The Sun... Is it representative of society?

[hibsbollah]

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/02/01/britain-saved-the-life-of-two-babies-the-sun-is-mad

I was reflecting today that the more time I spend with people the more I like them, and the more optimistic I am about society. 90% of the people i meet from all walks of life are essentially kind, interesting people who make me laugh.

On the other hand, the more I look at newspapers and the Internet, the more scared I am about the direction the human race is taking. This Sun story just encapsulates it for me.

So the question I am chucking around with some mates drinking beer is: is The Sun representative of societys views and morals or is it just a mouthpiece for negative ideas? Or put it another way is The Sun leading public opinion and public morals or reflecting it?

(obviously it's difficult to answer this question if you Like the Sun's editorial policy!)

[snooky]

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/02/01/britain-saved-the-life-of-two-babies-the-sun-is-mad

I was reflecting today that the more time I spend with people the more I like them, and the more optimistic I am about society. 90% of the people i meet from all walks of life are essentially kind, interesting people who make me laugh.

On the other hand, the more I look at newspapers and the Internet, the more scared I am about the direction the human race is taking. This Sun story just encapsulates it for me.

So the question I am chucking around with some mates drinking beer is: is The Sun representative of societys views and morals or is it just a mouthpiece for negative ideas? Or put it another way is The Sun leading public opinion and public morals or reflecting it?

(obviously it's difficult to answer this question if you Like the Sun's editorial policy!)

The Press of old reflected society of that time. Today's Press tries to mould society to suit the politics of its owners.
Sometimes quite successfully it's sad to say.

TBH, newspapers are just bog rolls these days.

[Pretty Boy]

Difficult to answer.

Of the 10 biggest selling papers in the UK you could argue with merit that 8 are on the right of the spectrum:

Sun
Mail
Metro
Evening Standard
Daily Mirror
Telegraph
Star
Express
Times
I

Of those The Times and The Sun are owned by News UK (News Corp), The Metro and The Daily Mail by DMG Media who also own a large share in the Evening Standard and The Star and Express fall under the Northern & Shell banner.

I suppose the question is are people attracted to these papers because they reflect their views or do they hold these views because the papers report news in such a way that they manipulate their readers into believing what their owners want them to believe?

Hopefully in the days of new and alternative media (which should still be treated with plentiful scepticism) we will see a move away from the traditional press.

[snooky]

Difficult to answer.

Of the 10 biggest selling papers in the UK you could argue with merit that 8 are on the right of the spectrum:

Sun
Mail
Metro
Evening Standard
Daily Mirror
Telegraph
Star
Express
Times
I

Of those The Times and The Sun are owned by News UK (News Corp), The Metro and The Daily Mail by DMG Media who also own a large share in the Evening Standard and The Star and Express fall under the Northern & Shell banner.

I suppose the question is are people attracted to these papers because they reflect their views or do they hold these views because the papers report news in such a way that they manipulate their readers into believing what their owners want them to believe?

Hopefully in the days of new and alternative media (which should still be treated with plentiful scepticism) we will see a move away from the traditional press.
Room 101 for the lot of them.
More truth in the Dandy.

[Colr]

Why should ny one outlet be "representative of society"?

Surely we understnd society is diverse?

[heretoday]

The Mail and Express are largely bought by pensioners who think their neighbours are "no better than they should be".

[RyeSloan]

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/02/01/britain-saved-the-life-of-two-babies-the-sun-is-mad

I was reflecting today that the more time I spend with people the more I like them, and the more optimistic I am about society. 90% of the people i meet from all walks of life are essentially kind, interesting people who make me laugh.

On the other hand, the more I look at newspapers and the Internet, the more scared I am about the direction the human race is taking. This Sun story just encapsulates it for me.

So the question I am chucking around with some mates drinking beer is: is The Sun representative of societys views and morals or is it just a mouthpiece for negative ideas? Or put it another way is The Sun leading public opinion and public morals or reflecting it?

(obviously it's difficult to answer this question if you Like the Sun's editorial policy!)

Sounds like a right barrel of laughs round at yours 'bollah [emoji6]

[hibsbollah]

Sounds like a right barrel of laughs round at yours 'bollah [emoji6]

I do talk about other things honest :faf:

[RyeSloan]

I do talk about other things honest :faf:

Sweet... you'd fit right in round at mine where it's all tax and spend chat [emoji12]

As for the OP I gave up long ago trying to understand their popularity...

