Liverpool FC & The S*n

Mr Alan · 17-07-2008 4:11pm #1

I'd like to gauge peoples opinions on this. First off this is where the issue stems from:

On the Wednesday following the disaster, Kelvin MacKenzie, then editor of The Sun, a British tabloid newspaper with national distribution owned by Rupert Murdoch, used the front page headline "THE TRUTH", with three sub-headlines: "Some fans picked pockets of victims"; "Some fans urinated on the brave cops"; "Some fans beat up PC giving kiss of life".

The story accompanying these headlines claimed that "drunken Liverpool fans viciously attacked rescue workers as they tried to revive victims" and "police officers, firemen and ambulance crew were punched, kicked and urinated upon". A quote, attributed to an unnamed policeman, claimed that "a dead girl had been abused" and that Liverpool fans "were openly urinating on us and the bodies of the dead". These allegations openly contradicted the reported behaviour of many Liverpool fans, who actively helped the security personnel to stretcher away a large number of victims and gave first aid to many injured.

In their history of The Sun, Peter Chippendale and Chris Horrie wrote:

"As MacKenzie's layout was seen by more and more people, a collective shudder ran through the office [but] MacKenzie's dominance was so total there was nobody left in the organisation who could rein him in except Murdoch. [Everyone in the office] seemed paralysed, "looking like rabbits in the headlights", as one hack described them. The error staring them in the face was too glaring. It obviously wasn't a silly mistake; nor was it a simple oversight. Nobody really had any comment on it—they just took one look and went away shaking their heads in wonder at the enormity of it. It was a "classic smear".

Following The Sun's report, the newspaper was boycotted by most newsagents in Liverpool, with many refusing to stock the tabloid and large numbers of readers cancelling orders and refusing to buy from shops which did stock the newspaper. The Hillsborough Justice Campaign also organised a less-successful national boycott that still impacted the paper's sales, which some commentators have given as a cause for a constant drop in price, introduction of free magazines, videos and free DVD offers.

MacKenzie explained his reporting in 1993. Talking to a House of Commons National Heritage Select Committee, he said "I regret Hillsborough. It was a fundamental mistake. The mistake was I believed what an MP said. It was a Tory MP. If he had not said it and the chief superintendent [David Duckenfield] had not agreed with it, we would not have gone with it." MacKenzie would repudiate this apology in November 2006, saying that he only apologised because the newspaper's owner Rupert Murdoch ordered him to do so. He said, "I was not sorry then and I'm not sorry now" for the paper's coverage. MacKenzie refused again to apologise when appearing on the BBC's topical Question Time on 11 January 2007.

The Sun issued an apology "without reservation" in a full page opinion piece on 7 July 2004, saying that it had "committed the most terrible mistake in its history". The Sun was responding to the intense criticism of Wayne Rooney, a Liverpool-born football star who still played in the city (for Everton, now for Manchester United) who had sold his life story to the newspaper. Rooney's actions had incensed Liverpudlians still angry at The Sun. The Sun's apology was somewhat bullish, saying that the "campaign of hate" against Rooney was organised in part by the Liverpool Daily Post & Echo, owned by Trinity Mirror, who also own the Daily Mirror, arch-rivals of The Sun. Thus the apology actually served to anger some Liverpudlians further. The Liverpool Echo itself did not accept the apology, calling it "shabby" and "an attempt, once again, to exploit the Hillsborough dead."

Some other newspapers also detailed the same allegations on the same day, which apparently originated from a source within South Yorkshire Police attempting to divert blame, but The Sun attracted particular opprobrium for its use of the huge "THE TRUTH" headline and its subsequent refusal to issue an apology, something the other newspapers were quick to do.

To this day, many people in the Liverpool area refuse to buy The Sun as a matter of principle, and the paper's sales figures within Merseyside have been very poor since the day the original story was printed. As of 2004, the average circulation in Liverpool was still just 12,000 copies a day, 200,000 fewer than before the controversial article was published.

Also interestingly-after the initial uproar from merseyside broke, McKenzie contacted Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish and asked him, "wat can we do to make this alright", to which Dalglish told him to print an identical front page with the headline "The Truth-We Lied" and the true story of events that day, to which McKenzie responded, "i cant do that".....Dalglish told him, in that case, he couldnt help him.

This has come up a couple of times in the Liverpool thread in the last week and again in the Off Topic thread today.

Ok, first off, i am well aware i'll be accused of being the "fan police" or whatever, but i dont care....in my opinion any Liverpool fan who reads/buys The S*n is a ****ing disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves.

In the threads where it has been brought up, one post said that it'd been so long that it should just be gotten over?! what the ****?!

