GG news of the World

[Bongo]

I don't see why Gordon Brown's bad temper and bad judgement are particularly relevant to what's actually at stake here. Rupert Murdoch's organisation is accused of and in many cases has admitted to very serious criminality.

Which, apparently, GB helped them get away with. I also doubt they were the only papers to engage in such practices. Funny that many media organisations would rather Murdoch didn't get hold of BSkyB...

[boldie]

In 2008 Paul Dacre (left), the editor of the Daily Mail, gave a speech to the Society of Editors that covered this. And who did he praise for helping to ensure that journalists don't go to jail for blagging? It was Gordon Brown.

Here's the key section.


    The fourth issue we raised with Gordon Brown was a truly frightening amendment to the Data Protection Act, winding its way through Parliament, under which journalists faced being jailed for two years for illicitly obtaining personal information such as ex-directory telephone numbers or an individual's gas bills or medical records. This legislation would have made Britain the only country in the free world to jail journalists and could have had a considerable chilling effect on good journalism.

    The Prime Minister – I don't think it is breaking confidences to reveal – was hugely sympathetic to the industry's case and promised to do what he could to help.

    Over the coming months and battles ahead, Mr Brown was totally true to his word. Whatever our individual newspapers' views are of the Prime Minister – and the Mail is pretty tough on him - we should, as an industry, acknowledge that, to date, he has been a great friend of press freedom.

(that's from the Guardian!)

I know, I remember having a massive rant over this at the time with someone who thought I was over reacting when I said that the bit in bold was such an idiotic argument against this sort of legislation and that the press were ripping the piss out of this.

[kukushkin88]

I don't see why Gordon Brown's bad temper and bad judgement are particularly relevant to what's actually at stake here. Rupert Murdoch's organisation is accused of and in many cases has admitted to very serious criminality.

Which, apparently, GB helped them get away with. I also doubt they were the only papers to engage in such practices. Funny that many media organisations would rather Murdoch didn't get hold of BSkyB...

That the other papers may or may not do it as well is absolutely no defence. All of the papers need to be investigated without question but even the with the shambolic way Murdoch and son have dealt with this situation, I'd be sure they are aware that wrongdoing at any other paper is no defence for the crimes committed by their organisation.

[boldie]

I don't see why Gordon Brown's bad temper and bad judgement are particularly relevant to what's actually at stake here. Rupert Murdoch's organisation is accused of and in many cases has admitted to very serious criminality.

Which, apparently, GB helped them get away with. I also doubt they were the only papers to engage in such practices. Funny that many media organisations would rather Murdoch didn't get hold of BSkyB...

There's no one that doubts that both the Tories and New Labour were massively in Murdoch's pockets and have been for ages. About a year after I moved to the UK I thought to myself "Wow, the tabloids here actually rule the govt....interesting and probably not healthy". I've been having enough rants against GB and Blair that I think it's safe to say I'm not on their side. Their use of the media and his backstabbing is well documented. They're nothing but media whores, as are most politicians, they have to be if they want favourable press-coverage. He has to invite Brooks to his "slumber party" (What a disgusting phrase to use for middle-aged people having a party BTW...bring the car keys out and throw them in the bowl by the door) as she might have a fit if he doesn't and he doesn't want to risk that. I just don't think he's cynical enough to use his sick child to gain favour.
Politicians are shit scared of the tabloids.
The tabloids have always been too powerful in Brittain though. simply because they do not report on the news. They all have their own political agenda and a newspaper should never set the agenda. The public should set the agenda and the press should report on that. What happens in Brittain is that the press determines the debate and the people and politicians react to the press.


Anyways, that's a completely different rant altogether and hopefully this will now change.

[Bongo]

All of the papers need to be investigated without question

Except no one seems to be mentioning the other papers...

[boldie]

All of the papers need to be investigated without question

Except no one seems to be mentioning the other papers...

they will...the focus is all on Murdoch now, The Times and sun will almost surely be looked at and investigated...and then the rest will be done.

[Bongo]

You have more faith than me old bean!

Anyway it seems it's OK to go against Murdoch as long as you're all in it together as the Government and Labour say they will vote in favour of a motion against him buying BSkyB.

Would be great if the Sun's headline tomorrow was "Et tu, Cameron?"

[nirvana]

The tabloids have always been too powerful in Brittain though. simply because they do not report on the news. They all have their own political agenda and a newspaper should never set the agenda. The public should set the agenda and the press should report on that. What happens in Brittain is that the press determines the debate and the people and politicians react to the press.

This is boldiedash - opinions, whether expressed by papers with an agenda, or any other source are pretty much the only reason I would read something.