[Bishop Hibee]

A bit of both I think. The Sun prays on the basic human trait of 'fear of the other'. One can choose to overcome that fear but many would rather not and prefer to demonise the weak and those who have different value systems from themselves.

[Mon Dieu4]

Sweet... you'd fit right in round at mine where it's all tax and spend chat [emoji12]

As for the OP I gave up long ago trying to understand their popularity...

bollah sits there with the wee red book and tries to turn you into a communist, I've been there :agree:

[hibsbollah]

bollah sits there with the wee red book and tries to turn you into a communist, I've been there :agree:

I actually have a copy, no jokes, mate brought one back from Beijing:faf: incomprehensible pish.

[Mon Dieu4]

I actually have a copy, no jokes, mate brought one back from Beijing:faf: incomprehensible pish.

:faf::top marks you never disappoint

[RyeSloan]

I actually have a copy, no jokes, mate brought one back from Beijing:faf: incomprehensible pish.

Brilliant! [emoji23]

[snooky]

I actually have a copy, no jokes, mate brought one back from Beijing:faf: incomprehensible pish.

Is it no' just a list of the Chinese fitbaw fixtures?

[heretoday]

A bit of both I think. The Sun prays on the basic human trait of 'fear of the other'. One can choose to overcome that fear but many would rather not and prefer to demonise the weak and those who have different value systems from themselves.

You're not wrong, Bishop.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

The Sun has a good punting pull-out on a Saturday, the tv mag is quite handy too.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/02/01/britain-saved-the-life-of-two-babies-the-sun-is-mad

I was reflecting today that the more time I spend with people the more I like them, and the more optimistic I am about society. 90% of the people i meet from all walks of life are essentially kind, interesting people who make me laugh.

On the other hand, the more I look at newspapers and the Internet, the more scared I am about the direction the human race is taking. This Sun story just encapsulates it for me.

So the question I am chucking around with some mates drinking beer is: is The Sun representative of societys views and morals or is it just a mouthpiece for negative ideas? Or put it another way is The Sun leading public opinion and public morals or reflecting it?

(obviously it's difficult to answer this question if you Like the Sun's editorial policy!)

re The Sun, it sometimes says things that have an element of truth but politicians are too scared to say through fears of political correctness. The Sun will state them in the most extreme terms to attract headlines. I couldnt give you a specific example because it's a **** paper and I don't read it.

As for the press in general, they tend to focus on decisive issues that it's easy for people to have a view on. Examples I can think of are gay marriage (I have a gay mate, why can't he get married vs I don't think it's the same as marrying a bird) and bedroom tax (why we taxing the poor vs we have a housing crisis and need more rooms). It's easy to come up with extreme headlines either way and the readers can pick view A or B.

I found the same thing during Brexit when the focus was on immigration. The economy and democracy IMO are more important issues but too complex to assess with a quick headline or 5 minute article. I remember the day after Brexit there was a headline on BBC about some nob that graffitied a Polish centre in London. Yes it's bad but hardly worthy of headline news. By taking this approach, the media fuel divisions in society and I feel they have some responsibility to not to promote division. However that probably wouldn't sell so well so can't see it happening

[hibsbollah]

The Sun has a good punting pull-out on a Saturday, the tv mag is quite handy too.

This is another interpretation; that The Sun's success isn't reflective of anything negative or positive in society at all, people just dont care that much about its politics, they buy it for other reasons.

[Slavers]

Some buy the Sun for a look at the tits and the sports pages then skim over the stories to scan for more women to look at then have another read at the sports pages.

Apart from that the content is divisive and fear mongering.

[Smartie]

The Sun seems to go through life cycles, mainly based on editorial direction when it can go from being fairly inoffensive to sometimes utterly malignant. There are also massive differences between the English and Scottish editions. If you're reading the Scottish one and think it's bad, you should read the English one.

I flew out of Manchester in October and picked up a free copy of the Sun in the airport. I was absolutely disgusted with the tone it had, full of jingoistic British nationalist tripe to divisive, borderline racist articles about the weak and needy, all in the name of "protecting our borders". I've picked up the odd Scottish copy over the years and I've never considered it to be on the same level as this. It was up there with all of the worst of Kelvin McKenzie's work in the 80s on Hillsborough, the miners and the like.