Another said that it was "fashionable thing to do for Liverpool fans"?! seriousluy?! wat the ****!?!?!?!

there is NOTHING fashionable about it, and someone even implying that is why people boycott the paper is beyonid offensive to me.

the people of Liverpool own Liverpool football club, its THEIR club, we are just guests to the place....if their name has been dragged through the mud as it has, and they have an organised boycott against the publication in question either, imo, you follow suit and support the city and its people, or you **** off and find another club.

the poster in question here (IrishMike) seems like a good bloke, and this is not a personal attack on him per say-i am just stunned that a good red would even think for a SECOND that buying that rag was alright and the fans should "get over it".

Then Irish fans complain about some local Liverpool fans over the city having little time for them and a poor opinion of them.......but is it any wonder when the standard of some of the fans going over? they treat going to the game like a stag party, and quite literally very often waltz up the ground with a copy of that rag under arm?!!?

this is beyond belief to me tbh.

anyway i'd just thought i'd open a new thread for this as opposed to either of the other threads in question being de-railed.

I'll leave you with a handful of vids

This first one is a CL semi final from the time of the disaster, there is a minute silence after the game kicks off and the Milan fans, as a gesture of solidarity to Liverpool fans sing YNWA (the Ultras organised this and passed around lyric sheets in the run up to the game), i'm not sure the relevence-i think i'm just stunned at the lack of solidarity from a Liverpool fan when this kind of solidarity can be shown by rival club fans during the biggest game of their season, maybe they should be a lesson to people in solidarity and wat it is;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZrVfMRyoE0

The second is a video outlining the events of that day (note-there is footage of the tragedy as well as still pics and is quite upsetting);

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca52fsOZjAU

the third is the truth day protest at Anfield:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrzH2LY6Fyo

also this website might be worth having a look at for people who have any questions in relation to anything: http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/

Dave! · 17-07-2008 4:19pm

Alan out of curiosity why don't Pool fans boycott other Murdoch-owned publications, like Sky, Fox, etc?

I've seen someone mention that they have different staff, etc, so they can't be held responsible for it. But I imagine the Sun now has mostly new staff, new editor, and so on nowadays, does it not? I'm not aware, so correct me if I'm wrong

But even still -- it's the same owner! Murdoch could say "lads print 'the truth -- we lied', we were wrong to print the original story", and it would be so. But he doesn't. It's his company, just like all the others. Why aren't they boycotted?

FWIW, I agree with the boycott in general. I boycott the Sun too... primarily however, because it's sh*t and has no integrity as a journalistic publication...

Mr Alan · 17-07-2008 4:24pm

Dave! wrote: »

Alan out of curiosity why don't Pool fans boycott other Murdoch-owned publications, like Sky, Fox, etc?

The issue is not with Murdoch per say, its with The S*n and Kelvin McKenzie.

SSN/Fox didnt run the story in question and then refuse to apolgise for over a decade before issuing a half hearted insulting apology.

If the incident happened now, and SSN had acted like the S*n did, they would be on the recieving end of the boycott.

spockety · 17-07-2008 4:26pm

Everything murdoch related is not boycotted because a decision was taken that such a boycott was too wide ranging in terms of how effective it could be. They decided to keep all energy focussed on one simple message, Boycott The Sun. It has been a pretty effective campaign.

In a perfect world, it would not only be Liverpool supporters who feel the need to boycott, but rather anyone who thinks that there should be some sort of standards in journalism in relation to the responsibility they have to report on fact.

IrishMike · 17-07-2008 4:29pm

Al im up the walls at the moment at work so i cant reply in length to what is one hell of a post.
What i will say is this, he was the man who called the shots at the Sun.
He was the one who organised that story and lots of others to be published.
He was the one who basically made up a range of stories about such topics as Elton John
screwing rentboys, anti-aboriganal stories, anti scottish stories, anti conservative party stories etc.
You get the idea.
The man has basically made up and insulted every possible minority and class of people
and most of the places they come from too.
Thing is he is no longer the editor of the paper, he hasnt been since 1993.
The sun is the most accurate tabloid for transfer rumours in England as the figures
i posted in the liverpool thread show.
So my point is why do people constantly whinge when i post rumours about players from
one of the most accurate sources in the media due to a series of lies printed by
a lunatic in said paper 20 years before hand?
As a result my comment was "to just get over it"
Im not saying it wasnt a tragedy and im not saying what the sun posted wasnt shocking

And finally about your other point that its fashionable to be anti sun if you are a liverpool fan,
let me tell you it most certainly is.
A lot of fans i know who hate the sun dont even know why for crying out loud.
And as previously stated if it was a true boycott it would be all things Murdoch related
not just the Sun, but that is not feasible as where would the fans watch the games.

