Will you buy The Sun on Sunday? - Page 5

heero_yuy · 22-02-2012, 08:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_

Nothing wrong there and no we should not let "Bygones be bygones" that rag is a nasty piece of work and no one should forget what they tried to do.

I fear we're only a posting away from invoking Godwin's law.

Anybody know how much they want for the Sun on Sunday? NOTW was only a quid.

denphone · 22-02-2012, 08:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

I fear we're only a posting away from invoking Godwin's law.

Anybody know how much they want for the Sun on Sunday? NOTW was only a quid.

It would not surprise me if Murdoch enters into a price war with other sunday newspapers and sells it for a vastly reduced price to start off with.

richard1960 · 22-02-2012, 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

I fear we're only a posting away from invoking Godwin's law.

Anybody know how much they want for the Sun on Sunday? NOTW was only a quid.

I hope its considerably less then the Andrex i buy now.

heero_yuy · 22-02-2012, 09:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone

It would not surprise me if Murdoch enters into a price war with other sunday newspapers and sells it for a vastly reduced price to start off with.

If the SOS makes profilts like the NOTW he can afford to even without making it a loss leader.

Quote:

News of the World alone makes over Â£150 million a year in sales and ads.

Story July 2011

I thought a pound for a Sunday paper with a glossy was good value even if half of it was trash.

Julian · 22-02-2012, 09:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

If the SOS makes profilts like the NOTW he can afford to even without making it a loss leader.

Story July 2011

I thought a pound for a Sunday paper with a glossy was good value even if half of it was trash.

The Â£150m figure is a sales figure not a profit figure.

It will almost certainly be Â£1 after early promotions as this will match the Mirror, People & Star.

SnoopZ · 22-02-2012, 10:54

No point buying newspapers, when you can get current news from the internet for free.

**Damien** · 22-02-2012, 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnoopZ

No point buying newspapers, when you can get current news from the internet for free.

Newspapers are better at providing analysis and context to news stories. News itself can often be useless with it.

**Stuart** · 22-02-2012, 12:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_

As I said a few times if it was your home town you would or should feel the same.

But there has to be a cut off point. You are offended about an article written 23 years ago about something that happened 23 years ago. How much further are you willing to go? Back to the 60s? Back to the 40s? Further? I'm fairly sure a few passengers and crew on the Titanic were scousers. If the Sun (or any rag) had published a similar story about them, would Liverpool still boycott it?

Hillsborough was probably the worst disaster to hit modern English football, and it is worth noting that the enquiry at the time laid the bulk of the blame with the Police, and how they managed the crowds. I would hope that they have learned something from that. They have, if some of the conferences I have provided tech support for are anything to go by (we have a professor at work who is an acknowledged expert on evacuation and holds regular lectures and conferences on the subject)

I am not defending The Sun at all (they have done many bad things, and this Levenson enquiry just seems to be digging up more), but I would hope that had the same thing happened in my home town, I would not still be spewing hate 23 years afterward. I don't think it's healthy to hold hate for that long. For a person, or a community.

---------- Post added at 13:16 ---------- Previous post was at 13:08 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnoopZ

No point buying newspapers, when you can get current news from the internet for free.

Depends where you get the news from. If you get it from the site of a good quality news paper (The Times, Telegraph, Guardian etc), the site of a TV channel (BBC, ITV, CNN etc) or a service like Reuters you can at least be sure that the author has done some research on the story (how much is sometimes questionable) and should be able to provide background etc. They should (ideally) keep the story free of political bias, but, TBH, I don't know of any news service that does that 100% of the time.

If you are getting your news from a random website or someone's blog, then you don't know how well they have researched something (if at all), or how much they know about it.

**Chris** · 22-02-2012, 12:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

I fear we're only a posting away from invoking Godwin's law.

.

ok, I'll bite ...

Stan Boardman on Germans

**Stuart** · 22-02-2012, 12:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

ok, I'll bite ...

Stan Boardman on Germans

I nearly did. Hence the quick rephrasing of my post to use the Titanic as an example..

Digital Fanatic · 22-02-2012, 13:05

It's a gutter paper anyway, so even if they hadn't printed those lies all those years ago, I still wouldn't buy it.

Kelvin McKenzie (I know he no longer works for them) has consistently refused to offer a sincere apology for the lies that were printed.

Just google him - cleanse yourself afterwards though!

Horace · 22-02-2012, 14:13

I no longer buy newspapers and have avoided directly paying for News Corps part or fully owned products since I was old enough to make those decisions including SKY. It would be nice to hear the views of the people who do buy their products and who used to buy the NOTW since I suspect those are the people this poll is really aimed at.

Alan Fry · 23-02-2012, 07:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

That's not the same at all. That would be like holding the entire pit villages the thugs came from permanently responsible for what went on.

Kelvin MacKenzie no longer works for News International. He hasn't worked for them for years. There is next-to-nobody anywhere at the Sun today who was there when the Hillsborough story was printed. There is absolutely nobody anywhere on the news floor that had anything to do with it.

A boycott is normally supposed to achieve some aim. People boycott Nestle because they believe economic pressure might influence its marketing of infant formula milk in third world countries. Boycotting the Sun in Liverpool seems to serve no purpose. What could the aim be? To get someone sacked? They've all gone anyway - some of them have retired, it was that long ago. To extract an apology? The paper has done so, fully and unequivocally.

The only reason I can see for all this venom is that hating the Sun has become part of the definition of a scouser. Just as you're not a true cockney unless you were born within earshot of Bow Bells, you're not a true Scouser unless you remind anyone who will listen, at every opportunity, about a horrible thing the Sun printed 20-plus years ago. And when a community defines itself by the things it hates, it's in a very sorry condition indeed.

Kelvin MacKenzie has been a columnist for The Sun for almost 6 years now and there still many people from the 1980s Sun era that still work for News Corp.

The Sun (along with News Corp) has never changed unless it is in its own terms and that same would apply after the scandal dies down!

What you have got to understand is that if you are a Liverpool supporter and you see the deaths of almost 100 of your fellow fans (not long after Heysel) and then you hear lies in the national press about them and other Liverpool FC fans. That would make you very angry!

richard1960 · 23-02-2012, 07:58

Kelvin McKenzie does a weekly column in my paper the Daily Mail every saturday.

Chrysalis · 23-02-2012, 10:04

The sun showed how shallow it was when it went from tories to labour prior to when blair got elected, and again changed its colours prior to cameron been elected.