*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, July 9th, 2011 3:03am PDT - promote requested by original submitter Hybrid.

The folks demanding more regulation after the financial crash, they were Johnny-on-the-spot back then, just like now. Maybe you can even get the same regulators, they did do a wonderful job after all.

What happened back then? Fuck all.
And what's going to happen now? Fuck all.

Some enforcement would be nice, but even old Maggie knew that you cannot hold an office without sucking up to the yellow press.

Maggie was arguably the first to realise that...and its been fucking shit ever since.

http://youtu.be/t1SZMiMj5_k

Steve is absolutely right in THIS case the "journalists" have nothing they can do to defend themselves. Listening to a private citizens messages is indefensible. However the guy defending the press makes ONE good point about the Freedom of the press, it's a point that shouldn't be ignored even if he's a slimey piece of shit. I don't know what the answer is at this point but I guess it's to have the public smack the press down whenever something like this happens and maybe they won't do it.

I find it utterly astounding how comfortable McMullen is with being a slimy, weasly toad of a man. He almost seems proud of the fact that he's sat outside Steve's house for ANY reason. I can't understand how on earth that man can not only sit there and argue, shifting tack each time he gets an utter slapdown, but also live with himself when he clearly knows what a horrible seedy little man he is.

It seems unfair not to mention this - as far as i am aware, Coogan doesn't court the press in any way at all, i rarely ever hear any news about him. His work as a performer has a credibility about it that doesn't NEED the press.

>> ^dannym3141:

but also live with himself when he clearly knows what a horrible seedy little man he is.

I doubt he realises or cares how much of a piece of shit he is. He sounds very similar to the reasonings of an xbox hacker I had read about a while back. Unrepentant and utterly ignorant of the fact he's a slimey, piece of shit scumbag that should crawl into a hole to stay so we never have to deal with him ever again.

Also, notice how he always mentions "You being in all the movies... making 5 million pound a movie... you got all these houses..." sounds he's just bitter that he's not in movies or something

How Coogan resisted leaping over the table and punching that facile basterd in the face is beyond me. He showed much more restraint than I'd have been able to. 

Easy way to turn it around. Since all these "journalists" are now in the public eye, they can be treated as a public figure/star/celebrity and anyone can go through their trash, sit outside their homes, listen to their voicemails, steal their mail...etc etc.

Collect it for awhile then be in their face obnoxious with the info. See if they change their mind if people actually get dirt on them that would make their life even worse. I am assuming now they all make good cash defending their point like this because otherwise there is absolutely no reason to go on these shows.

It might just be me, but the way this Paul McMullen is trolling, it seems as he WANTS regulation. I'd be interested to see what comes out of this and how it benefits the rest of News Corp. I have theories, but they are based on... well... nothing.

I must say I sympathize with the so called "journalist". He is doing a very poor job of defending himself and I in no way support the point he's trying to make, but he does touch on something I agree with; this whole voyeurism industry is filth by definition, what's incredible here isn't the lengths that these reporters would go to to push out more trash news, it's that there's such an overwhelming demand for this garbage.

I would much rather hear actors directing heat on these issues straight at the audiences (which of course they won't). It's much easier blaming the celebrity media, but they are simply a manifestation of the mindless consumer horde.

>> ^NinjaInHeat:

I must say I sympathize with the so called "journalist". He is doing a very poor job of defending himself and I in no way support the point he's trying to make, but he does touch on something I agree with; this whole voyeurism industry is filth by definition, what's incredible here isn't the lengths that these reporters would go to to push out more trash news, it's that there's such an overwhelming demand for this garbage.
I would much rather hear actors directing heat on these issues straight at the audiences (which of course they won't). It's much easier blaming the celebrity media, but they are simply a manifestation of the mindless consumer horde.


In a way, sure, but i don't think the public would be happy with them hacking people's private shit to get that gossip. Well, they're clearly not because i haven't heard a single person standing up for them yet, though i'm sure there's reprehensible people who would somewhere in britain.

I don't think i've ever heard someone say "i get the paper for the celebrity gossip". And whilst i know there are celebrity gossip magazines out there that sell, i'd venture a guess that it's "cheryl cole's got a new hairstyle" that they're interested in rather than "cheryl cole's booked in for a yeast infection at local clinic, phone transcript inside".

Honestly I don't know the first thing about celebrity gossip but I imagine it's actually quite the opposite; the dedicated tabloids would probably be much more interested in some truly trashy piece of gossip to report, and like it or not, a piece about celebrity yeast infections would probably sell way better than one covering hairstyles.

Remember the whole Gizmodo iPhone debacle? Same thing. Sure Gizmodo were to blame for being completely unprofessional, but they were simply the manifestation of the Apple fanboy hoards. We can't expect the media to practice professionalism and work ethic when we don't demand it as consumers but simply frown when they go 'over the line' (and even when they do, and we frown, we still manage to make it worth their while).

