The Sun "newspaper"

[brigadista]

I'd chance that I would do something more constructive. How far do you want to go back? Read the post about the war. Did you lose any relatives in the war? Do you boycott German goods? I'd chance that you don't.

another sweeping generalisation, most germans are ashamed of what happened and extremely upset by it, they don't bang on about it childishly like the scum does.

the fact is the sun is still owned by the same bloke, trolls out the same lies, and took them years and years to apologise for hillsborough when it was economically vital for them

 

[Beefy]

it was not a fantastic point, it was actually a sweeping generalisation that suggests all Liverpool fans sing such songs and detracts completely from the fact that the sun is an anti worker Murdock mouthpiece, that only seeks to detract from real issues facing it's readers by divide and rule stories scapegoating the very weakest in our society and giving some sense of belonging with "our boys" and England

If that's how you want to take the implication then fair enough. I certainly wasn't trying to "detract" from that point, partly because it isn't true but mainly because that wasn't the point that we were debating.

 

[brigadista]

If that's how you want to take the implication then fair enough. I certainly wasn't trying to "detract" from that point, partly because it isn't true but mainly because that wasn't the point that we were debating.

yes it was, the point of the thread, is what kind of paper is this, and the originator they would not touch it as they are a former union man

 

[osymandus]

But the point is they print stories to sell papers not necessarily to be informative.

Then they are not a newspaper . Its purpose is to bring and inform the news to its reader .

 

[steveo]

yes it was, the point of the thread, is what kind of paper is this, and the originator they would not touch it as they are a former union man

Which is of course your own personal generalisation implying that any former union men wont buy the paper.
If you are still bitter that Murdoch broke the strike then maybe its time for you to move on as well. The group consists of over 140 companies and employs over 600 people. Do you think they are all anti union people as well.

 

[steveo]

Then they are not a newspaper . Its purpose is to bring and inform the news to its reader .

Can you tell me a popular newspaper that put being informative ahead of making a profit?

 

[Revell is a Hero]

The Sun? It's essentially The Beano with tits.

Acutally, it sounds pretty good.

 

[brigadista]

Can you tell me a popular newspaper that put being informative ahead of making a profit?

I don;t think that is the point he is making, more that it's aim is to bend the minds of it's readers, most of which is aimed at negativity towards someone else, that boosts the self esteem from it's readership and distracts them from who is really screwing them over

 

[osymandus]

Can you tell me a popular newspaper that put being informative ahead of making a profit?

What your implying is a newspaper puts untruthful story's just for profit which is ridiculous it could not exiist as a national news paper if all it ever printed was made up . The Sun has made up and altered stories but by your definition can do so simply because it runs a profit, and that is its sole reason for existing ?

Your original point is that people cannot rant against it nor ask that people stop buying it simply because it exists and they once ran an story that was untrue , deliberately hurtful and pointless.

At 20p i very much doubt at around 3 million copies a day it does turn that much of a profit for news international .

 

[steveo]

I don;t think that is the point he is making, more that it's aim is to bend the minds of it's readers, most of which is aimed at negativity towards someone else, that boosts the self esteem from it's readership and distracts them from who is really screwing them over

Negativity towards someone else. Maybe you should get a job there.

 

[steveo]

What your implying is a newspaper puts untruthful story's just for profit which is ridiculous it could not exiist as a national news paper if all it ever printed was made up . The Sun has made up and altered stories but by your definition can do so simply because it runs a profit, and that is its sole reason for existing
Your original point is that people cannot rant against it nor ask that people stop buying it simply because it exists and they once ran an story that was untrue , deliberately hurtful and pointless.

At 20p i very much doubt at around 3 million copies a day it does turn that much of a profit for news international .

I think you will find a lot of their profit comes from advertisers.
My original point was nothing of the kind. I merely pointed out they might be better off doing something positive.
Either way for a group who actively encourage people not to buy the paper they make an awful lot of references to recent sun articles. Wonder how they found out about them.

