over the counter trade "rag" for the brewery".

Mmm. And why would the Licensed Victuallers do that, do you think? What possible profit would there be in the creation and promotion of a paper that didn't specifically serve their interests?

You are wrong, Jon. There is ample documentary evidence, contemporary and more recent, that proves that to be the case.

The term 'Trade Paper' in this context only means it was published by the Trade, it is still a Newspaper.

No, it doesn't. You are wrong. Nobody need take my word for it. It's out there - in black and white, several times over.

True Trade Papers (meaning their content was entirely devoted to the business of the breweries), were periodicals, weekly, bi-weekly, often monthly, but a true Trade Paper does not publish daily, the interest simply does not exist.

No, utter nonsense. The Morning Advertiser was a subscription paper; devoted to trade interests. It was first circulated in pubs (a truly great surprise, considering...) and coffee houses. Later on, when its subscription rates dwindled - in about 1850 - the paper was reformatted (enlarged) to a broadsheet paper and began to carry general news, as well as the content it had always had devoted to trade interests. It's popularity increased as a result, and by the later 19th century, it was in every pub, coffee house and club in London.

There it is. Trade paper. Popular, yes - it had a circulation second only to the Times by the latter 19th century. That was due to two things: the sheer number of pubs, clubs and coffee houses in London; and the fact that it didn't carry only trade news.

The Morning Advertiser was a mainstream daily newspaper, and everyone at the time knew it as such.
Because a newspaper carried advertisements for the trade does not make it a Trade Paper. The content of the Morning Advertiser was devoted to News, not the interests of the publican.

No Jon, because as I've already pointed out to you, there are numerous contemporary references to the Morning Advertiser as the mouthpiece of the brewing industry. That indicates, beyond dispute, that 'everyone at the time' knew perfectly well what it was - of course.

If I really have to, I'll put some of them up here. Hopefully not though. Life's too short and it's a really nice day outside.

[Wickerman]

Well I could, certainly - wouldn't be difficult. But in the light of the present, thus far fruitless discussion regarding the Morning Adveertiser, the question I have to ask myself is - 'Is it worth my time and effort?'

I'll let you know what I decide.

Something tells me I already know what you have decided, the same as 'others' who find themselves unable to substantiate their argument, exit stage left....


Which reminds me, I wonder what happened to Michael in his endeavour to find his elusive 'record'..

[Wickerman]

No, utter nonsense. The Morning Advertiser was a subscription paper; devoted to trade interests.

Newspapers are distinguished from Trade Papers by the very fact a Newspaper had to be registered as such through the General Post Office. This is how R F Whites knew how to distinguish a Newspaper from a Trade Paper, but I've shown you this already...

[Cogidubnus]

Half price postage...

Newspapers are distinguished from Trade Papers by the very fact a Newspaper had to be registered as such through the General Post Office. This is how R F Whites knew how to distinguish a Newspaper from a Trade Paper, but I've shown you this already...

Sorry Jon but this is not so...and as a philatelist of some fifty years standing I ought to know...

From 1870 Periodicals registered themselves as newspapers with the Post Office, not because they had to, not so they could officially become a newspaper, but simply to qualify for reduced postage concessions - and in fact in 1870 a special 1/2d postage stamp (known as the Bantam) was introduced to effect this discount.

This is NOT, emphatically not, a way to distinguish between newspapers and other publications. Magazines, Periodicals, Newspapers etc all registered alike to obtain the discount. When I was a kid even my dad's John Bull magazine and my mum's Titbits were registered as newspapers...you're surely not suggesting they were serious rivals to the Thunderer are you?

The practice continued until, I think, 1968 when it was modified to apply to only "registered newspapers" despatched by their printers/publishers and their agents and now consists first class postage on payment of the second class rate.

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Sorry Jon but this is not so...and as a philatelist of some fifty years standing I ought to know...

From 1870 Periodicals registered themselves as newspapers with the Post Office, not because they had to, not so they could officially become a newspaper, but simply to qualify for reduced postage concessions - and in fact in 1870 a special 1/2d postage stamp (known as the Bantam) was introduced to effect this discount.

That sounds fair enough, thankyou Dave.

[Sally]

Something tells me I already know what you have decided, the same as 'others' who find themselves unable to substantiate their argument, exit stage left....

