Posted 5th Jul 2011
Due to the current allegations against the news of the world.What can or should be done against the news of the world newspaper i would say at least boycott but i dont buy that paper.
Share with Messenger
Community Updates
Discussions Recent
Top Merchants
65 Comments
sorted byAllegation? The NOTW has already made substantial admissions of phone hacking and paid compensation in many cases.
What should have been done was preventing the owner (R Murdoch) of an organisation which behaves criminally from buying up more of BSkyB thus strengthening his stranglehold on our media.
There is something sleazy about just how close the Conservatives and the Murdoch empire seem to be. The whole business of the takeover of BskyB and the way it was handled by the government was all a bit fishy.
What should happen is Rebekah Brooks is fired and Cameron faces an inquiry into his hiring of Andy Coulson.
38degrees.org.uk/pag…ion
Please Sign
Funnily enough thats the only reason I buy it.
bitterwallet.com/how…578
Boycott companies that advertise in the News of the World until they pull their advertising.
Npower are considering their position
guardian.co.uk/med…ing
Actually, Ford have been really deceitful on this. They are moving the advertising to The Sun and other News International places. So they get good publicity and they don't upset Murdoch.
Keep the pressure on Ford and the others, cancel your Sky account and never forget what scum these people are.
Because this is not a one-off. This is the entire culture of News International. Let me tell you a story.
In the late 70s, the 'Son of Sam' serial killer was terrorising New York. Steve Dunleavy was one of many journalists covering the murders for Rupert Murdoch's New York Post. To get an exclusive, he followed one recent victims’ parents into the hospital at 4AM, put on a doctor’s gown, and pretended to be a bereavement counselor to get quotes from them about their son. Like the Milly phone hacking, this was pretty much pure evil in search of a story.
Now, Murdoch could have put in place systems and rules to stop that sort of thing happening again. He could have made it clear that any editor who allows reporters to do that sort of thing will be fired on the spot. He could have employed someone at each paper to be in charge of checking that standards of decency are upheld. He didn't. He did nothing. And what was the result?
News International newspapers have paid off witnesses and lied and done disgusting things to get stories again and again. Right now in 2011 we're finding out about some of it, about how they caused further suffering to the parents of a murdered little girl, obstructed the police investigation and I bet there are plenty of other things about other stories down the years we'll never learn. Of course there are other papers which do bad things, but Murdoch papers are the worst and the biggest and we've got hard evidence on them. Let's do what we can to put as many of these people out of work and behind bars as possible.
Because without the Guardian and their work on keeping the phone hacking scandal alive in the face of police indifference, the News of the World would have got away with it.
Sarah's Law was a cynical copy of Megan's Law - a law that actually has NO demonstrable impact on sex offences in the States.
It was a trashy rag that was a disgrace to journalism and this is a cynical move that will backfire badly.
FYI it's an allegation - it hasn't been proven yet as far as I know, so perhaps wait until it has been proven or not and then grab your pitchfork.
(edited)
Some people seem to think that hacking into the voicemail of a kidnapped 13 year old, listening to the messages, deleting others so that her parents think she's still alive and obstructing the police efforts to find her is something to care about. Especially when it's all done to sell newspapers.
How much do you want to bet? It's not on the front page of every newspaper, leading every news bulletin and being commented on by every leading politician because someone heard a rumour down the pub. The information came from the police.
(edited)
guardian.co.uk/med…ice
telegraph.co.uk/fin…tml
50 thousand signatures, that's a 30,000 increase since you posted the link.
Thats a lot of HUKDers!
wait, that may be a bad idea. Think about, it would anybody want to wipe crap off with more crap?
(edited)
me possibly, why? are you?
Murdoch would have been fully aware of what was going on, it is how he operates.
People are also kidding themselves if they think this type of practice can be isolated to one newspaper. While our media is in the hands of a few billionaires with an interest in keeping the status quo then this kind of behaviour or the next scandal will continue as they fight one circulation war after another.
So you view the newspapers in the same way you view the banks? People are forced to read these stories as they were forced to take mortgages and loans they couldn't afford?
Do you not believe in any type of personal responsibility?
The newspapers went to these extremes because they are morally bankrupt. But they knew there was a market for these stories. Just like there's a market for shots of celebrities nude or voyeuristic looks at their personal lives.
WE have to take responsibility for this in some small part. The Sun reaches about 7 million people daily with the NOTW not far behind on a Sunday. We get the media we deserve and need to look at why we're such a prurient, gossipy bunch.
Why would any sane person waste money on newspapers these days?
That's why he bought Myspace and launched 'The Daily' on iPad. He's also one of the pioneers of paywalls. He knows that tabloid journalism will probably die off as people can get bitesize fixes online. But tv news and broadsheet/specialist newspapers will always have a market.
As for whether he knew, he in all likelihood didn't. He delegates to people he trusts and allows them to get on with it, so long as they make money. People bemoan his creation of Fox News, but that is Roger Ailes's baby, not Murdoch's.
Do you actually read my posts or do you just have these little crude diatribes written already with gaps left try and fit them to the thread topic?
You see everything in terms of the individual and have no time for any concept of society or dynamic systems and it seems to make your blood boil that I do. This really does seem to leave you with an extremely low opinion of your peers and an unhealthy tendency to worship those with power and money.
Just for your information, while you make take some responsibility for the scummy behaviour of the NOTW I do not.
I'm a news junkie. I want to know intimate details about stories, sometimes to a voyeuristic nature. I read the stories about Ryan Giggs and Anthony Weiner, I've looked at nude pictures of celebs like Blake Lively, Rihanna etc.
I'm not proud of it but I can recognise that there is clearly a market for these invasions of privacy and as a result these publications will go to more extreme lengths to get them.
(edited)
Surely you mean gossip junkie.
you jelli?
Of what?
(edited)