Splendid stuff! Had The Sun still had teeth no doubt the Great British Public would not have rolled over in the most supine way it did, in the face of this arrant Covid nonsense, which has virtually wrecked the country.
Nor would British Army Northern Ireland veterans still be facing vexatious prosecutions for events that took place fifty years ago. One might almost say ‘Sic Gloria Transit Mundi’ for The Sun.
Last edited 2 years ago by ARNAUD ALMARIC
Jonathan Andrews
2 years ago
Fair comment but adolescents are necessary in puncturing the egos and pomposity of the self-righteous.
The self-righteous have more potential for damaging us
Paul Smithson
2 years ago
What a refreshing reminder of how things have changed. How did we go from the ballsy days of the 80s to these woke days of fake compassion? I worked in the Fleet Street area and St Paul’s (EC1 and EC4) in the early 80s and remember an energy that has now completely gone. Yes, it is undeniably much cleaner now and the buildings are often amazing, and there are parts of EC1 that have been transformed from dumps into restaurant-lined pleasure palaces, but it all seems so fake compared to the heady 80s. And then there was the music. Great times.
“How did we go from the ballsy days of the 80s to these woke days of fake compassion?” Imperceptibly, a tiny bit at a time, but always in one direction; domination by a narrow and consistent view of the world. As George Orwell said“In intention, at any rate, the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality.” And they have spread not only through most of the media and all of the BBC, but through universities, and the countless numbers of NGOs, quangos and ‘human resource’ departments so that they reinforce each other, acting as if the true conscience of the nation, and persuading politicians that they represent public opinion, which they can indeed influence.
Paddy Taylor
2 years ago
The metropolitan left has always sneered at media whose readership and viewers they deemed working class. I think much of that contempt is born of fear. I spent 10 very happy years working in one of Murdoch’s companies – SkyTV. At the time we were looked down on as “kids playing at telly” by our counterparts at the BBC and elsewhere, but there’s no doubt that Broadcast TV was never the same again. The scorn aimed at all of Murdoch’s companies continues to this day.
Over the years the idea that Murdoch’s media empire somehow acts as his personal propaganda unit has been repeated so often on the pages of the Guardian and around bien pensant dinner tables that it has almost become an accepted fact.
I’m no apologist for the man, believe me, after 10 years of working at Sky I feel no need to defend him, but a quick look at Murdoch’s range of UK media and a look at the range of opinion across them on the single biggest issue of the last 20 years – Brexit – might be illustrative.
The Sun: Heavily pro-Leave, regularly denigrating EU and Remainers
The Times: Relatively neutral, but opted for pro-Remain
Sky News: Staunchly pro-Remain, constantly belittling Leavers.
If Murdoch was really influencing the editorial lines across his media outlets then he would appear to have been oddly schizophrenic in his opinions.
I have asked the question of those who are convinced of his limitless reach many times – “Do you really think his various media outlets ‘brainwash’ readers or is it more likely that they just reflect the opinions of readers?” and the follow up, “If you think the former then ask yourself, do you believe what you believe simply because the Guardian told you so, or do you read the Guardian because it reflects your worldview?”
Yes, and it is dying as a news source. I’m here on a Brit site looking for better info than I now get from the WSJ. So far, the articles are better, and the Comments are far better.
At the time of the Iraq War, Murdoch owned somewhere upwards of 150 newspapers and media outlets around the work. Every one supported the Iraq War. Are you suggesting that was just a coincidence?
I’m sure you have heard the Murdoch quote where the interviewer asks, about the Iraq War, “Have you shaped that agenda at all?” and Murdoch replies “We tried. […] We supported the Bush policy. […] but our support hasn’t meant very much because clearly public opinion now has grown very very tired of the whole enterprise.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PphNEfglzzc
That sounds to me like an example of Murdoch attempting to shape public opinion. I don’t think it’s a concept invented by The Guardian.
At the time of the Iraq War, Murdoch owned somewhere upwards of 150 newspapers and media outlets around the work. Every one supported the Iraq War. Are you suggesting that was just a coincidence?
At the time, most of the British press strongly supported the government’s action. The Telegraph, The Daily Mail,The Evening Standard and most especially the BBC. not to mention left-leaning journals like the Economist. Even the Guardian & Observer ran multiple pieces parroting the Govt line on Iraq’s nuclear program and WMD arsenal.
Is that “just a coincidence” too? How does that sit with your Murdoch conspiracy?
On issues where there was widespread division – none more so than the Brexit debate, as I highlighted – Murdoch’s media outlets spanned the spectrum of opinion.