Thats my view im sure there are a variety of contrasting ones

Dave! · 17-07-2008 4:32pm

Mr Alan wrote: »

The issue is not with Murdoch per say, its with The S*n and Kelvin McKenzie.

SSN/Fox didnt run the story in question and then refuse to apolgise for over a decade before issuing a half hearted insulting apology.

If the incident happened now, and SSN had acted like the S*n did, they would be on the recieving end of the boycott.

Fair enough, but ultimately it's Murdoch who has the final say. McKenzie gets the day to day responsibility for what is published, but Murdoch could have told him to issue a retraction; he could have sacked him (did he? again im not really au fait with the story); he could have issued an apology himself. I can't imagine Murdoch was unaware of what was happening. Even if he was unaware at the time, he has had a decade to rectify the situation.

BTW, an idea for Pool fans/groups -- if ye want to pressure an apology, it might be a plan to get a petition going with thousands of signatures and put pressure on outlets that sell the Sun to remove it from the shelves. Dunno if it would work, cos it's a big seller. But ye could threaten to boycott the outlets themselves if they don't remove it. Just an idea!

Wreck · 17-07-2008 4:34pm

spockety wrote: »

In a perfect world, it would not only be Liverpool supporters who feel the need to boycott, but rather anyone who thinks that there should be some sort of standards in journalism in relation to the responsibility they have to report on fact.

The thing is, anyone who does think that there should be standards in journalism is unlikely to be reading the sun anyway.

At this stage the boycott is pretty much pointless, but there will always be some Liverpool suporters who feel that

Mr Alan wrote:

any Liverpool fan who reads/buys The S*n is a ****ing disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves.

The person most responsible for the story is long gone, and I'd imagine most of the others involved are too.

spockety · 17-07-2008 4:39pm

Wreck wrote: »

The thing is, anyone who does think that there should be standards in journalism is unlikely to be reading the sun anyway.

I assume _everybody_ thinks there _should_ be standards in journalism.. but the number of people who realise that the Sun falls below the required standard is obviously not high enough.

At this stage the boycott is pretty much pointless, but there will always be some Liverpool suporters who feel that The person most responsible for the story is long gone, and I'd imagine most of the others involved are too.

It is estimated that The Sun's circulation would be an extra 200,000 copies per day over the last 18 years were it not for the boycott. That is a lot of revenue, doesn't sound very pointless to me for a group of people who are trying to get their message across.

IrishMike · 17-07-2008 4:39pm

Wreck wrote: »

At this stage the boycott is pretty much pointless, but there will always be some Liverpool suporters who feel that The person most responsible for the story is long gone, and I'd imagine most of the others involved are too.

Thats my point.
If you want to be this bitter about things why not boycott Germans because of
the world wars or boycott everything English for killing half the population of the
country 100 years ago?
You dont do either of these things because they would be cutting off your nose
to spite your face x1000.
Al you probably didnt even support Liverpool at the time McKenzie was editor
of the Sun so why all the damn bitterness?
Its bitterness for the sake of bitterness at this stage similiar to what
you see in Rangers v Celtic matches.
That bull is not my cup of tea so thats why i have no interest further spreading it

spockety · 17-07-2008 4:41pm

IrishMike wrote: »

Thats my point.
If you want to be this bitter about things why not boycott Germans because of
the world wars or boycott everything English for killing half the population of the
country 100 years ago?
You dont do either of these things because they would be cutting off your nose
to spite your face x1000.
Al you probably didnt even support Liverpool at the time McKenzie was editor
of the Sun so why all the damn bitterness?
Its bitterness for the sake of bitterness at this stage similiar to what
you see in Rangers v Celtic matches.
That bull is not my cup of tea so thats why i have no interest further spreading this bitterness

For 99% of people, boycotting the Sun does not involve wandering around shouting at people and being bitter about it. It just involves not buying or reading a rubbish paper.

It's an easy boycott and actually easier to do than buying or reading it in the first place.

oobydooby · 17-07-2008 4:46pm

I agree with Mr Alan. But maybe some fans are too young or too removed from the events to appreciate them fully. Good videos.

How about making a (well-thought out) poll though with public voting?

I don't like this thread though because it's a very sensitive subject for some people and could quickly become a troll-fest.

IrishMike · 17-07-2008 4:48pm

spockety wrote: »

For 99% of people, boycotting the Sun does not involve wandering around shouting at people and being bitter about it. It just involves not buying or reading a rubbish paper.

It's an easy boycott and actually easier to do than buying or reading it in the first place.