Interestingly, a good friend of mine was on holiday at the same time. He'd had a "challenging few years" in various roles within both editions of the Sun. When he took a step back from the world, he was horrified at how angry the world seemed to be at that time. He also found that he couldn't tell people what he did for a living any more, as you are tarred with a particular brush via association with the Sun. The Sun was becoming a toxic brand to be associated with (although some may argue it always has been) and he'd had enough.

He had resigned from his very well-paid role, with no other job to go to within a fortnight of coming back from his hols.

[beensaidbefore]

The Mail and Express are largely bought by pensioners who think their neighbours are "no better than they should be".

Evidence to back up this statement?

[beensaidbefore]

Some buy the Sun for a look at the tits and the sports pages then skim over the stories to scan for more women to look at then have another read at the sports pages.

Apart from that the content is divisive and fear mongering.

About sums it up really.

[Glory Lurker]

The Mail and Express are bought by people who hate foreigners, Scotland and low house prices.

[ronaldo7]

The Mail and Express are bought by people who hate foreigners, Scotland and low house prices.

Anyone looking for evidence will find it on the front pages of both papers.:greengrin

[FC Leige]

Its the biggest selling paper in the UK so im afraid to say it is indicative of UK society but its very England sentric.

[Future17]

The Sun only makes me angry. How could anyone with a ounce of humanity position that story in such a way? Truly saddening.

[mjhibby]

Difficult to answer.

Of the 10 biggest selling papers in the UK you could argue with merit that 8 are on the right of the spectrum:

Sun
Mail
Metro
Evening Standard
Daily Mirror
Telegraph
Star
Express
Times
I

Of those The Times and The Sun are owned by News UK (News Corp), The Metro and The Daily Mail by DMG Media who also own a large share in the Evening Standard and The Star and Express fall under the Northern & Shell banner.

I suppose the question is are people attracted to these papers because they reflect their views or do they hold these views because the papers report news in such a way that they manipulate their readers into believing what their owners want them to believe?

Hopefully in the days of new and alternative media (which should still be treated with plentiful scepticism) we will see a move away from the traditional press.

There is still loads of decent people around but I'm afraid the social media is only being used as an alternative news source by those of a thinking kind. The sun and the like are still affecting a huge amount of people especially on brexit and immigration. Allied to the ITV news the public wants the public gets still prevails. The mail especially seems to have affected middle England and I can't seeing it improving anytime soon. Most people use social media to advertise them self as opposed to helping others or trying to influence things.

[Slavoj Zizek]

[QUOTE=hibsbollah;4931441]http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/02/01/britain-saved-the-life-of-two-babies-the-sun-is-mad I was reflecting today that the more time I spend with people the more I like them, and the more optimistic I am about society. 90% of the people i meet from all walks of life are essentially kind, interesting people who make me laugh. On the other hand, the more I look at newspapers and the Internet, the more scared I am about the direction the human race is taking. This Sun story just encapsulates it for me. So the question I am chucking around with some mates drinking beer is: is The Sun representative of societys views and morals or is it just a mouthpiece for negative ideas? Or put it another way is The Sun leading public opinion and public morals or reflecting it? TL:DR. Who gives a come covered jam sandwich about the Sun. How utterly pathetic. See you outside High Riggs on Thursday morning [reported in EEN, DR, Scotsman and liveedinnews] to disrupt JSA Sanctions [c.f. http://edinburghagainstpoverty.org.uk]. Moan the bottle of Peroni petit-bourgeois [sic] getting upset about Trump, the Sun, Nationalism and all the thingd that really do not matter to those earning minimum crust.

[Hibbyradge]

[QUOTE=hibsbollah;4931441]http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/02/01/britain-saved-the-life-of-two-babies-the-sun-is-mad I was reflecting today that the more time I spend with people the more I like them, and the more optimistic I am about society. 90% of the people i meet from all walks of life are essentially kind, interesting people who make me laugh. On the other hand, the more I look at newspapers and the Internet, the more scared I am about the direction the human race is taking. This Sun story just encapsulates it for me. So the question I am chucking around with some mates drinking beer is: is The Sun representative of societys views and morals or is it just a mouthpiece for negative ideas? Or put it another way is The Sun leading public opinion and public morals or reflecting it? TL:DR. Who gives a come covered jam sandwich about the Sun. How utterly pathetic. See you outside High Riggs on Thursday morning [reported in EEN, DR, Scotsman and liveedinnews] to disrupt JSA Sanctions [c.f. http://edinburghagainstpoverty.org.uk]. Moan the bottle of Peroni petit-bourgeois [sic] getting upset about Trump, the Sun, Nationalism and all the thingd that really do not matter to those earning minimum crust.