I’m struggling to see how that squares with his malign influence shaping how we, as poor cud-chewing herd-followers, think and vote?
“I have asked the question of those who are convinced of his limitless reach many times – “Do you really think his various media outlets ‘brainwash’ readers or is it more likely that they just reflect the opinions of readers?” and the follow up, “If you think the former then ask yourself, do you believe what you believe simply because the Guardian told you so, or do you read the Guardian because it reflects your worldview?””
The left firmly believe that propaganda can sway people (through some mysterious power) to believe this or that. In fact all propaganda is really aimed at the propagandist’s own side. Its purpose is to try and retain waverers and to stop them defecting. If propaganda were really effective in changing minds Boris Johnson would only ever make speeches to young socialists in Liverpool and Corbyn or Starmer to elderly church-going spinsters in rural Oxfordshire.
Where minds change it’s usually a wholly personal process, which bears no relation to what people are told about things, but results from a reinterpreting of their experiences, sometimes over an extended period.
Difficult one this. As a poof of 80s vintage, I well remember the misery that Mr MacKenzie’s Organ meted out to me and my fellow inverts. But then again, I’ve worked my whole life in the media – starting out in a booze and nicotine-stained local newspaper, and including working for a few years very happily at Sky TV.
Personally, I’d take the “robust” working environment vividly described over the silent, anodyne, and frankly, pretty miserable, workplaces of today. Give me an environment where the invective would strip the nicotine-stained paint from the walls, working with men and women who wouldn’t last a minute in today’s right-on workplace.
Admirable of you to be so fair-minded. And yes, I too would take that ‘robust’ working environment any day. It made going into the office a lot more interesting than these days.
ARNAUD ALMARIC
2 years ago
Judging by your cartouche you are not an old fart, but an old hypocrite.
I’m not sure which definition if cartouche you are using but I will grant that it has the onomatapaic sound of a travelling fart.
William Murphy
2 years ago
Sadly, Kelvin omits one of the best Sun stories of the Falklands. The Sun still had a correspondent in Buenos Aires and the luckless man had Kelvin on the phone in full war propaganda mode. One day the correspondent saw some uniformed guys approaching him and imagined a one way trip to prison, if not worse. But the Argentinian guy was a perfect gentleman and smiled at him, commenting that his reports to London were probably not the same as what was published. So the Argentinians had probably been bugging his phone, which may have saved his skin.
Howard Gleave
2 years ago
“They don’t want to upset anybody, which means they don’t please anybody either.”
There are two sides to most things. Sometimes, one can compromise. On other occasions, you can’t. Nor should. It follows that if occasionally you’re not putting someone’s nose out of joint, you’re failing to make a decision.
David Kingsworthy
2 years ago
So is there still any anger in England against Mr. MacKenzie relative to the Scum days after Hillsborough? Or was that only ever Liverpool fans?
There’s still plenty of us who recall the day he put the victim of the Ealing vicarage rape on the front page. And the string of libels against Elton John. And the accusations of paying bent coppers for inside information.
Dustshoe Richinrut
2 years ago
“Be the first to comment!” is followed by an exclamation mark.
Why was the Gotcha headline unsubtly without an exclamation mark? Perhaps the exclamation mark had been removed in the “later editions”. So perhaps moments of guilt and meekness, puncturing all the bravado, had pervaded the offices of The Sun. Or perhaps the exclamation mark was even subtly later added to Gotcha as news came through that a good deal of the crew of the Belgrano had survived. Or perhaps the exclamation mark as befits its placement after the letter a in such an interjection as Gotcha is missing because of the infectious glee with which the Sun was leading the nation and to hell with good punctuation now and then. It’s probably just that last one.
Well, if the Wendy in the article had been in charge and in excitable mode, the exclamation would have gone in.
The pop duo of WHAM! needed its exclamation mark. Even capital letters were not enough.
Nicky Samengo-Turner
2 years ago
Fabulous… !!!
William Murphy
2 years ago
I note that Kevin’s talent for creative fiction is undiminished. Either that or his mental arithmetic is not all that could be desired. Seeing that the British involvement in the war against Japan spanned the period 8 Dec 1941 to 2 Sep 1945, how come his dad spent five years in a POW camp?
Ah yes, the delightful Wendy Henry, ex International Socialist who ratted on her former comrades (and sister) by writing an expose for the News of the World.
Splendid stuff! Had The Sun still had teeth no doubt the Great British Public would not have rolled over in the most supine way it did, in the face of this arrant Covid nonsense, which has virtually wrecked the country.