Thats fine, anyone that wants to do that is more than entitled to.
All im want to know is what is the problem if i and other fans dont share this view?
The "fan police" as Alan said are basically saying because they dont want
anything to do with the newspaper but watch sky sports religiously that
every fan should follow suit.
Thats all im taking issue with, how on earth not buying a newspaper helps
the memories of hillsborough is baffling to me.
Each to their own

RE*AC*TOR · 17-07-2008 4:48pm

Mr Alan - as far as I'm concerned you are preaching to the choir. I wouldn't read the Sun if they gave it away for free.

I'd also say though, you might be wasting your time trying to convince some "people". Well said nonetheless.

Mr Alan · 17-07-2008 4:50pm

IrishMike wrote: »

Thing is he is no longer the editor of the paper, he hasnt been since 1993.

he still has a column in it, or did until very recently afaik.

now, him having a column in it is hardly the actions of an organisation trying to distance itself from someone is it?

the paper issued an apology in 2004 long after murdoch was editor and managed to insult the people of Liverpool yet again.

IrishMike wrote: »

So my point is why do people constantly whinge when i post rumours about players from
one of the most accurate sources in the media due to a series of lies printed by
a lunatic in said paper 20 years before hand?

because the club you support and fans of said club have a boycott against said paper.

isishmike wrote:

He was the one who basically made up a range of stories about such topics as Elton John
screwing rentboys, anti-aboriganal stories, anti scottish stories, anti conservative party stories etc.
You get the idea.
The man has basically made up and insulted every possible minority and class of people
and most of the places they come from too.

so he is a horrible exucse of a human being, the fact that he constantly lied in the press, has racist, homophobic views or watever does not excuse his actions, instead you should feel proud that you belong to one of thh few groups who have stood up to his scurrilous style of journalism for nearly 2 decades.

And finally about your other point that its fashionable to be anti sun if you are a liverpool fan, let me tell you it most certainly is. A lot of fans i know who hate the sun dont even know why for crying out loud.

well this is where you and other Liverpool fans should be educating them.

and Dave!

Fair enough, but ultimately it's Murdoch who has the final say. McKenzie gets the day to day responsibility for what is published, but Murdoch could have told him to issue a retraction; he could have sacked him (did he? again im not really au fait with the story); he could have issued an apology himself. I can't imagine Murdoch was unaware of what was happening. Even if he was unaware at the time, he has had a decade to rectify the situation.

well ultimately, its murdoch who the boycott effects with his loss of sales of the paper on merseyside and from Liverpool fans across the world.

from wiki:

Murdoch for his part ordered MacKenzie to appear on BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend in the aftermath of the controversy to apologise. MacKenzie was quoted on the programme as saying;

"It was my decision and my decision alone to do that front page in that way and I made a rather serious error."

Mitch Connor · 17-07-2008 4:51pm

It was a tragic day for liverpool and football, regardless of who gets the blame for what happened. 96 people died. The Suns reporting of it was offensive and ultimately proved to be false. If the people of Liverpool feel that boycotting the paper is the right thing to do, if they felt it then and still feel it now, then that is their right.

I will still read the paper occasionally as i have no personal gripe against them, but i can understand the stance of those that would not read or buy it. I do not think people should be subjected to any sort of abuse for posting information from it, as that is their choice, but neither should they redicule those who chose to boycott the paper. Both sides of the fence have their opinions and I don't feel it is a situation where either side could actually be called wrong.

IrishMike · 17-07-2008 4:57pm

Tauren wrote: »

It was a tragic day for liverpool and football, regardless of who gets the blame for what happened. 96 people died. The Suns reporting of it was offensive and ultimately proved to be false. If the people of Liverpool feel that boycotting the paper is the right thing to do, if they felt it then and still feel it now, then that is their right.

I will still read the paper occasionally as i have no personal gripe against them, but i can understand the stance of those that would not read or buy it. I do not think people should be subjected to any sort of abuse for posting information from it, as that is their choice, but neither should they redicule those who chose to boycott the paper. Both sides of the fence have their opinions and I don't feel it is a situation where either side could actually be called wrong.

You should work for the UN Tauren.
Couldnt have said it better, even though i tried

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 17-07-2008 4:58pm

It's called people power. The fact that the poeple of Liverpool brought the sun to it's knees and make an apology (albeit waaaaay too late) for me shows where the power lies.

I like to think that any clubs fans, in a similar situation, would have done the exact same thing.

The other issue I have is nothign to do with football: but has the Sun actually changed? If they got another chance to make money from peoples' tragedies, would they take it?

Of course thay would.

Mr Alan · 17-07-2008 4:59pm

readership on merseyside before hillsborough:200,000
after hillsborough; 12,000

188,000 x 50p = £99,000 per day

99 x 6 = 594,000 per week (no sunday paper)

594,000 x 52 = £30,888,000

£30 MILLION a year in lost revenues from merseyside alone.

multiplied by 20 years........ yea the boycott is real pointless :rolleyes:

i know its not quite that simple, but you get the idea of the figures involved. my calculator on my phone wont even compute the total loss as its so big.

