This Just In!

[monkers]

Not really.

'People' are just massively interested in the tale, and are not too bothered about the ins and outs of a suspension policy.

The Sun's exclusive has literally gone around the globe, with dozens, if not more, foreign news outlets following it.

Not to mention dominating the news domestic news agenda.

There may be one or two higher minded individuals on here, although even they are sufficiently interested to post on the topic.

All anyone else cares about is: "Who has been a naughty boy then?"

Yes, in other words, the Sun is a scum rag - the truth didn't matter to them, but opportunities did.

 

[newfhouse]

properly scrutinised

Too funny.

 

[Pale Rider]

Yes, in other words, the Sun is a scum rag - the truth didn't matter to them, but opportunities did.

If they didn't correctly judge the huge reader interest in the story, they wouldn't bother publishing it.

You can heap opprobrium on the millions and millions who want to read the story.

But, as ever, shooting the messenger is just plain dumb.

 

[Bromptonaut]

If they didn't correctly judge the huge reader interest in the story, they wouldn't bother publishing it.

You can heap opprobrium on the millions and millions who want to read the story.

But, as ever, shooting the messenger is just plain dumb.

So if there's a market for it it's OK?

The defence of Whores since Rahab......

 

[Pale Rider]

Too funny.

Come on Newie, I thought you were smarter than those who can only answer 'LOL'.

The BBC would now say they are properly scrutinising the matter, including suspending a staff member, which certainly wasn't happening before the press took an interest.

We also have some interest from our respected elected members in Parliament, which again was not going to happen until The Sun gave the job an almighty prod.

So if there's a market for it it's OK?

With the possible exception of the BBC, we do not have state funded news outlets.

The newspapers have to survive in a competitive market to keep the lights on.

I accept this one is more interesting to the public, but there is also an element of public interest to it, which is just the press doing its job.

Do you think the matter should somehow be banned from publication, leaving the family at the mercy of a BBC cover up?

 

[monkers]

If they didn't correctly judge the huge reader interest in the story, they wouldn't bother publishing it.

You can heap opprobrium on the millions and millions who want to read the story.

But, as ever, shooting the messenger is just plain dumb.

'In the public interest' and 'of interest to the public' are not the same thing at all. At this stage there is no public interest. Scummy hacks have no respect for people's private lives. Correctly conducted investigative journalism is commendable - this is not an example of it.

 

[monkers]

We also have some interest from our respected elected members in Parliament, which again was not going to happen until The Sun gave the job an almighty prod.

The press and some politicians have an unhealthy symbiotic relationship. That just serves to increase the stench.

 

[Deleted member 49]

So presumably the BBC suspended one of its star names for nothing?

The lawyer, in turn, must be telling the truth.

Both flawed propositions.

It's obvious to an idiot something is afoot, which was in danger of being subject of yet another cover up - until The Sun came along.



Mackenzie speaks like a tabloid hack, which members of the public may find crass and many other similar words.

But that shouldn't obscure his meaning, which is entirely correct.

I suppose most people would be pleased the press has been reined in during the last 20 years, although restrictions are always a mixed benefit and may have unintended negative consequences.

Imagine thinking Mackenzie or the Sun for that matter are anything to do with Journalism or the truth....Merseyside have the right idea.

 

[icowden]

If they didn't correctly judge the huge reader interest in the story, they wouldn't bother publishing it.
You can heap opprobrium on the millions and millions who want to read the story.
But, as ever, shooting the messenger is just plain dumb.

Quite right. That nice Mr Murdoch is just running the story in the public interest because he knows that the BBC is a bastion of the UK and should be protected at all costs.

No ulterior motive at all.

 

[matticus]

The newspapers have to survive in a competitive market to keep the lights on.

Like crack dealers, and other service providers.

 

[newfhouse]

Come on Newie, I thought you were smarter than those who can only answer 'LOL'.

I doubt it.

 

[Bromptonaut]

With the possible exception of the BBC, we do not have state funded news outlets.

The newspapers have to survive in a competitive market to keep the lights on.

I accept this one is more interesting to the public, but there is also an element of public interest to it, which is just the press doing its job.

Do you think the matter should somehow be banned from publication, leaving the family at the mercy of a BBC cover up?

Let's look down the magnifying end of the telescope.

Other than salivating and speculating over who it might be what public interest is served?

If it's simply about a market for 'mucky pictures' for a man to masturbate over then it's just that. The market.

If there's a possible criminal charge then wall/wall press coverage isn't going to help.

 

[Pale Rider]

'In the public interest' and 'of interest to the public' are not the same thing at all. At this stage there is no public interest.

I've posted that several times already, and to me there is some public interest, although as I've said it's mostly of interest to the public.

Leaving that aside, I think it's justification enough for The Sun to smash the BBC's wall of silence on behalf of the family.

That's what I was talking about earlier - firing bullets for little people who cannot fire them themselves.

The press and some politicians have an unhealthy symbiotic relationship.

They may have, but it appears in this case the politicians are merely jumping on the bandwagon.

Imagine thinking Mackenzie or the Sun for that matter are anything to do with Journalism or the truth..

Sorry Adam, but that's another fail.

Mackenzie is history, but in today's difficult times you can be sure The Sun has gone to great lengths to stand up the story.

Just because a lawyer for one of the participants says it's rubbish is no reason not to publish, particularly when you know it's not rubbish.

The Sun, quite properly, has published the lawyer's comments at the first opportunity.

Quite right. That nice Mr Murdoch is just running the story in the public interest because he knows that the BBC is a bastion of the UK and should be protected at all costs.

No ulterior motive at all.

If you think Murdoch knew anything about this story before it hit the newsstands, you know even less about newspapers than I thought.

And what is this mysterious 'ulterior motive'?

The Sun operates in a competitive market and has to make money to survive.

You might as well say VW had an ulterior motive when they sold your car to your company.

The motive is roughly the same, keep the business alive.

Like crack dealers, and other service providers.

True, although presumably you can grasp the difference between making money legally and illegally.

Other than salivating and speculating over who it might be what public interest is served?

There is some public interest in reminding large organisations they cannot routinely trample over the little people.

In any event, who says there has to be any public interest in a story?

There's no public interest in a story about a lost cat which turns up years later, but many people like to read them.

 

[icowden]

And what is this mysterious 'ulterior motive'?
The Sun operates in a competitive market and has to make money to survive.
You might as well say VW had an ulterior motive when they sold your car to your company.
The motive is roughly the same, keep the business alive.

Yep. Good old Rupe just wants to sell newspapers.


View: https://www.npr.org/2011/07/09/137725569/rupert-murdoch-rules-more-than-the-world

 

[Pale Rider]

Yep. Good old Rupe just wants to sell newspapers.


View: https://www.npr.org/2011/07/09/137725569/rupert-murdoch-rules-more-than-the-world

Of course he bloody does.

Without controlling influential newspapers he'd have no constituency whatsoever.

That article is about 12-years-old.

Even Rupert cannot push back the sands of time, so his influence is increasingly waning as he becomes more elderly.

In 2023, you'd be better off concentrating your efforts on the likes of Musk, but of course you like Teslas, so he's just an innovative and forward thinking entrepreneur with an admirable social conscience, right?