The Sun and Irish Readers

dSTAR

Split from this thread in AH.

The Sun newspaper is quite obviously an anti-Irish newspaper but yet many people who would consider themselves nationalistic, republican or even just proud to be Irish read it on a daily basis. How can they reconcile their beliefs while reading a newspaper that views Irish people as being inferior to English people?

The fact that it is a rag that doesn't require many brain cells to read it has been long accepted along with the obvious tits and sport appeal. Is it that people are so brainwashed and conditioned from an early age by corporations that purchasing The Sun is like popping into McDonald's to get a fix of junk food or in this case junk food for the brain?

nlgbbbblth

The Sun newspaper has sold very poorly in Liverpool since their disgraceful reporting about the Hillsborough tragedy.

Yet I know of a few Irish people who support Liverpool and purchase the paper.

Two in particular are 30 and 31 so are old enough to remember what happened in April 1989.

When asked why they buy the paper one shrugged his shoulders and said that broadsheets were 'boring' while the other claimed not to know anything about The Sun's role in the journalistic aftermath.

Work that one out.

Also -
In Ireland, a lot of us support English soccer clubs, frequently instead of our own local teams. We cheer Rooney, Ferdinand, Campbell etc when they play for their clubs but as soon as they turn out for England you will see a sizeable majority of us shouting abuse and rooting for the opposition team (no matter who they are)

Nothing new there then.

One of the reasons people offer for this hypocritical stance is the "English tabloid media" and their "arrogant hyping up of England's chances".

Fair enough - the Sun and the Mirror are particularly bad offenders in this regard.

Therefore my question is - why the hell do so many Irish people buy these tabloids? Ignore the Oirish labelling on the masthead [it's meaningless].
And you'll notice that it the people who buy those tabloids tend to be the same people who hate the English team.

I hate England. I'd never shout for them - their papers are full of themselves and if they won we'd never hear the end of it.

Well, if you persist in buying a paper in which extols the virtues/chances of a team you "hate" well it's no surprise that you'll keeping hearing about it.

IRE60

Irish being inferior to English people?

I would like to see that in print in any of the tabloids here, or is that simply a rampant imagination or perhaps a stereotype about tabloids

As for ranting about the intellectual capacity of tabloid readers – that’s the same old same old we have listened to for years.

Tabloids are bought nearly as much as ‘quality’ papers. Morning– 42% market share, Sunday 47% market share (purchase)

I suppose it’s only a matter of time before the inevitable ‘takeover’ of the “intellectual” and the market share succumbs to the ‘Mc D’s, Guinness Swilling, Paddy Power Betting’ Market forces.

Suck it up – its like sky will be blue some day soon. Deal with it. And if you think you can do better and serve half the buying population - Daily or Sunday – b.m.g.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

It's because people are lazy, end of.

We used to have the catholic church telling us what to do and think, now we have tabloids doing it. Simply because we let them. It's less work than doing it ourselves.

mikemac

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

I hate Dublin football team. I'd never shout for them - their papers are full of themselves and if they won we'd never hear the end of it.

Well, if you persist in buying the Evening Herald in which extols the virtues/chances of a team you "hate" well it's no surprise that you'll keeping hearing about it.

Sums it up realy

Lobster

Good Thread. I'm not that familiar with The Sun, but having gone through the Irish Sunday People a few times (out of boredom), it seems to me that its just an english paper with english content and a page or two of Irish Content so they can pass it as being Irish. People shouldn't buy those papers.

mikemac

You can count the "Irish" Daily Mail in too.
I actually think it's a decent paper but it ain't Irish, just a different front page, a few key articules changed and sports section rejigged.
But basically the same as the main version

nlgbbbblth

IRE60 wrote: »

Irish being inferior to English people?

I would like to see that in print in any of the tabloids here, or is that simply a rampant imagination or perhaps a stereotype about tabloids

As for ranting about the intellectual capacity of tabloid readers – that’s the same old same old we have listened to for years.

Tabloids are bought nearly as much as ‘quality’ papers. Morning– 42% market share, Sunday 47% market share (purchase)

I suppose it’s only a matter of time before the inevitable ‘takeover’ of the “intellectual” and the market share succumbs to the ‘Mc D’s, Guinness Swilling, Paddy Power Betting’ Market forces.

Suck it up – its like sky will be blue some day soon. Deal with it. And if you think you can do better and serve half the buying population - Daily or Sunday – b.m.g.

The Sun has traditionally had an anti-Irish editorial policy. It may not explicity state that Irish people are inferior but that's not the point. As I stated in the other thread, a lot of the anti-Irish racism that I and many others experienced in London during the late 1980s/early 1990s can be directly attributed to hysteria whipped up by the likes of The Sun and The Daily Mail.

Yes tabloid sales are high in both the UK and Ireland - but sales are never a guarantee of quality.

carlowguy32

i think what the sun said about liverpool people was unforgivable and disgusting, not just LFC supporters should boycot it but any football or sport in general loving person should boycot it because what happened in hillsborough could have happened any team. To even see the Sun in shops makes me sick.

IRE60

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

....1980s/early 1990s can be directly attributed to hysteria whipped up by the likes of The Sun and The Daily Mail.

.....Yes tabloid sales are high in both the UK and Ireland - but sales are never a guarantee of quality.

a) 1980s/early 1990s that's two/three decades ago - a lot of water under the bridge, politically, culturally and editorially, one could argue
2) Sale of publications, the appetite of a society for a particular 'brand' of media is a reflection of that society. This is easily reflected in the micro economy with sales of different papers being higher or lower in certain areas.

I fundamentally disagree that the 'tabloids' currently are 'anti-Irish'. I believe that they were (as the Irish Media 'were' anti British).

An Anti-Irish Editorial policy does not get you 110K papers sold every morning and that's whats counts - its a business, not a hobby or some contribution to society - is all about the wedge, the €'s

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

IRE60 wrote: »

a) 1980s/early 1990s that's two/three decades ago - a lot of water under the bridge, politically, culturally and editorially, one could argue
2) Sale of publications, the appetite of a society for a particular 'brand' of media is a reflection of that society. This is easily reflected in the micro economy with sales of different papers being higher or lower in certain areas.

I fundamentally disagree that the 'tabloids' currently are 'anti-Irish'. I believe that they were (as the Irish Media 'were' anti British).

An Anti-Irish Editorial policy does not get you 110K papers sold every morning and that's whats counts - its a business, not a hobby or some contribution to society - is all about the wedge, the €'s

a) For a lot of people over here, 800 years isn't a lot of water under the bridge, and yet what do they read...? Not War and Peace.
2) Very true. It is not, however, a refelction on quality.

IRE60

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

a) For a lot of people over here, 800 years isn't a lot of water under the bridge, and yet what do they read...? Not War and Peace.
2) Very true. It is not, however, a refelction on quality.

"For a lot of people over here" - whats the weather like in the UK today then.

Plus its 770 years of pain and 30 years of Corrie to be correct.

Lest we should go down the 800 years of pain road - what over 60% of the population support 'an oppressors' soccer team. Lets aprk that one, it am sure there is a forum dedicated to it.

Quality is not guarantee of cash. Its all about volume!

Mrmoe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster

Please read this and maybe people might consider never buying the Sun again.

IRE60

Mrmoe wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster

Please read this and maybe people might consider never buying the Sun again.