:faf:

What's utterly pathetic is you completely dismissing someone's post because you deem it not to be a subject worthy of discussion.

[JimBHibees]

The Mail and Express are bought by people who hate foreigners, Scotland and low house prices.

Is the mail not now depressingly one of the largest selling newspapers in scotland?

[McSwanky]

Some buy the Sun for a look at the tits and the sports pages then skim over the stories to scan for more women to look at then have another read at the sports pages.

Apart from that the content is divisive and fear mongering.

For me, that's the worrying thing. Although many people buy these papers for the Sport and 'others,' the skimming of the other sections will very quickly depict a nasty warped view of the world which, over time, becomes the norm in some people's eyes.

Grrr.

[Hibbyradge]

I've had many debates with people who are dressed in famous brand label clothes and shoes, whilst enjoying branded drinks and snacks, about whether or not advertising actually influences our choices.

Given that around £500,000,000,000 is spent on advertising globally each year (£20,000,000,000 in the UK alone), even without the obvious results in front of my eyes, those figures alone would suggest that advertising must be a worthwhile investment and that we're all influenced by it.

Who had ever heard of Yokohama 5 years ago? Now, because of advertising, they're thought of as a leading tyre manufacturer along side Michelin, Pirelli, Good year etc. 20 years ago we mocked Samsung products.

"Guinness is good for you" was a slogan invented in the 1920's purely for marketing purposes, but it was so successful, Guinness was often given to NHS in-patients to aid recuperation. So, advertising works.

In terms of The Sun, and the right wing media as a whole , I believe they successfully manipulate they way people think about issues. There are countless examples.

NHS tourism has a tiny effect on our resources, but it's regularly cited as one of the main reasons that hospitals are struggling.

Straight bananas and curly cucumbers and any number of myths have all been spread by the media.

I remember when the Civil Service pension schemes were under attack from the government. I heard junior Daily Mail reading workers spouting almost word for word, the line that although they'd paid into the scheme for 30 odd years, the country couldn't afford it.

And now we seem to be swallowing the myth that article 50 has to be triggered because it is "the will of the people" and because we must uphold democracy. It's bollocks. Since when did democracy mean that people couldn't change their mind?

In terms of The Sun itself, every political party (well, you know) would be happy to receive endorsement from The Sun because they are so influential. "It was the Sun that won it" after all. Tommy Sheridan's high profile support for a Yes vote was probably the reason the Sun stayed neutral, and I'm certain that the SNP were disappointed about that as it could be argued that the newspaper's support may have tipped the balance in favour.

Also, it's human nature to look for danger so the fear of the unknown is a fertile ground for the right wing media to do its work. Project fear used that principle perfectly by scaring pensioners. Osborne tried it again during the EU referendum, but the fear of foreigners and the distrust of "experts" was too great, although his threat of an emergency budget was enough to make anyone want to stick one up him.

So, in summary, I think that The Sun, and the others, use fear to set the agenda, they then reflect that fear on their pages, and intensify it as they see fit.

[Hibrandenburg]

I've had many debates with people who are dressed in famous brand label clothes and shoes, whilst enjoying branded drinks and snacks, about whether or not advertising actually influences our choices.

Given that around £500,000,000,000 is spent on advertising globally each year (£20,000,000,000 in the UK alone), even without the obvious results in front of my eyes, those figures alone would suggest that advertising must be a worthwhile investment and that we're all influenced by it.

Who had ever heard of Yokohama 5 years ago? Now, because of advertising, they're thought of as a leading tyre manufacturer along side Michelin, Pirelli, Good year etc. 20 years ago we mocked Samsung products.

"Guinness is good for you" was a slogan invented in the 1920's purely for marketing purposes, but it was so successful, Guinness was often given to NHS in-patients to aid recuperation. So, advertising works.

In terms of The Sun, and the right wing media as a whole , I believe they successfully manipulate they way people think about issues. There are countless examples.

NHS tourism has a tiny effect on our resources, but it's regularly cited as one of the main reasons that hospitals are struggling.

