countryman
Well-known member
- Jun 28, 2011
- 1,893
I get it for the sports section as it is better then the sports sections in other newspapers. I also get it on a Saturday so I can read Jeremy Clarkson's page.
Fair enough.Probably haven't bought it since my early teens, as my first introduction to a "newspaper" rather than buying comics. It seemed to be the smallest jump from one to the other. Then I grew up.
That's how the Mirror did it properly, while the Sun's editor went loopy and failed to do what any decent editor should do.
Consider yourself fortunate. My wife reads the Daily Mail, which is a far more grievous crime.
I buy the sun purely for its football content. It has nothing to do with my IQ and would much rather read that than The Guardian or Mail. The Sun is and always has been the best paper for football news. match reports and information.
Fair enough.
Unfortunately people like to gossip, talk shit and read tittle tattle. That's why celebrity worshiping/bashing magazines are so popular, and programs like loose women exist. It would be better if people weren't like that, but unfortunately they are. It's not really the Sun's fault, it's the people fault. If the Sun changed it's ways, the people would still demand shit and another paper would take its place. Just like with politicians. People make politicians the way they are. Politicians aren't born liars, they have to lie because people wouldn't vote for them if they told the truth. Face it, people are really f***ing stupid.
While we'd like newspapers to be about news, the rules allow newspapers to be about making money, and so it's understandable that papers like the Sun are designed to make money. They don't dish trash because it's funny, they do it because it's proven to be profitable. Their owners believe that if they moved away from the trash, they'd make less money, so they don't do it. Given their success, it's difficult to believe they're wrong.I agree with your sentiment, but I do feel that rags like the sun and the trashy celebrity mags feed the beast so to speak. There is debate about whether the Sun just follows what the public want, or (to a degree) leads public opinion. It's readership is depressingly large and, for the most part, easily led - if there was a gradual shift in editorial policy away from the trash, I daresay most of the readership would follow...
While we'd like newspapers to be about news, the rules allow newspapers to be about making money, and so it's understandable that papers like the Sun are designed to make money. They don't dish trash because it's funny, they do it because it's proven to be profitable. Their owners believe that if they moved away from the trash, they'd make less money, so they don't do it. Given their success, it's difficult to believe they're wrong.
While we'd like newspapers to be about news, the rules allow newspapers to be about making money, and so it's understandable that papers like the Sun are designed to make money. They don't dish trash because it's funny, they do it because it's proven to be profitable. Their owners believe that if they moved away from the trash, they'd make less money, so they don't do it. Given their success, it's difficult to believe they're wrong.
Hopefully we'll never have to see that arrogant twat "Kelvin" MacKenzie spouting his opinions on Question Time & other programmes.
Do one "Kevin".
There's nothing wrong in reporting that allegation, we know now that the police were briefing journalists that that's what happened, it was bound to be reported. What The Sun did that was so wrong was not alleging this but reporting it as "The Truth" - truly terrible journalism.
I wonder how many people in Sussex have stopped buying both the Sun and the Argus ?