News of the World phone-hacking whistleblower found dead

Di0genes

steelcityblues wrote: »

Don't remember many photos of Gerry Ryan doing a line being published, in the wake of his death. :rolleyes:

There's no photos of Sean "doing a line" either.

Of course Gerry Ryan being a celebrity there would be plenty of publicity and RTE press office photos to use.

Sean being a "mere" journalist means that journalist friends probably used a photo they had handy.

Honestly this is such bizarre angle to take, it's like getting angry that there's a photo of a bleary eyed Keith Richards holding a fag and saying

"him smoking a cigarette. How many times do you see a dead person have such an unflattering photo of themselves get used in the papers and on TV?

A subtle way to convince the reader that it was a result of his former lifestyle 'catching up with him

It's Keith Richards, any photo of him not holding a drink and fag has been photoshopped*


Sean Hoare lived a unhealthy lifestyle. There's not need to suggest it, his friends are stating that publicly.

Christ any man who regularly starts his day with Jack Daniels and Coke**, isn't going to be on the cover of men's health.




*this is joke, not a demand.

** Not Coke Cola

steelcityblues

Why didn't the Times use a more normal one like the below one then? Didn't stop some other outlets from doing so. I think you might be underestimating photo manipulation.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-BN637_HOARE_DV_20110718175833.jpg

Di0genes

steelcityblues wrote: »

Why didn't the Times use a more normal one like the below one then? Didn't stop some other outlets from doing so. I think you might be underestimating photo manipulation.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-BN637_HOARE_DV_20110718175833.jpg

And I think you're over estimating the paranoia behind sub editing.

The guy snorted drugs for breakfast. You really think of photo of him not smoking would improve our perception of him as a healthy person?

steelcityblues

Di0genes wrote: »

And I think you're over estimating the paranoia behind sub editing.

The guy snorted drugs for breakfast. You really think of photo of him not smoking would improve our perception of him as a healthy person?

Remember the imposed image of Neil Kinnock inside the light bulb, just before the 1992 election?

The average reader does not think too deeply, after all.

Di0genes

steelcityblues wrote: »

Remember the imposed image of Neil Kinnock inside the light bulb, just before the 1992 election?

That's an editorialised photograph.

Sean Hoare lived a highly unhealthy lifestyle. A photo of him smoking or not smoking isn't going to change that.

The average reader does not think too deeply, after all.

I'm not sure if you either give the average reader not enough credit, or yourself too much credit or both.

humanji

To be honest, I kind of like the photo the Times had. It gives the impression of him being an old-fashioned, hard-nosed reporter. All he's missing is a press fedora. And it looks like a staged photo, as opposed to one taken on the sly, and that would also give the impression that it's a photo of himself he wouldn't have had a problem with.

Oh, and here's the photo. I had a bit of bother trying to find it, so I thought it might save people some time if I posted it here:



But, all that said, The Times is owned by Murdock, so even if his death is not suspicious, I can well imagine the Times wouldn't be too keen in showing him in a good light.

profitius

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm not sure if you either give the average reader not enough credit, or yourself too much credit or both.

The average reader does not understand how subliminal messages work or even what they are.

Sparticle

profitius wrote: »

The average reader does not understand how subliminal messages work or even what they are.

I think you're underestimating the "average reader". Subliminal messages and their "manipulation" of the subconscious are cultural memes and have long been clichés in TV shows, books and movies.

Don't insult the public.

ed2hands

Joe Public is manipulated by the media. It's not insulting Joe to state that.

Sparticle

ed2hands wrote: »

Joe Public is manipulated by the media. It's not insulting Joe to state that.

The concept of joe public in this context is incredibly demeaning. It's existence implies the division of society into two tiers. One higher and more aware and one that can't be trusted to make it's own decisions, Sheeple if you will.

I think you'll find the majority of the public don't give two fcuks about media hype let alone the death of an insignificant drug abuser and can spot an attempt manipulation a mile away.

steelcityblues

Sparticle wrote: »

I think you're underestimating the "average reader". Subliminal messages and their "manipulation" of the subconscious are cultural memes and have long been clichés in TV shows, books and movies.

Don't insult the public.

The Murdoch rags would not have been so successful for years, if the masses saw true the BS.

ed2hands

Sparticle wrote: »

The concept of joe public in this context is incredibly demeaning. It's existence implies the division of society into two tiers. One higher and more aware and one that can't be trusted to make it's own decisions, Sheeple if you will.

