This Just In!

[Bromptonaut]

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

You could add their coverage of Chris Mullins and the campaign for the Birmingham 6 to that 'Roll of (dis)Honour too....

 

[Pale Rider]

It's the content I argue with.

I doubt you read the full edition on day one of presentergate, I certainly didn't.

But if we had, we'd have found much the same news stories as in all the other papers, a few features - motoring, travel, and the like - a puzzle page, comic strips, etc, and loads of sport, particularly football.

In other words, nothing to cause you any difficulty even in your most woke of woke moods.

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

Not this old saw again, it's the second time it's been dragged up in this short segment.

But what they printed 40+ years ago still seems to matter so much to the detractors.

I've never grasped quite why so much was, and is, being made of this story.

I've been to lots of Tottenham games where the conduct of our fans has been branded, rightly or wrongly, a disgrace.

Doesn't bother me one bit, provided I'm not named or directly accused of wrongdoing, and of course, I expect most of those stories about our lot were substantially true.

And if anyone thinks every Liverpool fan that day was on the side of the angels, they are mistaken.

 

[newfhouse]

Like it or not

It's a 'not' from me.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

The excellence of that paper is matched by the probity of its writers.

Take Rod Liddell, who once considered becoming a school teacher. He decided against it because, and these are his own words from an article in The Spectator 11 years ago:
“… I could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids. It seemed to me virtually impossible not to, and I was convinced that I’d be right in there, on day one.”

In my view, The S*n, employing someone like that while getting all worked up about a guy‘s private life that was not criminal, has got a brass neck.

 

[Pale Rider]

Take Rod Liddell, who once considered becoming a school teacher. He decided against it because, and these are his own words from an article in The Spectator 11 years ago:
“… I could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids. It seemed to me virtually impossible not to, and I was convinced that I’d be right in there, on day one.”

That made me smile, a fine example of active and eye-catching direct communication skills.

No wonder The Sun gave him a job.

On the more serious side, at least he recognised those feelings and did something about them by not filling in the teacher job application form.

Shame all the hundreds of kiddie fiddlers I've seen in court didn't do something to limit their access to children instead of actively pursuing it.

 

[icowden]

I've never grasped quite why so much was, and is, being made of this story.

Because it was a lie. Murdoch's press is happy to print misinformation and worry about being sued later. Other responsible journalistic sources have to actually check whether the details of a story are true.

Thus the Sun is having to now backtrack from its original story about that there presenter.

 

[Pale Rider]

Thus the Sun is having to now backtrack from its original story about that there presenter.

How so?

The best all their many detractors can come up with is they changed a sentence in the original tale, which in any event contained no names of anybody - apart from the hack who wrote it.

Subsequently, The Sun had three more front page exclusives, which is not my definition of a paper on the back foot.

Murdoch's press is happy to print misinformation and worry about being sued later.

Quite the reverse, particularly since the Cliff Richard judgement, which incidentally, was largely a BBC production.

Not that all the other papers wouldn't have run the story first if they had it.

 

[Bromptonaut]

How so?

The best all their many detractors can come up with is they changed a sentence in the original tale, which in any event contained no names of anybody - apart from the hack who wrote it.

The sentence changed was the one from which a reasonably informed person might have drawn the inference that Bun was alleging was illegality with a person under 18. That's quite significant I think.

 

[Beebo]

Twitter is in the spotlight too for failing to stop the spread of names.
This quote is from the I newspaper, following their request for information about algorithms linking Huw Edwards to the news story. Twitter have no staff left to even field complaints. They just send childish replies.

“The former Twitter employee says that “by firing their curation team, Twitter has enabled defamation and libel to spread on the platform”.
Twitter did not respond to the allegation; an automatic response from its press office contained the poop emoji and nothing else.”

 

[newfhouse]

kiddie fiddlers

I shouldn't be surprised that someone that claims that rape is not necessarily violent also minimises the crime of child sexual abuse, but I continue to be disgusted.

 

[Rusty Nails]

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.

It was a snipe at the fact that brevity and conciseness appears to trump integrity and appealing to anything other than the lowest common denominator as the yardstick for excellence.

There is a good reason why the paper likes articles with big headlines and the lowest possible word count, which shows what it really thinks of its readership.

 

[Pale Rider]

and the lowest possible word count, which shows what it really thinks of its readership.

As I've pointed out, any number of surveys have shown that readers of all types want short, sharp sentences when they pick up their newspaper.

The lowest common denominator has nothing to do with it.

I've tried to give you some insight into how newspapers work, but there is none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Rusty Nails]

As I've pointed out, any number of surveys have shown that readers of all types want short, sharp sentences when they pick up their newspaper.

The lowest common denominator has nothing to do with it.

I've tried to give you some insight into how newspapers work, but there is none so blind as those who will not see.

You have given me your particular slant on what makes excellence but in reality there is no one way that newspapers work. Luckily KISS is not the only way or all newspapers would adopt that approach. The definition of simple can vary to different readers, and there is a difference between simple and simplistic.

The Guardian will have a different way to The Sun and both will have a different way to The Socialist Worker, due to the different target readership and the different types of ownership. That is the way it should be.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's a rubbish paper as a source of anything other than the most superficial take of any given news story, but I don't think it has ever claimed to be. It's meant to be read on your tea break or on the bus. You can't really complain that Take a Break isn't National Geographic *.

* which has now sadly packed in after around a hundred years in print.

 

[albion]

Astonishing news, just in.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/13/23792845/speed-limit-analysis-aaa-increase-crash-injury-death