The Sun and The Scousers

[Rockin Robin]

The amount of people posting on this subject who haven't got a clue is beyond belief.The fact that the lies the sun printed of "the truth "was one of the major reasons that the families have never had a proper hearing or justice.

Whilst senior police officers who should have been brought to book retired on fat pay offs the families struggled on for justice with the stain of that article on not just those familes but on the whole city.


http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/

please visit the site for the complete story.


16 years on the sun"apologised"only after rooney was given a lot of stick for giving an exclusive to that rag,this is about increasing sales and nothing else.

If the sun really wanted to put things right they would of done so long before now,they even had the nerve to say "if you accept our apology and have our paper sold in the city we will campaign for justice".

What would you be thinking it happend to Brighton or god forbid a member of your family?

 

[e77]

Hillsborough was the classic accident waiting to happen. Football fans were put in cages then the establishment wondered why they behaved like animals (in many ways football fans are still treated like second class citizens, but that is another discussion).

I am sure there were drunk Liverpool fans and fans without tickets but you should be able to go to a public event without this happening.

I think that if everyone who ever had a grievance against the Sun (and we are in that catergory after Millwall) didn't buy it they would have to change so it that respect the solidarity shown in Liverpool is a good thing.

Ironically Murdoch's money, through Sky, in the 1990s rebuilt most of the stadiums in the top division.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Ironically Murdoch's money, through Sky, in the 1990s rebuilt most of the stadiums in the top division.

Not Murdoch's money, but MY money (and that of other Sky subscribers).

I'm glad I have the luxury to boycott the Sun. With Murdoch's monopoly of TV sport, we don't have the same choice. That really pisses me off.

 

[alan partridge]

Thats what I beleive. But lefties tend to beleive we are products of our environment, hence their obssesion with the media so they HAVE to beleive it, even if I dont.
Sorry I mean...........

looney's talking about obsessions!

 

[Commander]

I'm not getting involved in this one, I cant make up my mind.

 

[nwgull]

I've never read the offending Sun report so I don't feel like I can give an fully educated opinion, however having seen the programme on TV last night I get the impression that the families feel the need to blame someone and it's almost as if they are blaming the Sun for the death of their loved ones. I feel that after 15 years this blame is mis-directed. If they wanted to hurt the person responsible for the article they would be better off waging a campaign against Talk Sport, and given what they said about Wayne Rooney who was 2 years old at the time, I wonder what their opinion is on former player Ray Houghton who now works for talk sport.

 

[e77]

Not Murdoch's money, but MY money (and that of other Sky subscribers).

I'm glad I have the luxury to boycott the Sun. With Murdoch's monopoly of TV sport, we don't have the same choice. That really pisses me off.

But still, if it wasn't for Sky (with a little help from the 1990 World Cup), football would still be in decline.

 

[On the Left Wing]

Official latest circulation figures:

The Sun: 03 Jan 05 - 30 Jan 05: 3,382,509
Daily Mail: 03 Jan 05 - 30 Jan 05: 2,409,121
Daily Express: Apr 04 - Sep 04: 2,066,000
Daily Mirror: 03 Jan 05 - 30 Jan 05: 1,748,327
The Daily Telegraph: 03 Jan 05 - 30 Jan 05: 920,745
Daily Star: 03 Jan 05 - 30 Jan 05: 861,825
The Times: 03 Jan 05 - 30 Jan 05: 686,327
The Guardian: 03 Jan 05 - 30 Jan 05: 376,816
The Independent: 03 Jan 05 - 30 Jan 05: 257,100

The News of the World: 03 Jan 05 - 30 Jan 05: 3,823,317
Mail on Sunday: 03 Jan 05 - 30 Jan 05: 2,446,465
Sunday Mirror: 03 Jan 05 - 30 Jan 05: 1,652,375
The Sunday Times: 03 Jan 05 - 30 Jan 05: 1,375,982
The People: 03 Jan 05 - 30 Jan 05: 1,001,389
Sunday Express: 03 Jan 05 - 30 Jan 05: 976,055
The Sunday Telegraph: 03 Jan 05 - 30 Jan 05: 692,107
Sunday Star: 03 Jan 05 - 30 Jan 05: 459,933
The Observer: 03 Jan 05 - 30 Jan 05: 446,818
The Independent on Sunday: 03 Jan 05 - 30 Jan 05: 206,527

Source: http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/do/live/factsAndFigures

Precisely: IT DOES NOT sell more than "all the others put together" .or anything close to it!

 

[On the Left Wing]

The actual number of paid sales is the figure above, just over 3 million - that's the number who buy it. The 8.9m readership figure is a completely made up figure based on theoretical guesswork that for every one paper bought, three people will read it. I guess I fall into that latter category as a flick though the paper most days at work, mainly to look for subbing errors in the sports pages.

