R.I.P. News of the World

[144man]

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Let's hope that News Corporation's bid for control of BSkyB gets scuppered.

[ms_m]

144man, don't you find it ironic it wasn't the rubbish that brought the paper to it's knees but the methods used to obtain the rubbish?

I read the paper had been in existence since 18 something....and it was always somewhat of a sensationalized paper.

I don't like Murdoch and all he represents but it seems as if he has a pretty good relationship with Brown and I just read an article where Brown defended his decision to hire the ex editor.

I hope this is the end for Murdoch and he doesn't get his hands on cable there but I'm not so sure this hacking thing will be what brings him down.....for all our sakes, I hope so but I'm not holding my breath.

[tamla617]

ms_m
see the thread identicle to this on the top forum. N.I. aint out the woods yet!

btw news of the screws was only fit for toilet paper or bin liners etc.

[mr soul]

tamla617 I was wondering when someone would mention the papers colloquial name...not bad 3 posts in lol...it's a pity the Sun can't go the same way...we can but dream.

[tamla617]

mr soul
glad to see it gone.but i do feel sorry for the people that were just trying to earn a living and did nothing wrong.and now will have to look for work with the employment opportunities shrinking.

the current bun?i'm sure their sales are down to.but generally their readership doesnt care unless they've got somethings in a double d cup!

[ms_m]

I understand what you guys are saying but for a paper to be around for a hundred years, a lot of someones were reading and buying it...even though I did read their subscriptions had gone down over the years but still.... a lot of people are out of work that didn't have anything to do with the executive decisions hehind the hacking.... I honestly don't see how that's anything to be happy about.

Murduch didn't shut the paper down out of any sense of moral duty but because he was losing money hand over fist. Advertisers were bailing and the stock was going down...this was a business move to save his cable deal...I don't know if it will work or not but I find the entire scandal fishy. I remember this hacking thing going on for months....suddenly people are outraged because of murder and mayhem?

This was wrong the day it was reported...the fact that only celebs and politicians were seemingly affected didn't seem to matter so much...but hey...whatever works I guess.

[ms_m]

sorry Tamala617 didn't see your last post...but we seem to be on the same page.

[mr soul]

the irony here is the person who should be losing her job isn't...ain't it always the way.

[ms_m]

Mr. Soul I read they call Rebekah Brooks the 5th Murdoch child. Based on what I've read she is his female clone and fiercely loyal. She also seems to be the one that was able to get him access into the world of Cameron. He's rewarding her loyalty apparently.

I thought this was a very intriguing commentary....maybe all of them will find themselves in court...then again, maybe not

Andreas Whittam Smith: Bullies and cowards who have killed a newspaper – for nothing

I believe that Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch and even Rupert Murdoch himself will find themselves in court
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...g-2309532.html

[tamla617]

i understand what and why you've said that.i was all wrong but somethings a more wrong even if they exactly the same thing[[hacking)
politicians and celebs have been on the recieving end of this rag for ever.sting opperations,fake sheik etc.and most of them have been rightly caught,taking money.

celebs court the media when it suits,set up and let the press know when and where they're going to be somewhere.so i think most people arent really too bothered.press and celebs,celebs and the press,they feed off each other.

politicians are right in the sights of the press all the time.they have to be on their guard,behave correctly all the time.

the thing here is that the phone hacking is outrageous to all and sundry.the 1st 2 groups politicians and celebs can and will afford the legal bill to take the paper to court.get publicity,hunky dory big photo shoot on the court steps more money.
and we've seen actors and mp's jumping up and down with disgust at the victims parents being hacked etc.because it sounds better than saying the same thing about themselves.
so although its all just as illegal,the "rich and famous"wont get the same level of sympathy as the parents of the soham girls or minnie dowlers mum and dad.thats what tipped the paper over the edge.advertisers representing "family focused"companies could no longer be associated with the filth walking through the news of the world press room.

[theboyfromxtown]

Mrs M-Good post

I'll add that the NOTW has always shown great care for our soldiers fighting abroad. So when it was revealed that the families of soldiers who had died for the country, were also being hacked, it hit right at the heart of the readership of the NOTW. That was very worrying to those advertisers that were aiming at a similar audience.

[ms_m]

thanks theboyfrommxtown.....the rule of thumb for any business is to find a need and fill it. This paper did just that for over a hundred years...even when Murdock added his extra sleaze....and I don't even need to comment about advertisers...as we all know, the almighty dollar does not work in mysterious ways.....