Not really, Jon. Not unable - more like unwilling. See, I do realise that whilst this thread is entitled to suggest that it concerns the press, and what they knew; what its really about is Isaacs and Hutchinson's account in relation to Astrakhan Man - and that really isn't worth my time.

Fundamentally, your entire Morning Advertiser argument - in my view - has less to do with whether or not it was first and foremost a trade paper (it indisputably was) than the reliability of its news items - and that because a reliable Morning Advertiser suits you better than an unreliable one.

As Ben pointed out to you in an earlier post, the two do not necessarily have a direct causal link. In simple terms, even if you were right, and the Morning Advertiser was merely another general newspaper; it would make no difference to the credibility of its news items. It can be demonstrated, by example, that the Morning Advertiser was in error in several instances; and thus, by a process of simple logic, it cannot be relied upon for accurate news reporting. That is not to say of course that it was never correct; but that caution should always be applied when considering its news reporting. As we've established, the Morning Advertiser did not invent its news stories - it merely printed them.

I've argued with you about this because as far as I can see, you are misrepresenting the facts. It's the one thing almost guarenteed to get a response from me - and I'm posting not for your benefit: since you have already fixed your opinion that would be futile - but for the benefit of the unbiased readers out there who might prefer to know what the plain facts are.

As to the rest, watching people tie themselves into knots obsessively playing 'My Suspect's Bigger than Yours' doesn't really interest me.

Whatever.

But never mind - if I don't bother with Isaacs, perhaps somebody else will enlighten you - it might be woth their time, who knows?

Adios - for now.

[Garry Wroe]

I have made a serious effort to leave this thread, and I would have stayed away from it - had I not been misrepresented.

I stand by every word of my previous post, Fish, and will provide substantiation if required.

Now, I absolutely stand by my BELIEF that Toppy was the witness - of course - but I have never said that it is a fact that this so!

Then perhaps it would be an idea if you were to present your beliefs in a less belligerent manner, Fish. My impression is that your posting has had a far more considered approach over recent months – a welcome improvement on the blood and thunder of old. The bludgeoning quality of your most recent Toppy contribution did you no favours, however. Whether intentionally or not, it created the impression that you were endeavouring to browbeat other posters into your way of thinking.

I know EXACTLY what Leander said, I know the EXACT limitations to it and I have NEVER said that his verdict constitutes "scientific proof" that the two men were one and the same.

Then I would urge you to revisit the Leander thread, Fish, where you stated that Frank had ‘nailed it’ – provided scientific proof that Hutchinson and Toppy were one and the same. It’s there in black and white.

I fully expect you to be the rational spokesman for what I call the Hutchinsonians in matters like these. You always are.

Thank you, Fish. Most kind. And in turn I’m pleased to see a return to a mellower approach on your part. It allows for a far more reasoned debate, something in which I hope we will continue to engage for a considerable time to come.

[Fisherman]

I stand by every word of my previous post, Fish, and will provide substantiation if required.


Then perhaps it would be an idea if you were to present your beliefs in a less belligerent manner, Fish. My impression is that your posting has had a far more considered approach over recent months – a welcome improvement on the blood and thunder of old. The bludgeoning quality of your most recent Toppy contribution did you no favours, however. Whether intentionally or not, it created the impression that you were endeavouring to browbeat other posters into your way of thinking.


Then I would urge you to revisit the Leander thread, Fish, where you stated that Frank had ‘nailed it’ – provided scientific proof that Hutchinson and Toppy were one and the same. It’s there in black and white.


Thank you, Fish. Most kind. And in turn I’m pleased to see a return to a mellower approach on your part. It allows for a far more reasoned debate, something in which I hope we will continue to engage for a considerable time to come.

I think you will find, Garry, that what I said Frank Leander nailed was that the two signatures he looked at were very similar, and not that the two men were one and the same. You will recall that there were posters having a very hard time to see any likeness at all back then ...
I expressed then, I expressed in my former post and I will gladly reiterate that it has always been common knowledge that the material Leander looked at would not allow for proving a match - it only allows for a pointer in that direction.
To my mind, the similarity cannot have been recognized as small by Leander, since he clearly stated that he would be surprised if the signatures were by different men.

