This Just In!

[Deleted member 49]

30 years ago and it's still spouting toxic shite.

View: https://twitter.com/Obsayxx/status/1679205838009823245?t=ui8qO9SC-9_sJujAYkNKYA&s=19

 

[Ian H]

But only if you arbitrarily live in one place and not another. And if you want to go round this again, how about starting your own thread on the topic? This is not the right place.

Sorry Sir, won't do it again, Sir.

 

[Deleted member 49]

Zara Sultana on Rupert Murdoch in under a minute ...


View: https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1679221111299399682?s=20

Ash Sarkar 😁

 

[monkers]

Ash Sarkar 😁

oops. I'll message the youtuber.

EDIT: Fixed before I sent a message it seems.

 

[monkers]

Ash Sarkar on Rupert Murdoch in under a minute ...


View: https://youtu.be/et4V7aqLx8w

 

[Pale Rider]

I am not sure exactly what you mean by “love Sun stories”. Perhaps you could explain. It is impossible to miss this one because it has been splashed all over the media, but I can honestly say that there is nothing to “love” about a story like this and the tragedy for all concerned, in fact the opposite.

I will freely admit to occasionally picking up a free copy of the Sun if I am in a cafe and it is the only one not taken but I have never been able to read through it because it is populist, bottom-feeding trash, and have never bought one, even when the local Spar was offering them free with the groceries. Well read (or at least well thumbed through) trash, admittedly, and I can see why someone on a local rag whose idea of a good newspaper is one that sells a lot of copies, and who has previously extolled the virtues of the newspaper would “love Sun stories”.

I am sure you will now tell us about the time a well known judge or high ranking copper has personally told you about how they also “love Sun stories”.

Like it or not, The Sun is a fantastically well produced product - about the best in Fleet Street - in terms of concise writing, slick headlines, and populist content.

They've had everyone chasing around after them these last few days, which is a massive buzz for the inhabitants of any newsroom.

I can never understand why people like you are so keen to slag off such excellence.

And there is another, simpler, option - don't read it.

I doubt I'd like the Socialist Worker or Morning Star, but that doesn't mean I write volleys of abuse about those papers on the internet.

Quite the reverse, I think it's great we still have plurality in our media.

To finish, I can't disappoint you with your request about a tale of when I spoke to a senior judge about a story.

I once flogged a story to the Telegraph relating to some colourful remarks made by the judge about sending women to prison.

He called me into his chambers the next day, not to give me a bollocking - the story was accurate - but he was curious to know how his comments made it from a crown court in the north east of England to the Torygraph in under 24 hours.

Apart from that, he was pleased to read his comments in a national newspaper the next day, because judges make such comments to have a wider impact than just the case they are trying.

Oh, and then there was the time the chief constable phoned me and said....

 

[AndyRM]

It may well be a fantastically well produced product in your eyes, and I suppose I can see why you'd see things that way.

An alternative and entirely reasonable position is that it's badly written, badly laid out and appeals to a very low common denominator, which is frankly insulting.

The press should be held to higher standards, which is tricky when known liars and phone hackers are at the top of the pile.

It's all well and good saying don't read it, or don't watch it, and personally I try not to, but in this media age it's next to impossible to avoid things.

 

[matticus]

I can never understand why people like you are so keen to slag off such excellence.

And there is another, simpler, option - don't read it.

I doubt I'd like the Socialist Worker or Morning Star, but that doesn't mean I write volleys of abuse about those papers on the internet.

If "don't read it" were the answer to everything, we wouldn't need laws covering libel. And it would be ok for media to encourage violence, or publish child porn. There are things some of us don't like (or disagree with), and there are things that are downright harmful.

In fact, it's quite a childish defence when you think about it: "well just don't read it then!!!"

 

[Deleted member 49]

Like it or not, The Sun is a fantastically well produced product - about the best in Fleet Street - in terms of concise writing, slick headlines, and populist content.

Lol..bottomless brunch Paley ?

 

[Rusty Nails]

such excellence

If the Sun is your idea of excellence in journalism then there is no need for further comment.

However, please keep the insider anecdotes from a Fleet Street hack coming. They at least give some light relief from the unpleasant truth of gutter journalism.

 

[Pale Rider]

is that it's badly written

That's the one thing you cannot say about The Sun.

It has an active, concise, style that is unmatched by any UK newspaper.

Every story is also strictly in that style, making for a very easy read as you turn the pages.

Sport must be fairly non-controversial even on here, but as an example of consistency nearly every Sun sports story starts with a player's, or at least someone's, name.

It was always said The Sun was mostly written by the sub-editors.

True in my experience, when I've filed to them all they want is about 20 sentences (paragraphs) including lots of direct quotes.

The order of the paragraphs is largely irrelevant, nor do they expect them to be in Sunspeak, although wordy drivel would not be tolerated.

The published story might bear little resemblance in terms of style and length to what I submitted, but I found it best to file a bit more than what I thought was needed so they could cut/reorder to suit.

Staffers are expected to file stuff closer to the finished product, but the subs' influence is still all pervasive.

In fact, it's quite a childish defence when you think about it: "well just don't read it then!!!"

It's not meant to be a 'defence' of The Sun, it's purely for the benefit of the poster.

Don't expose yourself to something if you are going to get all vexed and cross about it.

Lol..bottomless brunch Paley ?

I take it you are not convinced of my contention The Sun is an excellently produced product.

If the Sun is your idea of excellence in journalism then there is no need for further comment.

Yet another poster whose only response is a snipe.

You could at least have tried to find a badly written Sun story.

Good luck with that.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I'm not disputing that the Sun is very good at doing what it sets out to do.

It's the content I argue with.

 

[matticus]

I'm not disputing that the Sun is very good at doing what it sets out to do.

It's the content I argue with.

Yes, I mean sure, there are a few snipes at their low-brow style, but the vast majority of criticism here - and in wider Britain - is about the content. The message. The likely harm ...

@Pale Rider why do you think this neatly laid-out - and concise - page angered a lot of people (particulalry those in the NW of England):

 

[AndyRM]

I certainly can say that it's badly written, considering the last time I read it (on a train, through sheer boredom) it was riddled with typos and grammatical errors.

Slick and concise, maybe, but even an someone on their first day as a junior copywriter could rip holes in it.

At least when Viz makes mistakes their either intentional or they just don't care. It's actually funny too, though not as good as it used to be.

Out of idle curiosity I had a read about circulation figures for papers. The Sun haven't published theirs since 2020, apparently, which is odd because normally commercial enterprises go on at length about their reach. Not that Murdoch will care, I suppose.

 

[AndyRM]

Yes, I mean sure, there are a few snipes at their low-brow style, but the vast majority of criticism here - and in wider Britain - is about the content. The message. The likely harm ...

@Pale Rider why do you think this neatly laid-out - and concise - page angered a lot of people (particulalry those in the NW of England):

View attachment 4222

Certainly eye-catching. Which, sure, is the point. But I'd be embarrassed to submit anything so poorly laid out.

They seem to go more with massive pictures and headlines these days.