Sabotage Times, We can't Concentrate so Why Should You?Sabotage Times, We can't Concentrate so Why Should You?

image description
image description

A Leeds United Fan On Why Uncle Ken Is The Right Man For The Job

image description

Alberto Contador And Professional Cycling's Drug Apologists

image description

The Dentist Hygeine Scandal You Have To Know About


If You Buy The Sun On Sunday Hang Your Head In Shame

by David Robinson
25 February 2012 59 Comments

The 9 months that have passed since the NOTW closed down have flown by, and just when you though Rupert Murdoch had may have gained some sort of moral compass, The Sun on Sunday is born - here is why you shouldn't buy it.

Just a short while ago Rupert Murdoch closed down The News of The World in the aftermath of the phone hacking scandal. The antipodean old dodger looked a broken man in front of the camera’s and subsequently the Parliamentary Select Committee. When he said it was the worst time of his life and that he was truly sorry I pretty much believed him. When I say believed him, I mean that I thought he had finally been forced to see the damage to real lives caused by an under managed and out of control tabloid press and he knew it was just plain wrong.

So although I had little sympathy for him, I thought that his motives for closing the paper were at least partly well motivated. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not stupid, clearly with such a damaged brand advertisers would be running in the opposite direction, and to salvage some crumbs of credibility for the overall image of News International it was a sensible business decision to close the paper. But I did think that there was a small part of Mr Murdoch that realised the paper had to close for ethical reasons as well.

How stupidly naïve of me, I see that now of course.

Less than a year later we are to witness the birth of the Sun on Sunday. No need to explain what the paper will stand for or where it will fit into the pantheon of news choice already on offer, we know exactly what type of content will grace its pages. Not that my problem is the content, just making the point that we are unlikely to see Pulitzer Prizes in the Head office trophy cabinet, it’s another tabloid, just like the old tabloid. The motivation for publishing is not to fill a new gap in any market or bring fresh new insights into anything, it’s simply to generate revenue and market share lost when the NOTW closed last year.

How can News International justify a re-launch now and still say that they fully understand the distress they caused and wrong doing they allowed and that they understand what they must do to make amends?

So what? Well I have a huge problem with the ‘new’ Murdoch offspring, because it isn’t new at all, it’s the News of The World with a different title, and that’s just wrong!

No decent amount of time has passed since the demise of the NOTW, certainly not enough time to pay respect to families like the Dowler’s or those of deceased soldiers that may have had their phones hacked, not even nearly enough time.

Rupert Murdoch presumably doesn’t understand this, or if he does then he doesn’t care. He’s lost 9 months of newspaper and advertising sales, he’s said sorry, faced the music, and there’s nothing remotely illegal in what he’s doing, so he can now start up the machinery and get on with the job of recouping that lost market share.

However long might have passed since the NOTW closed last July, the actual proper Sun is currently facing investigations of the most serious kind. How can News International justify a re-launch now and still say that they fully understand the distress they caused and wrong doing they allowed and that they understand what they must do to make amends? How can re-launching the same old ‘tits and vicars in love tryst triangle’ tabloid possibly make amends?

He’s allowed to do it of course, but what does it say about him as a person and the corporate culture at News International? Can they not see that sometimes something permissible under the law is still just wrong to do?

It goes further than that. No doubt the Murdoch’s have done their homework and built the business plan. They will know pretty accurately what kind of advertising revenues they can expect, they will have sounded out the big players, tested the water to see if those advertisers with the big bucks are still squeamish about associating themselves with a tainted brand. Apparently those advertisers have got over their distress because Murdoch wouldn’t be launching if he thought the ad revenue wouldn’t be forthcoming. What does that say about the corporate culture of the advertisers?

How can re-launching the same old ‘tits and vicars in love tryst triangle’ tabloid possibly make amends?

But hang on! Why are the advertisers saying they’ll place their ads with the new Sun on Sunday? Because they too have done their research and they know that we the public will be buying the paper!