Straight bananas and curly cucumbers and any number of myths have all been spread by the media.

I remember when the Civil Service pension schemes were under attack from the government. I heard junior Daily Mail reading workers spouting almost word for word, the line that although they'd paid into the scheme for 30 odd years, the country couldn't afford it.

And now we seem to be swallowing the myth that article 50 has to be triggered because it is "the will of the people" and because we must uphold democracy. It's bollocks. Since when did democracy mean that people couldn't change their mind?

In terms of The Sun itself, every political party (well, you know) would be happy to receive endorsement from The Sun because they are so influential. "It was the Sun that won it" after all. Tommy Sheridan's high profile support for a Yes vote was probably the reason the Sun stayed neutral, and I'm certain that the SNP were disappointed about that as it could be argued that the newspaper's support may have tipped the balance in favour.

Also, it's human nature to look for danger so the fear of the unknown is a fertile ground for the right wing media to do its work. Project fear used that principle perfectly by scaring pensioners. Osborne tried it again during the EU referendum, but the fear of foreigners and the distrust of "experts" was too great, although his threat of an emergency budget was enough to make anyone want to stick one up him.

So, in summary, I think that The Sun, and the others, use fear to set the agenda, they then reflect that fear on their pages, and intensify it as they see fit.

Excellent post but I feel you're in for a lecture from Marinello59 about how the press only cater to their audience and have no influence on opinions :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

Excellent post but I feel you're in for a lecture from Marinello59 about how the press only cater to their audience and have no influence on opinions :greengrin

Funny you should mention him 😉

[Glory Lurker]

Is the mail not now depressingly one of the largest selling newspapers in scotland?

I don't know, but if it is it goes quite a way to explaining the outcome of IndyRef!

[snooky]

SUN journalists apparently has been banned by Liverpool FC.
And how have the SUN reacted? With a quote that the move was "bad for fans and bad for football".
Given the lies that it headlined after the tragedy at Hillsborough, they really should just crawl into a hole and stay there rather that come out with such a flippant retort.
Disgusting newspaper from front page to back.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-38933817

[Scouse Hibee]

SUN journalists apparently has been banned by Liverpool FC.
And how have the SUN reacted? With a quote that the move was "bad for fans and bad for football".
Given the lies that it headlined after the tragedy at Hillsborough, they really should just crawl into a hole and stay there rather that come out with such a flippant retort.
Disgusting newspaper from front page to back.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-38933817

I love the black cabs in Liverpool that are emblazoned with "Don't buy the Sun" also the newsagents that simply refuse to sell it.

[Smartie]

(Playing devil's advocate a bit here, so please - hear me out).

What exactly is the point in this ban, and who does it benefit at this time?

The people of Liverpool the city as well as the people at Liverpool FC absolutely have an axe to grind with the paper and I think they're entitled to hold the grudge they do.
I think it is only reasonable for newsagents to refuse to stock the paper and if taxi drivers choose to bear those slogans then that is their right.

But why should Liverpool FC ban the Sun journalists now? Why not 28 years ago? Why not, at any point in between when the Sun have made this a bigger problem than it needed to be? The last valid reason they'd have had to ban the Sun was when they failed to make the verdict last year front page news. But why now?

I think for them to ban the Sun now punishes the wrong people. From top to bottom (well, apart from Mr Murdoch and a handful of individuals) the staff at the Sun are all new, and probably had nothing to do with the awful decisions that were made at the time.

I've long thought that the actions of the Sun at that time were indefensible. I detest the current Sun editorial line and it's hard right wing stance on practically everything. It is divisive, unnecessary and is currently a force of evil (which it can be from time to time). I hated the line it took in the 1980s on subjects such as the miners strike and I hate that it seems to be similar today, so I don't buy it, although there have been times when I have.

I passionately disliked the way we were treated by the Daily Record in the aftermath of the cup final, but I disagree with banning papers that you disagree with. It rarely makes a club come out in a good light (see Rangers and their tangles over the past few years when the media do something they don't want them to do).

There's a bit of me that views the continued feud between the Sun and the city of Liverpool with a bit of unease. The Sun had good sources for their stories, the kind of sources any editor would trust. They were stitched up by figures high up in South Yorkshire Police like everybody else, and some of the anger that has been directed at the Sun should have been saved for the police, who were (in my opinion) the true villains of the piece and the anger held for who were basically "messengers" (albeit careless, crass, insensitive ones) distracted attention away from who was most culpable in the whole affair - the police.