It is an advertising department ploy used sincethe 1970s - a readership figure is roughly 2.8 times the paid for sales

As for the Sun's "blood" insult, something that the TV programme didn't mention was the Sun's horrendous use of photographs of the incident, showing the faces of people being crushed, who were either dead or to die later. The photo's caused as much harm to the friends and relations and people of Liverpool, as did the reports.

 

[Ex Shelton Seagull]

Here's a piece about the Sun and Hillsborough from Wikipedia. Helps to give an impression of what the Sun story was like.

On the Tuesday following the disaster, Kelvin MacKenzie, then editor of The Sun, a British tabloid newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch, used the front page headline 'THE TRUTH', with three sub-headlines: 'Some fans picked pockets of victims'; 'Some fans urinated on the brave cops'; 'Some fans beat up PC giving kiss of life'.

The story accompanying these headlines claimed that 'drunken Liverpool fans viciously attacked rescue workers as they tried to revive victims' and 'police officers, firemen and ambulance crew were punched, kicked and urinated upon'. A quote, attributed to an unnamed policeman, claimed that a dead girl had been abused and that Liverpool fans 'were openly urinating on us and the bodies of the dead'.

In their history of The Sun, Peter Chippendale and Chris Horrie wrote:

'As MacKenzie's layout was seen by more and more people, a collective shudder ran through the office [but] MacKenzie's dominance was so total there was nobody left in the organisation who could rein him in except Murdoch. [Everyone] seemed paralysed, "looking like rabbits in the headlights", as one hack described them. The error staring them in the face was too glaring. It obviously wasn't a silly mistake; nor was it a simple oversight. Nobody really had any comment on it—they just took one look and went away shaking their heads in wonder at the enormity of it. It was a "classic smear".'
Lord Justice Taylor's official inquiry into the disaster disparaged The Sun's story and was unequivocal as to the disaster's cause:

'The real cause of the Hillsborough disaster [was] overcrowding, the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control.'
Following The Sun's report, the newspaper was boycotted by most newsagents in Liverpool, with many refusing to stock the tabloid and large numbers of readers cancelling orders and even refusing to buy from shops which did stock the newspaper.

MacKenzie explained his reporting in 1993. Talking to a House of Commons National Heritage Select Committee he said "I regret Hillsborough. It was a fundamental mistake. The mistake was I believed what an MP said. It was a Tory MP. If he had not said it and the chief superintendent had not agreed with it, we would not have gone with it." This explanation was not accepted by families of Hillsborough victims. Even fifteen years after the Hillsborough disaster, the circulation of The Sun in Liverpool is still reckoned to be only 12,000 copies a day where previously it was around 200,000.

 

[looney]

There is no way that a paper can win an entire election but if they constantly print articles slagging off one sides policy etc and basically defaming their character, it is going to influence how their readers vote.

I find your point a bit disingenuos. You choose what paper to buy and in the main you are preaching to the converted, also a 9 million readership is still less than 20% of the population.

Whereas I and others have to put up with the continual bias leftist pro euro crap pumped out to 99% of the population at a cost I have no choice but to pay by the BBC.

And you snivell at a mindless rightwing gutter rag?


I agree it may have an infleunce at the margins but how many people do you know who let the Sun influence them how to vote?

 

[looney]

Lord Justice Taylor's official inquiry into the disaster disparaged The Sun's story and was unequivocal as to the disaster's cause:

'The real cause of the Hillsborough disaster [was] overcrowding, the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control.'

Sort of, it was failuire to delegate resposibility properly for saftey.

 

[Simster]

Lord Justice Taylor's official inquiry into the disaster disparaged The Sun's story and was unequivocal as to the disaster's cause:

'The real cause of the Hillsborough disaster [was] overcrowding, the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control.'

Sort of, it was failuire to delegate resposibility properly for saftey.

Sometimes you argue for the sake of it. Exactly who were responsible for the safety of those already in the ground if not the police outside controlling the gates?

 

[Falmer Flutter ©]

Chris Horrie was one of my lecturers at uni and after co-writing that book about The Sun (Stick It Up Your Punter I think it's called – quite a good read) who was blacklisted by News International.

I recently had the "pleasure" of working with MacKenzie when he was guest editor for the day at a mag I was freelancing for. Nowhere near as fearsome as his reputation suggests although his politics left a lot to be desired. At the end of the day he held a Q&A session but said straight off he wouldn't answer any questions about Hillsborough. Didn't have the balls just to go ahead and ask him anyway...

 

[looney]

Sometimes you argue for the sake of it. Exactly who were responsible for the safety of those already in the ground if not the police outside controlling the gates?

Yes it was a pedantic post. Pre taylor responsibilty was not clear so what tended to happen was undermanning and buck passing.

Now its fuzz outside stewards inside.

 

[alan partridge]

Whereas I and others have to put up with the continual bias leftist pro euro crap pumped out to 99% of the population at a cost I have no choice but to pay by the BBC.

and there was me thinking that Lefties thought the BBC was a mouthpiece for the right.

Still if Looney's FROTHING at the mouth about it he must be right.