Who even buys The Sun in 2023?

[Brrrrrrrrrrrr]

In light of the current situation and given The Suns track record of generally being a terrible newspaper with diabolical unscrupulous form to manipulate stories, I am curious to know who actually buys it and reads it?

It’s a genuine question because what is bothering me is the disturbing thought that there are people who read The Sun and actually believe what it publishes or even thinks it’s ok to publish it in the first place. Anyone who buys it is essentially saying they are ok with the methodology and lengths The Suns journalists go to in order to get a front page story and I’m wondering what it is they get from absorbing that kind of bad energy every day?

That the Nation and the press were so distracted by this story whilst other far more newsworthy issues were being ignored or lightly reported on is in itself mind boggling and frightening, they literally created a storm out of very little and scores of people were drawn in like it was a cliff hanger from Line of Duty.

Surely it’s time all the major retailers reconsidered selling it, what good does it actually bring to society? I agree there’s the freedom of speech aspect and this is my opinion but the tactics they employ to manipulate and cause divide amongst people are truly despicable and outdated, is it just ok and accepted to be this low?

So you think if the complaints are established that doesn’t an assessment of his work as “impeccable”??
Im going to be charitable here and I assume it’s some time since you left the workplace.

Charitable isn’t the word I’d use. Inability to differentiate between separate issues is nearer the mark. Or argumentative.

Speaking as someone who has been a victim of workplace misconduct by individuals in senior roles, I find this view absurd and really quite appalling.
noone who does this on the workplace is “impeccable” at their job. If these allegations are justified it doesn’t matter how smarmily he presents. He’s not impeccable.

How you behave to your fellow employees isn’t a separate issue. It’s part of how you do your job.
its 2023. Everyone knows this stuff now. Except, it seems, you. Incredible.

Of course he’s not impeccable, nobody ever said he was. His work most definitely is. The modern inability to separate the quality of someone’s work from that of their character is ridiculous. His presentation isn’t “smarmy”, it’s highly professional with sensitivity and gravitas. His career has obviously gone now and it’s the BBC’s loss as much as his. There are no winners here.

I wonder if the issue is that a publication with circa one million purchasers and indeed other publications with a lower sales figure get disproportionate coverage by larger media outlets?

Luckily for us in this country we are free to choose what we want to read. Unlike in many other parts of the world. There is room for a whole range of newspapers to cater for every opinion even if others don't agree. If you don't approve of the Sun or the Mail, don't buy or read them. Simple. I would argue that much of the rumour and speculation in circulation is spread by social media, including MN.

But, hasn’t he been accused of soliciting explicit photos from a vulnerable 17 year old?
Why wouldn’t that be a news story?

It was through only fans apparently.

Jimmy Saville. End of.

..because he's considered left leaning. If this were Laurence Fox, for instance, MN would be calling for his head.

I haven’t really been that up on the news story about HE. I’ve always liked him as a presenter with his unapologetically Welsh accent instead of received pronunciation.

The way I see it is that he screwed up. If you are a public figure on a very good salary, you need to be much more careful about what you do than ordinary people because of the interest in kiss and tell stories. Before the Leveson Inquiry, that was really understood and publicists like Max Clifford had a lot of celebs by the balls because he could nuke their careers in disgrace if they didn’t negotiate with him. I think the resultant privacy laws has made celebs complacent.

In the scheme of things HE hasn’t done anything illegal, so I don’t think his career should be toast. Hugh Bonnerville managed to weather his embarrassment and is seen as a national treasure isn’t he?

I know what HE did is seedy and grim, but I think that we’d be horrified if we saw what most men type into a search engine. This HE business will probably blow over.

No. Granted there was a lot of unseemly speculation before the name of Presenter X was released. Subsequent to that, there are some posters capable of seeing the bigger picture in relation to these situations: the power and impunity granted to the establishment and old boys' network, and the further gagging of the free press, which would only continue the cycle as ironically they are the only ones to call them to account.