Tamala, comments like this have always annoyed me....

celebs court the media when it suits

being a celeb or a politician doesn't mean you do not have the right to a private life. You also should have the FREEDOM to pick and choose when and how much of that private life you want to expose to the public. That freedom is too often taken away because of the public's insatiable need to know every detail while justifying that need by blaming the celeb for being a celeb.... again....whatever!

[ms_m]

You know, the more I think about this the more annoyed I become. In this day and age too many people think short term and ignore long term consequences. Common sense tells me that if an executive is willing to hack the phone of a celeb ...he/she will have no reason to stop there....this scandal has proven that. Public officials, celebs....are flesh and blood human beings with feelings and emotions just like regular folk.

The hacking was wrong from day one but it was glossed over because of who the victims were, or who people thought it was confined to...now look where glossing over this has lead.

[tamla617]

ms_m
i know they are.but the saying you dont like ,is a true one."when it suits" being the opperative words,you cant undo it.
when they dont want the press "there" the press doesn't know when to stop.the press think the celebs owe them one for all the good publicity.when a celeb wont play ball.the press get rough with them either making half truths or catching them at it.or they keep picking at them.they build em up and knock em down.
what you said is un workable the celebs say yes and the papers give em everything then no.the papers say ok.not a chance.
celebs that court the press,tip em off through someone else.the paper doesnt always know that someone is the "star's" machine working.so how does your system work when the paper hasnt permission but the celeb has helped it all happen and wants it in the paper.
the press should tell the celebs to sling there collective hooks,they wont,sells papers.the celebs need absolutly need the press.they wont stop the press.
not too worried about them.its the poor sods that lost loved ones in horrendous ways and get this.they didnt ever want the press.
but "when it suits" really is an accurate description.its what you said in a shorter way.
i agree with the idea,but it wouldnt work

[ms_m]

tamal617, on a small scale I'm one of the people you are talking about...a person who courts the press to gain publicity for a client and trust, I do my job very well....I'm also the bad cop to their good cop and protect their privacy like a grizzly protects their cub.

You dayum skimpy we go after publicity...it's the nature of the gig and competition is fierce but that still DOES NOT justify the public's NEED to know every single detail of their private lives.

[ms_m]

Whether it's a celeb or the average Joe on the street....whether it's hacking, going through a persons garbage or simply making crap up.....walk a mile in that person's shoes for while and I guarantee....the view from the other side of the lens will look a whole lot different!

[tamla617]

i agree.but its the switch on,switch off nature of the relationship.how can you control it in a legal way.
a bouncer/security can physically protect his principle.this is something else.and when you try and negotiate the go,no go areas with the media.it must be a compromise.give some,get some surely.

never understood the need to know all the other crap about them anyway.
if they sing is it good or bad.actor good or bad performance.sportsman good or bad,end of.not interested who they sleep with,what razor they use.which home perm they use[[can you imagine a star perming at home?)
take money to lie to to me.
we do agree but its just unworkable

[ms_m]

You refuse to accept the public's responsibility in all of this. Switch on , switch off...so what....once they switch off that should be the end of it until THEY CHOOSE to switch on again...but that's not how it works because the public won't accept that switching off....but you want to blame that on the celeb?

[theboyfromxtown]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-yavahKoF4

This was the UK's Clement Fraud having a go at Rona Barrett who I assume is one of those "gossip" queens

[ms_m]

Tamala 617...look at it this way...as a regular person there are days you simply do not want to be bothered...is that not your right? There are things you are willing to share with others and there are things you are not....is that not your right?

Why should it be any different simply because a person is in the public eye as a profession? Publicity is part of that profession but that doesn't mean they have to give up every aspect of their privacy and the sooner the public stops expecting that type of commitment from them, the sooner people like Murdoch and the paparazzi will be out of business.

Stars of old went to their graves with many of their secrets back in the day and they also courted publicity when it suited them.....the thing that has changed is the public's insatiable attitude. Fix that, vent about that, make an effort to change that...problem solved!

[ms_m]

Gossip and publicity have always been around and yeah Barrett and Hedda Hopper were top dogs in their day but it was never as bad as it is now.