I don't think the Sun's statement today is unreasonable.

At some point bridges will have to be built and people will need to move on. Criminal proceedings against the real perpetrators will help more than anything. But this smacks to me as pandering to an angry mob and I don't really know what good it will do.

[Future17]

(Playing devil's advocate a bit here, so please - hear me out).

What exactly is the point in this ban, and who does it benefit at this time?

The people of Liverpool the city as well as the people at Liverpool FC absolutely have an axe to grind with the paper and I think they're entitled to hold the grudge they do.
I think it is only reasonable for newsagents to refuse to stock the paper and if taxi drivers choose to bear those slogans then that is their right.

But why should Liverpool FC ban the Sun journalists now? Why not 28 years ago? Why not, at any point in between when the Sun have made this a bigger problem than it needed to be? The last valid reason they'd have had to ban the Sun was when they failed to make the verdict last year front page news. But why now?

I think for them to ban the Sun now punishes the wrong people. From top to bottom (well, apart from Mr Murdoch and a handful of individuals) the staff at the Sun are all new, and probably had nothing to do with the awful decisions that were made at the time.

I've long thought that the actions of the Sun at that time were indefensible. I detest the current Sun editorial line and it's hard right wing stance on practically everything. It is divisive, unnecessary and is currently a force of evil (which it can be from time to time). I hated the line it took in the 1980s on subjects such as the miners strike and I hate that it seems to be similar today, so I don't buy it, although there have been times when I have.

I passionately disliked the way we were treated by the Daily Record in the aftermath of the cup final, but I disagree with banning papers that you disagree with. It rarely makes a club come out in a good light (see Rangers and their tangles over the past few years when the media do something they don't want them to do).

There's a bit of me that views the continued feud between the Sun and the city of Liverpool with a bit of unease. The Sun had good sources for their stories, the kind of sources any editor would trust. They were stitched up by figures high up in South Yorkshire Police like everybody else, and some of the anger that has been directed at the Sun should have been saved for the police, who were (in my opinion) the true villains of the piece and the anger held for who were basically "messengers" (albeit careless, crass, insensitive ones) distracted attention away from who was most culpable in the whole affair - the police.

I don't think the Sun's statement today is unreasonable.

At some point bridges will have to be built and people will need to move on. Criminal proceedings against the real perpetrators will help more than anything. But this smacks to me as pandering to an angry mob and I don't really know what good it will do.

I think, to an extent, you've answered your own question with regard to the point of the ban. I obviously can't speak to the inner workings of LFC or the reason(s) this decision has been made, however, I would say there's a strong likelihood that the editorial position of The Sun is at odds with the values and principles held by the majority of people associated with the Club.

I understand what you've said about the potential justification for the stories carried by The Sun at the time of Hillsborough (albeit I don't agree), but I think the more pertinent point is that The Sun's despicable behaviour was not limited to that story, or the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. They maintained their position and refused to apologise when any self-respecting investigative journalist (or human being) would have been way past the point of simply questioning matters.

I would guess a lot of people in Liverpool look at the way The Sun conducts itself these days and sees a "newspaper" which simply hasn't changed. Even putting the editorial position aside, in recent years it has regularly printed stories which it knew, or ought to have known, were untrue. Either the same "mistakes" are still allowed to happen, or the owners and staff actively engage in a reckless belligerency in an attempt to make money.

The staff who work for The Sun, journalists and others, are not immune from being held responsible for the The Sun's output. The story of the Nigerian lady who gave birth to quadruplets, mentioned earlier on this thread, was featured in a recent episode of the excellent documentary "Hospital". I'd be amazed if anyone watched it without feeling intense sadness and compassion for the lady, her children and the situation she was forced into. I accept that the job of journalists can sometimes be to look beyond these initial instincts and get to the "story", but The Sun's approach was simply callous. I re-read the online article linked to in this thread after watching the episode and it really made me think about the OP. If The Sun is representative of society, in any more than a purely superficial way, we're in trouble.

On a more practical note, you've mentioned the "need" to move on. Whilst there is probably a broader discussion to be had about that sentiment, there is only ever a need to move on together, if both parties need each other. The people of Liverpool have never and will never need The Sun. They do not need to move on together and, if it's easier for the people of Liverpool to seek to move on from the events of Hillsborough without The Sun in their lives, shops, Club and city, then that probably answers the point you've raised as well.

