This Just In!

[monkers]

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?

What was a billionaire willy-waving contest had now become a willy measuring contest, and all in the public interest do you think?

If there's no money in it, why are billionaires so keen to buy up newspapers, even in countries other than which they were born or reside?

They are buying the right to hold the power to shape minds by telling lies, violating rights as they do so. Billionaire and 'world leaders' are in a symbiotic relationship helping each other with power.

Everything is for sale including democracy and human rights. Sometimes we need to stand up and be counted.

You are complicit because 'it pays the bills'.


View: https://youtu.be/QMPUOkn8yuc

 

[Pale Rider]

What was a billionaire willy-waving contest had now become a willy measuring contest, and all in the public interest do you think?

If there's no money in it, why are billionaires so keen to buy up newspapers, even in countries other than which they were born or reside?

They are buying the right to hold the power to shape minds by telling lies, violating rights as they do so. Billionaire and 'world leaders' are in a symbiotic relationship helping each other with power.

Everything is for sale including democracy and human rights.

You are complicit because 'it pays the bills'.

The days of wealthy people bankrolling newspapers purely for political influence are long gone.

The newspapers have to pay their way.

As former Sun hack Neil Wallis said earlier this morning, turning this tale into a debate about press ethics is just another way for the BBC to obscure its part.

Ethics has very little part in this anyway.

Was anyone blathering on about press ethics over the Philip Schofield story?

I don't think so, and it was clear from the outset he'd committed no crime.

 

[monkers]

The days of wealthy people bankrolling newspapers purely for political influence are long gone.

The newspapers have to pay their way.

As former Sun hack Neil Wallis said earlier this morning, turning this tale into a debate about press ethics is just another way for the BBC to obscure its part.

Ethics has very little part in this anyway.

Was anyone blathering on about press ethics over the Philip Schofield story?

I don't think so, and it was clear from the outset he'd committed no crime.

Yeh right.

Wiki is quickly of help ...

Evgeny Alexandrovich Lebedev, Baron Lebedev[1] (Russian: Евгений Александрович Лебедев, tr. Evgeniy Aleksandrovich Lebedev,[a] pronounced [ɪ̯ɪvˈɡʲenʲɪɪ̯ ˈlʲebʲɪdʲɪf]; born 8 May 1980), is a Russian-British businessman, who owns Lebedev Holdings Ltd, which in turn owns the Evening Standard and ESTV (London Live). He is also an investor in The Independent.[3]

Are he and Johnson unacquainted?

 

[theclaud]

Liars and bastards, then and now. #dontbuythesun

 

[Bromptonaut]

The days of wealthy people bankrolling newspapers purely for political influence are long gone.

Really? The Telegraph is for sale. Let's see who bids.

I believe it might make an operating profit and the current debt situation is down to the Barclays.

The idea that owning a paper in that market is solely about profit or loss is for the birds.

 

[monkers]

Not just The Scum, but other reactionary right wing British press ...

 

[Pale Rider]

Really? The Telegraph is for sale. Let's see who bids.

Someone who can afford it.

I take it you know the difference between 'buying' and 'bankrolling'.

Of course wealthy people buy newspapers, most aren't cheap.

But those people generally don't keep shovelling millions into the paper just to keep it going.

View attachment 4200

Liars and bastards, then and now. #dontbuythesun

Oh dear, is that the best you can do?

You will never listen, but that tale was based on some admittedly thin quotes from a couple of coppers at the scene.

It was a case, as so often happens, of people telling lies to journalists, rather than journalists telling lies.

Obviously, the hack tries to stand up what he's being told, but that can sometimes be difficult depending on the circumstances.

Not just The Scum, but other reactionary right wing British press ...

View attachment 4201

Not sure why you are getting so vexed about that one.

Many years ago, a senior judge ruled: "Justice is not a cloistered virtue, she must be the subject of scrutiny by ordinary men."

