Wow, these threads bring out the geeks who cannot for love nor money keep things simple. Big words and sentences don't make you right...we can all do it if we want but some feel we don't need to.
If we can't blame Thatcher for her-faytness as the event horizon has been reached...
can we blame the Motor Car instead? Without the motor car she'd have to walk....
There's a simple solution to this situation = don't read, and particularly buy, newspapers. Particularly those owned by that Antipodean right-wing manipulator of truth.
Like the '13-year old dad' story (on which there appears to be a ban on reporting, so we don't know that he's the dad or not).
Sun stories on Alfie:
Baby-faced boy Alfie Patten is father at 13
I love Alfie and he took my virginity. There has been nobody else
Alfie 'inspires sex ed rethink'
Parents not told Alfie was dad-to-be
Alfie agrees to take DNA test
I looked in his eyes.. it was so sad
DNA test is for sake of the kids
'I'm the daddy... if I'm not **** you all'
Alfie a victim of Broken Britain?
The tangled web of Alfie and Chantelle
Ant: 'I look like baby dad Alfie'
Lad's sister blames their dad
Feeding, nappies... and PlayStation
Baby shambles... I blame the parents
How sad that biggest victim is little Maisie
Benefit bonanza if pair 'move in'
Meanwhile in the real world:
[url= http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/World/Story/STIStory_355356.html ]Alfie not Britain's youngest dad[/url]
[url= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5748147.ece ]Media watchdog to investigate payments to Alfie Patten's parents[/url]
these threads bring out the geeks who cannot for love nor money keep things simple
isn't it naive to think such things are 'simple' ?
Whether or not the situation is 'real', is not their concern. they've been sold a story, they can offer a reasonable argument as to their belief in it's validity, and are perfectly legally covered.
I agree with your assertion here by the way. But I don't really think that the tabloid approach of "report anything you like as long as it sells and you can find someone who says it's true" is entirely in-keeping with the spirit of the publications law.
And it doesn't fit with your earlier protest that it must be true because it is illegal for the papers to lie.
OK. I'll re-phrase it; No newspaper can print what they [b]know[/b] to be untrue.
That better?
So, the 'truth' of this story, is that there appears to be a fayt lass who feeds her kids crap. That's pretty plausible, tbh, woon't you agree?
The Sun does still need to try to appear truthful and sincere, in order to keep it's place on the news stands. So, they will at least cover their arses, legally, as I've said. For them to print this, they would have to be able to have a reasonable argument that there is at least some element of truth in this. Which, from what we can see, there does appear to be. HairyBarnes' claim that this is entirely made up, is his own onion. He is of course free to prove it is a fake, however, if he so chooses.
All I was trying to do, was state the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing. Granted, the Sun has been guiltyer than most.
As for the Alfie Patten thing; yes, it appears the Scum were scammed. They won't care; they probbly sold loads more papers 'cos of that story...
Scenario in Scum press room:
'Ear, check this out; fayt bird feeds her kids crap'
'Ooh, that's a goodun! Is it true?'
'Well, looks all right'
'Can we be sued?'
'Shoon't think so. Sources seem to check out'
'Can we embellish it, to whip up public hysteria, and sell more papers?'
'Definitely.'
OR:
'I'm bored. There's no juicy scandalous stuff to write about'
'Why don't we make up a story about a fayt bird who feeds her kids crap?'
'Ooh, nice. We'd need a model. My mate's brother goes out with a right porker, we could get her'
'Excellent. And my girlfriend's hairdresser knows a woman who's had triplets. Treble bubble!'
'Brilliant. Now, we need to get them together, for a photoshoot and that. then make up a story about the bird being on benefits, smokes, not with the kids' dad, etc'
'Succulent'
'Ear, but what if we get caught?'
'Ooh, good point. We could lose our jobs, and get screwed by Murdoch'
'That's not good. I'm struggling with my mortgage enough as it is'
'No, we'd have to be careful. Lets talk to the Ed about it'
'What? You want to run a completely fictitious pack of lies? And if I say yes, I could lose my job/home/marriage/kids/[s]self-respect[/s]/cushy number?'
'Er, yeah. But ittud sell papers!'
Come on. Work it out...
I'm wasted, on here.
('Phones up the Sun...)
Both of those scenarios seem equally likely to me - I suspect the truth is somewhere between 🙂
Sorry SFB et al it appears she does exist.
The [url= http://www.****/news/article-1174210/30-stone-mother-feeds-baby-triplets-junk-food-diet--admits-McDonalds-just-months.html ]mail[/url] have run with it too
And the [url= http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2009/04/29/coventry-mum-leanne-salt-denies-feeding-junk-food-to-triplets-92746-23499758/ ]coventry telegraph[/url] have a follow up, she agreed to appear in closer on a weight loss article and is not happy with whats ended up in the papers.
This has thread was an interesting read until it got to bickering about how much papers [s]lie[/s] stretch the truth.
she does exist.
And judging by the Coventry Telegraph report that is about the only aspect of the story that is true.
And between the Sun and the Mail, she seems to have gained a stone in weight!
RudeBoy - Member
And between the Sun and the Mail, she seems to have gained a stone in weight!
I think between the dates the two stories were run she gained a stone in weight, they are probably still telling the truth!
If The Sun and The Mail both write she does then she does (it's like the Labour and the Torries agreeing).