2015 AND STILL WE HAVE SEXISM - THE SUN

nicko wrote:The Sun has some great humerous headlines, makes millions of people laugh, they do me anyhow.  I am a bit of an Philistine!

eddie wrote:The Sun is, and always has been, a terrible, awful piece of crap. Even as a young twenty something and working in the city when Id buy a paper everyday, I'd never touch the sun. Even if someone left it on the seat on the underground, Id not pick it up.
I remember the awful murder of Rachel Nickel (sp?) in front of her beloved son....one of the Sun's headlines was something like "Bubbly Blond slaughtered......something something"
I thought "Really??? The fact she's a blonde is fucking irrelevant and 'bubbly'??"
They may as well have found a topless pic of her and splashed it all over the page!!!!
It was simply tasteless.

I don't say this lightly, but I think this "newspaper" actually makes a mockery out of journalism.

One black guy on the boat is enough. This is from last year. Prince William, as part of his duty in the Royal Navy, was in the Caribbean practicing hurricane rescue drills. One British newspaper ("The Sun") ran a photo of the staged rescue... and decided to edit out one of the black locals from the boat.

And they might have gotten away with it (although the Photoshop job is horrible, leaving the shadow and the knee in there)... but their rival, "The Metro", ran the picture unedited.

eddie wrote:Spot on Cass!

Or as the Sun would say:

"Cor blimey! Sexy bombshell Cass is a cracker at saying words from her luscious lips! Check out her beauties on page three oo-er!"

Ben_Reilly wrote:Why would anybody trust or financially support a newspaper that has been proven to lie?

One black guy on the boat is enough. This is from last year. Prince William, as part of his duty in the Royal Navy, was in the Caribbean practicing hurricane rescue drills. One British newspaper ("The Sun") ran a photo of the staged rescue... and decided to edit out one of the black locals from the boat.

And they might have gotten away with it (although the Photoshop job is horrible, leaving the shadow and the knee in there)... but their rival, "The Metro", ran the picture unedited.

Nems wrote:The Sun printed that the Liverpool fans stole from the dead and dying at Hillborough.
They said the fans urinated on the dead and the police trying to rescue victims.
They lied
I cannot imagine why anyone would read or buy it after that

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nems wrote:The Sun printed that the Liverpool fans stole from the dead and dying at Hillborough.
They said the fans urinated on the dead and the police trying to rescue victims.
They lied
I cannot imagine why anyone would read or buy it after that

I think it's because there are two different audiences for news -- one that wants well-trained journalists gathering and assembling facts into reports that are as objective as possible, one that wants to hear things that reinforces its beliefs.

The second group doesn't even see this as all that dishonest, because they think that even if some of the facts are off, the reporting better reflects a larger "truth" that they feel certain about.

It's kind of like the anti-war rallies the U.S. had back during the Vietnam war. Right-wing groups were later shown to have "infiltrated" protests and started fights, in the hope that the media would pick up this narrative of the peace movement actually being violent.

To the people doing it, it didn't bother them that they were starting the fights, because they thought of their actions as simply "bringing out the true nature" of the protesters.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nems wrote:The Sun printed that the Liverpool fans stole from the dead and dying at Hillborough.
They said the fans urinated on the dead and the police trying to rescue victims.
They lied
I cannot imagine why anyone would read or buy it after that

I think it's because there are two different audiences for news -- one that wants well-trained journalists gathering and assembling facts into reports that are as objective as possible, one that wants to hear things that reinforces its beliefs.

The second group doesn't even see this as all that dishonest, because they think that even if some of the facts are off, the reporting better reflects a larger "truth" that they feel certain about.

It's kind of like the anti-war rallies the U.S. had back during the Vietnam war. Right-wing groups were later shown to have "infiltrated" protests and started fights, in the hope that the media would pick up this narrative of the peace movement actually being violent.

To the people doing it, it didn't bother them that they were starting the fights, because they thought of their actions as simply "bringing out the true nature" of the protesters.

darknessss wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nems wrote:The Sun printed that the Liverpool fans stole from the dead and dying at Hillborough.
They said the fans urinated on the dead and the police trying to rescue victims.
They lied
I cannot imagine why anyone would read or buy it after that

I think it's because there are two different audiences for news -- one that wants well-trained journalists gathering and assembling facts into reports that are as objective as possible, one that wants to hear things that reinforces its beliefs.

The second group doesn't even see this as all that dishonest, because they think that even if some of the facts are off, the reporting better reflects a larger "truth" that they feel certain about.