Would disagree. What i meant is that we are ALL Joe Public. And awareness is paramount to understanding it. You got the wrong end of the stick.

Sparticle wrote: »

I think you'll find the majority of the public don't give two fcuks about media hype let alone the death of an insignificant drug abuser and can spot an attempt manipulation a mile away.

Don't know what to say about that. Every one of us has been manipulated by mass media in one way or another.

Sparticle

steelcityblues wrote: »

The Murdoch rags would not have been so successful for years, if the masses saw true the BS.

The masses you say! Seems like an artificial division used to make the speaker feel good about themselves.

I wager the "masses" are not as gullible as you think. The only people I see quoting the murdoch tabloids as fact are conspiracy theorists latching onto some BS report about GM or global warming.

ed2hands wrote: »

Would disagree. What i meant is that we are ALL Joe Public. And awareness is paramount to understanding it. You got the wrong end of the stick.

Ah I see. I will however say that IMO most people are aware of media hype, bias and manipulation from some media outets.

ed2hands wrote: »

Don't know what to say about that. Every one of us has been manipulated by mass media in one way or another.

I wouldn't argue against that but the point I was trying to make is that a lot of the time perceived media manipulation (E.G Why don't people care about such and such?) is just an apathetic public or inherently biased culture and that almost all people can spot attempts at manipulation(Advertisement exposure).

steelcityblues

Sparticle wrote: »

The masses you say! Seems like an artificial division used to make the speaker feel good about themselves.

I wager the "masses" are not as gullible as you think. The only people I see quoting the murdoch tabloids as fact are conspiracy theorists latching onto some BS report about GM or global warming.

Sorry, but I have lost count of the number of people who say to me: 'I only buy this for the Sport', when they damn well read the whole of the paper.

Conspiracy theorists in a conspiracy forum - never. :rolleyes:

As the poster above says, everyone has been manipulated to a degree - just hard for a lot of people to admit this to themselves.

CiaranMT

humanji wrote: »

To be honest, I kind of like the photo the Times had. It gives the impression of him being an old-fashioned, hard-nosed reporter. All he's missing is a press fedora. And it looks like a staged photo, as opposed to one taken on the sly, and that would also give the impression that it's a photo of himself he wouldn't have had a problem with.

Oh, and here's the photo. I had a bit of bother trying to find it, so I thought it might save people some time if I posted it here:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00181/Sean_Hoare_90465481_181365d.jpg

But, all that said, The Times is owned by Murdock, so even if his death is not suspicious, I can well imagine the Times wouldn't be too keen in showing him in a good light.

It's certainly more flattering than the picture the IT (I think?) had, and as for the red-tops...

Emiko

Barrington wrote: »

It's asinine to require more information or evidence than just motive before jumping to conclusions?

Yet that's exactly what the police were able to do.

humanji wrote: »

(I'm assuming you're referring to this line: "There's more to come. This is not going to go away." )

The part were it said he revealed info last week, and said there was more to come.

There's an ambiguity to it, that might have me worried if I had an empire to protect.

Not to mention a key prosecution witness is now dead, for the one or two claimed not to be able to see a a motive.

It's not as if anyone was ever killed to protect an empire, ever. Those who claim not to be able to recognise that, do their so-called sceptical credentials no good.

humanji

Emiko wrote: »

The part were it said he revealed info last week, and said there was more to come.

There's an ambiguity to it, that might have me worried if I had an empire to protect.

But there isn't much ambiguity to it. He said there's more to come and more is coming. The US is already investigating Murdock's media outlets now. If Hoare had more information then why would he hold on to it? Doesn't make much sense if he's already trying to bring down the empire, unless he was hoping to blackmail someone with it. But considering the media scrutiny he'd be under, he'd be found out pretty quick.

Not to mention a key prosecution witness is now dead, for the one or two claimed not to be able to see a a motive.

But it's only one out of many witnesses, many of whom seem to have more information that Hoare, and have already given it.

It's not as if anyone was ever killed to protect an empire, ever. Those who claim not to be able to recognise that, do their so-called sceptical credentials no good.

It's not out of the question that it could be a murder. I simply don't see the point in claiming that it is, without a shadow of a doubt, a murder based only on the fact that bad people have done bad things in the past.

Di0genes

Emiko wrote: »

Not to mention a key prosecution witness is now dead, for the one or two claimed not to be able to see a a motive.

He's not a key witness. He was a showbiz reporter. The story has moved onto political intrigue, police bribery, the hacking of murder victims phones.