Hobart · 17-07-2008 5:02pm

Great post Alan,

as one who is old enough to actually remember the events of that day, and the subsequent disgraceful headlines by the S*N, I have to say I cannot agree enough about the sentiments expressed in your post.

I watched in silence as the whole Hillsborough tragedy unfolded live late one Saturday evening.

What most people don't realise, and what has been lost in the whole debacle, is that Hillsborough was directly responsible for "all" top flight league grounds being made safer across Europe.

Christopher Eccleston also starred in a Jimmy McGovern directed documentary which was by far the best the most factual programme done on the event, and while it did not show a few Liverpool fans in the "best of light" it dealt very dis-passionately with the fallout after the event, including McKenzie's S*N story and how much they (The S*N) regretted it.

Dave! wrote: »

Alan out of curiosity why don't Pool fans boycott other Murdoch-owned publications, like Sky, Fox, etc?

Murdoch does not own Sky (he has a minority stake in it) and Fox news is not available on terrestrial TV in the UK. Liverpool has one of the lowest take up rates (in terms of head of population) for the Sky Satellite product.

I've seen someone mention that they have different staff, etc, so they can't be held responsible for it. But I imagine the Sun now has mostly new staff, new editor, and so on nowadays, does it not? I'm not aware, so correct me if I'm wrong

You are correct, they have new staff since 1989. But, a bit like Israel having new rulers since the six day war, it does not mean that all is forgiven and forgotten because the personnel has changed, and all Arabs and Jews are mates..

But even still -- it's the same owner! Murdoch could say "lads print 'the truth -- we lied', we were wrong to print the original story", and it would be so.

Lol, you show a complete naivety when it comes to knowing how a newspaper works.

But he doesn't. It's his company, just like all the others. Why aren't they boycotted?

Again, the Editor decides on the day to day stories that are written and published, rarely the owner.

For refernce you could look up the rivalry between the (UK) Times and the (UK) Sunday Times, both newspapers in the same building with the same owners (at the time) and both hating each other, and trying to usurp each other. I remember reading a book about Mordichi Vanunnu (I think that was his name) he was the guy who broke the Israelli nuclear programme, both newspapers got wind of it at the same time and all hell broke loose.

Wreck · 17-07-2008 5:06pm

spockety wrote: »

It is estimated that The Sun's circulation would be an extra 200,000 copies per day over the last 18 years were it not for the boycott. That is a lot of revenue, doesn't sound very pointless to me for a group of people who are trying to get their message across.

Its pointless in the sense that there is nothing to be achieved or gained for the fans by this. Everyone has got the message already, and they aren't actually hurting anyone responsible for the article anymore.

If you are syaing that the message of the boycott is about standards in journalism rather than a backlash by a group of people against the way the Sun portrayed them, then the boycott has failed miserably. Most people would agree that standards in journalism have fallen further since the time.

Mr Alan · 17-07-2008 5:06pm

IrishMike wrote: »

And as previously stated if it was a true boycott it would be all things Murdoch related not just the Sun, but that is not feasible as where would the fans watch the games.

again Mike, i find this insulting.

the ban began BEFORE Sky showed all the premier league ball, when it was still on BBC only afaik, so to imply that they chose the s*n to boycott as it was easy and they didnt have to give up anything is insulting to say the least.

they chose to boycott the product that printed the shocking lies, and tried to stand by them.

as a result they have cost that organisation hundreds of millions of pounds.

the boycott is still strong nearly 2 decades later.

a blanket boycott of all products from murdochs empire wouldnt have lasted a week.

its like the proverb to do with breaking 50 twigs, break em individually and its easy, put them together and they are strong and near unbreakable.

similar principle with the boycott.

Tusky · 17-07-2008 5:07pm

It is estimated that The Sun's circulation would be an extra 200,000 copies per day over the last 18 years were it not for the boycott. That is a lot of revenue, doesn't sound very pointless to me for a group of people who are trying to get their message across.

wow - thats 13,158,000,000 papes.

--amadeus-- · 17-07-2008 5:13pm

OK, here is an anaolgy...

You are burying a friend. Someone you know - and like - comes along to teh funeral and loudly and publically ridicules the dead. They denounce them as thieves and scum and don't care that the persons family are there and can hear them. They announce loudly that no-one knows the truth but them and stamp around making sure that everyone can hear what they are saying.

They then refuse to apologise for years and when they do it is half hearted and not at all serious.

Would you still be best friends with taht person? No matter how much time has passed would you be able to buy that person a pint or pay them to wash your windows?