'Always forgive your enemies, never forget their names'

I understand that it is in some hearts and minds a reasonable argument.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

IRE60 wrote: »

"For a lot of people over here" - whats the weather like in the UK today then.

Plus its 770 years of pain and 30 years of Corrie to be correct.

Lest we should go down the 800 years of pain road - what over 60% of the population support 'an oppressors' soccer team. Lets aprk that one, it am sure there is a forum dedicated to it.

Quality is not guarantee of cash. Its all about volume!

Fair enough, typo accepted (to lazy to go and correct it!) - am not in UK but I'm sure the Met will give you some info :pac:.

Never mind supporrting an oppressors soccer team, why buy an oppressors rag? And the support your decision by citing the "time heals all wounds" line...?

I'm a Liverpool fan - I never buy it partly because of Hillsborough and partly because it is unmitaged sh1te. And if 40-something% of people buy it, it doesn't mean it's quality - it's still sh1te.

jdivision

Page 3 allows those people to ignore their political leanings tbh

nlgbbbblth

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I'm a Liverpool fan - I never buy it partly because of Hillsborough and partly because it is unmitaged sh1te. And if 40-something% of people buy it, it doesn't mean it's quality - it's still sh1te.

Do you know any Irish Liverpool fans that do buy it?

It beggars belief that they exist but as I said, I've encountered a few. Why?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

Do you know any Irish Liverpool fans that do buy it?

It beggars belief that they exist but as I said, I've encountered a few. Why?

I used to know one, but he stopped when they started giving out Hearld AM and Metro for free.

I can only guess that people outside Liverpool aren't as affected as people from Liverpool by the media coverage (as seperate from the actual events). The attack wasn't just on Liverpool FC, it was an attack on the entire city.

Aidric

God, where to start with this rag. I detest it and its readers, who quite obviously have the intellect of a fieldmouse. They deserve each other.

Paper Boy

Hahahahaaa! You lads are hilarious! If you even bothered to look you would notice that the Irish Mirror, Irish Sun and even the Daily Irish Mail are all for the most part Irish papers with some English content, not the other way around. Sure they contain English content, but it's usually Premier League stuff (how many of you's support uk teams???) and UK celebs gossip. Most women and some blokes are into that, because they dont consider Irish Celebs to be proper celebs. Other than that, there's some international news, and the rest is Irish.

These papers all have their main offices in Dublin, and employ Irish people in them (News International - Sun, Sunday Times & News of the World, employs almost 200 people here, Mirror Group is similar). So in reality, they are more Irish than alot of companies. I dont hear anyone complaining about Dell or Google or Intel or Starbucks (well, maybe about Starbucks haha!).

I do agree about the "Irish" People however. Mirror group had to let the Irish staff go about 2 years ago due to low sales of the paper. Hopefully the anti tabloid sentiment expressed above won't lead to more job losses.

When all you read about in the broadsheets is economic doom and gloom, it can be nice to lighten things up a bit with some tabloid fare.

PB

therewillbe

:mad::mad:I wouldn't wipe my a... with it. How many times during the last 25/30 odd years has this RAG put down not only their own but also us the IRISH.next TIME YOUR ON HOLS , PICK UP A SECOND HAND COPY LYING AROUND AND HAVE A READ .The sh... it comes out with, We the british this and that, the three lions this... blah blah. The mirror is as bad.Any TRUE Pool fan wouldn't think about ever having a copy in their presence.:mad::mad:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Paper Boy wrote: »

When all you read about in the broadsheets is economic doom and gloom, it can be nice to lighten things up a bit with some tabloid fare.

PB

"Tabloid fare" being repeated exaggerated paedophile stories trying to scare the **** out of parents along side government scandals? Oh yes! really lightening!

Paper Boy

therewillbe wrote: »

We the british this and that, the three lions this... blah blah. The mirror is as bad.Any TRUE Pool fan wouldn't think about ever having a copy in their presence.:mad::mad:

Any true 'pool fan? Are you FROM Liverpool?

I'm not defending the Sun's take on Hillsborough, all I'm saying is that tabloids have a place. Like pop music, Xpose, Big Brother, I'm a Celebrity, XFactor, Strictly Ballroom and all of the rest of that crap. I don't watch that stuff, nor do I read tabloids, but I do take on board that not everybody is into the same stuff.

Why don't you support a decent team anyway, like Munster. Oh wait, you're probably from Leinster, which would practically make you a Brit.:D:eek::D

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Paper Boy wrote: »

Any true 'pool fan? Are you FROM Liverpool?

I'm not defending the Sun's take on Hillsborough, all I'm saying is that tabloids have a place. Like pop music, Xpose, Big Brother, I'm a Celebrity, XFactor, Strictly Ballroom and all of the rest of that crap. I don't watch that stuff, nor do I read tabloids, but I do take on board that not everybody is into the same stuff.

Why don't you support a decent team anyway, like Munster. Oh wait, you're probably from Leinster, which would practically make you a Brit.:D:eek::D

Hmm... not sure I believe you when you say you don't watch/read "all that crap". And if celebrity does have a place, it's celeb mags and NOT 'news'papers.

Pen1987

I agree with some of what paper boy has to say.

A lot of broadsheet readers don't really understand what tabliods are about. They cater for a certain section of society that isn't really interested in the news side of the newsaper, but they want up-to-the-minute soft-news coverage. You cant't get up-to-the-minute soft-news in magazines, because they're weekly at best, and you cant get soft-news in the broadsheets because they're oh-so-serious.

I'm a broadsheet reader BTW but I read broadsheets because I want to get the news not be entertained for my 15 minute lunch break by a story about the odd happenings in some one elses life. It's perfectly acceptable and normal that people (of any intellect) want to be entertained for certain periods during their day, and tabloids provide that entertainment.

Now the journalistic merits of tabloid newsapers can be debated for days on end but I have to say, I think dismissing tabloids as journalism at it's lowest is slightly sweeping. Of course the infotainment articles are never going to win any Pulitzers, but show me somebody who is not a media junkie who is going to read a Pulitzer prize winning article to keep them occupied on their lunch break. They aren't read by people looking for amazing writing or fantasic analysis of the gloabl political climate, they're read by people who want something to read while they're on the bus, eating their lunch or something similar, people who aren't prepared, or don't have the time to read 500-600 words in a chunk...

Tabloids do provide a service. Dismiss them as a bogroll if you will, but if you think that way I don't think they're aimed at you anyway.

The News of the World has won newspaper of the year in the UK more times than I care to list. I'd go as far as to say it's won it more times than any broadsheet in the last 25 years, although I may be wrong. Tabloids do break a lot more stories than broadsheets, well they used to... in the UK. I will say, Irish tabloids don't have the same style and panach as their UK conterparts, I'd read a UK tabloid if I was british before I'd read an Irish tabloid as an Irishman. The British editors are much more entertaining (that's basically their job) and cutting which I thinks makes for a better newspaper.

Read broadsheets if you want but personally I feel anyone dismissing tabliods as a scab on society is a snob.

To the person who said you can't call tabloids "news"papers, that's debatable. I'd personally class anything on >95mg paper printed in newsprint and with more than 24 pages and less than 100 pages a newspaper. The content is irrelevant really, I class a newspaper as a physical product more than an editorial product.