He spoke out about the Scandal at the start but his evidence is not really important to where the story has developed.

It's not as if anyone was ever killed to protect an empire, ever. Those who claim not to be able to recognise that, do their so-called sceptical credentials no good.

The sceptical credentials are there. The journalists who broke the story who exposed the scandal are unsurprised he's dead given his incredibly unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle.

Monty Burnz

steelcityblues wrote: »

The photo that was chosen of Mr. Hoare on today's Times cover was interesting - him smoking a cigarette. How many times do you see a dead person have such an unflattering photo of themselves get used in the papers and on TV?

A subtle way to convince the reader that it was a result of his former lifestyle 'catching up with him.'

Or maybe - because of his lifestyle - there are many photos of him smoking or drinking? And his lifestyle did catch up with him? There's an element of cart-before-horse the other way around, and it only makes sense if you take for granted the conclusion you are arguing for.

Monty Burnz

profitius wrote: »

The average reader does not understand how subliminal messages work or even what they are.

I'd say they do. It's not exactly secret stuff. And surely this would be more subconscious rather than subliminal?

Mahatma coat

No evidence of Foul play.
But
No toxicology report either

profitius

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'd say they do. It's not exactly secret stuff. And surely this would be more subconscious rather than subliminal?

Yeah, subconscious would be a more accurate word.

I've a higher than average IQ and its only a few years ago that I learned how the media and adverts try to influence peoples subconscious mind. The average Joe hasn't a clue about it.

If the average Joe knew how (for example) advertising works then, like me, they'd see through the BS.

Monty Burnz

profitius wrote: »

If the average Joe knew how (for example) advertising works then, like me, they'd see through the BS.

Don't they teach how advertising works in English in secondary schools these days? I'm out of touch, so I'll believe anyone if they say 'no'.

Mahatma coat

Look lads this is Suspicious, the Fact that the Police (an organisation implicated in this affair) came out and said that there was no suspicion of Foulplay BEFORE either a full invstigation or full Autopsy had ben completed makes methink that someone wants this to go away, I expect that there will be some technical delays in the toxicology reports or a general 'no discusion of ongoing investigations' for the next few weks in the hope that a plausible narative can be foisted off on the public.


this SCREAMS Setup.

My bet is on the words 'Unfortunate Coincidence' appearing in the police reports :rolleyes:

humanji

In pretty much every case where someone dies and the police are called, they say if they immediately think it's foul play or not. If it doesn't look like foul play then there's not a whole lot the police can do until the autopsy comes back.

robtri

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Look lads this is Suspicious, the Fact that the Police (an organisation implicated in this affair) came out and said that there was no suspicion of Foulplay BEFORE either a full invstigation or full Autopsy had ben completed makes methink that someone wants this to go away, I expect that there will be some technical delays in the toxicology reports or a general 'no discusion of ongoing investigations' for the next few weks in the hope that a plausible narative can be foisted off on the public.


this SCREAMS Setup.

My bet is on the words 'Unfortunate Coincidence' appearing in the police reports :rolleyes:

grasping at straws here...
you don't know what killed him, but because he was involved in a recent storm in a teacup fiasco... you automatically jump to the conclusion he was assasinated....

Mahatma coat

Well, the point I was making is that the Police dont know what kiled him either, but they ere still willing to rule out Foul play almost instantly, before anyreal investigation could take place

hooradiation

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Well, the point I was making is that the Police dont know what kiled him either, but they ere still willing to rule out Foul play almost instantly, before anyreal investigation could take place

That's not exactly how that works - as humanji pointed out there is pretty much a snap judgment made upon the initial investigation as to it being foul play or not, mostly based on the blindingly obvious - signs of forced entry, signs of a struggle, or a blatantly obvious murder.

It doesn't mean that after further examination, like toxicology and Post-mortem examination, that the opinion can't be changed.

That said, the autopsy seems to have confirmed the original "not suspicious" judgment with the police awaiting a toxicology report.
Take that as you will.

Monty Burnz

hooradiation wrote: »

That said, the autopsy seems to have confirmed the original "not suspicious" judgment with the police awaiting a toxicology report.
Take that as you will.

From the linked report:

The examination was a section 20 autopsy, which would ordinarily be used in suspicious death cases. Hertfordshire police said this was just a precaution. "Because of the circumstances surrounding the case and the high-profile nature of the person believed to be involved, a decision was taken for a Home Office postmortem to take place to thoroughly investigate the matter," a spokesman said.

SIR PEADO BAILOUT

News of the World is or was a