Friday, November 28, 2008

Most unexpected thing found so far in research for the history of Private Eye...

... mention of a teenage Sharon Osbourne (then Levy), in an article on her father Don Arden's business practices in November 1969, when the Eye was rather groovy and Paul Foot wrote lengthy articles about pop music mis-management.

Alright, I'm really only bringing this up as an excuse to point you towards this picture of a pre-surgery Sharon, as your friday treat.

8 comments:

Display Name said...

Heh! More Friday treats!

Rob said...

proof, if further proof were needed, that a steady diet of alcohol and "nosebag" never did anyone any harm.

Anonymous said...

And nice to see Stu 'Crush a Grape' Francis again too...

Unknown said...

I cannot wait to buy your history of the Eye. It's high time someone good (i.e. you) wrote one.

Any vague inkling of when you'll be finished? (one doesn't rush these things, obviously.)

Adam Macqueen said...

Thank you Tom. I don't know who you are, but you are clearly a gentleman of excellent taste and perspicacity.

'Fraid you'll have to wait until some point in 2011 though... which I guess sounds like a really long time to everyone except me.

Unknown said...

2011: so it's the Ashes and this tome to look forward to. And it just so happens I do have excellent taste. Thanks for picking up on that...

Am I right in thinking that the Eye has no publicly accessible archive of its content over the years? Not even for subscribers?

In all my time dealing with Lexis/InfoTrac et al., I've never seen Eye stories listed. If they are not, I suspect there's a legal impetus for that - right?

Shame, since a lot of individuals and organizations would pay top dollar for a searchable Eye archive. Plus, I imagine it would make writing an Eye history about 8,573 times easier.

Madam Miaow said...

EEEK! (Which one's Shazza?)

Adam Macqueen said...

Tom: we've got one in-house, which is completely invaluable, and there's been talk for a while of making it available to subscribers, but to do that someone would need to go through everything cross-referencing every legal case and removing the stories that the Eye ended up having to pay out over to avoid effectively "re-publishing" them, which would be a massive and expensive job. It might happen... some time.