However, I feel if a newspaper is a tabloid it should be an "out of the closet" tabloid not a tabloid disguised as a broadsheet behind wide pages with less colour and shorter headlines. *cough* Indo *cough*

The whole newspaper industry is moving toward tabliod style wordcounts. Get used to the layouts.

*disclaimer: FTR Pen1987 has never worked for a tabliod.*

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pen1987 wrote: »

Now the journalistic merits of tabloid newsapers can be debated for days on end but I have to say, I think dismissing tabloids as journalism at it's lowest is slightly sweeping. Of course the infotainment articles are never going to win any Pulitzers, but show me somebody who is not a media junkie who is going to read a Pulitzer prize winning article to keep them occupied on their lunch break. They aren't read by people looking for amazing writing or fantasic analysis of the gloabl political climate, they're read by people who want something to read while they're on the bus, eating their lunch or something similar, people who aren't prepared, or don't have the time to read 500-600 words in a chunk...

Eh...what? Infotainment, fine - there are magazines that do that and do it well, but to say that tabloids have merit as a "newspaper" is ridiculous! Reporting soft news I can live with, as long as the reporting is fair, honest and accurate. But you can not defend the hatchet jobs, lying and scaremongering.

The News of the World has won newspaper of the year in the UK more times than I care to list. I'd go as far as to say it's won it more times than any broadsheet in the last 25 years, although I may be wrong. Tabloids do break a lot more stories than broadsheets, well they used to... in the UK. I will say, Irish tabloids don't have the same style and panach as their UK conterparts, I'd read a UK tabloid if I was british before I'd read an Irish tabloid as an Irishman. The British editors are much more entertaining (that's basically their job) and cutting which I thinks makes for a better newspaper.

Newspaper of the year? By who? Tbh, I'd like to know who choose it and how before I read anything into that.

As for "Style and panache"? Oh dear. Telling a nation that an entire city urinated on ambulance workers trying to save lives? Under the banner "The Truth" when it was in fact an outright lie? Very stylish.

And they there's the female editor who runs numerous pieces on domestic violence only to get arrested for attacking her husband? Text-book panache.

To the person who said you can't call tabloids "news"papers, that's debatable. I'd personally class anything on >95mg paper printed in newsprint and with more than 24 pages and less than 100 pages a newspaper. The content is irrelevant really, I class a newspaper as a physical product more than an editorial product.

I use the stuff to paint sketches on. It's NOT newspaper.


The only reason tabloids exist is to keep people ignorant and scared. I've no problem with them existing, but reporting the news as facts and NOT opinion needs to be a priority.

You'll be defedning Fox News next.

nlgbbbblth

Paper Boy wrote: »

nor do I read tabloids

Pen1987 wrote: »

I'm a broadsheet reader

This isn't unusual.

Tabloid defending by people who

1) don't read them
and / or
2) read broadsheets

Can none of the actual tabloid readers stand up for themselves?

Also similiar:

Thread about underprivileged people who commit crimes. Some posters will defend the criminals' actions citing poverty, exclusion from society etc. The defenders are often middle class.

Ordinary man

I buy the sun everyday. Its not great but it'll do. I read from back to front{sport to crap} and read all with a touch of salt. There are not many other options. The mirror is just rubbish, the star think that scottish team of scumbags are irelands greatest team:mad:. If i had time to sit at a big open desk and read papers with actual news, i might.

Maybe the indo might be better but old habits die hard. Also the fact i am a United supporter and i know scousers hate the sun gives me immence satisfaction;)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ordinary man wrote: »

I buy the sun everyday. Its not great but it'll do. I read from back to front{sport to crap} and read all with a touch of salt. There are not many other options. The mirror is just rubbish, the star think that scottish team of scumbags are irelands greatest team:mad:. If i had time to sit at a big open desk and read papers with actual news, i might.

Maybe the indo might be better but old habits die hard. Also the fact i am a United supporter and i know scousers hate the sun gives me immence satisfaction;)

Ah so you do it out of hate? Shows the system works!

And here's a thought: How about learning hoe to read a REAL book?

EDIT - Scratch that last statement: just remembered you're a Man U fan.

Dob74

The Sun is a Rag but at least you know what you are getting. I wouldn't class as a serious source of information. And anyone who lacks the intelligents to realise that, its nothing more than celeberty gossip and which footballer rode what slapper etc. Does not deserve to be treated any better. I would call the indo anti-irish. They are constantly pushing there own agenda and do not report the news. The Irish Times and Examiner are the only two, to be worthy of being called NEWSpapers. And they are not great. Just read the others for a bit of a laugh.

Pen1987

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Eh...what? Infotainment, fine - there are magazines that do that and do it well, but to say that tabloids have merit as a "newspaper" is ridiculous! Reporting soft news I can live with, as long as the reporting is fair, honest and accurate. But you can not defend the hatchet jobs, lying and scaremongering.

Define "fair honest and accurate", I refer you to the thread about Celine Cawley's daughter on this forum as one area where you can see how subjective those terms can be.

As I said originally, I consider a "newspaper" a physical product, not necessarily an item defined by its editorial content. It's clear most people do this also - what are universally considered newspapers (but ones you claim) shouldn't be considered newspapers because they don't contain "important" "news", are considered newspapers.

Newspaper of the year? By who? Tbh, I'd like to know who choose it and how before I read anything into that.

At The Press Gazette Awards, the Press Gazette is the trade publication for the media industry in the UK, the award is highly sought-after. Current NOTY is the Guardian I believe, possibly the Observer.

As for "Style and panache"? Oh dear. Telling a nation that an entire city urinated on ambulance workers trying to save lives? Under the banner "The Truth" when it was in fact an outright lie? Very stylish.

One example taken to illustrate a supposedly continuous/daily occurance. Very tabloid of you. What about the days when the tabloids I was refering to were breaking stories day-in day-out. There was a number of weeks in the mid-nineties where the NOTW was exposing Tory politicians for being serial adultorers in every single weekly edition, this was while the Tory party pushed a "family values" agenda in government. When do broadsheets break these kinds of stories? Rarely.

And they there's the female editor who runs numerous pieces on domestic violence only to get arrested for attacking her husband? Text-book panache.

What would you expect a person who perpetrates domestic violence to do? Run stories promoting wife-beating?... There is no argument there. You get that type of person in all walks of life, the fact she was an editor of a tabloid doesn't make her some type of worse hypocrite, she was already a hypocrite... unless she was walking around advocating beating your husband to people in her personal life.

The only reason tabloids exist is to keep people ignorant and scared. I've no problem with them existing, but reporting the news as facts and NOT opinion needs to be a priority.

Wrong. The only reason tabloids exist is because people buy them. Media is a business, they make money, that's why they exist. People need to get that into their head, newspaper owners first priority, in the vast majority of cases is to sell newspapers. People don't buy tabloids because they want the f*cking news, I would of thought someone would of realised that by this point in the debate, it's my point all along, people buy them because they want entertainment. Its a product more than a service, people know what they're getting when they're buying tabloids. At least they're not tabloids pretending to be broadsheets.

You'll be defedning Fox News next.

Most of Fox's market don't know what they're getting when they're watching Fox.

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

This isn't unusual.

Tabloid defending by people who

1) don't read them
and / or
2) read broadsheets

Can none of the actual tabloid readers stand up for themselves?

Also similiar:

Thread about underprivileged people who commit crimes. Some posters will defend the criminals' actions citing poverty, exclusion from society etc. The defenders are often middle class.