Nor would British Army Northern Ireland veterans still be facing vexatious prosecutions for events that took place fifty years ago. One might almost say ‘Sic Gloria Transit Mundi’ for The Sun.
Fair comment but adolescents are necessary in puncturing the egos and pomposity of the self-righteous.
The self-righteous have more potential for damaging us
What a refreshing reminder of how things have changed. How did we go from the ballsy days of the 80s to these woke days of fake compassion? I worked in the Fleet Street area and St Paul’s (EC1 and EC4) in the early 80s and remember an energy that has now completely gone. Yes, it is undeniably much cleaner now and the buildings are often amazing, and there are parts of EC1 that have been transformed from dumps into restaurant-lined pleasure palaces, but it all seems so fake compared to the heady 80s. And then there was the music. Great times.
Even the former centre of the known world, El Vino’s, is eerily silent today.
“How did we go from the ballsy days of the 80s to these woke days of fake compassion?”
Imperceptibly, a tiny bit at a time, but always in one direction; domination by a narrow and consistent view of the world. As George Orwell said“In intention, at any rate, the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality.”
And they have spread not only through most of the media and all of the BBC, but through universities, and the countless numbers of NGOs, quangos and ‘human resource’ departments so that they reinforce each other, acting as if the true conscience of the nation, and persuading politicians that they represent public opinion, which they can indeed influence.
The metropolitan left has always sneered at media whose readership and viewers they deemed working class. I think much of that contempt is born of fear.
I spent 10 very happy years working in one of Murdoch’s companies – SkyTV. At the time we were looked down on as “kids playing at telly” by our counterparts at the BBC and elsewhere, but there’s no doubt that Broadcast TV was never the same again. The scorn aimed at all of Murdoch’s companies continues to this day.
Over the years the idea that Murdoch’s media empire somehow acts as his personal propaganda unit has been repeated so often on the pages of the Guardian and around bien pensant dinner tables that it has almost become an accepted fact.
I’m no apologist for the man, believe me, after 10 years of working at Sky I feel no need to defend him, but a quick look at Murdoch’s range of UK media and a look at the range of opinion across them on the single biggest issue of the last 20 years – Brexit – might be illustrative.
The Sun: Heavily pro-Leave, regularly denigrating EU and Remainers
The Times: Relatively neutral, but opted for pro-Remain
Sky News: Staunchly pro-Remain, constantly belittling Leavers.
If Murdoch was really influencing the editorial lines across his media outlets then he would appear to have been oddly schizophrenic in his opinions.
I have asked the question of those who are convinced of his limitless reach many times – “Do you really think his various media outlets ‘brainwash’ readers or is it more likely that they just reflect the opinions of readers?” and the follow up, “If you think the former then ask yourself, do you believe what you believe simply because the Guardian told you so, or do you read the Guardian because it reflects your worldview?”
And Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal was the paper that broke the 1MDB and Theranos frauds.
Yes, and it is dying as a news source. I’m here on a Brit site looking for better info than I now get from the WSJ. So far, the articles are better, and the Comments are far better.
Sadly, two years ago the comments were outstanding, but now the dead, clammy hand of the Censor is ever present. “Nothing lasts forever “.
At the time of the Iraq War, Murdoch owned somewhere upwards of 150 newspapers and media outlets around the work. Every one supported the Iraq War. Are you suggesting that was just a coincidence?
I’m sure you have heard the Murdoch quote where the interviewer asks, about the Iraq War, “Have you shaped that agenda at all?” and Murdoch replies “We tried. […] We supported the Bush policy. […] but our support hasn’t meant very much because clearly public opinion now has grown very very tired of the whole enterprise.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PphNEfglzzc
That sounds to me like an example of Murdoch attempting to shape public opinion. I don’t think it’s a concept invented by The Guardian.
At the time of the Iraq War, Murdoch owned somewhere upwards of 150 newspapers and media outlets around the work. Every one supported the Iraq War. Are you suggesting that was just a coincidence?
At the time, most of the British press strongly supported the government’s action. The Telegraph, The Daily Mail,The Evening Standard and most especially the BBC. not to mention left-leaning journals like the Economist. Even the Guardian & Observer ran multiple pieces parroting the Govt line on Iraq’s nuclear program and WMD arsenal.
Is that “just a coincidence” too? How does that sit with your Murdoch conspiracy?
On issues where there was widespread division – none more so than the Brexit debate, as I highlighted – Murdoch’s media outlets spanned the spectrum of opinion.