[Hibbyradge]

This revealing, and somewhat worrying, article may help answer the original question.

Rupert Murdoch’s invisible presence shows his dark magic is back . . .

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/10/rupert-murdoch-invisible-presence-dark-magic-michael-gove-donald-trump?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[hibsbollah]

I think, to an extent, you've answered your own question with regard to the point of the ban. I obviously can't speak to the inner workings of LFC or the reason(s) this decision has been made, however, I would say there's a strong likelihood that the editorial position of The Sun is at odds with the values and principles held by the majority of people associated with the Club.

I understand what you've said about the potential justification for the stories carried by The Sun at the time of Hillsborough (albeit I don't agree), but I think the more pertinent point is that The Sun's despicable behaviour was not limited to that story, or the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. They maintained their position and refused to apologise when any self-respecting investigative journalist (or human being) would have been way past the point of simply questioning matters.

I would guess a lot of people in Liverpool look at the way The Sun conducts itself these days and sees a "newspaper" which simply hasn't changed. Even putting the editorial position aside, in recent years it has regularly printed stories which it knew, or ought to have known, were untrue. Either the same "mistakes" are still allowed to happen, or the owners and staff actively engage in a reckless belligerency in an attempt to make money.

The staff who work for The Sun, journalists and others, are not immune from being held responsible for the The Sun's output. The story of the Nigerian lady who gave birth to quadruplets, mentioned earlier on this thread, was featured in a recent episode of the excellent documentary "Hospital". I'd be amazed if anyone watched it without feeling intense sadness and compassion for the lady, her children and the situation she was forced into. I accept that the job of journalists can sometimes be to look beyond these initial instincts and get to the "story", but The Sun's approach was simply callous. I re-read the online article linked to in this thread after watching the episode and it really made me think about the OP. If The Sun is representative of society, in any more than a purely superficial way, we're in trouble.

On a more practical note, you've mentioned the "need" to move on. Whilst there is probably a broader discussion to be had about that sentiment, there is only ever a need to move on together, if both parties need each other. The people of Liverpool have never and will never need The Sun. They do not need to move on together and, if it's easier for the people of Liverpool to seek to move on from the events of Hillsborough without The Sun in their lives, shops, Club and city, then that probably answers the point you've raised as well.
:top marks

[Smartie]

I think, to an extent, you've answered your own question with regard to the point of the ban. I obviously can't speak to the inner workings of LFC or the reason(s) this decision has been made, however, I would say there's a strong likelihood that the editorial position of The Sun is at odds with the values and principles held by the majority of people associated with the Club.

I understand what you've said about the potential justification for the stories carried by The Sun at the time of Hillsborough (albeit I don't agree), but I think the more pertinent point is that The Sun's despicable behaviour was not limited to that story, or the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. They maintained their position and refused to apologise when any self-respecting investigative journalist (or human being) would have been way past the point of simply questioning matters.

I would guess a lot of people in Liverpool look at the way The Sun conducts itself these days and sees a "newspaper" which simply hasn't changed. Even putting the editorial position aside, in recent years it has regularly printed stories which it knew, or ought to have known, were untrue. Either the same "mistakes" are still allowed to happen, or the owners and staff actively engage in a reckless belligerency in an attempt to make money.

The staff who work for The Sun, journalists and others, are not immune from being held responsible for the The Sun's output. The story of the Nigerian lady who gave birth to quadruplets, mentioned earlier on this thread, was featured in a recent episode of the excellent documentary "Hospital". I'd be amazed if anyone watched it without feeling intense sadness and compassion for the lady, her children and the situation she was forced into. I accept that the job of journalists can sometimes be to look beyond these initial instincts and get to the "story", but The Sun's approach was simply callous. I re-read the online article linked to in this thread after watching the episode and it really made me think about the OP. If The Sun is representative of society, in any more than a purely superficial way, we're in trouble.

On a more practical note, you've mentioned the "need" to move on. Whilst there is probably a broader discussion to be had about that sentiment, there is only ever a need to move on together, if both parties need each other. The people of Liverpool have never and will never need The Sun. They do not need to move on together and, if it's easier for the people of Liverpool to seek to move on from the events of Hillsborough without The Sun in their lives, shops, Club and city, then that probably answers the point you've raised as well.