... because an internet forum, (and especially the news and media section) is largely populated by people in the demographic who buy tabloid newspapers? That aren't middle class?... Why aren't tabliod readers defending tabloids in this debate here... because its online, in a news and media section on a website used predominantly by middle-class/upper middle class people associated with the IT, sales and financial professions. That's why.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Ah so you do it out of hate? Shows the system works!

And here's a thought: How about learning hoe to read a REAL book?

EDIT - Scratch that last statement: just remembered you're a Man U fan.

Getting personal again. But anyway, take the poster you're replying to as an example of a tabloid reader... he reads the news with "touch of salt"... i.e he knows what he's getting.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pen1987 wrote: »

Define "fair honest and accurate", I refer you to the thread about Celine Cawley's daughter on this forum as one area where you can see how subjective those terms can be.

In terms of factual reporting, I'd have thought they were self-explanatory. You're either right or you're not. Are you seriously telling me tabloids are more interested in being "fair, honest and accurate" then selling newspapers...? I don't know the thread you're referring to.

As I said originally, I consider a "newspaper" a physical product, not necessarily an item defined by its editorial content. It's clear most people do this also - what are universally considered newspapers (but ones you claim) shouldn't be considered newspapers because they don't contain "important" "news", are considered newspapers.

Agree to disagree? Newspaper, to me, is something that contains honest journalism.

At The Press Gazette Awards, the Press Gazette is the trade publication for the media industry in the UK, the award is highly sought-after. Current NOTY is the Guardian I believe, possibly the Observer.

Fair comment.

One example taken to illustrate a supposedly continuous/daily occurance. Very tabloid of you. What about the days when the tabloids I was refering to were breaking stories day-in day-out. There was a number of weeks in the mid-nineties where the NOTW was exposing Tory politicians for being serial adultorers in every single weekly edition, this was while the Tory party pushed a "family values" agenda in government. When do broadsheets break these kinds of stories? Rarely.

I could have used many: Diana, Princess of Wales is another. I don't care what politicians do IN PRIVATE as it is THEIR OWN BUSINESS. This stops short of reporting and crosses the line into invasion of privacy: as long as it doesn't affect their ability to do their job, they actions have no right to be reported. Broadsheets don't cover these as there not relevant. Interesting, juicy, and hypocritical (Rebekah Wade, anyone?) but not relevant.

What would you expect a person who perpetrates domestic violence to do? Run stories promoting wife-beating?... There is no argument there. You get that type of person in all walks of life, the fact she was an editor of a tabloid doesn't make her some type of worse hypocrite, she was already a hypocrite... unless she was walking around advocating beating your husband to people in her personal life.

So you're defending hypocracy now? I would expect her not to preach in the first place if she's going to go in for marital violence.

Wrong. The only reason tabloids exist is because people buy them. Media is a business, they make money, that's why they exist. People need to get that into their head, newspaper owners first priority, in the vast majority of cases is to sell newspapers. People don't buy tabloids because they want the f*cking news, I would of thought someone would of realised that by this point in the debate, it's my point all along, people buy them because they want entertainment. Its a product more than a service, people know what they're getting when they're buying tabloids. At least they're not tabloids pretending to be broadsheets.

It seems we're arguing the same point here: they are more magazines than newspapers. I have no problem with this, just pick one or the other. And people who buy them are lazy and ignorant.

I have an opinion on this that would sound more at home coming from run-to-the-hills, I know, but who controls the media...?

Most of Fox's market don't know what they're getting when they're watching Fox.

Fair comment again, but I could argue the same point about the tablods.

... because an internet forum, (and especially the news and media section) is largely populated by people in the demographic who buy tabloid newspapers? That aren't middle class?... Why aren't tabliod readers defending tabloids in this debate here... because its online, in a news and media section on a website used predominantly by middle-class/upper middle class people associated with the IT, sales and financial professions. That's why.

I'd argue because admitting that you get your news from tabloids is on a par with admitting to ignorance.

Getting personal again. But anyway, take the poster you're replying to as an example of a tabloid reader... he reads the news with "touch of salt"... i.e he knows what he's getting.

See sig.

CDfm

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

The Sun has traditionally had an anti-Irish editorial policy. It may not explicity state that Irish people are inferior but that's not the point. As I stated in the other thread, a lot of the anti-Irish racism that I and many others experienced in London during the late 1980s/early 1990s can be directly attributed to hysteria whipped up by the likes of The Sun and The Daily Mail.

Yes tabloid sales are high in both the UK and Ireland - but sales are never a guarantee of quality.

I have to admire who Scousers stopped buying the Sun and have stuck to it.

Maybe we should learn fom this and apply it.

Pen1987

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

In terms of factual reporting, I'd have thought they were self-explanatory. You're either right or you're not. Are you seriously telling me tabloids are more interested in being "fair, honest and accurate" then selling newspapers...? I don't know the thread you're referring to.

No I'm saying the term "fair" is subjective. The thread on Celine Cawleys daughter is about the ethical implications of printing photographs of a 16 year old girl grieving over the death of her mother and the possible loss of her father to a long prison term. Both broadsheets and tabloids printed the pictures, and RTE broadcast footage.

Agree to disagree? Newspaper, to me, is something that contains honest journalism.

Okay, I think this point may be at the crux of the argument though.

I could have used many: Diana, Princess of Wales is another. I don't care what politicians do IN PRIVATE as it is THEIR OWN BUSINESS. This stops short of reporting and crosses the line into invasion of privacy: as long as it doesn't affect their ability to do their job, they actions have no right to be reported. Broadsheets don't cover these as there not relevant. Interesting, juicy, and hypocritical (Rebekah Wade, anyone?) but not relevant.

I don't think you quite understand how the tabloids work. In Diana's case especially she played the tabloids as much as they played her. She leaked information then denied it came from her to make Charles look bad all the time. There is one anecdote about her press secretary ringing Piers Morgan at the Daily Mail "without the consent of Diana" to tell him about something Charles was going to be doing off-the-record and inform Piers that he "might be interested in sending a photographer" (or something to that effect) because he'd probably catch Charles and Camilla doing something juicy, all the while Morgan could clearly hear Diana dictating what to say to the press officer.

Diana had the personal phone number of every tabloid editor in London and would ring them regularly, she was always lunching with them and "accidentally" letting slip little snippets of information. She had Piers Morgan in the palace for lunch and let William sit in with them when he was thirteen.

She knew exactly what she was doing and it's effects and it helped her, when someone tried to sell Morgan photos of Williams room at Eton while he was at the helm at The Mirror he bought them and kept them so nobody else would have them. After her death when some man whose name escapes me tried to sell the The Mirror love letters sent to him by Diana during her marriage to Charles he bought them and returned them to the palace for safe keeping instead of printing the details. (the Palace then returned the letters to the man who had sold them to the The Mirror who then tried to sell them to The Sun so Morgan then went ahead and printed).

Its a mutually beneficial relationship that most celebrities have with tabloids. See Cheryl Cole.

They cover the personal lives of politicians when they are relevant. Like in the cases I spoke about in my earlier post when the NOTW was exposing Tory politicians who were preaching about the British Labour Party's lack of respect for "the family" as serial adulterers week-in week-out. These were politicians trying to get elected on the basis that they were the advocates for family values and the institute of marriage, of course that is relevant. Rumour has it Tony Blair used press lunches to leek information about his catholicism, again mutual benefit.