[Bongo]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/07/12/fraser-brown-medical-excl_n_895783.html

This says that a member of the public gave them the information (his son was being treated with GB's and he wanted to raise awareness) and that GB gave them quotes to use...

[redarmi]

Think this stuff with Brown is all a bit weird really.  As much as it pains me to say it The Suns position on their sources for this story seem perfectly reasonable and likely and GB's  position seems to be more a case of implying wrongdoing that he can't prove more than anything else.

[kinboshi]

You have more faith than me old bean!

Anyway it seems it's OK to go against Murdoch as long as you're all in it together as the Government and Labour say they will vote in favour of a motion against him buying BSkyB.

Would be great if the Sun's headline tomorrow was "Et tu, Cameron?"

Not quite what they've gone for. Probably because it's the sun.

[boldie]

The tabloids have always been too powerful in Brittain though. simply because they do not report on the news. They all have their own political agenda and a newspaper should never set the agenda. The public should set the agenda and the press should report on that. What happens in Brittain is that the press determines the debate and the people and politicians react to the press.

This is boldiedash - opinions, whether expressed by papers with an agenda, or any other source are pretty much the only reason I would read something.

Really? I read it to gain information rather than have the paper tell me I should vote Labour or Tory.

Might be a cultural thing though, I have never grown up with newspapers/tabloids expressing their opinions that clearly.

[boldie]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/07/12/fraser-brown-medical-excl_n_895783.html

This says that a member of the public gave them the information (his son was being treated with GB's and he wanted to raise awareness) and that GB gave them quotes to use...

If this is the case and Brown gave them quotes to use and is now bitching about it my opinion of the man is even lower than it was.

[nirvana]

The tabloids have always been too powerful in Brittain though. simply because they do not report on the news. They all have their own political agenda and a newspaper should never set the agenda. The public should set the agenda and the press should report on that. What happens in Brittain is that the press determines the debate and the people and politicians react to the press.

This is boldiedash - opinions, whether expressed by papers with an agenda, or any other source are pretty much the only reason I would read something.

Really? I read it to gain information rather than have the paper tell me I should vote Labour or Tory.

Might be a cultural thing though, I have never grown up with newspapers/tabloids expressing their opinions that clearly.

I suppose my train of thought is that I like opinion pieces because they waken your critical faculties and so one can agree or disagree. Just 'the news' could be very dull. eg at a silly extreme, sports reporting without opinions would be pretty much unreadable. There's a place for a summation of 'news' or stats, like Wisden, but it's more for reference, not a great read...unless you're Tighty :-)

Also, often, other people can articulate the motivation behind a piece of legislation (which I might struggle with) and this is another stimulation to thinking for yourself. Newspapers have to precis, edit and pull key points out of a mass of info out there and the edit will always be subjective - in a sense, we have a better chance of spotting any bias in the editing if we are aware of the papers' general agenda. So, all in all, I prefer them to have an overt view as this provides a context that would be difficult to spot if they weren't allowed to express opinions on any given issue.

[boldie]

The tabloids have always been too powerful in Brittain though. simply because they do not report on the news. They all have their own political agenda and a newspaper should never set the agenda. The public should set the agenda and the press should report on that. What happens in Brittain is that the press determines the debate and the people and politicians react to the press.

This is boldiedash - opinions, whether expressed by papers with an agenda, or any other source are pretty much the only reason I would read something.

Really? I read it to gain information rather than have the paper tell me I should vote Labour or Tory.

Might be a cultural thing though, I have never grown up with newspapers/tabloids expressing their opinions that clearly.

I suppose my train of thought is that I like opinion pieces because they waken your critical faculties and so one can agree or disagree. Just 'the news' could be very dull. eg at a silly extreme, sports reporting without opinions would be pretty much unreadable. There's a place for a summation of 'news' or stats, like Wisden, but it's more for reference, not a great read...unless you're Tighty :-)

Also, often, other people can articulate the motivation behind a piece of legislation (which I might struggle with) and this is another stimulation to thinking for yourself. Newspapers have to precis, edit and pull key points out of a mass of info out there and the edit will always be subjective - in a sense, we have a better chance of spotting any bias in the editing if we are aware of the papers' general agenda. So, all in all, I prefer them to have an overt view as this provides a context that would be difficult to spot if they weren't allowed to express opinions on any given issue.

Fair point, I also like opinion pieces but I like them beside facts and I don't want them to dominate the newspaper.

I see what you're saying though and I don't have an issue with papers like The Guardian or the Times as such. They are good papers and you know which side they're on.