So as much as we could all probably agree that it’s pretty insensitive to be launching this paper right now, and that it may well show that Mr Murdoch is not as contrite as he would have us believe, knowing all of this we’re going to go out and buy it anyway. Because our desire to see a grainy picture of some minor celebs nipple slip, taken with from 2 miles away with a camera with the resolution of the Hubble Telescope, is greater than any vague thought we might have that it could be as morally wrong for us to read the paper as it is for Murdoch to publish it.

And what’s worse is that he knows it. He knows we’re all just a great bunch of hypocrites. And we know that he knows, and furthermore he knows that we know that he knows. We all know. But on Sunday we’ll shrug our shoulders and pop down to the newsagent just to have a look at what this new papers like, we’ll read about which footballer is doing what pop star, and we’ll pretend that it’s all terrible what the tabloids do, but nothing to do with us.

But, really, we know different.

Don’t buy the Sun on Sunday, it’s wrong.

Click here for more stories about Life

Click here to follow Sabotage Times on Twitter

Click here to follow Sabotage Times on Facebook

If you like it, Pass it on

image descriptionCOMMENTS

shorehamview 9:53 am, 26-Feb-2012

What about the main reason for not buying it? It will be shit.

Suzy 10:34 am, 26-Feb-2012

Your grammar is atrocious.

Sociorobotics 10:38 am, 26-Feb-2012

Let's not forget please

mal 10:41 am, 26-Feb-2012

what shoreham said

perry mason 11:13 am, 26-Feb-2012

what if you have brought more than one copy! The Sun on Sunday - WE LOVE IT!

paul 11:37 am, 26-Feb-2012

Nice article. I actually believe it wont last 5 minutes. I dont think we will buy it. I hope not.

davis 11:37 am, 26-Feb-2012

There's nowt like a cynical re-branding exercise, you could see this coming from the very day he wound up the NOTW, my only surprise is that it's taken him this long !

Matt 11:47 am, 26-Feb-2012

What a load of guff. If you don't buy the Sun as some sort of protest, make sure you cancel your Sky Tv subscription too.

Sociorobotics 11:52 am, 26-Feb-2012

check out Murdoch's page on Wikipedia and make sure you click the links to the Sun and News of the World. Wikipedia is about 'warts an all' but I wonder how long those links will be up for?

Sociorobotics 12:15 pm, 26-Feb-2012

Matt - you really are a mug aren't you, hook line and sinker... as in your the one who bought the NOTW and the Sun and you subscribe to Sky - you deserve everything you get!

Sociorobotics 12:17 pm, 26-Feb-2012

..... or should I have said you deserve everything you 'pay through your nose for'

kingkerouac 12:38 pm, 26-Feb-2012

The Sun is like Britain, written in crayon....badly. By a London cabbie.

john 12:44 pm, 26-Feb-2012

Camera's? -line 3

cloris leachman 12:57 pm, 26-Feb-2012

We should all revisit the Melvyn Bragg interview with the late lamented and brilliant Dennis Potter,(The Singing Detective, Blue Remembered Hills,Lipstick on your Collar) he c called his pancreatic cancer "Rupert" and he delivered this indictment with a measured dose of contempt, hatred and disgust. Don't think there will be many copies sold in Liverpool.

Roger 3:56 pm, 26-Feb-2012

If anyone does find one in the gutter (to pick a location entirely at random), would it be possible to post a list of every single company who has taken up advertising space? I want to see if it's possible to boycott everyone involved in this sordid mess.

Matt 4:20 pm, 26-Feb-2012

Sociorobotics..... I'm a mug? Well perhaps I am, but you wouldn't know because you've never met me. I've read your posts 3 times and still don't understand your point. What is it? ... And by the way, it's you're (as in you are) not your. Thick cunt!

david 4:27 pm, 26-Feb-2012

Matt, the fact you don't understand says more about you than him mate. Why the last insult? And you are a Sun reader. Hmmm, a connection there I wonder?

