I'm glad it's closing.

You have to remember the kind of "journalism" this paper printed. Like the one with the woman with the extremely large breasts which she felt may have seriously injured someone else. In fact breasts, celebs and football were basically it's staple currencies. Job losses are always sad but we're not losing anything here. This was not a great paper. It was a reservoir of scummy journalistic practices. The current editor claims he ran a clean paper which is laughable.

Like many tabloids it practiced the "dark arts" with which they bent and broke the law to get stories. The Sun will replace it no doubt and I can only hope it won't be as bad. Murdoch claims the paper is "toxic" though it's been like that for many years. Hell you could claim The Sun is still toxic for their Hillsborough coverage.

This is a huge story and isn't being covered enough because Murdock owns a third of the press in this country. David Cameron is a scumbag for seeing no problem in hanging out with Brooks and attending NI's Eyes Wide Shut party. And he's still defending Coulson. Amazing. When you throw in the bent coppers this could be the most disturbing set of institutional corruption scandals we've seen since, oh, MPs expenses. As some one on twitter said, this is playing out like The Wire.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'hugh grant, vm, hacking, bbc' to 'hugh grant, vm, hacking, bbc, tabloid' - edited by MrFisk

http://videosift.com/video/UK-Tabloid-reporter-hacked-phone-of-murdered-girl

This is the Milly he references.

The human race makes me ashamed to be human. >> ^Jinx:

The hacker is scum, the reporters are scum, the organisations are scum, the general public is scum. This shit goes further than just one person or one stupid act, its this whole digusting, voyueristic rubbernecking that the media panders to whenever a deeply personal tradegy goes public. It makes me ashamed to be human.

*promote

Stupid tabloids.

http://videosift.com/video/Hugh-Grant-exposes-tabloid-politicians-behavior

@MarineGunrock, here is my shameless plug.

"Ultimately it comes down to who you think is responsible for the way the world is. Is it the people with all the wealth, power, and influence, or is it the people who are poor and powerless that tune in to the nightly tabloid, and think they're hearing about what's going on in the world?"


I asked you the same question above. "What do you think is really the driving force NetRunner? The people who broadcast or the people who watch?" Clearly you think the broadcasters are most culpable for the problem we both agree exists.


But why would you blame the network? It's not their job to educate or inform people. They are not a community service. They are a corporation driven by profits. Apparently, they've run the numbers and garbage is what sells. You may think it wouldn't cause a significant drop in ratings to avoid hype, but that's because you would appreciate more substantial fare. Many people would. Unfortunately the vast majority doesn't and the proof is all over every form of media available. Is that shitty news for "news"? Sure is. But to blame corporations is the same as blaming a snake for biting you.

I disagree that the only people with influence over this situation are those who have wealth and "power", and with your characterization of viewers as "powerless". In my mind it's the complete opposite. The viewers have all the power. The power to write. To call. To contact advertisers. To e-mail .. twitter, blog, petition, etc etc their unhappiness and unwillingness to partake of the "product". And most importantly, the power to change the channel, cancel subscriptions and so on.

I shouldn't have used the word "stupid". I'm not out their clubbing mentally challenged people like baby seals. It was a catch all phrase for what I tried to clarify as "a bunch of fucking zombie-eyed, vote-texting, self-involved twittering imbeciles with an attention span of 10 seconds or less." Those are the people I blame.

>> ^NetRunner:

Like I said, I don't blame stupid people for being stupid. No one chooses to be an idiot. Smart people with control over a major broadcast network, them I blame.
I reject the notion that people wouldn't be interested in topics of substance. I think people are hungry for it. I think that's doubly true if broadcasters actually tried to make what's important interesting, instead of trying to make what's sensational seem important. I seriously doubt their ratings would go down if their quality improved.
The real problem is that it'd cut into profit margins. It costs a little more to cover any of our 3 wars, or the economy than it does for someone to just peruse twitter and talk about the latest gossip. It wouldn't really cost all that much more, but it'd be more than nothing. But since their goal is only to make money, then the argument will basically be "why bother spending money you don't have to?"
Ultimately it comes down to who you think is responsible for the way the world is. Is it the people with all the wealth, power, and influence, or is it the people who are poor and powerless that tune in to the nightly tabloid, and think they're hearing about what's going on in the world?
>> ^burdturgler:
We both agree that it's a shitty situation. But if people tuned out, the situation would change. They don't .. because the majority of people actually likes the product, and that is what really sucks.

Like I said, I don't blame stupid people for being stupid. No one chooses to be an idiot. Smart people with control over a major broadcast network, them I blame.

I reject the notion that people wouldn't be interested in topics of substance. I think people are hungry for it. I think that's doubly true if broadcasters actually tried to make what's important interesting, instead of trying to make what's sensational seem important. I seriously doubt their ratings would go down if their quality improved.