The Sun is a repulsive rag, and it says much about the current state of society that they and the tabloid media, of all, people are the sole recourse for illuminating this behaviour. No one else is interested: the police, judiciary, entertainment industry and political elite are all far too busy sticking their fingers in their ears and going 'la, la, la'.

It's vital that people continue to question these issues. Was anyone else following #MeToo?

These are far bigger and more serious matters than individual men who can't help but privilege their own sexual proclivities. There is a system in place which enables them to act with impunity. And no, this isn't about criminality, but about people with public personae, power or influence bringing their profession into disrepute.

The Sun, for all their many failings, did not act irresponsibly on this occasion. They judged (correctly IMO) that this was an important public interest issue and made a considered decision to publish and be damned. They'd have known perfectly well how fellow-protectors of powerful establishment males would have reacted to this decision. As this site has lately proved, there are a hell of a lot of them about.

So much for the principle of #TimesUp.

That’s pretty much where I am too. I really hope you’re right about his career but such has the level of vitriol surrounding this been it’s going to take a hell of a lot to retrieve it. Like I said earlier, there are no winners here.

In the scheme of things HE hasn’t done anything illegal, so I don’t think his career should be toast.

Why the hell shouldn't it?

I would not have to break the law to be fired from my organization.

I could have a relationship with a student of mine - they are all over eighteen therefore adults in the eyes of the law - without breaking the law. (We'll leave aside the attitude of any sentient human being with a conscience, that this would be grim, absolutely disgusting behaviour, irrespective of any legal sanction).

There is a clear power imbalance there. I can pass or fail these people's work. It would be a disgusting abuse of power, a breach of trust, and an immediately sackable offence. As it rightly should be.

But hey, I wouldn't have committed a criminal offence. Does this mean I should be free to do as I like?

Same rules apply even more so to someone with the responsibility of a supposedly responsible public face.

Can you explain to me how someone’s work can be impeccable if they are found guilty of misconduct to their fellow employees? How is their behaviour in the workplace not part of their work?
this is absolute clown world

I’m not engaging with you any more on this subject. You’re just arguing for the sake of it now.

“A current employee said they were left with a 'cold shudder' after receiving messages about their appearance, while an ex-staff member claimed 'late night' texts which included 'kisses' constituted an 'abuse of power' by the newsreader.”

This is perfectly reasonable to discuss in the public domain. Why are we pretending this behaviour is ok? Because he votes in an approved direction? Or because a newspaper we don’t like broke the story?

Why are we pretending this behaviour is ok?

We’re not. Currently it’s no more than allegation and if true it’s clearly unacceptable. That has no impact on the quality of his past output or performance which is what most people mean when they use the term “work”.

Free speech was welcomed when it came to Gary Lineker. Now, it's being questioned. Funny that. The left never fail to amuse with their double standards.

But that can be said by almost all people who do things like this. In fact, it’s all part of their predatory behaviour. It enables it.
The fact they’re good at their job and top of their game makes it easier for them to prey on people below them.

For example, the men who worked for Oxfam and went to Haiti, only to abuse women there, were presumably very good at their jobs.
But their aptitude to do a job well shouldn’t override discussion and criticism of predatory behaviour.

As I said I haven’t really been immersed in the scandal, I am waiting until the truth is all there.

There is a big difference between sexual misconduct in the workplace which involves clients, customers or fellow employees where there is a power imbalance. So Philip Scofield shagging a young runner he works with is much worse, from the perspective of employee conduct, in my opinion, than someone going on Only Fans or whatever in their own time outside the workplace.

I absolutely hate Only Fans and Pornhub and all these sites that facilitate what I consider to be sexual abuse and sexual exploitation at arms length, but the internet has liberalised this stuff. We used to have censorship laws in this country, so most of what is accessible after a couple of clicks now would have been illegal, ‘under the counter’ content back then. Within this liberalised climate, which has normalised a lot of behaviours that I personally condemn, I don’t think it is realistic to expect people, well, men mainly, to not stretch out and occupy this liberalised space.

Banning a newspaper because of not liking it?

If you don't like it, don't buy it.

The apologists continue to scrape the bottom of the barrel.