Now you could say that the personal life of these politicians should be treated the same way as the personal life of the abusive tab-ed... but she was a hypocrite and she was exposed as one in the media, and they were hypocrites and they were exposed by the media, so they were both treated equally and both ajudged to be newsworthy stories and given the relative amount of coverage.

So you're defending hypocracy now? I would expect her not to preach in the first place if she's going to go in for marital violence.

No I'm saying that the fact she was a tabloid editor had nothing to do with the argument. She ran stories about wife-beaters because it's a normal thing to do. If she didn't run the stories then it would of looked strange wouldn't it? What do you expect of her?

When she gets a story about marital violence should she of stopped and said to herself "wait... I beat my husband so I shouldn't run this story, I should step down from my job and admit my deeds?" is this what a "normal" abuser would do? When a police officer who beats his wife is sent to arrest a person for domestic violence would you expect them to tell their superior that they won't perform the arrest because they themselves are wife-beaters? No. Yet the fact that they arrest the person for a crime that they themselves also commit, obviously hypocritical. I wasn't defending hypocrisy I was saying that people who commit domestic violence are found in all walks of life so the point she was a tabloid editor who ran stories against dom-violence was moot.

It seems we're arguing the same point here: they are more magazines than newspapers. I have no problem with this, just pick one or the other. And people who buy them are lazy and ignorant.

What magazines cover celebrity gossip, have the TV listings, cover the hard news in basic and have a large sport section, print daily and cost around a euro? None. It's a different product to a magazine because of this, that's why people buy them in their droves.

They also print in a size that is easier to read on buses and on tables (like the ones in staff canteens) than broadsheets, which take up the table-space used by two/three people. They're also written in shorter more compact style than broadsheets or newsmags like Time or The Economist, so the stories can be read quickly - in nuggets over the space of a 15 minute lunch-break. Broadsheet articles are usually 250-500 words and can take 6-8 minutes to read, tabloid stories are around 150 word and can be scanned quickly. They are a different product to magazines, that's why they're still selling.

I have an opinion on this that would sound more at home coming from run-to-the-hills, I know, but who controls the media...?

Nobody, that's why it can do it's job. Tell me about your run-to-the-hills opinion? I don't get your phrasing...

I'd argue because admitting that you get your news from tabloids is on a par with admitting to ignorance.

People who read tabloids aren't interested in "getting 'The News'" as you define it. If they were people who were seeking in-depth coverage they would buy broadsheets invariably. "The news" is just one element of the product that that attracts buyers, the sport coverage and infotainment also attracts readers. I'd argue that news is a sort of aside in the mix of the tabloid newspaper to readers. Tabloid readers don't "seek" news they seek something to have to do during the day, something to browse while they're eating their lunch or are waiting to go somewhere, an entertainment product as opposed to a news product.

You're not ignorant if you buy tabloids (nothing personal man but I have to say I think that was a pretty ignorant statement to make in itself) you're just searching for a different product than broadsheet readers. News is something that happens to someone somewhere that could be interesting a as opposed to something that you want to know about. I'd say there is a pretty large difference in the percentage of tabloid readers who watch the 6/9 o'clock news as opposed to the percentage of broadsheet readers.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pen1987 wrote: »

No I'm saying the term "fair" is subjective. The thread on Celine Cawleys daughter is about the ethical implications of printing photographs of a 16 year old girl grieving over the death of her mother and the possible loss of her father to a long prison term. Both broadsheets and tabloids printed the pictures, and RTE broadcast footage.

Ethical? as opposed to financial? If it sells, the tabloids will print it, ehtics comes later.

I don't think you quite understand how the tabloids work. In Diana's case especially she played the tabloids as much as they played her. She leaked information then denied it came from her to make Charles look bad all the time. There is one anecdote about her press secretary ringing Piers Morgan at the Daily Mail "without the consent of Diana" to tell him about something Charles was going to be doing off-the-record and inform Piers that he "might be interested in sending a photographer" (or something to that effect) because he'd probably catch Charles and Camilla doing something juicy, all the while Morgan could clearly hear Diana dictating what to say to the press officer.

Hardly a defense, considering what happened. And their reactions abot how loved she was and what a tragic hero she's become, considering they were the instigators of the tragedy.

I'm not saying the royal family is innocent here - it looks like both parties were getting down and dirty here, but at least one isn't coming out and printing it as fact.

Diana had the personal phone number of every tabloid editor in London and would ring them regularly, she was always lunching with them and "accidentally" letting slip little snippets of information. She had Piers Morgan in the palace for lunch and let William sit in with them when he was thirteen.

She knew exactly what she was doing and it's effects and it helped her, when someone tried to sell Morgan photos of Williams room at Eton while he was at the helm at The Mirror he bought them and kept them so nobody else would have them. After her death when some man whose name escapes me tried to sell the The Mirror love letters sent to him by Diana during her marriage to Charles he bought them and returned them to the palace for safe keeping instead of printing the details. (the Palace then returned the letters to the man who had sold them to the The Mirror who then tried to sell them to The Sun so Morgan then went ahead and printed).

Again, how does this excuse the outcome? And again, this was just another example. John Leslie is another who has had his life destroyed for petty financial gain.

Its a mutually beneficial relationship that most celebrities have with tabloids. See Cheryl Cole.

They cover the personal lives of politicians when they are relevant. Like in the cases I spoke about in my earlier post when the NOTW was exposing Tory politicians who were preaching about the British Labour Party's lack of respect for "the family" as serial adulterers week-in week-out. These were politicians trying to get elected on the basis that they were the advocates for family values and the institute of marriage, of course that is relevant. Rumour has it Tony Blair used press lunches to leek information about his catholicism, again mutual benefit.

How can the personal lives of politicians ever be relevant? Assuming, of course, it;s not effecting their ability to do their job? And Tory politicians, as I said before were not acting illegally. This is NOT news. Idon't need to know this when I vote, as I vote based on policies. I don;t care if my TD is shagging a one-legged midget - as long as he gets the job done - and he should be ENTITLED TO DO SO IF HE'S GOOD ENOUGH.

Now you could say that the personal life of these politicians should be treated the same way as the personal life of the abusive tab-ed... but she was a hypocrite and she was exposed as one in the media, and they were hypocrites and they were exposed by the media, so they were both treated equally and both ajudged to be newsworthy stories and given the relative amount of coverage.

Personal life should be treat the same for EVERYONE. End of.

No I'm saying that the fact she was a tabloid editor had nothing to do with the argument. She ran stories about wife-beaters because it's a normal thing to do. If she didn't run the stories then it would of looked strange wouldn't it? What do you expect of her?

She's in the same bracket as the politicians. Live by the sword....

What magazines cover celebrity gossip, have the TV listings, cover the hard news in basic and have a large sport section, print daily and cost around a euro? None. It's a different product to a magazine because of this, that's why people buy them in their droves.

What tabloid readed want to know the cost of the euro? And the sport is usually inaccurate gossip as well. How many times as Rafael Benitez been "about to walk out on Liverpool for Real Madrid"?

They also print in a size that is easier to read on buses and on tables (like the ones in staff canteens) than broadsheets, which take up the table-space used by two/three people. They're also written in shorter more compact style than broadsheets or newsmags like Time or The Economist, so the stories can be read quickly - in nuggets over the space of a 15 minute lunch-break. Broadsheet articles are usually 250-500 words and can take 6-8 minutes to read, tabloid stories are around 150 word and can be scanned quickly. They are a different product to magazines, that's why they're still selling.