If your little brother - too young to remember the incident - got pally with them and said "ahhh they're nice enough, all that is in the past anyway" would you get angry or would you shrug and agree?

I was 17 when it happened and was born down the road from Liverpool. Had my parents not moved back home when I was a kid I could easily have been in that crowd. In fact every single person on here could have potentially been in that - or similar - disaster. A lot of bull is talked about "the football family" but in this case there were unsubstantiated and vicious, hurtful, poisonous lies thrust in the faces of grieving families, real families. If LFC supporters can't see the bigger community issue of why the sun boycott must stay in place then they really need to stop and think about what it is they support, is it a franchise or a club.

IrishMike · 17-07-2008 5:18pm

Hobart wrote: »

You are correct, they have new staff since 1989. But, a bit like Israel having new rulers since the six day war, it does not mean that all is forgiven and forgotten because the personnel has changed, and all Arabs and Jews are mates..

Mate seriously thats about as racist a comment as you will get away with here.
England have new rules since they plundered Ireland, Germany have new rulers
since they overran half of the europe etc.
What exactly is your point?

Oh and murdoch owns almost 40% of Sky, pretty sizeable chunk and far from a minority shareholder

spockety · 17-07-2008 5:20pm

Wreck wrote: »

Its pointless in the sense that there is nothing to be achieved or gained for the fans by this. Everyone has got the message already, and they aren't actually hurting anyone responsible for the article anymore.

If you are syaing that the message of the boycott is about standards in journalism rather than a backlash by a group of people against the way the Sun portrayed them, then the boycott has failed miserably. Most people would agree that standards in journalism have fallen further since the time.

I'm not from Liverpool, and I wasn't old enough at the time to read The Sun, so I didn't personally read at the time the lies they told. But I support a club for which a large amount of supporters were affected by what was written. I boycott the Sun in solidarity with them. It is no skin of my nose, it is a substandard newspaper at any rate.

Even if the boycott does not 'hurt' anyone responsible for the article, it might make either The Sun, or other newspapers, think twice about running with such a ridiculous bunch of lies again.

If you don't agree with the boycott, that's fine, buy or read the paper, I don't mind.

I don't agree with people who jump down the throats of anyone who quotes The Sun etc., but I do agree with pointing out the boycott and the reasons for it to let people make up their own minds. To my mind, anyone who fully understands what The Sun did, but still continues to buy the paper or read it is odd, but that's up to them.

The boycott has worked, you will find hardly any copies of the Sun in Liverpool nearly 20 years on. It's one of the most effective product boycotts I've ever seen. Can you cite anything similar?

IrishMike · 17-07-2008 5:28pm

Mr Alan wrote: »

readership on merseyside before hillsborough:200,000
after hillsborough; 12,000

188,000 x 50p = £99,000 per day

99 x 6 = 594,000 per week (no sunday paper)

594,000 x 52 = £30,888,000

£30 MILLION a year in lost revenues from merseyside alone.

multiplied by 20 years........ yea the boycott is real pointless :rolleyes:

i know its not quite that simple, but you get the idea of the figures involved. my calculator on my phone wont even compute the total loss as its so big.

The Sun and Liverpool Daily Post doubled their sales in Merseyside, enjoying a massive circulation boost as a euphoric Liverpool celebrated its football team's Champions League win.

The Sun, said to sell just 12,000 copies a day in Merseyside in the wake of the Hillsborough stadium tragedy, sold 10,000 extra copies in the region in the wake of the cup victory, while the sales of the Liverpool Daily Post jumped by 102% to 40,000.

The Sun has been trying to rebuild its sales in Liverpool since 1989 when its reporting of the football disaster, in which 96 fans died, saw its circulation of 55,000 collapse.

"On the day [after Liverpool's victory] it looks like we are up in excess of 200,000 copies nationally. We sold around 2,000 copies in Istanbul and we estimate that we sold across Merseyside an extra 10,000 papers."

Might want to get the calculator out again AL

55,000 -> 12,000 = 42,000 *50p = 21k per day
21k * 1560 = £3.2m

Bit of a difference.
The extra 10k people that bought the paper with the free promo poster
(obviously Liverpool fans) would they be considered not true fans?
And what about the 2k fans in Istanbul?

--amadeus-- · 17-07-2008 5:31pm

IrishMike wrote: »

Oh and murdoch owns almost 40% of Sky, pretty sizeable chunk and far from a minority shareholder

I don't give a rats backside what he owns or doesn't own (though I think you might want to check the definition of teh word minority

)

The boycott is complex and has lots of elements - solidarity, revenge, decency, anger, disgust and probably a little bit of habit. It's also about the sun, not Murdoch.Different people will have thier own reasons for boycotting and the likes of us on here may have different ideas to - for example - those who lost family that day.