All very fair points.

I don't feel at all comfortable defending the Sun, because it is a paper I have no time for and as I said I can't defend the indefensible, which McKenzie's actions were.

The Sun have done plenty to antagonise the club, the city of Liverpool and the victims' relatives over the years that would have been deserving of this ban, but nothing much of late has changed - in my opinion - in order for this to be relevant now, and it smacks a bit of appeasing an angry mob (albeit one who are justifiably angry).

The cry is "justice for the 96". Is justice going to be served by this ongoing feud between a city and a newspaper? I'm not so sure that it is, and that this is developing into a sideshow of its own. The disgraceful incompetence of the police on the day and the unspeakably awful cover-up that happened after are the biggest wrongs that need to be righted and that must come through pursuing those guilty through the courts.

Kelvin McKenzie should be dragged into court and have vigorously extracted from him what he heard and from whom in order for him to run with the story. That, will aid the "justice for the 96" cause.

There is a danger that justifiable anger could turn into something different, and I am concerned that actions like this ban are suggestive of that.

[Smartie]

I think, to an extent, you've answered your own question with regard to the point of the ban. I obviously can't speak to the inner workings of LFC or the reason(s) this decision has been made, however, I would say there's a strong likelihood that the editorial position of The Sun is at odds with the values and principles held by the majority of people associated with the Club.



I'm not sure about this bit though. I'd be amazed if American owners of a Premier League football club are drastically at odds with the values and principles held by a huge media corporation.

If they are drastically at odds, maybe they will give Mr Murdoch his hundreds of millions of pounds of Sky money back?

[hibsbollah]

I'm not sure about this bit though. I'd be amazed if American owners of a Premier League football club are drastically at odds with the values and principles held by a huge media corporation.

If they are drastically at odds, maybe they will give Mr Murdoch his hundreds of millions of pounds of Sky money back?

I think the new owners are happy to encourage a perception that LFC do 'The right thing', whether you think it's false or not. Similarly, that Lovren interview I posted yesterday is quite political, and not what you normally see on a club site. They have a 96 in small letters on the back of their shirt. Boycotting Sky is obviously not going to happen but I'd expect more 'more than just a club' antics from them going forward. And nothing wrong with that if you can get away with it.

[Scouse Hibee]

I think the new owners are happy to encourage a perception that LFC do 'The right thing', whether you think it's false or not. Similarly, that Lovren interview I posted yesterday is quite political, and not what you normally see on a club site.

What new owners? Been there since 2010

[hibsbollah]

What new owners? Been there since 2010

Well OK, I'm getting on a bit so six years seems like six months :greengrin but the point stands.

[Future17]

All very fair points.

I don't feel at all comfortable defending the Sun, because it is a paper I have no time for and as I said I can't defend the indefensible, which McKenzie's actions were.

The Sun have done plenty to antagonise the club, the city of Liverpool and the victims' relatives over the years that would have been deserving of this ban, but nothing much of late has changed - in my opinion - in order for this to be relevant now, and it smacks a bit of appeasing an angry mob (albeit one who are justifiably angry).

The cry is "justice for the 96". Is justice going to be served by this ongoing feud between a city and a newspaper? I'm not so sure that it is, and that this is developing into a sideshow of its own. The disgraceful incompetence of the police on the day and the unspeakably awful cover-up that happened after are the biggest wrongs that need to be righted and that must come through pursuing those guilty through the courts.

Kelvin McKenzie should be dragged into court and have vigorously extracted from him what he heard and from whom in order for him to run with the story. That, will aid the "justice for the 96" cause.

There is a danger that justifiable anger could turn into something different, and I am concerned that actions like this ban are suggestive of that.

I agree with most of what you say, but I don't think anyone has equated the ban to "justice". It's punitive, but righteous and potentially cathartic for the people affected. What's the problem with that? What are your concerns?


I'm not sure about this bit though. I'd be amazed if American owners of a Premier League football club are drastically at odds with the values and principles held by a huge media corporation.

If they are drastically at odds, maybe they will give Mr Murdoch his hundreds of millions of pounds of Sky money back?

I didn't say anything about the values and principles of the American owners; I mentioned the majority of the people associated with the Club. I take your point about the source of money etc. but the owners are not the Club at LFC - just like the owners are not the Club at HFC.