Matt 4:31 pm, 26-Feb-2012

Come on then David, explain it to me. I don't buy newspapers, I have the Times sent to my iPad (a news international product too) everyday. The last insult to thicky Sociorobiotics is in response to him (for no reason at all) insulting me.

david 4:45 pm, 26-Feb-2012

He'd have to really speak for himself, but I imagine that he feels that the launch of this paper represents a deeply unpleasant facet of human nature. Your initial comments dismiss that concern with little respect, his comments reflect that, your insult was then somewhat greater. It's a good question though, should those who say don't buy the sun also apply that to all News International products, the times and sky tv included? I guess that would be a blow to the times and sky employee's though and they do a good job so why punish them? Also, it would take focus away from the point that relaunching NOTW is offensive on many levels and is a blatent statement from Murdoch that he knows ordinary people are unable to overcome baser instincts. That point won't change the world but 'all it tales for evil to prosper is for goo men to stand idle' so I respect Socia for making the stand and doing what he can. It's just a point people are making, maybe a bit more respect for the point, even if you disagree, would go a long way.

david 4:47 pm, 26-Feb-2012

* sorry! All it TAKES for evil to prosper is for GOOD men to stand idle'

Matt 5:01 pm, 26-Feb-2012

I'm all for respect David, and thank you for putting it so well. However the point I was making is this: surely boycotting just one NI publication is pissing in the wind I.e it's not going to change anything. The people who want to boycott it are generally aggrieved because of the headlines after the Hillsborough incident or the phone hacking of the parents of the young girl who was killed (sorry I can't remember her name). They should boycott everything connected with the company, not just cherry pick to suit themselves. No?

Simon 5:08 pm, 26-Feb-2012

Re: Roger Then when you've done that burn it.

david 5:16 pm, 26-Feb-2012

Well yes, you can deconstruct the argument that way and it's hard to disagree with the logic. Pissing in the wind though? I say again 'all it takes for evil to prosper etc etc'. It's not clear cut but my own view is do what little you can, do the right thing in your every day life. If everyone did the world would be a better place. Not that I or anyone always does, but because we're not perfect doen't mean we can't strive to do what we can when we can. By insisting we boycott everything or nothing you make a valid logical point but if that type of logic were to prevail in every situation no-one would ever do anything, one can always find a logical argument against any action. A Pyrrhic victory?

Sociorobotics 9:04 pm, 26-Feb-2012

David - well said, I support all your comments... as for Matt I don't think I need to say anymore than "he can't remember her name"(Milly Dowler)- current affairs not looking like one of his strong points?

Sociorobotics 9:12 pm, 26-Feb-2012

...but Grammar and vaginal etymology might be go Matt go!!! 9:24 pm, 26-Feb-2012


Matt 9:36 pm, 26-Feb-2012

Sociorobiotics, let's get the basics right before you start using long words. When you use "inverted comas" it's to quote something that has been said or written. You should have put " sorry I can't remember her name" , not "he can't remember her name" - that's wrong. As far as the rest of your argument, I still don't get it. Viginal etymology , WTF? This conversation is over.

Sociorobotics 9:44 pm, 26-Feb-2012

Matt- try Goooooogle?

Matt 9:49 pm, 26-Feb-2012


Sociorobotics 10:12 pm, 26-Feb-2012

Good well hopefully you can now piss off back to your inherent mindset and let people show some support for the excellent article above (well written by David Robinson) which you clearly didn't read in the first place. Murdoch - The Sun, is exactly what Cloris (earlier comment) described him as, a 'pancreatic cancer' within British society, dragging us down into the depths of cultural nihilism. The only thing that really stings from your foul-mouthed insults is that you actually assumed that I would touch anything that has anything to do with Murdoch... much in line with Rogers comment I will find out who advertised in the Sun today and won't touch anything of theirs either! Murdoch looks for the lowest common denominator and from your comments Matt that's you and your Sun-reading ilk. Try reading the article again mate and this time take notice?

Sociorobotics 10:49 pm, 26-Feb-2012 - latest report from the Independent regarding the Sun on Sunday

Jason 12:15 am, 27-Feb-2012

I agree with you Matt. And yes Sociorobotics I occasionally read the Sun for its football coverage. Which is also the reason I subscribe to Sky. If you wish to write off every single reader as the lowest common denominator then it is you who is ignorant. Perhaps reflect on that.