At the end of the day - as I said in the LFC thread - you want to post stuff from that rag that's fine, I'll just ignore it. But don't expect ppl to thank you for it. Like I said above for me LFC is a club, not just a 1st XI. It's always had cracking community relations and for me it's not just about the team, it's about belong, buying in to the whole thing (jeez, I sound like I bought the Big Brand Biscuit there!). And the boycott is about that, it's about showing support for the victims and recognition of teh history and traditions of the club.

Mr Alan · 17-07-2008 5:32pm

IrishMike wrote: »

Might want to get the calculator out again AL

55,000 -> 12,000 = 42,000 *50p = 21k per day
21k * 1560 = £3.2m
Bit of a difference.
The extra 10k people that bought the paper with the free promo poster
(obviously Liverpool fans) would they be considered not true fans?

well from wiki

To this day, many people in the Liverpool area refuse to buy The Sun as a matter of principle, and the paper's sales figures within Merseyside have been very poor since the day the original story was printed. As of 2004, the average circulation in Liverpool was still just 12,000 copies a day, 200,000 fewer than before the controversial article was published.

event · 17-07-2008 5:32pm

Mr Alan wrote: »

because the club you supportand fans of said club have a boycott against said paper.

do the club have an official boycott against it?
like they urge employees not to purchase it?

i never knew that

Mr Alan · 17-07-2008 5:34pm

event wrote: »

do the club have an official boycott against it?
like they urge employees not to purchase it?

i never knew that

afaik, i'm running out the door so i cant check, but as far as i know they do. and the S*n are not invited to press releases etc at the club

i could be wrong about that, i'll check it later, or maybe someone else will have info.

IrishMike · 17-07-2008 5:44pm

Is it not an unoffical supporters boycott rather than anything to do with the club?
I could also be mistaken

FatherTed · 17-07-2008 6:25pm

The Sun(along with the other tabloids) is pure shyte anyway so I don't know why ANYONE would buy it. But it's a free country and anyone can choose to give their money to the Sun. Also there is no written rule (I think) that if you are a Liverpool fan, then you are not to buy the Sun. But in saying that, I don't know how any Liverpool fan can buy the sun with a clear conscience.

~Rebel~ · 17-07-2008 6:27pm

Wreck wrote: »

The person most responsible for the story is long gone, and I'd imagine most of the others involved are too.

No he's not, he still writes for them, and rekindled the whole thing 2 years ago by again standing by His story, again while under the employ of the sun. Fans demanded at this time that he be fired. Nothing happened.

IrishMike wrote: »

Thats all im taking issue with, how on earth not buying a newspaper helps
the memories of hillsborough is baffling to me.

Because its not funding them to keep doing it.

Mr Alan · 17-07-2008 6:29pm

well there is not written rules on how to follow any club, but people know all the same wat it takes.

RTK's feelings on it;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX2-zLi-xlI

Mr Alan · 17-07-2008 6:45pm

notice the sticker Rafa is wearing.

and only last season;

Rafa wrote:

"Everybody in Liverpool knows that there are two newspapers that you cannot trust, this is one of them."

Sherifu · 17-07-2008 6:54pm

Boycotting the sun is one of the easiest things anyone could do. Pile of rubbish that it is.

_blank_ · 17-07-2008 6:59pm

I'm no Liverpool fan, but my dad and brother are.

I remember watching the disaster happening, I was in my Granny's house that day.

I wouldn't buy or read that paper.

Karmafaerie · 17-07-2008 7:02pm

Hillsborough is actually my oldest football memory.
Well, my earliest professional football memory.

I supported Liverpool since I was 4, but as I'm sure ye all know, when you're a kid, you support the name, and don't really get into the league or on pitch action too much.

But I remember watching the whole thing unfold on tv, and balling my eyes out.
(I was only 7 after all!:P)

That's what really sucked me into LFC. There was never gonna be another club after that.

I was too young to know anything about the whole Sun side of things, but when I was about 14-15 and found out, I remember being disgusted at myself for unknowingly buying the Sun.

Even if I couldn't remember the whole tragedy, I still wouldn't buy the paper.

Respect.

I have respect for the LFC community.
The Sun had no respect for us.

To me that's all there is to it.

YNWA
96 RIP

gixerfixer · 17-07-2008 7:14pm

Excellent post Mr.Alan.Still hurts to this day watching and hearing about the day.Still remember sitting down at home in disbelief watching the day unfold.So so sad still. Never buy the s*n.Justice for the 96

citytillidie · 17-07-2008 9:04pm

I cant understand why anyone in Ireland reads the sun.

