Missing Milly Dowler's voicemail "hacked by News of the World"

[1%er]

I've lost track of his point tbh. And I don't know why he's just shouted "YES " at me. My penchant for paying 30p for secondhand Georgette Heyer bodice rippers in no way makes me responsible for the content.

So regardless of there content you'd keep paying for them

 

[cesare]

So regardless of there content you'd keep paying for them

Look. I like them so I keep buying them, OK? I might only like 25% of the total content, but that 25% is sufficient for me to continue buying them.

 

[1%er]

If it was only 10% would you still buy them?
Fancy a go at this, what has or will Leveson achieve?

 

[Treacle Toes]

Chose

Choice? No, IMO. The medium/media significantly define and manipulate the relationship between the product and the purchaser, as well as the 'validation' of the 'reaction' to the product. There isn't much of a choice because of this IMO.

 

[1%er]

Choice? No, IMO. The medium/media significantly define and manipulate the relationship between the product and the purchaser, as well as the validation to the reaction to the product. There isn't much of a choice because of this IMO.

The choice is to buy or not to buy.

If the British people are so outraged why do they still buy papers, its because they give them what they want.

chose past tense of choose (Verb)

Verb:

1. Pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives.

 

[Treacle Toes]

You seem to be saying that our daily 'choices' are completely arbitary or abstract and our relationship with them is something that has no longer term or on-going, external or imposed influences?

What do you understand the concept of 'culture' to mean?

If the British people are so outraged why do they still buy papers, its because they give them what they want.

So why do they want 'it'?

 

[where to]

apparently the Spectator is threatening not to comply with any statutory regulator - which opens up some very interesting dynamics (and hypocrisies).

 

[Treacle Toes]

.

 

[where to]

other key development is that Cameron has apparently agreed to have Dept of Culture, Media and Sport draft legislation as per Levison's proposals, if only to show it won't be possible. sounds like an effort to kick this into long grass to me.

 

[1%er]

You seem to be saying that our daily 'choices' are completely arbitary or abstract and our relationship with them is something that has no longer term or on-going, external or imposed influences?

What do you understand the concept of 'culture' to mean?



So why do they want 'it'?

I'm saying that people do not have to buy newspapers, if you don't like something why would you buy it? millions of people read newspapers, if they don't like what they print why would they read them

nothing will change because of Leveson

 

[where to]

do you think you're being clever with this drivel?

 

[1%er]

do you think you're being clever with this drivel?

NO.

What has or will Leveson achieve? 6 million for the status quo

Do you subscribe to the belief that people who pay money for newspapers have no responsibility in all this?

 

[where to]

Do you subscribe to the belief that people who pay money for newspapers have no responsibility in all this?

I don't think its worth spending all of this evening focussing on, that's for sure.

 

[1%er]

I don't think its worth spending all of this evening focussing on, that's for sure.

So no answer to this, What has or will Leveson achieve? And no answer to this, Do you subscribe to the belief that people who pay money for newspapers have no responsibility in all this?

 

[where to]

Kelvin MacKenzie now having a bit of a meltdown moment on Sky.

 

[1%er]

Reading this board it is clear that many people believed the culture of the press is as it was shown during the inquiry, it put flesh on the bone and highlighted some individual stories.

A few people are now going to court for criminal actions and will be well compensated for it, but nothing will really change, it is business as usual.

 

[where to]

So no answer to this, What has or will Leveson achieve? And no answer to this, Do you subscribe to the belief that people who pay money for newspapers have no responsibility in all this?

At this moment in time I doubt it will achieve a lot. Quite why you would care my opinion on that question I don't see.

Sun readers have little responsibility for phone hacking, doubt they would even of known about it.

 

[where to]

 

[1%er]

At this moment in time I doubt it will achieve a lot. Quite why you would care my opinion on that question I don't see.

Sun readers have little responsibility for phone hacking, doubt they would even of known about it.

There would be little point in me coming here if I didn't want to read other peoples opinions.

Phone hacking was done to provide fodder for the people who pay for the paper.

I off out for a beer so not ignoring you

 

[where to]

"Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre is the embodiment of Fleet Street bullying, using his newspaper to peddle his Little-England, curtain-twitching Alan Patridgesque view of the world, which manages to combine sanctimonious, pompous moralising and prurient, voyeuristic, judgmental obsession, like a Victorian father masturbating secretly in his bedroom. This is the side of the press Cameron has sided with."​

Steve Coogan on Paul Dacre.

 

[ViolentPanda]

true; but the recommendation of new press laws (especially the Ofcom bit) is there in black and white. They can either weasel round it passing a law that's neutered by its' small print, talk all legislation down and wait for the public to get bored, or pass leveson in full.
I'm betting 1.

The former is exactly what's happened every time in the last hundred years that any attempt has been made to curb the press. I think we've got adequate proof that they're not interested in complying with non-statutory codes, but the politicians are never going to risk having the media set against them by passing Leveson.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's your expertise.

My view is that the people with the power will hold on to that power and will continue to set the political agenda via their paid for newspapers. What I don't understand is why if there really is such outrage at the press people are still buying it

Because people have to get information from somewhere, and better in a form where you know roughly what the bias is, than from a sources whose bias you're unsure of.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So they'd produce the papers even if no-one brought them? The people who pay for this detritus have no responsibility at all, says a lot about your thinking

An elite network and the old boys network amount to the same thing, your splitting hairs.

Frankly, you're making yourself look daft. None of this is "rocket science".
There is an imperative felt by those with power and/or influence (be they "old boys' networks", "elite networks" or members of the same hunt) to narrativise and naturalise their interests, and the interests of like-minded people. That's done through representing "news" from a particular perspective (a perspective that differs from media outlet to media outlet) that favours the narrative of power. It also means supporting the methods by which the narrative is promulgated. Hence the result.

The people who wanted this inquire have got what they expected, the press will still regulate itself, no change.

6million pounds and the status quo, money well spent

In terms of what it tells us about power, then it likely is money well-spent. It has certainly caused a few more scales to fall from eyes.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So regardless of there content you'd keep paying for them

It's not "regardless of the content" though, is it? By the very fact that cesare knows she's buying a "Georgette Heyer bodice-ripper" she's already aware in general of what the content will be: A romance set in a reasonably historically-accurate background.

 

[Barking_Mad]

I dont like or trust most of the MSM, nor do i trust this or any government to regulate them.

 

[laptop]

A little patience, please, people. Political scandals don't brew in Twitter time.

This is going to grow. I expect and hope it'll be hugely damaging to Cameron.

There are still the trials to come. Leveson's verdict on Cameron's Murdoch ties is going to be reexamined.

And I'm sure Mark Lewis (solicitor to the Dowlers, among others) has more to say at the right time...

 

[two sheds]

There are still the trials to be abandoned because the defendants can't get a fair hearing or procedures have been violated or ...

corrected for you

 

[smokedout]

this is

"Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre is the embodiment of Fleet Street bullying, using his newspaper to peddle his Little-England, curtain-twitching Alan Patridgesque view of the world, which manages to combine sanctimonious, pompous moralising and prurient, voyeuristic, judgmental obsession, like a Victorian father masturbating secretly in his bedroom. This is the side of the press Cameron has sided with."​

Steve Coogan on Paul Dacre.

this is the man who dined out for years on tales of his crazy drugs past and shagging courtney love

 

[butchersapron]

And signed up with murdoch for his book.

 

[smokedout]

didn't know that, you'll be telling us max mosley really was a nazi next