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this is my opinion but the tactics they employ to manipulate and cause divide amongst people are truly despicable and outdated, is it just ok and accepted to be this low?

It’s not an evasion; it’s a perfectly sensible point about public interest. It’s well established that privacy considerations can be outweighed by public interest considerations.
i am not saying that’s the case here, necessarily; I think it’s a debatable point. What definitely is in the public interest is how bad the publicly funded broadcaster still is, despite its history, at investigating allegations against its “top talent”.

That was published after the investigation. The allegations had been analysed and the result was suspension. It appears that Roberts had held his hands up. Obviously once a conclusion is reached there is no issue with publishing the results. We’re not talking about that here, the investigation is still underway.

It’s not a criminal investigation and we’re as certain as we can be now, given what the police has said, that there won’t be one. So clearly no one thinks there’s any legal reason not to report these matters.
if the BBC had handled this better, they could probably have concluded this before it became public knowledge. They had plenty of time and opportunity.

Ok..
This one then

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/21/conservative-tory-mp-rob-roberts-accused-of-asking-intern-to-fool-around-texts

Are you seriously saying the public should not be made aware of any allegations?

That was before the investigation. 🙄

Oh I am sorry @Blossomtoes I didn’t realise you were so sensitive. Especially after you’ve levelled much worse accusations on here about the intelligence of people.

Anyway, I’ll try again.

That was the point of my question.

Should the Guardian not be permitted to report on the allegations of a Tory MP inappropriately messaging staff, in subordinate positions, before a full investigation has taken place?

I’m not sure there’s much difference, is there? What you seem to be objecting to is breach of privacy, at least until wrongdoing has been proven. That applies here too, I think.
you’ve painted yourself into a silly corner here. It’s completely uncontroversial to say that privacy considerations can be overridden where the public interest dictates they should be.

I was going to list some right leaning presenters, who people would have been quick to condemn. I then realised I was struggling to find one.

And a little hint - “the public interest” does not equate to exposing people you happen. To disapprove of while protecting those whose charming presentational skills you so greatly enjoy.

BBC presenters,I should add.

Should the Guardian not be permitted to report on the allegations of a Tory MP inappropriately messaging staff, in subordinate positions, before a full investigation has taken place

No, I don't actually think it should. Unless and until a court or tribunal has found allegations to be justified, no. People think there's no smoke without fire and even if you are found not guilty, mud sticks. In some other countries you can't name people until they have been found guilty.

And I don't think the usual argument that it encourages other people to come forward is good enough. People should report things themselves, not wait for someone else to do it and then hang on their coat-tails (while accepting that many people DID report Jimmy Saville and were ignored).

However, I also accept that sometimes media attention is the only way to get an employer or governing body to act. It is a difficult one.

Twitter seems to think that Fiona Bruce is right-leaning. I don't know, I only see her on the tail-end of Antiques Roadshow!

Many of Jimmy Saville’s victims only dared to come forward once they found out they were not the only ones and they would be believed.

There was no trial in his case because he was dead.

He’s never had the opportunity to “defend himself”

Should this not have been made public?

You should watch Questiontime sometime. She leans so far to the right she nearly falls over.

You should watch Question Time some time. Her bias is obvious.
There was also the time she brushed aside Stanley Johnson breaking his wife's nose by quickly saying 'It was a one-off ' and changing the subject.

Well you're definitely racist, you've make that quite clear.

Very good point. Bet no one replies to that one.