That quote has never been challenged, thus even the judiciary think it acceptable for their decisions to be questioned.

I've done it many time when reporting, accurately, what a victim says about the sentence in their case.

Quite right, too, I see no reason why a victim of crime should be prevented from saying 'that sentence was too lenient'.

 

[monkers]

Someone who can afford it.

I take it you know the difference between 'buying' and 'bankrolling'.

Of course wealthy people buy newspapers, most aren't cheap.

But those people generally don't keep shovelling millions into the paper just to keep it going.


Oh dear, is that the best you can do?

You will never listen, but that tale was based on some admittedly thin quotes from a couple of coppers at the scene.

It was a case, as so often happens, of people telling lies to journalists, rather than journalists telling lies.

Obviously, the hack tries to stand up what he's being told, but that can sometimes be difficult depending on the circumstances.



Not sure why you are getting so vexed about that one.

Many years ago, a senior judge ruled: "Justice is not a cloistered virtue, she must be the subject of scrutiny by ordinary men."

That quote has never been challenged, thus even the judiciary think it acceptable for their decisions to be questioned.

I've done it many time when reporting, accurately, what a victim says about the sentence in their case.

Quite right, too, I see no reason why a victim of crime should be prevented from saying 'that sentence was too lenient'.

They lied, and they smeared one of the judges with homophobia - so a generous touch dontcha think. If only every news story didn't hold back from frothing with such genorosity.

Again Wiki was helpful ...

The Daily Mail claimed the court's decision purposely blocked the Brexit process and ran the story and headline about the three high court judges – the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales.[3][4] The Mail Online also initially described Etherton as an "openly-gay ex-Olympic fencer",[5] but this was changed after criticism on social media.[6][7] Former Lord Chief Justice Igor Judge said the newspaper's attacking comments, particularly the homophobia concerns, were "very unpleasant".[8]

 

[matticus]

Was anyone blathering on about press ethics over the Philip Schofield story?

I don't think so, and it was clear from the outset he'd committed no crime.

I think you'll find plenty of people took exactly that line over the Schofs story.

 

[theclaud]

Obviously, the hack tries to stand up what he's being told, but that can sometimes be difficult depending on the circumstances.

 

[matticus]

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.

The NUJ has a public code of conduct. Clause 6:
[A journalist] Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.

(they have a seperate page defining "Public interest").

But you know all this, so are you really arguing in good faith here? Hmm?

 

[Pale Rider]

They lied, and they smeared one of the judges with homophobia - so a generous touch dontcha think. If only every news story didn't hold back from frothing with such genorosity.

Who said criticism had to be 'true'?

It can't be true or false, being purely a matter of subjective opinion.

[A journalist] Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest.

That, of course, is too simplistic because applying it to this case it takes no account of the views of the parents.

so are you really arguing in good faith here? Hmm?

At least I'm mounting an argument, rather than relying on gifs, sarky one liners, and tired old screen grabs.

 

[theclaud]

At least I'm mounting an argument, rather than relying on gifs, sarky one liners, and tired old screen grabs.

Yeah you never run out of words to muster in defence of the indefensible. What do you want, a fucking medal?

 

[BoldonLad]

As interesting as the discussion of "Press Ethics" may be, it would appear, what we have here is:

- an older person, of some affluence (if they can afford to shell out "thousands of pounds)
- said older person obtaining photographs of questionable "artistic interest" from a much younger and potentially vulnerable person
- younger and potentially person acquires a crack cocaine habit

The above, is, it would appear the version of the story as told by the parents.

The young person denies anything happened.

Perhaps, nothing illegal occurred, but, if the story is true, I personally, would not be choosing the older person as a drinking companion.

 

[monkers]

It can't be true or false, being purely a matter of subjective opinion.

When can a unanimous decision of the High Court be subjective opinion?

I heard some pretty thick sounding Brexiters claiming that the judges were bent on stopping Brexit. Did the judges stop Brexit?