to think Sun readers are as lowlife as the hackers

[moogster1a]

That's it really. Anyone who is aware of the Sun's treatment of people such as Millie Dowler's parents, and of Ann Diamond is as complicit and scuzzy as the people at the Sun who condoned it.

No LFW, I am not saying that at all, I'm saying that I can understand why some people would still buy the Sun, and why I wouldn't call them names or judge them for doing so.

I like judgemental people far less than Sun readers.

Because it's AIBU?

Or because "all X are Y" often gets a hard time.

Of course it's perfectly obvious that not all X are Y, and Y is not only found within X (oh to be able to post a Venn diagram).

There are probably other examples of non-scuzzy Sun readers.

I'd like a Venn diagram too.

I'm taking scuzzy in this context to mean a person who 'doesn't care at all about the lives of other people being ruined by the press as long as it provides entertainment to me.'

So it seems rather paradoxical then to claim that there are Sun readers who do care. If they care, why are they buying the Sun?

Obviously we've had the example of the man who was a triple amputee, but I doubt that is the justification for most Sun readers, who are presumably not triple amputees with inadequate housing.

I don't understand anyone who reads any, red top tabloid, not just the Sun. They are all a mystery to me. I worry about the average brain cell count, gullibility, and mindset of the general British public sometimes, and God knows I'm no high-brow lofty intellectual.

Personally I dont read any tabloid papers, mainly because they are full of shit but I would never judge all the readers of said papers as scuzzy.

Hmmmm. I think it is naive in the extreme to think that this practice didn't go on at other papers. Secondly, if you boycott the Sun (and I am genuinely interested to see what those who boycott the Sun because of Hillsborough do here) do you also boycott The Times, Sky etc.?

And yes, OP I do think YABU.

I read the Sun and The Sun on Sunday does that make me a double low life.

INMM, personal attacks aren't allowed on MN.

Wasabi, for me it was anything News international, but I have folded and allowed Sky in my home . I'm not proud of myself but I'm not scuzzy either.

SeaHorses: I would also suggest that every paper that prints any news story, incl celeb gossip will have ruined someone's life somewhere. I doubt there is a paper in the whole world that hasn't had to retract at least one story, or post one apology. Why single out Sun readers? Why not any paper?

Not a personal attack. It's the same as saying IMO anyone who reads stories about paedophilia is scuzzy

www.anfieldroad.com/dont-buy-the-sun/

that is all I have to say about The Scum

I buy it every day. Not because I support anything they do, I like some of the stories they run and the ones I dont like I dont bother reading.

I hardly think Im comparable to the hackers but you think I am. I couldnt give a fart tbh.

Wasabipeanut - yes the lot of them. won't even click on a link.

Although will watch LFC matches if on Sky but not paying for it - which doesn't make it ok but...

LED, because the Sun is renowned for going after people, often quite ordinary people doing responsible jobs like nursing or teaching, and making up or wildly exaggerating stories about them to sell papers. Those people do not have the money or protection to deal with that kind of press attention.

I cannot think of another newspaper that does the same thing to the same degree, or uses such extreme methods to do it.

And there is very little in the Sun apart from things that are nobody else's business. It contains very little actual news. So it must be that a very large proportion of its readership buy it because they like to see people's lives ruined and they like to see people brought down.

Moogs - I did not mean the thread was a personal attack. I meant that that there was no point in INMM asking if people thought she was a double low life. There's no point asking the question because if people responded yes, that would be a personal attack, IMO.

Fair play FoofFighter, I absolutely respect why you would boycott Murdoch products but that link only refers to The Sun. The Sun, like most print media, is contributing less and less to Murdochs business - if you are going to boycott because of Hillsborough the argument needs to be consistent

I used to be a journalist and I quite like The Sun. I don't buy it but will have a chuckle at it if I find it on the train. It's a sub's paper - and the headlines are often brilliant, it's irreverent and DP tells me it is one of the only papers which bothers to get the sport factually correct unlike Rhe Guardian!

That said, a friend who was a very good sub left because she couldn't bear the stories any longer - she described it as 'dirty' and I couldn't stomach it either.

My Dad was a union shop steward, he wouldn't allow it in his house after Wapping. Hillsborough just cemented it.

It was the NOTW that hacked into Milly Dowler's phone - not The Sun.

It's a good paper that does the job it's there to do

But the readers obviously want to see those things, otherwise they would buy a different paper
And yes, people who don't read the Sun who want to see that are also scuzzy, but that wasn't the point of my conversation...

But you admitted to reading the Sun online so obviously you must want to see those things too...no?

The hypocrisy over newspapers on this forum is hilarious.

People slag off Newspapers all the time and then admit they read them online...with the excuse "Well at least I don't pay for it"

Errmmm yes you do, through the advertising revenue because you've added to the number of hits the site gets!

I never said I read it online. I said I've clicked on links to it maybe 3 times in my life when people have sent them to me. Certainly don't read it online.

you could say that about every business. Businesses do appalling things.

And Seahouses - newspapers are a tough environment and The Sun is no exception. But there are horror stories about all of them, ask anyone who has done shifts on the Daily Mail, or The Mirror and I doubt Guardian journalists are given an easy ride.