Sociorobotics 12:25 am, 27-Feb-2012

as I said 'ilk'

Sociorobotics 12:42 am, 27-Feb-2012

That's the problem in a 'nutshell' Jason - and it worries the hell out of me... there's more than 2 million of your ilk and they think exactly as you do... despite being able to read?

Matt 9:08 am, 27-Feb-2012

Sociorbitch, please stop posting, you're embarrassing yourself. I don't know where you have read that I buy the Sun. I think you might have made that up to suit your argument. I have read it, but never exchanged cash for it. What's with the 'nutshell' you referred to in Jason's post? Take a leaf out of David's book - explain yourself properly, don't insult people for no reason and choose your words carefully. This gives your argument much more credibility. Over and out. 11:31 am, 27-Feb-2012

"That's the problem in a 'nutshell' Jason - and it worries the hell out of me... there's more than 2 million of your ilk and they think exactly as you do... despite being able to read? " Whilst having no will to get involved. That quote just shows that people have a freedom of choice and thought surely? What would your prefer? That we read exactly what fits your perfect ideal? The world according to Sociorobotics?

Sociorobotics 11:49 am, 27-Feb-2012

Matt - I should just ignore your petty, mealy-mouthed juvenile twaddle and move on but you really are the silliest twat I have ever come across on line. What on earth is a wanker like you making a comment ("what a load of guff") on an article such as this if it was not just inane 'trolling'. Crawl back under your stinking, slimy little stone and cease to exist... you simpering, sky watching shit-eating slug. Standards must sometimes be lowered in the name of 'getting through'?....Prick!!!

Sociorobotics 11:57 am, 27-Feb-2012

thegreenwichbarber - read up mate! My view is inconsequential in comparison to what the Sun and Murdoch have been up to for the last 30 years - 'freedom of choice'... your choice is puerile and uninformed... read up & choose better!

Sociorobotics 12:17 pm, 27-Feb-2012

Apologies for any ulterior offense, anger got the better of me. be informed! 1:16 pm, 27-Feb-2012

"'freedom of choice'... your choice is puerile and uninformed... read up & choose better! " WOAH! WOAH! WOAH! Hold your horses, Sunshine! Where have I actually stated what newspapers if any I read? You appear to think that anyone who doesn't agree with your view is as a Sun reader! Proper Wolfie Smith! I feel more inclined to buy this paper than I ever have after this!

Matt 1:54 pm, 27-Feb-2012

Here, here

Matt 2:00 pm, 27-Feb-2012

P.s I've just been to our local newsagents and bought the last 6 copies of The Sun. That's 6 copies Sociorwhatever. I'm might nip in to town later and see how many more I can buy. Do you think I could get hold of 20 before midnight? I wonder if I'll get a discount if I take a years subscription?

Sociorobotics 2:08 pm, 27-Feb-2012

To reiterate Youtube this and be informed! Wolfie Smiths pretty cool too actually, thanks for the link, John Sullivan was a genius, may he rest in peace. So what's it to be you read/buy the Sun or you don't or is it you feel inclined - make your mind up mate!

Sociorobotics 2:11 pm, 27-Feb-2012

Matt - as I said earlier you deserve everything you pay through your ignorant nose for!

Sociorobotics 2:48 pm, 27-Feb-2012

Rather than continue trading insults with the witless, better to inform: On 19 April, four days after the disaster, Kelvin MacKenzie, then editor of The Sun, a British tabloid newspaper with national distribution owned by Rupert Murdoch, used "THE TRUTH" as the front page headline, followed by three sub-headlines: "Some fans picked pockets of victims", "Some fans urinated on the brave cops" and "Some fans beat up PC giving kiss of life". The newspaper cited the words of unnamed police sources and a Conservative MP for information relating to the alleged incidents.[61] The story accompanying these headlines claimed that "drunken Liverpool fans viciously attacked rescue workers as they tried to revive victims" and "police officers, firemen and ambulance crew were punched, kicked and urinated upon". A quotation, attributed to an unnamed policeman, claimed a dead girl had been "abused", and that Liverpool fans were "openly urinating on us and the bodies of the dead".[62] These allegations contradicted the reported behaviour of many Liverpool fans, who actively helped the security personnel to stretcher away a large number of victims and gave first aid to many injured.[63] In their history of The Sun, Peter Chippendale and Chris Horrie wrote: As MacKenzie's layout was seen by more and more people, a collective shudder ran through the office (but) MacKenzie's dominance was so total there was nobody left in the organisation who could rein him in except Murdoch. (Everyone in the office) seemed paralysed – "looking like rabbits in the headlights" – as one hack described them. The error staring them in the face was too glaring. It obviously wasn't a silly mistake; nor was it a simple oversight. Nobody really had any comment on it—they just took one look and went away shaking their heads in wonder at the enormity of it. It was a 'classic smear'. Taken from 2:59 pm, 27-Feb-2012