Laziness. If you want something easily handled READ A BOOK.

Nobody, that's why it can do it's job. Tell me about your run-to-the-hills opinion? I don't get your phrasing...

He's a boards user associated with mistrust and conspiracy theories - a bit like Fox Mulder. My point being, I believe tabloids are used as a form of control.

People who read tabloids aren't interested in "getting 'The News'" as you define it. If they were people who were seeking in-depth coverage they would buy broadsheets invariably. "The news" is just one element of the product that that attracts buyers, the sport coverage and infotainment also attracts readers. I'd argue that news is a sort of aside in the mix of the tabloid newspaper to readers. Tabloid readers don't "seek" news they seek something to have to do during the day, something to browse while they're eating their lunch or are waiting to go somewhere, an entertainment product as opposed to a news product.

You're not ignorant if you buy tabloids (nothing personal man but I have to say I think that was a pretty ignorant statement to make in itself) you're just searching for a different product than broadsheet readers. News is something that happens to someone somewhere that could be interesting a as opposed to something that you want to know about. I'd say there is a pretty large difference in the percentage of tabloid readers who watch the 6/9 o'clock news as opposed to the percentage of broadsheet readers.

That's because the broadsheet readers hae already read the news. And you can't read tabloids without absorbing a lot of what you're reading. People deny beleiveing it, but they ARE influenced by what they read. And it is ignorant to think you aren't, or that you're above it while still reading it.

Sorry, but you haven't convinced me. Tabloids are dangerous and misinforming. Why is there so many ajectives used? Why are people "caged" instead of being "jailed"? Why was the infamous Iraq dossier "sexed up" and not "beefed up" or "exaggerated"? If the law has been broken, fair enough, report it. If not, and it's purely a personal matter, there is no reason why it should become print. Would YOU think it fair if YOUR worst misdemeanor was printed on the front page of a tabloid? Would you think it fair if you lost your job, possibly even your family? Even if you never broke the law?

Then there's the paedohile scandals. Remember Brass Eye? A very accurate statement on the effect of sensationalism in the media. By all means, encourage vigilance, but is it fair that a lot kids aren't allowed to play outside becuse of a few petty journalist?

David Kelly - another man, just doing his job, on the cover of a tabloid, and kills himself.

Anyone in the public eye who's ever had some sort of mental problem - Stephen Fry's depression springs to mind - is exposed and ridiculed. Is mental ill-health somethign we should be ashamed of now?

You don't see the either long term effects on society of these rags, or the personal effect on the innocent. How do you think the fmailies of the victims feel? Do you think David Kelly's wife shares your view that they serve a purpose?

They exist to make money. You got that right. Remember the phrase: "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story".

Pen1987

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Hardly a defense, considering what happened. And their reactions abot how loved she was and what a tragic hero she's become, considering they were the instigators of the tragedy.

I'm not saying the royal family is innocent here - it looks like both parties were getting down and dirty here, but at least one isn't coming out and printing it as fact.

You say yourself the royal family isn't innocent here. Just to confirm, you are taking Diana and the royal family to be two separate groupings? For the sake of clarity, I am.

Diana was darling of the tabloids, like I said, she was constantly lunching with the editors, some of whom were her personal friends. She developed them as "contacts" the same way they sought to develop her as one. She attempted to control her own spin, if tabloids ran stories against her she would leave them out in the cold for months on end, the same way she did with Fergie. She knew exactly the game she was playing and was very good at it, she would give stories to rival titles to "punish" papers who ran stories against her. She leaked stories about Charles all the time and for the vast majority of her life in the public eye, was very much the master of her own image.

If she played the tabloid game with her own image, of course they were going to play the game with it too. It's hardly likely or right that anyone could use the tabloids to their advantage then when something they don't want published gets into tabloid hands, they criticise that they publish?

Again, how does this excuse the outcome? And again, this was just another example. John Leslie is another who has had his life destroyed for petty financial gain.

That rape story came from Ulrika Johnsons auto-bio (book - a thing that non-lazy people read) John Leslie was then "mistakenly" outed as the supposed rapist on Matthew Wright's TV show, not in his tabloid column. When the case then came to the media's attention The Daily Mail (I think) were the first to allude to extra details which dismissed Leslie as the rapist, the charges were then dropped. Leslie never sued anyone and admitted he never knew how to treat women correctly in a broadsheet interview later. His career never recovered but it wasn't all the fault of the tabloids.

How can the personal lives of politicians ever be relevant? Assuming, of course, it;s not effecting their ability to do their job? And Tory politicians, as I said before were not acting illegally. This is NOT news. Idon't need to know this when I vote, as I vote based on policies. I don;t care if my TD is shagging a one-legged midget - as long as he gets the job done - and he should be ENTITLED TO DO SO IF HE'S GOOD ENOUGH.

Do you think politicians should be inherently trustworthy?
Do you think politicians should stand behind the principles they preach?
Do you think politicians should live by their own policies?
Do you think if a politician is telling the public that THEY should do something (i.e. "tighten their belts", that politicians should do the same i.e. take a pay cut)?

Actually, I'll cut it down to this...
Do you think John Gormley would have been elected if he was advocating the same policies while driving an SUV to work instead of cycling? And should the public have a right to know that as a Green candidate he's driving an SUV before they vote for him?

Personal life should be treat the same for EVERYONE. End of.

I have already made the argument for this, see the domestic-violence-tabloid-editor comment.

She's in the same bracket as the politicians. Live by the sword....

Thats exactly what I said... if she was running stories about wife-beater then she had stories run about her when she was exposed. We're in agreement here then? The fact that she was a tabloid editor was irrelevant, she ran dom-viol stories, then had dom-voil stories run about her, she lived by the sword she died by the sword, her personal life was exposed, she exposed personal lives, her personal was treated the same as anyone else.

What tabloid readed want to know the cost of the euro? And the sport is usually inaccurate gossip as well. How many times as Rafael Benitez been "about to walk out on Liverpool for Real Madrid"?

The statement I made was misinterpreted "What magazines cover all these topics [celebrity gossip, have the TV listings, cover the hard news in basic and have a large sport section, print daily] and cost around a euro?"

Laziness. If you want something easily handled READ A BOOK.

Again the coverage and price argument, I'm repeating myself again. What books cover [insert tabloid newspaper topics here] and cost approx one euro? None, it's a different product, as I've said time and time again.

He's a boards user associated with mistrust and conspiracy theories - a bit like Fox Mulder. My point being, I believe tabloids are used as a form of control.
That's because the broadsheet readers hae already read the news. And you can't read tabloids without absorbing a lot of what you're reading. People deny believing it, but they ARE influenced by what they read. And it is ignorant to think you aren't, or that you're above it while still reading it.

The part about broadsheet readers having already read the news, you think the percentage of broadsheet readers who also watch the news is larger than the percentage of people who read tabloids and also watch the news daily?... Really? I don't, broadsheet readers seek the news, tabloid readers seek something to do. A broadsheet reader would make a decision to find the news as opposed to a tabloid reader who might happen across as they were channel-hopping.

Sorry, but you haven't convinced me. Tabloids are dangerous and misinforming. Why is there so many ajectives used? Why are people "caged" instead of being "jailed"?