They said that those who died in Bloody Sunday deserved it, biggest anti-irish newspaper.

The Sligo Rovers who is from Liverpool manager told a reporter for the Irish Sun he would not answer any of his questions therefore not given them an interview

DeadSkin · 17-07-2008 9:18pm

What the Sun did was absolute sh!t, no one here disagrees with that.

I don't buy the Sun or any other red top on the sole reason they are all sh!te.
But, when I go to the BBC Football Gossip column in the morning and it states somethin' like

Keane linked to Anfield........., from The Sun

I have no problem with copying that and whatever litlle paragraph and putting it in the Liverpool thread.
Should this make me feel ashamed?
Does it make me a lesser Liverpool fan?

DSB · 17-07-2008 9:20pm

You'd swear some of the people here were from the heart of Merseyside. And before anyone pounces, I'm not trying to sneer at or belittle what happened at Hillsborough.

Mr Alan · 17-07-2008 9:22pm

DSB wrote: »

You'd swear some of the people here were from the heart of Merseyside. And before anyone pounces, I'm not trying to sneer at or belittle what happened at Hillsborough.

do you have to be from merseyside to be disgusted by the s*ns actions?

DSB · 17-07-2008 9:25pm

Mr Alan wrote: »

do you have to be from merseyside to be disgusted by the s*ns actions?

No of course not. But alot of people taking it as a personal insult is a bit much for me.

jaykay74 · 17-07-2008 9:26pm

DeadSkin wrote: »

What the Sun did was absolute sh!t, no one here disagrees with that.

I don't buy the Sun or any other red top on the sole reason they are all sh!te.
But, when I go to the BBC Football Gossip column in the morning and it states somethin' like

I have no problem with copying that and whatever litlle paragraph and putting it in the Liverpool thread.
Should this make me feel ashamed?
Does it make me a lesser Liverpool fan?

It would be odd for anyone to think that way. you haven't contributed to the paper (for those who have an issue with financing it). The only shame would be in believing their football gossip (as with the football gossip in any tabloid) :P

OPENROAD · 17-07-2008 9:29pm

Hobart wrote: »

What most people don't realise, and what has been lost in the whole debacle, is that Hillsborough was directly responsible for "all" top flight league grounds being made safer across Europe.

And no bad thing, though very sad that it took Hillsborough for things to change.

Karmafaerie · 17-07-2008 9:49pm

DSB wrote: »

No of course not. But alot of people taking it as a personal insult is a bit much for me.

I can't speak for you or for anybody else, but for me it's simple.
I live and breathe Liverpool Football Club.
And for most fans the same is true.

I consider myself as part of LFC, in my own insignifcant way, so yes, I do take it personally.

I hate seeing anything bad said about it, especially by our own fans.
This is why I don't like Liverpool fans passing judgement on any player who pulls on the red jersey, before he's been given a proper chance to prove he deserves it.

If you're a passing fan, then fair enough, but if you're a true fan, then you immerse yourself in all aspects of the club.
I honour the tragedies in LFC's history as much as I revel in it's glories.
And in my own way, I think that this makes the whole fan experience deeper almost.

No matter how many times I see it, I get a tear in my eye, and a big goofy smile on my face every time I see "that" match in Istanbul.

And no matter how many years pass, and how many editors quit, I still tear up for a different reason when I think back to my memories of Hillsborough.

The fact that so many innocent Liverpool fans were killed is appalling.
But for the dead, and those who lived through that - and were in shock from the horror of the tragedy - to be lied about, and disrespected in that way, all as part of what was basically a government cover-up, that's disgusting, and unforgivable.

The same spirit that had tens of thousands of Liverpool fans singing while 3-0 down in the Champions League final, is the same spirit that'll keep us honouring Hillsborough.

DSB · 17-07-2008 9:52pm

Karmafaerie wrote: »

I consider myself as part of LFC.

Well I guess the fundamental difference is that I probably don't consider you to be that. Not that you'd care what I think like. Just saying.

Karmafaerie · 17-07-2008 9:54pm

DSB wrote: »

Well I guess the fundamental difference is that I probably don't consider you to be that. Not that you'd care what I think like. Just saying.

Well I gues you don't kow what LFC is then.

Cause Liverpool is my club, every bit as much as I'm her fan.

Charlie · 17-07-2008 9:56pm

DSB wrote: »

Well I guess the fundamental difference is that I probably don't consider you to be that. Not that you'd care what I think like. Just saying.

Uh oh.....

Pighead · 17-07-2008 9:56pm

Karmafaerie wrote: »

Well I gues you don't kow what LFC is then.

Cause Liverpool is my club, every bit as much as I'm her fan.

Liverpools a big girl. He he he he he he.

Liverpool FC & The S*n

Comments