I’m struggling to see how that squares with his malign influence shaping how we, as poor cud-chewing herd-followers, think and vote?
“I have asked the question of those who are convinced of his limitless reach many times – “Do you really think his various media outlets ‘brainwash’ readers or is it more likely that they just reflect the opinions of readers?” and the follow up, “If you think the former then ask yourself, do you believe what you believe simply because the Guardian told you so, or do you read the Guardian because it reflects your worldview?””
The left firmly believe that propaganda can sway people (through some mysterious power) to believe this or that. In fact all propaganda is really aimed at the propagandist’s own side. Its purpose is to try and retain waverers and to stop them defecting. If propaganda were really effective in changing minds Boris Johnson would only ever make speeches to young socialists in Liverpool and Corbyn or Starmer to elderly church-going spinsters in rural Oxfordshire.
Where minds change it’s usually a wholly personal process, which bears no relation to what people are told about things, but results from a reinterpreting of their experiences, sometimes over an extended period.
Just so.
Difficult one this. As a poof of 80s vintage, I well remember the misery that Mr MacKenzie’s Organ meted out to me and my fellow inverts. But then again, I’ve worked my whole life in the media – starting out in a booze and nicotine-stained local newspaper, and including working for a few years very happily at Sky TV.
Personally, I’d take the “robust” working environment vividly described over the silent, anodyne, and frankly, pretty miserable, workplaces of today. Give me an environment where the invective would strip the nicotine-stained paint from the walls, working with men and women who wouldn’t last a minute in today’s right-on workplace.
Admirable of you to be so fair-minded. And yes, I too would take that ‘robust’ working environment any day. It made going into the office a lot more interesting than these days.
Judging by your cartouche you are not an old fart, but an old hypocrite.
Is that the best you can come up with?
I’m not sure which definition if cartouche you are using but I will grant that it has the onomatapaic sound of a travelling fart.
Sadly, Kelvin omits one of the best Sun stories of the Falklands. The Sun still had a correspondent in Buenos Aires and the luckless man had Kelvin on the phone in full war propaganda mode. One day the correspondent saw some uniformed guys approaching him and imagined a one way trip to prison, if not worse. But the Argentinian guy was a perfect gentleman and smiled at him, commenting that his reports to London were probably not the same as what was published. So the Argentinians had probably been bugging his phone, which may have saved his skin.
“They don’t want to upset anybody, which means they don’t please anybody either.”
There are two sides to most things. Sometimes, one can compromise. On other occasions, you can’t. Nor should. It follows that if occasionally you’re not putting someone’s nose out of joint, you’re failing to make a decision.
So is there still any anger in England against Mr. MacKenzie relative to the Scum days after Hillsborough? Or was that only ever Liverpool fans?
The latter.
There’s still plenty of us who recall the day he put the victim of the Ealing vicarage rape on the front page. And the string of libels against Elton John. And the accusations of paying bent coppers for inside information.
“Be the first to comment!” is followed by an exclamation mark.
Why was the Gotcha headline unsubtly without an exclamation mark? Perhaps the exclamation mark had been removed in the “later editions”. So perhaps moments of guilt and meekness, puncturing all the bravado, had pervaded the offices of The Sun. Or perhaps the exclamation mark was even subtly later added to Gotcha as news came through that a good deal of the crew of the Belgrano had survived. Or perhaps the exclamation mark as befits its placement after the letter a in such an interjection as Gotcha is missing because of the infectious glee with which the Sun was leading the nation and to hell with good punctuation now and then. It’s probably just that last one.
A headline that big didn’t need space-wasting punctuation.
Well, if the Wendy in the article had been in charge and in excitable mode, the exclamation would have gone in.
The pop duo of WHAM! needed its exclamation mark. Even capital letters were not enough.
Fabulous… !!!
I note that Kevin’s talent for creative fiction is undiminished. Either that or his mental arithmetic is not all that could be desired. Seeing that the British involvement in the war against Japan spanned the period 8 Dec 1941 to 2 Sep 1945, how come his dad spent five years in a POW camp?
Kelvin’s arithmetic maybe a trifle faulty but so is your spelling!
Or is calling him Kevin some form of obscure Irish joke?
Probably inspired by Private Eye christening him Kevin McFilth.
Brilliant. I rate my posts on the number of red minus clicks. Dead fish and all that. I also think it would make a very good (old) Sun headline.
How trolls get paid surely?
Ah yes, the delightful Wendy Henry, ex International Socialist who ratted on her former comrades (and sister) by writing an expose for the News of the World.