It's kind of like the anti-war rallies the U.S. had back during the Vietnam war. Right-wing groups were later shown to have "infiltrated" protests and started fights, in the hope that the media would pick up this narrative of the peace movement actually being violent.

To the people doing it, it didn't bother them that they were starting the fights, because they thought of their actions as simply "bringing out the true nature" of the protesters.

as if such a fiction exists....

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:

as if such a fiction exists....

I find the people who are incapable of envisioning objectivity are the ones who are incapable of objectivity

People like that used to call me up about a story I'd written on their local election and ask me what my agenda was. I'd tell them, "I live 20 miles from your city, I don't care what happens in your local politics."

I didn't always cover sports. When I covered political issues at the local level, my editor knew my political stances and watched my copy very carefully for bias. I was not about to lose my job and professional reputation in order to tell a few biased stories, anyway.

you mean that he made sure your bias lay where the papers backes wanted it to be ....

Also, people are quite capable of valuing both their political ideas and the need for objective, balanced reporting at the same time. Most stories that cover any political topic are created by teams of reporters and editors anyway, all of whom check one another.

to ensure they comply with their biggest advertisers interests...

darknessss wrote:its as rare as flying elephants

The tax was implemented with the stated intention of raising funds for the English state lottery, to monitor the circulation of newspapers and other periodicals, and to restrict publication of writing intended to "excite hatred and contempt of the Government and holy religion."[10] All periodicals were already required by law to state the address and name of the owner, making taxation easily enforced on publishers, and allowing the government to see where legally printed publications were coming from. In order to exempt themselves from the tax, periodical authors pledged their patronage to members of the Parliament of Great Britain, leading to publications rising and falling based on the party in power and a general distrust in periodicals of the time.[9]

British essayists were critical of the tax and the effect it had on British literature. According to English writer Samuel Johnson, "A news-writer is a man without virtue who writes lies at home for his own profit. To these compositions is required neither genius nor knowledge, neither industry nor sprightliness, but contempt of shame and indifference to truth are absolutely necessary."[13][14] These essayists often saw retribution for their published words; Henry Hetherington, a prominent radical, was imprisoned for claiming the tax was a tax on knowledge, and his printing presses were ordered to be destroyed. Many others greeted the arrival of the stamps with outrage and violence. Most called for a boycott and some organized attacks on the customhouses and homes of tax collectors. After months of protest, and an appeal before the British House of Commons, Parliament voted to repeal the Stamp Act in March 1766

veya_victaous wrote:I doubt most reporters are any more biased than a normal person but Editorial writers are a different kettle of fish and in the news corp papers the Editorials and the news reports are presented the same with maybe a a very small font disclaimer on the bottom  

veya_victaous wrote:well the Sun newspaper is owned by Murdoch
think of them like a printed version of FOX news

veya_victaous wrote:that's odd I would think it is the reverse here.

The Papers seem to follow the TV.. Mind you half the paper is advertisements, promotions and TV guides. Very little Actual news in them any more.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nems wrote:The Sun printed that the Liverpool fans stole from the dead and dying at Hillborough.
They said the fans urinated on the dead and the police trying to rescue victims.
They lied
I cannot imagine why anyone would read or buy it after that

I think it's because there are two different audiences for news -- one that wants well-trained journalists gathering and assembling facts into reports that are as objective as possible, one that wants to hear things that reinforces its beliefs.

The second group doesn't even see this as all that dishonest, because they think that even if some of the facts are off, the reporting better reflects a larger "truth" that they feel certain about.

It's kind of like the anti-war rallies the U.S. had back during the Vietnam war. Right-wing groups were later shown to have "infiltrated" protests and started fights, in the hope that the media would pick up this narrative of the peace movement actually being violent.

To the people doing it, it didn't bother them that they were starting the fights, because they thought of their actions as simply "bringing out the true nature" of the protesters.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:

as if such a fiction exists....

I find the people who are incapable of envisioning objectivity are the ones who are incapable of objectivity

People like that used to call me up about a story I'd written on their local election and ask me what my agenda was. I'd tell them, "I live 20 miles from your city, I don't care what happens in your local politics."

I didn't always cover sports. When I covered political issues at the local level, my editor knew my political stances and watched my copy very carefully for bias. I was not about to lose my job and professional reputation in order to tell a few biased stories, anyway.

Also, people are quite capable of valuing both their political ideas and the need for objective, balanced reporting at the same time. Most stories that cover any political topic are created by teams of reporters and editors anyway, all of whom check one another.