The real problem is that it'd cut into profit margins. It costs a little more to cover any of our 3 wars, or the economy than it does for someone to just peruse twitter and talk about the latest gossip. It wouldn't really cost all that much more, but it'd be more than nothing. But since their goal is only to make money, then the argument will basically be "why bother spending money you don't have to?"

Ultimately it comes down to who you think is responsible for the way the world is. Is it the people with all the wealth, power, and influence, or is it the people who are poor and powerless that tune in to the nightly tabloid, and think they're hearing about what's going on in the world?

>> ^burdturgler:

We both agree that it's a shitty situation. But if people tuned out, the situation would change. They don't .. because the majority of people actually likes the product, and that is what really sucks.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^Gallowflak:
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Ahh the British and the Nazis. i had a course last semester analysing Britain's ongoing fascination with the Nazis. Conclusions: 1. British school history-courses are a catastrophe of american magnitude.
2. Empire? What Empire? We defeated the Nazis! What? Britain had concentration camps, torture and cultural genocides? ... erm ... But we defeated the nazis, and they were way worse than us! Hooray Britain!

Britain, in my experience, is aware of its own miserable history to the point of being self-flagellating. There's a massive emphasis in culture and education on the tudors and WW2, and it's almost ridiculous, but I really doubt it has anything to do with soothing the social discomfort to be had by reflecting on the crimes of the empire.
I don't know. WW2 seems pretty fucking important when it comes to modern history, considering how much that conflict defined the shape of the future world.


Of course WW2 and Nazis should be studied. But there is the difference between study and obsession. We had to do projects for the course, and one group knew a bunch of Bachelor of Education- students being teacher's assistants in the UK at the time. So the group created a survey to look at british student's perceptions of Germany. One question concerned, for example, the number of years the students had WWII as a subject. Out of 4 or 5 classes (all over the UK), all had had WWII in more than 2 years, focussed mostly on Britain vs. Germany. When asked to name something "bad" the British Empire had done, most of only one class could name the enormous slave-trade. When asked to name the things they most associated with Germany, Nazis came before the cars and the soccer team. (And if you look at the tabloids and even proper papers when a match is on, you'll see an abundance of Nazi-refernces.) A friend of mine got cursed out of a London cab for being German. Nick Clegg wrote an article about the obsession. Edit: Moar. I can't find the article I'm searching for. I'll look again tomorrow.


"Having world war 2 in more than 2 years" does not mean that you have studied it for the entire duration of that teaching year - i have covered 3 or 4 different topics 3 or 4 different times during the course of my secondary education (11-16). The word "in" is a big clue there. We also covered native americans, the tudors and stewarts, and the rest i forget because i've never been interested in studying history.

The rest of my points i'll list in brief list form;
1) I don't believe that's true, at all, that 4 out of 5 classrooms full of students had no person who knew about the slave trade during colonial britain. That's covered plenty.
2) I am wholly unsurprised that a bunch of SCHOOL CHILDREN who have spent the last few years covering nazi germany on and off associate germany with nazis over cars (which they can't drive and who cares where cars are made?) and a football team (which we probably play on average once in a 2 year period, mostly in friendlies). If you're older than about 18, your grandad was probably in the war, and your grandma lived during those times. The war was a tough time and we're proud of standing alone for a time.
3) You're reading the sun or the news of the world - tip for you, stop reading the sun or the news of the world.
and 4) I've been cursed out of a london cab for being northern.

PS. Two world wars and one world cup, doodahhhh doodahhhh! .... it's a joke.

Come on lad, get a grip. This questionnaire sounds like bollocks to me - i've experienced 3 student exchanges with german students, and everyone got on really well with no war/nazi/anything comments or insinuations. I could ask 10 strangers what they thought of germany and i'd probably get 7 saying they like em. I got along better with german kids on holidays to spain than i did with the english kids, hung out with them, learned german better, and still love the language now.

Perhaps you're looking for it?

>> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
Ahh the British and the Nazis. i had a course last semester analysing Britain's ongoing fascination with the Nazis. Conclusions: 1. British school history-courses are a catastrophe of american magnitude.
2. Empire? What Empire? We defeated the Nazis! What? Britain had concentration camps, torture and cultural genocides? ... erm ... But we defeated the nazis, and they were way worse than us! Hooray Britain!

Britain, in my experience, is aware of its own miserable history to the point of being self-flagellating. There's a massive emphasis in culture and education on the tudors and WW2, and it's almost ridiculous, but I really doubt it has anything to do with soothing the social discomfort to be had by reflecting on the crimes of the empire.
I don't know. WW2 seems pretty fucking important when it comes to modern history, considering how much that conflict defined the shape of the future world.