Why don't broadsheet business articles us the same business terminology as used on exchange floors?... because it doesn't appeal in the same way to their readership.

Why was the infamous Iraq dossier "sexed up" and not "beefed up" or "exaggerated"?

Ask the BBC, that bastion of gutter journalism, they came up the phrase.

If the law has been broken, fair enough, report it. If not, and it's purely a personal matter, there is no reason why it should become print. Would YOU think it fair if YOUR worst misdemeanor was printed on the front page of a tabloid? Would you think it fair if you lost your job, possibly even your family? Even if you never broke the law?

If I was being false and misleading in an attempt to gain somehow personally in the way certain politicians who are exposed in the tabloid media (see the NOTW and Tory politicians AGAIN) do, then yes I wouldn't like it but I wouldn't think it somehow shockingly unfair.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Interesting dsimissal of a lot of my points.

Instead of multi-quoting, I simply say this: ANYONE'S private business should NOT be made public. End of. And it CERTAINLY should not be used for financial gain, as you seem to think acceptable. Was John Leslie fairly treat by the media? Again, was Stephen Fry? Is mental illness something we should hold up for ridicule in the persuit of money?

While I hate politicians intensly, their POLICIES are what they should be judged on. NOT Tablod gossip. And Royals do NOT run for election.

The rest, I reuterate for your attention.

Me wrote:

Tabloids are dangerous and misinforming. Why is there so many ajectives used? Why are people "caged" instead of being "jailed"? Why was the infamous Iraq dossier "sexed up" and not "beefed up" or "exaggerated"? AND CAN YOU PROVE THE BBC WERE THE FIRST TO COIN THIS PRASE? If the law has been broken, fair enough, report it. If not, and it's purely a personal matter, there is no reason why it should become print. Would YOU think it fair if YOUR worst misdemeanor was printed on the front page of a tabloid? Would you think it fair if you lost your job, possibly even your family? Even if you never broke the law?

Then there's the paedohile scandals. Remember Brass Eye? A very accurate statement on the effect of sensationalism in the media. By all means, encourage vigilance, but is it fair that a lot kids aren't allowed to play outside becuse of a few petty journalist?

David Kelly - another man, just doing his job, on the cover of a tabloid, and kills himself.

Anyone in the public eye who's ever had some sort of mental problem - Stephen Fry's depression springs to mind - is exposed and ridiculed. Is mental ill-health somethign we should be ashamed of now?

You don't see the either long term effects on society of these rags, or the personal effect on the innocent. How do you think the fmailies of the victims feel? Do you think David Kelly's wife shares your view that they serve a purpose?

They exist to make money. You got that right. Remember the phrase: "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story".

Pen1987

Instead of multi-quoting, I simply say this: ANYONE'S private business should NOT be made public. End of. And it CERTAINLY should not be used for financial gain, as you seem to think acceptable.

No I don't think its acceptable, you read that one wrong. So you think it would be right for people NOT to know if John Gormley was driving around an SUV while preaching from a green-bible in an effort to get elected and represent people who elected him on the back of these green policies?

Was John Leslie fairly treat by the media?

As I said, it was not predominantly the tabloids. Media ethics is a MUCH wider issue.

Again, was Stephen Fry? Is mental illness something we should hold up for ridicule in the persuit of money?

Stephen Fry held his own mental health up for ridicule in an effort to break the taboo surrounding it. His book was called "The Secret Life Of A Manic Depressive" and it detailed much f what he goes through, yet was darkly-hilarious.

While I hate politicians intensly, their POLICIES are what they should be judged on. NOT Tablod gossip. And Royals do NOT run for election.

The John Gormley question again please...

The rest, I reuterate for your attention.

Andrew Gilligan, the Pol.Corr for the BBC quoted unnamed sources at the British MOD as saying the dossier was "sexed up". So technically "no" I can't prove the BBC coined the phrase because the MOD source coined the phrase and was quoted as doing so by probably the most respected Pol.Corr in the UK.

santosubito

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Instead of multi-quoting, I simply say this: ANYONE'S private business should NOT be made public. End of. And it CERTAINLY should not be used for financial gain, as you seem to think acceptable. Was John Leslie fairly treat by the media? Again, was Stephen Fry? Is mental illness something we should hold up for ridicule in the persuit of money?

Whoa, hold on a second here: was it the media who treated John Leslie unfairly, or the tabloids? Make your mind up.

And this: "I simply say this: ANYONE'S private business should NOT be made public. End of" is a completely ridiculous statement, in fact one of the most ridiculous I've read on this site - which is saying something.
Please tell me you're not seriously suggesting this: Good God. If this were the case, some of the biggest scandals in this country would never have been exposed.
Do you think Eamon Casey's private life should have been exposed?
Do you think Charlie Haughey's private financial affairs should have been exposed?
Do you think Ray Burke's private financial affairs should have been exposed?
Do you think Ben Dunne's generosity to Michael Lowry should have been exposed?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pen1987 wrote: »

No I don't think its acceptable, you read that one wrong. So you think it would be right for people NOT to know if John Gormley was driving around an SUV while preaching from a green-bible in an effort to get elected and represent people who elected him on the back of these green policies?



As I said, it was not predominantly the tabloids. Media ethics is a MUCH wider issue.



Stephen Fry held his own mental health up for ridicule in an effort to break the taboo surrounding it. His book was called "The Secret Life Of A Manic Depressive" and it detailed much f what he goes through, yet was darkly-hilarious.



The John Gormley question again please...



Andrew Gilligan, the Pol.Corr for the BBC quoted unnamed sources at the British MOD as saying the dossier was "sexed up". So technically "no" I can't prove the BBC coined the phrase because the MOD source coined the phrase and was quoted as doing so by probably the most respected Pol.Corr in the UK.

This may be my misinterpretation, I admit, but your viewpoints appear to have shifted a little: you're defending the tabloids, but saying what they print is NOT acceptable...?

John Gormley driving around in an SUV is a bit different from stalking clelebrities and politcians and reporting private lives publicly without complete disregard for their families! If, for exacmple, a celebrity is getting private help for an addiction, is this fair to publish? Yes or no? How about if there's money on the line? If you know a friend was playing around, would you tell EVERYONE?

Media ethics (or lack thereof) is EXACTLY what we're discussing. The fact that it's tabloids just specifies the issue a little.

Pen1987

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

This may be my misinterpretation, I admit, but your viewpoints appear to have shifted a little: you're defending the tabloids, but saying what they print is NOT acceptable...?

Nothing has shifted.

John Gormley driving around in an SUV is a bit different from stalking clelebrities and politcians

You said personal life, his choice of car is his personal decision (and an example of something that doesn't affect how well he does his job?) It's just an example question, answer?

and reporting private lives publicly without complete disregard for their families! If, for exacmple, a celebrity is getting private help for an addiction, is this fair to publish? Yes or no?

Alcoholism would affect a politicians ability to do his job, no??? And celebrities, half of them tip of the tabloids before they go into the place!

How about if there's money on the line? If you know a friend was playing around, would you tell EVERYONE?

A question of a public persona in the media and a the ethics involved in the personal life of a normal non-media person are two entirely different things.

Media ethics (or lack thereof) is EXACTLY what we're discussing. The fact that it's tabloids just specifies the issue a little.