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^NinjaInHeat:
I must say I sympathize with the so called "journalist". He is doing a very poor job of defending himself and I in no way support the point he's trying to make, but he does touch on something I agree with; this whole voyeurism industry is filth by definition, what's incredible here isn't the lengths that these reporters would go to to push out more trash news, it's that there's such an overwhelming demand for this garbage.
I would much rather hear actors directing heat on these issues straight at the audiences (which of course they won't). It's much easier blaming the celebrity media, but they are simply a manifestation of the mindless consumer horde.

In a way, sure, but i don't think the public would be happy with them hacking people's private shit to get that gossip. Well, they're clearly not because i haven't heard a single person standing up for them yet, though i'm sure there's reprehensible people who would somewhere in britain.
I don't think i've ever heard someone say "i get the paper for the celebrity gossip". And whilst i know there are celebrity gossip magazines out there that sell, i'd venture a guess that it's "cheryl cole's got a new hairstyle" that they're interested in rather than "cheryl cole's booked in for a yeast infection at local clinic, phone transcript inside".

@NinjaInHeat maybe you're right, but then again i genuinely do think that people wouldn't want that stuff at the expense of personal privacy and/or the law. People like to see the rich and famous recieve some misfortune and they may be intereted in cheryl cole's intimacies, people like "good" stories, yeah. Maybe i'm being too optimistic, but i feel they wouldn't want it at the expense of just about anything.

I feel that it's flawed to say "well the demand is there, so people obviously want it", yeah sure they want it, but they never said they wanted the tabloids to break the law for it. The tabloids took that step for themselves because they want to sell more than their rival, so it's not really the people that are at fault it's the papers themselves for wanting to beat the competition at any cost surely?

It's a bit like saying "well, you like cheap clothes, so we provided you with cheap clothes. oh sure we have kids working in sweatshops but the demand for clothes is there so blame yourselves!" I don't want my clothes made at the expense of others, but how do i distinguish? And am i then to blame for heinous practices because i like cheap clothes? I think that's a pretty good analogy.

This was a bad interview due to Paul McMullen talking over everyone. Badly controlled interview. Tabloids are not journalistic, they are pop-culture trash gossip.

The suggestion that a demand exists for the crap they produce is no defence for the illegal acts they performed. That there was a demand for slavery is no justification for it. There's a demand for child pornography - that doesn't make it ok.

Scum. Sub-human scum.

Utterly, utterly amazing that he seems to think he can take the high ground.

He has all these things pre-loaded though. He knows the 'average Joe' wants more money, so he tries to play on how much Coogan has. He jumps on the rich angle as often as he can, and when he's not jumping on that, he's trying on the 'well you want publicity, you court this' bullshit too.

He has convinced himself that he is just, I'm sure he has to keep saying the mantras to himself to stop the horrible guilt from telling him otherwise, but I think he currently is winning his internal monologue and thinks that he is 'just' in what he does.

Scum.

Spoco, you have to see this. He's losing it: http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/07/08/3265296.htm

http://videosift.com/video/News-of-the-World-journalist-clearly-imploding

I found it on youtube and posted it.

This is the most amazing news interview I have ever seen. This guy is clearly imploding and doing it on international television. The look on the interviewer's face at the end.... you can tell he too has never experienced anything like it.


>> ^kymbos:

Spoco, you have to see this. He's losing it: http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/07/08/3265296.htm

>> ^kymbos:

Spoco, you have to see this. He's losing it: http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/07/08/3265296.htm


And... urgh, He still doesn't see the wrong of 'hacking into' people's phones. He seems to think that if they were doing wrong, then it's all ok. Well, what if you THINK that they're doing wrong, but they aren't? Huh? Who made you the judge and jury of innocence. Whether they are doing right or wrong does not give a newspaper the right to hack into their phone. If there's suspicion of them doing wrong you present your case for why you think so such that a warrant may be granted, but that's a police matter.

You aren't just allowed to break the law when it suits.

He still seems to think it's all ok to hack into people's phones, that there's nothing wrong with it per se. He is a giant and unequivocal Dickhead who deserves no pity (as he's trying to get obviously in that interview)

ARGH, (sorry, writing this as I watch it), he's going on AGAIN that 'most people' are fine with them hacking celebrities' phones just because they make a lot of money. NO you FUCKWIT, just because people are rich, doesn't mean they suddenly lose all their right to privacy.

Fuck him, fuck his mock outrage that celebrities aren't allowed privacy.

WAIT... He just asked for publicity, he just mentioned his bar and asked people to pop in... right, we're now allowed to hack his phone, pry into his personal life, harass his children. Hypocritical FUCK.

He seems to consider celebrities as sub human, as not worth affording the same rights as other people.

Well fuck him.

That interview makes me truly hate him now, moved on from just thinking him a slimy shit.

I love the way he says something like "there were mostly silly messages from her friends saying 'oh, are you alright?'" when describing the murdered girls phone messages.

Wow, how morally bankrupt. He should be on suicide watch - he's spiralling.

I don't see how regulation will do anything. Prosecute for the crimes committed, and let it go. Celebrity gossip is the price we pay for free press. And a total lack of privacy (within the bounds set by law) is the price famous people pay for their chosen careers (with the occasional exception for accidental celebrities who don't want it).

Tittle Tattle!