Of course WW2 and Nazis should be studied. But there is the difference between study and obsession. We had to do projects for the course, and one group knew a bunch of Bachelor of Education- students being teacher's assistants in the UK at the time. So the group created a survey to look at british student's perceptions of Germany. One question concerned, for example, the number of years the students had WWII as a subject. Out of 4 or 5 classes (all over the UK), all had had WWII in more than 2 years, focussed mostly on Britain vs. Germany. When asked to name something "bad" the British Empire had done, most of only one class could name the enormous slave-trade. When asked to name the things they most associated with Germany, Nazis came before the cars and the soccer team. (And if you look at the tabloids and even proper papers when a match is on, you'll see an abundance of Nazi-refernces.) A friend of mine got cursed out of a London cab for being German. Nick Clegg wrote an article about the obsession. Edit: Moar. I can't find the article I'm searching for. I'll look again tomorrow.

It's just that the tabloids and news media are a magnifying glass that spies on everything so closely that every little fault becomes a huge blemish. Imagine the field-day they would make out of an incident where something actually did go wrong, like the groom passing out or a candle catching some drapes on fire or other similar disaster that happens all the time at weddings... (Oop's - lost the ring )

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Sagemind:
She lost weight - therefor it it got caught up on the loose skin that bunched up on her finger...
Ever try to put a ring on someone else's finger, it's not as easy as putting one on your own finger.
this is hardly worth noticing - I'd hate to see what the magnifying glass would say if some had actually gone wrong...

Yeah, clearly... it was still amusing to me
What does "I'd hate to see what the magnifying glass would say if some had actually gone wrong..." mean?

These animated news stories are starting to get on my nerves - They embellish the truth tabloid style which just grates me the wrong way.

Goodbye choggie


In reply to this comment by shrimpfork:
@ LizLizscot, Hey now, no need to blame god exclusively or even the bogus interpretation(s) offered up from the best and worst of devotees of all sects, creeds, religious atheists, etc.
Perhaps it's the modern Persian male and the generations of deficit imprinting?
(in most personal experiences with the same, the stereotype seems to have served adequately)
-Cultures the world over have all risen respectively to their incompetence in demonstrating a healthy social evolution. What can one say ma'am, the world is a pretty sick place thanks to most humans.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. "
-Jiddu Krishnamurti



In reply to this comment by shrimpfork:
Why hasn't anyone mentioned the possibility that while her cover as a correspondent (guess so) may be without holes, CBS might be using a universally incendiary act allegedly perpetrated by some revolutionary yahoos to produce some new and improved hype in order to rally nation(s) of robots to fall deeper into their somnambulant stupor regarding the mechanisms and intent of world affairs?

Who cares if she's the best-looking teleprompter-reading propagandist on the telly? Hmmm?



In reply to this comment by shrimpfork:
I concur by voting for this video though this fellow regularly abuses his internet status of alternative news source with the kind of lazy-minded titillation reserved for tabloids and entertainment news segments.
Wall Street should be burned to the ground in effigy for future generations.

I concur by voting for this video though this fellow regularly abuses his internet status of alternative news source with the kind of lazy-minded titillation reserved for tabloids and entertainment news segments.
Wall Street should be burned to the ground in effigy for future generations.

@xxovercastxx

I know with wikis anyone can post a page about anything, but in most cases the stupid-ass articles are deleted for non-compliance. That's why I agree with you that we should have rules. If we have tight rules about what should be posted and what shouldn't be, then an article like Sheppard posted about me could be deleted immediately and without question because it was about a member, because (as I suggested) articles about any member should be forbidden in the first place. (BTW, it will be interesting how long that entry will stay there. The Streisand effect and all.) But if articles about members are going to be allowed, then members should be allowed to opt out of it, meaning that no articles about that member should be allowed at all.

@dag

If you want everyone to know that you bought your first 300 bps modem in 1985 for the Apple IIe, can't you put that on your profile page? Info about your good Neil Diamond impersonation might also find a better home on your profile page, or in someone's blog post, or in a video's comments section, rather than in a wiki which was originally conceived as a VS user manual.

And thanks for welcoming me to the public internet. If anyone wants to create a blog dedicated to me that's his prerogative. However, I had this crazy idea that at least here we could be a little respectful to the wishes of our fellow members. Am I being so demanding, just because I'd like to see us not write lame articles about each other (including members who haven't been here in eons) that would make tabloids look like Pulitzer material? And how many other community sites have wikis with information about their own members? And before you answer that along the lines of "the Sift is special", well, it ain't that special.

My 'reaction' to this issue is "Please, we can do better than this."