 

[osymandus]

I think you will find a lot of their profit comes from advertisers.
My original point was nothing of the kind. I merely pointed out they might be better off doing something positive.
Either way for a group who actively encourage people not to buy the paper they make an awful lot of references to recent sun articles. Wonder how they found out about them.

Your aware News international also own Fox and Sky ? To name but two.
You are aware that your not actually the arbitrate of positive and negative action's in anyone else life but your own ? And if its not they cant complain why denote it as a negative action and there by nonconstructive in your viewpoint ?

I see so if your mounting a campaign to stop something its best to do so front a point of ignorance of the subject your complaining about interesting .

 

[steveo]

Your aware News international also own Fox and Sky ? To name but two.
You are aware that your not actually the arbitrate of positive and negative action's in anyone else life but your own ? And if its not they cant complain why denote it as a negative action and there by nonconstructive in your viewpoint ?

I see so if your mounting a campaign to stop something its best to do so front a point of ignorance of the subject your complaining about interesting .

I think i got most of this Osy but some punctuation might be helpful.

OK, great they are complaining for something that happened 20 years ago. You have still spent all day skirting round the fact that they are not complaining about the Germans and my point that surely killing people is worse than an in-factual newspaper headline.

So without resorting to 6 lines of mumbo jumbo, tell me which cause is the greater.

 

[osymandus]

I think i got most of this Osy but some punctuation might be helpful.

OK, great they are complaining for something that happened 20 years ago. You have still spent all day skirting round the fact that they are not complaining about the Germans and my point that surely killing people is worse than an in-factual newspaper headline.

So without resorting to 6 lines of mumbo jumbo, tell me which cause is the greater.

Neither , the cause you can have an affect on , and make a change is the one you must act on . You may wish to travel back in time to shoot Hitler but by dreaming and wishing that someone has triped and broken their ankle by your lack of awareness of the moment you can affect.

Which then is teh wrong action ?

 

[steveo]

You may wish to travel back in time to shoot Hitler

He's already dead Osy.

Shall we leave it there?

 

[osymandus]

He's already dead Osy.

Shall we leave it there?

Your point was your comparing a moment that has passed you have no control over, yet you compare it to an event that others believe they do have an ability to change. And then try to ascribe a morality that has no relevance to either .

Current thinking in Quantum physic's regarding this concept
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/does-the-past-exist-yet-e_b_683103.html?view=print

 

[steveo]

They don't have the ability to change the event. It already happened 20 years ago. They can influence things by not buying the paper in the same way people can influence things by not buying German goods. but people have moved on.

 

[osymandus]

They don't have the ability to change the event. It already happened 20 years ago. They can influence things by not buying the paper in the same way people can influence things by not buying German goods. but people have moved on.

Their point is to stop or reduce the influence of the newspaper, and prevent it happning again. Their using History as a lesson your just stating its an unchangable fact (though look at the article i just added). And nothing maybe be learned or changed by the experience.

 

[Mad Cyril]

I like the articles when they avenge Brits being wronged abroad (usually in France or Germany) by sending over a task force of a couple of page three girls and a second hand tank for a photo op.

 

[londonblue]

I don't buy the Sun or any other tabloid out of principle really....
Basically it's the stories they print about football which are, for the majority of time dumbfounded. Everytime before a big tournament involving England, they always print some dirt (alleged or not) regarding one of the major players. This surely is not the best way to have our England team prep for big tournament, especially when the other half of the paper they print a double page spread with flag on and generic england heroes! (to put up in window!- u f**king kidding me!!!).
As someone said earlier it's a glamourised comic book, and it really is mindless reading and even for 20/30p is not worth my money!!!

Indeed. I stopped reading The Sun when they printed stories about SGE before the 2006 World Cup. I know that the story sold them lots of papers, but they had been sitting on the story for months, and only decided to publish when they knew it would maximise their circulation, regardless of what it would do for the England team's chances.