Well, here's how it is, Sunshine. I had no inclination whatsoever to buy this newspaper. I can quite easily ignore it's presence as I can avert my gaze from the pile of 'em in the shop and don't own a TV. However it my buying make you react like this as it seems to do. Then I will buy it, bin it straight away and sit back and watch the -

Sociorobotics 3:07 pm, 27-Feb-2012

I think the crux here is 4 days after you have just lost your 10 year old child at a football match you are subjected to that poison. It's unforgettable to those of us old enough to have seen the live news reports on the day and unforgivable that this filth was ever allowed to be published. Please do not buy 'the scum'

Sociorobotics 3:11 pm, 27-Feb-2012

greenwichbarber - wallow in your own filth mate, why break the habit? 3:20 pm, 27-Feb-2012


Sociorobotics 3:26 pm, 27-Feb-2012

thegreenwichbarber - don't bother attempting to 'hang your head in shame' it's quite clearly already biologically positioned there! 3:36 pm, 27-Feb-2012

Ouch! That's me not sleeping tonight as every time I close my eyes I'm going to see that last post and I'll feel sad. And feelings of sadness brings on my insomnia. I HOPE YOU'RE PLEASED WITH YOURSELF NOW, Sociorobotics.

Sociorobotics 3:39 pm, 27-Feb-2012

Be informed!

david 5:24 pm, 27-Feb-2012

Jesus, I kinda wish I'd never written it now!

Sociorobotics 5:43 pm, 27-Feb-2012

david - I do and its a bloody good article, don't get cold feet now please. The issues you raise are current and very important to the cultural sway of our social future in this country. If we can educate just 2 turnips then job done!

Jason 8:37 pm, 27-Feb-2012

I'm not a Sun reader Socio, the only regular publication I read is the economist and I read my news online from a number of sites. I only read this blog because I was interested in hearing someone elses point of view. I think that's where you and I differ.

Jason 8:41 pm, 27-Feb-2012

To clarify, my definition of occasionally reading the Sun is that a bought one a few months ago to read transfer rumours and will probably buy at least one copy next transfer window as well.

Sociorobotics 9:53 pm, 27-Feb-2012

Fair enough Jason, but there are plenty of alternatives. I just hope you can understand that this is an important issue for all of us and our moral and ethical futures. It's also about making a stand for what you profoundly believe in. I think we need to be encouraged by what's happening currently with Murdoch and his ilk. This whole affair runs very deeply into our social and cultural fabric. Of course there will be many decent people caught up in this sordid affair but if we can manage to put a shake on a pervasive culture of media controlled corruption we will all eventually benefit. These are heady times for those who believe in social justice. Use well directed chemotherapy for the cancer and move on! Stand up and be counted and boycott everything Murdoch it won't hurt for long! Also, the next transfer window is still a long way off? Until then try this -

Steve 10:47 am, 6-Mar-2012

I wouldn't wipe my arse on the Sunday Times or The Sun or the NOTW...@Chumba's

Gideon 'Dora' Osborne 12:26 pm, 6-Mar-2012

I have knoen of The Sun for over 40 years (I used to be a paperboy). Even then it was the shittest paper. Worst football coverage. It didn't have the previous night's results until the early 80's. The ink always came off on your fingers, they laways published pictures of teenage girls with their tops off...oh, and the proprietor was a dirty, hate-filled, right-wing, nutjob...allegedly.

Leave a comment

Life image description SABOTAGE