If you found my reasoning lately on Hutchinson offensive, I´m afraid I can only do what I have already done: state that it cannot be a total certainty that Toppy was the witness. My own belief, however, is that this was so, and I myself regard it as a near certainty. To my mind, the built-in evidence together with Leander´s assessment leaves very little space for a mistkae on this count.

That should sort things once and for all, I hope.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Not really, Jon. Not unable - more like unwilling. See, I do realise that whilst this thread is entitled to suggest that it concerns the press, and what they knew; what its really about is Isaacs and Hutchinson's account in relation to Astrakhan Man - and that really isn't worth my time.

That, indisputably, is the position taken by Ben, which is why we find ourselves here. When anyone undertakes a smear campaign purely in order to defend a personal theory, it is necessary to expose the fallacy of the argument.

As Ben pointed out to you in an earlier post, the two do not necessarily have a direct causal link. In simple terms, even if you were right, and the Morning Advertiser was merely another general newspaper; it would make no difference to the credibility of its news items.

On the contrary, it has not been claimed by me to be error free, it has been claimed Ben The Morning Advertiser was worse than its contemporaries. While I have maintained it was no different, - they all published errors.
The press published opinion, not facts.

I've argued with you about this because as far as I can see, you are misrepresenting the facts.

You are the one to dismiss contemporary records in favor of modern opinion, and you don't see that as misrepresentation?

Any researcher worth their salt will always consult contemporary accounts. Whether this be for a Wiki article or The Cambridge Literary History, it is absolutely necessary to locate printed material of the period in question.

I have done this with Whites listings from 1890, which identifies the Morning Advertiser as a Newspaper.
You choose to dismiss it.

We also have Sell's Dictionary of World Press, dated 1886, which also lists The Morning Advertiser as a Newspaper.

Also, in a previous post you made a claim, (unreferenced, as usual), that the Advertiser was subscription only. No, it was not.

Sell's lists all the Newspapers which were subscription only, and the Advertiser is not included.
What Sell's also does is list all the publications by the Licensed Victuallers. Only the Wine Trade Review was by subscription, and Monthly.
They also had a Guardian, published every Friday, 2d. And two Gazettes, one for Scotland and one for England, Saturday, 2d.

The Gazette was their "over the counter" flagship for the brewers, as endorsed in their header:

The only Official Organ and Independent Paper published representing the large body of Traders associated with the Licensed Victualling interests is

The Licensed Victuallers' Gazette

You appear to have a habit of dismissing the facts, in favor of what you believe, and yet you suggest I am the one misrepresenting?

But never mind - if I don't bother with Isaacs, perhaps somebody else will enlighten you - it might be woth their time, who knows?

I don't expect You or Ben "to bother with Isaacs", because you both know you are unable to substantiate him being in prison on 8th Nov.

And there the matter will rest.

[Ben]

Still playing catch-up here. Sorry...

But yes, the Morning Advertiser was a paper for the pub trade, as is extremely well known. It was, and is, principally "devoted to trade interests". And yes, their reporting of the Kelly murder was less accurate than that printed by most other papers, as can has been demonstrated again and again. I'm quite aware that "they all published errors", but the MA were responsible for more than most, although the Daily News was another repeat offender. Was the fact that the MA was a lesser, booze-funded rag a factor in their propensity towards error? Probably not, but on the other hand, they did not receive the Central News interview with Hutchinson himself that most of the mainstream newspapers received (Times, Telegraph etc), which is why they still laboured under the mistaken impression that his name had been suppressed "for reasons of his own safety".

It isn't necessary for you to keep highlighting directories that describe the MA as a newspaper, since this has never been disputed. It provides news and it's printed on paper - great, but it's still pub trade publication, and always was, so let's not waste pages and pages of repetitive posts attempting to claim otherwise with futility.

Moving on, and I see I'm being accused of conducting a "smear campaign" on the subject of Joseph Isaacs, which fascinates me. How is arguing that Isaacs was not the murderer, not Astrakhan, and had an alibi for the Kelly murder tantamount to a "smear campaign"? Very odd, but never mind. As I said, I'm simply playing "catch-up" here, and I note that we've dealt with the Isaacs nonsense more recently anyway, and it really doesn't bear repeating.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

The idea of anybody conducting a smear campagin against Joseph Isaacs (ahem...) is laughable. Hiarious even.

No really - it really, really is.

That's even funnier than the 'Private Sale' thread.