[tamla617]

switch on come an get me, sell my music,films what ever.thanks. now poke off.i'll phone you when i got something else to promote.or get a friend to to phone you so you'll be there when i'm not expecting you.

the public are lemmings they get force fed by both sides thru the same orifice.the public dont jump up and down because so and so isnt in the paper btw.

[ms_m]

yeah...the media is sticking a gun to the public's head to MAKE them read/watch/listen to all their crap....[[can you see the rolling of my eyes here)

responsibility is a two way street!

[ms_m]

The part you seem to be ignoring is the part where the celeb should have the RIGHT to choose what's put out there and what's not....when it's put out there and when it's not. They should have that right....you have it, I have it but because of their profession that yes they chose, they should no longer have that right to pick and choose....BS

You want to sell something, you advertise...how else will people know about it but that doesn't mean you give up all your rights.....it's the notion that people think it does that makes Murdock and his ilk successful. If a celeb wants it out there...great, their life, their decision...but when that decision is taken away from them when that choice is no longer theirs to make...they have every right to say NO!

[theboyfromxtown]

The souvenir edition is a collection of notable achievements over the past 168 years.

[ms_m]

It really is a shame it had to go out like this. I agree with the article that says it could have been restructured. 168 years....wow!

[ms_m]

The culture secretary is seeking fresh advice from regulators on News Corp’s takeover bid for BSkyB, amid the News of the World phone hacking scandal.

Jeremy Hunt has written to media regulator Ofcom after the 168-year-old paper was shut down.
Mr Hunt requested a new assessment of the bid by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, which also owned the paper.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg called on Mr Murdoch to “do the decent thing” and reconsider the bid.
Meanwhile, the BBC understands there is evidence the News of the World [[NoW) was paying a Metropolitan Police Royal Protection Squad officer for the contact details of senior members of the royal family, their friends and their relations.
The BBC’s Business Editor Robert Peston said he understood the paper found e-mails in 2007 which included requests by a reporter for sums of about £1,000 to pay police officers in the royal protection branch for the information.
In other developments:

The Labour leader Ed Miliband said David Cameron’s version of events on his employment of former NoW editor Andy Coulson as his official spokesman “did not add up”. He said he wanted the PM to explain to the House of Commons apparent inconsistencies.

The BBC understands Rebekah Brooks could be questioned by police as a witness, rather than a suspect. Mrs Brooks has denied having had any knowledge of hacking while she was editor from 2000 to 2003.
The chairman of the media select committee, Tory MP John Whittingdale, said the BSkyB bid should be put on hold in the present “poisonous atmosphere”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-14101866

…because this was initially swept under the rug [[2 years ago) and because Murdoch was involved, I didn’t see any reason to hope the latest flap would not be swept under the rug as well. That doesn’t seem to be the case and with Cameron being all in the mix, this could become rather explosive.

The talking heads here in the US refuse to admit this could affect his operations here but with trust, reliability and possible criminal issues involved, they may be wrong.

I'm almost afraid to think about it for fear of jinxing the possibility that Murdoch could be made irrelevant [[or worse) once and for all.

[144man]

Ms_M,
Yes, I too am sorry that the workforce lost their jobs through bad executive decisions, and agree that the closure is a cynical ploy to salvage the BSkyB takeover. Even before this scandal blew up, I thought the deal would put too much power in the hands of one organization.
I'd like to be a fly on the wall when David Cameron has his weekly meeting with the Queen, now that it has been alleged that the police were leaking details about the royal family. It has also been reported that there were attempts to hack the cellphones of the victims of the London bombings, and that is unforgivable. The sooner the judge presiding over the government enquiry is appointed the better as the longer it takes the greater the chance of incriminating emails being destroyed.
The issue of celebrity privacy goes way beyond the News of the World crisis, and deserves a separate discussion in another thread. As you so rightly said,"It wasn't the rubbish that bought the paper to its knees, but the methods used to obtain the rubbish".

[ms_m]

This is definitely turning into a bit of a sticky wicket and I'd like to see it bring down Murdoch but one can only wish and wait.

I agree the celeb issue goes beyond this paper but my initial point was...the issue should have been properly addressed when it first surfaced as oppose to sweeping it under the rug, because it was assumed only politicians and celebs were involved.

I stand by my statement but sure, another thread discussing the issue beyond the confines of the News of the World would be great. It's an issue I am quite passionate about and have a personal interest in.

