Murdoch: Ouf! Is this meltdown?

[anotherbob]

And it does seem that The Sun journalists are invoking their Human Rights with a legal challenge
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...s-corp-inquiry

...but have they chosen the right QC?

http://www.geoffreyrobertson.com/9questionsforRupert.html

[Flosshilde]

And it does seem that The Sun journalists are invoking their Human Rights with a legal challenge
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...s-corp-inquiry

& of course the Sun has never critisised the ECHR, has it? What a bunch of hypocrites!

[amateur51]

& of course the Sun has never critisised the ECHR, has it? What a bunch of hypocrites!

Utterly butterly remarkable! :ok::biggrin:

[Mr Pee]

& of course the Sun has never critisised the ECHR, has it? What a bunch of hypocrites!

Oh, I wasn't aware that it is a condition of employment that every journalist on a newspaper has to agree with that paper's editorial direction. For example, I have no idea what the sports correspondent's views on the ECHR might be, and I really don't care. Neither, I think, would the editor.

[amateur51]

Oh, I wasn't aware that it is a condition of employment that every journalist on a newspaper has to agree with that paper's editorial direction. For example, I have no idea what the sports correspondent's views on the ECHR might be, and I really don't care. Neither, I think, would the editor.

"Sorry old man, you appear to have hooked that one into the long grass!"

Daft as a box of frogs you are, Mr Pee :biggrin:

[Mr Pee]

"Sorry old man, you appear to have hooked that one into the long grass!"

Daft as a box of frogs you are, Mr Pee :biggrin:

Floozie accused Sun employees en masse of being hypocrites. I pointed out that such a charge of hypocrisy would only be valid if every journalist and employee of the newspaper shared the paper's editorial line on the ECHR. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that they do not, and that therefore calling them hypocrites is unfounded.

As a result of which, you post some sort of golfing(?) analogy, the relevance of which escapes me, and accuse me of being daft.

Do please explain.

Edit:-

(On reflection, don't bother. Life really is too short.):erm:

[amateur51]

Floozie accused Sun employees en masse of being hypocrites. I pointed out that such a charge of hypocrisy would only be valid if every journalist and employee of the newspaper shared the paper's editorial line on the ECHR. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that they do not, and that therefore calling them hypocrites is unfounded.

As a result of which, you post some sort of golfing(?) analogy, the relevance of which escapes me, and accuse me of being daft.

Do please explain.

Edit:-

(On reflection, don't bother. Life really is too short.):erm:

Gladly, Mr Pee. Your chum, the mythical ECHR-loving Sun journo does not have to work for them - s/he could decide that to do so is just not worth the pain and scorn. Simples.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

the shareholder risk management now being implemented by NewsCorp is implacable, will not stop, and will sacrifice anything in the UK to avoid liability in the USA .... all the News Int people are finished, their only future is to demonstrate, through their arrest/redundancy etc the impeccable corporate responsibility and diligence of NewsCorp to the USA authorities

[Simon]

Floozie accused Sun employees en masse of being hypocrites. I pointed out that such a charge of hypocrisy would only be valid if every journalist and employee of the newspaper shared the paper's editorial line on the ECHR. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that they do not, and that therefore calling them hypocrites is unfounded.

You were expecting logic and a rational argument, Mr P? ?????? I'd suggest that from certain quarters the standard of comment you will get is at the level that you quoted, rather than the "intelligent discussion" of the type desired by the forum's leader...

"The Sun" and Rupert Murdoch and everything he does = Bad. "The Guardian" = Good. Just keep to that very simple, narrow level and you may begin to understand how some people think.

[amateur51]

You were expecting logic and a rational argument, Mr P? ?????? I'd suggest that from certain quarters the standard of comment you will get is at the level that you quoted, rather than the "intelligent discussion" of the type desired by the forum's leader...

"The Sun" and Rupert Murdoch and everything he does = Bad. "The Guardian" = Good. Just keep to that very simple, narrow level and you may begin to understand how some people think.

Are you suggesting that, bearing the revelations of the last 8 months or so in mind, that the Sun and Rupert Murdoch represent some sort of pinnacle of achievement in the world of journalism and broadcast media, Simon?

[ahinton]

You were expecting logic and a rational argument, Mr P? ?????? I'd suggest that from certain quarters the standard of comment you will get is at the level that you quoted, rather than the "intelligent discussion" of the type desired by the forum's leader...

"The Sun" and Rupert Murdoch and everything he does = Bad. "The Guardian" = Good. Just keep to that very simple, narrow level and you may begin to understand how some people think.

"Some" people, perhaps. By no means all. I for one have no doubt that even Rupert Murdoch may have done some good for some people in his life at some point, even though at the moment I have no idea what that may be beyond creating jobs for people. Likewise, I certainly do not believe that any newspapers, or their staff, are infallible. That said, the sheer amount of evidence already submitted to the Leveson enquiry and the extent to which all manner of wrongdoing and interference, actual and/or potential, in the private lives of all sorts of people is being uncovered in more and more places simply cannot be denied; it can be brushed under the carpets of those who decide for themselves that they'd rather remain in a state of denial for some reason or none rather than to hear it or read about it, of course, but that's hardly the same thing, but those who adopt such a stance have almost certainly never (at least knowingly) been victims of or otherwise affected by the kinds of activity that are being investigated day by day during the course of an enquiry which may continue for years rather than weeks or months, otherwise they might think differently.

[Flosshilde]

Oh, I wasn't aware that it is a condition of employment that every journalist on a newspaper has to agree with that paper's editorial direction. For example, I have no idea what the sports correspondent's views on the ECHR might be, and I really don't care. Neither, I think, would the editor.

There must be an awful lot of clothespegs in the Sun offices!

[Mr Pee]

Gladly, Mr Pee. Your chum, the mythical ECHR-loving Sun journo does not have to work for them - s/he could decide that to do so is just not worth the pain and scorn. Simples.

Yes, that would be lovely. But in the real world, journalists have to earn a living just like everybody else. Any pain and scorn- if they are subject to it- would be a lot less painful than being unable to pay the mortage and ending up on the street.

[amateur51]

Yes, that would be lovely. But in the real world, journalists have to earn a living just like everybody else. Any pain and scorn- if they are subject to it- would be a lot less painful than being unable to pay the mortage and ending up on the street.

You asked me to explain my position and I have, Mr Pee. From your response, we obviously have different priorities and values, which is fine.

Are you familiar with the Faust legend?

[handsomefortune]

rupert's going to be discussing faust with his london ni staff this morning.

here he is getting ready for the arrival of (the remainder) of ni staff

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Rembrandt%2C_Faust.jpg