It's only been about the tabloids since the first post, once your argument got cornered its seemed to have expanded though :P If you want to discuss general media ethics start a new (no doubt) never-ending thread but I don't think were allowed go off-topic...

santosubito

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

This may be my misinterpretation, I admit, but your viewpoints appear to have shifted a little: you're defending the tabloids, but saying what they print is NOT acceptable...?

John Gormley driving around in an SUV is a bit different from stalking clelebrities and politcians and reporting private lives publicly without complete disregard for their families! If, for exacmple, a celebrity is getting private help for an addiction, is this fair to publish? Yes or no? How about if there's money on the line? If you know a friend was playing around, would you tell EVERYONE?

Media ethics (or lack thereof) is EXACTLY what we're discussing. The fact that it's tabloids just specifies the issue a little.

Interesting. My reading of this discussion is that you have been differentiating strongly between tabloids and broadsheets. You now appear to be backtracking somewhat.

CDfm

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Ethical? as opposed to financial? If it sells, the tabloids will print it, ehtics comes later.


Hardly a defense, considering what happened. And their reactions abot how loved she was and what a tragic hero she's become, considering they were the instigators of the tragedy.

Ikkypooh2 - we need freedom of the press to safeguard democracy and free speech. Our brave and ethical journolists bring us Page3. The lenghts they go to bring us those empowering pictures of Sharon from eastenders in her underwear.

This Poster sez
LEAVE THE SUN ALONE

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Pen1987 wrote: »

Nothing has shifted.



You said personal life, his choice of car is his personal decision (and an example of something that doesn't affect how well he does his job?) It's just an example question, answer?


Alcoholism would affect a politicians ability to do his job, no??? And celebrities, half of them tip of the tabloids before they go into the place!



A question of a public persona in the media and a the ethics involved in the personal life of a normal non-media person are two entirely different things.



It's only been about the tabloids since the first post, once your argument got cornered its seemed to have expanded though :P If you want to discuss general media ethics start a new (no doubt) never-ending thread but I don't think were allowed go off-topic...

Well, Mr Gormley's not exactly hiding it, is he? And a doubt the revelation would hurt his famliy. Celebrities 'tipping-off' tabloids is hardly fair justification (and a useful little assumption, too!). Besides: did Prince Harry tip off the tabloids when we went out to get stoned? Let he who has not sinned... I never said anythng about politicians being addicted alcohol (and there's no guantee that it would infringe his job). And I'm talking ethics: the decision to publish private details of someone's (anyone's) life for profit. Fair or not?

santosubito wrote: »

Interesting. My reading of this discussion is that you have been differentiating strongly between tabloids and broadsheets. You now appear to be backtracking somewhat.

Don't see where. All newspapers are subject to ethics, if you want to talk about broadsheets, go ahead. I don't remember judging broadsheets one way or the other.

CDfm wrote: »

Ikkypooh2 - we need freedom of the press to safeguard democracy and free speech. Our brave and ethical journolists bring us Page3. The lenghts they go to bring us those empowering pictures of Sharon from eastenders in her underwear.

This Poster sez
LEAVE THE SUN ALONE

Freedom is fine, but it requires responsibilty. If you abuse these responsibilities, they tend to get taken away. Now stop trolling!! I'll leave the sun alone, when they leave Sharon alone.

CDfm

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Well, Mr Gormley's not exactly hiding it, is he? And a doubt the revelation would hurt his famliy. Celebrities 'tipping-off' tabloids is hardly fair justification (and a useful little assumption, too!). Besides: did Prince Harry tip off the tabloids when we went out to get stoned? Let he who has not sinned... I never said anythng about politicians being addicted alcohol (and there's no guantee that it would infringe his job). And I'm talking ethics: the decision to publish private details of someone's (anyone's) life for profit. Fair or not?

Too Damn right Ickypoo2 - its hardly fair.

The Red Tops on the main appeal to the lowest common denominator.You can be guaranteed its salacious.

So it really not in the public interest - if I were to meet Paul Burrell I would know that Princess Diana refered to him as her rock. Has it confirmed my opinion that she was thick and vain.But were the details that flooded out in the public interest -not at all.

As for who bonked Posh Spice before Dave -when she was a right little raver -and sold his story to set the record straight-do i need to know.

Its gossip reprinted as fact - and we dont need it really - it sells but its neither news our in the public interest.

I read the red tops on the train or at the barbers - but they do have a huge impact on public opinion and news creation. Its entertainment but mud sticks even if its a malicous spin.

Its recently came out that Charlie Haughey had spun via his press connections a story about an affair involving President Hillary which was untrue and nearly brought about his resignation.

Similarily -Cooper Flynn - while the story about her giving advice on offshore accounts was false - her reputation wasnt held to be damaged and it cost E2m. Thats some right to vindicate yourself and go broke in the process.

Outing homosexuals -especially entertainers - thats kind of blackmail. Confess your guilt and shame and we will be nice.

I could go on but wont.

hallstatt

I use to spend a fortune on papers every week and then i realised every one of them are the same - PURE S**TE. I havent bough a paper in years and have probably saved a fortune. And realising 90% of journalist write absolute sh**te on a daily basis just to sell it. Intruding into peoples private lives and stirrin it up. and "expert analysis" from some clown football pundit who talks cack that everyone already knows.Sumtin along the lines of I think mark hughes could be getting the sack soon.god...i would have thought that without reading my paper

Pen1987

I'm not bothered continuing this thread anymore. It's clearly run its course. I understand where you (icky Poo) are coming from but I feel you have shown little understanding, or at least a skewwed understanding of how the press works, or what it's there for - the suggestion that a politicians private life should be off the pages is crazy and as pointed out by sanssubito would have meant people like Charles Haughey would of got away with much much more.

Admittedly, some of the tabloids are absolute rags, but they do serve a purpose and provide a service, thats why they're still selling. Its likely that the Evening Herald will begin to out-sell the Irish Times in Dublin at some point next year, which speaks for itself. Todays (Irish) tabloids are not of the same journalistic standard as their (UK) predecessors unfortunately but I'm defending the idea of tabloid journalism not how it carried out here today. Some of the things certain tabloid newspapers publish is complete bollocks and there are more tabloids that are ****e than ****e broadsheets but that doesnt discount the fact that tabloids are needed by a society. You might not like them but they are here to stay and do what they're supposed to do. A society without tabloids would not be a more informed place than a society without them, and thats what I boils down to really.

Mark

CDfm

I think icky does understand - but is otherwise occupied in stuff in Germany.

You use uncovering the activities of Charles Haughey - which came out of the Dunnes Family Court case with the freedom of the press whereas it had nothing to do with it.

It seems like you are happy with standards of journalism which others like icky do not agree with and want stuff to be news which is gossip and has nothing to do with the public interest.

I go further and say the Beverly Cooper-Flynn case showed that even when the press publish or run stories that are factually incorrect arrogance not ethics runs amok in their efforts to avoid responsibility. I would never believe anything by Charlie Bird or RTE News on that basis.

So the cost of this is credibility.

Gerk11

I was wondering were a lot of people here just trying to wind it up???
But I actually think some of you clowns are serious.

So lets get this straight, some of you hate the Sun because of its pro-English stance yet one of the reasons you won't buy it is because of what it did 20 years ago to, eh, an English football team.
There is definitely an irony there.

The Sun is what it is - a decent read for all you Premiership obsessed twats