[144man]

David Cameron has declared the Press Complaints Commission is to be replaced, and announced an inquiry into media ethics.The boundaries between personal privacy and press freedom are likely to be redrawn as a result. If we wish to have a free press which uses its power wisely and responsibly, we need to be eternally vigilant.

[144man]

The scandal is spreading to other newspapers in the Murdoch empire. Ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown now alleges that his bank accounts, family medical records and legal files were illicitly accessed by agents of The Sun and the Sunday Times.

Where will this all end? There is even the suggestion that News International are deliberately leaking information to the BBC ahead of any inquiry in order to alert the miscreants, thereby giving them the opportunity to destroy the evidence.

[bankhousedave]

The News of the World is just a symptom in this. The world's media has been poisoned by the vile and corrupt Murdoch. He has such power that the world image most people have is his own disgusting grunting subhuman attitude writ large. The people who worked for him should have had the decency to become pimps or something more sociable, but they are the scapegoats for his toilet paper media. No one did anything they weren't commanded to do by him or one of his parasite fleas. The papers were there before he was, just as the UK was there before Blair nd the US before Bush. The countries nd the papers are the wrong targets. The criminals are those who direct their activities. Murdoch has not just presided over a few UK newspapers. His disproportionate position as sucker-up to idiot polititians, incompetent police and other frauds has lowered the quality of life on this whole planet. He has done more harm than any of the 'terrorists' our government would like us to think they are protecting us from. There is no single greater enemy to mankind. Chase him from our media and our television before he poisons another generation.

[ms_m]

Hi Dave, good to see ya.

I agree 100% but the scary part, it's not only Murdoch. Murdoch is easy to target because he's openly out there and in your face about what he does [[even when he uses others to show that face)

Media in general [[with exceptions) has been co opted by greed and the need for power...a need to control... including many of the so call established outlets and corporate heads.

But integrity in general often looks like it's going the way of the dinosaur...interesting times we're living in Dave, very interesting times.

[bankhousedave]

You are right of course, M, but the horrible Rupert is the model from which all the other oafish dolts take their guidance. Out with all of them. Let's go back to journalists who care, who are interested, who didn't come to the event with their story already written, who reperesent their readership. Those people still exist, but they won't get the jobs from toxic bastards like Murdoch, or any of the hopeless idiots who follow his trail of incompetence. It won't resolve quickly. The BBC and ITN in the UK have become fraudulent peddlers of non-news in an effort to compete with the universal liar, instead of responding to the needs of their viewers. The same betrayal has been going on across the world since we have been afflicted by News International. I repeat what I said above - no terrorist has done half the damage on this planet as that achieved by Murdoch and his hired zombies. Strip him of his power to deprave and destroy and we will be looking at a brighter day.

[ms_m]

You may be right Dave but here in America, I saw signs of the Murdoch mentality long before he ever hit the scene. The only difference, it was subtle and wrapped in a red, white and blue flag with stars and stripes....shrugs...

Murdoch or no Murdoch Dave, I'll always look for a brighter day...that's just how I'm made.

It's late over there...get some sleep my friend!

[144man]

FOR CONSPIRACY THEORISTS
Sean Hoare, the journalist who blew the whistle on the phone-hacking scandal, was yesterday found dead in his home in unexplained circumstances.
Friends say that Mr Hoare, who was only in his mid-40s, was terrified that someone from the Government was coming to get him.

QUESTION FOR BRITISH CONSTITUTION EXPERTS
If Cameron were to resign, would the Queen have to ask Nick Clegg to try to form a government?

[theboyfromxtown]

Without consulting the books, this is how I would see the situation.

Clegg acts as the deputy when Cameron is not available. So if Cameron were to resign, Clegg simply takes over the PM position until such time as a democratic process for a change takes place.

[jobeterob]

Yes, I think you'd have an interim leader until there were a Leadership Convention.

But would the interim leader "necessarily" be the deputy?

Canada has the same kind of system and sometimes the deputy leader wants to run for the leadership..........so he is "out" as Interim Leader.

But your Clegg man is from a different party, right???

The world is in a mood for kicking people out and they should kick out Murdoch and Cameron.

[bankhousedave]

I've got my steel toecaps on, Jobete. Somebody paint on the target.

[soulster]

Now, if we could only get rid of Faux news!

[dianesfan_1965]

Now, if we could only get rid of Faux news!

That's for damn sure!