Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Not sure what the parantheses refer to but a newspaper actually bugging peoples phones for a potential if flimsy story versus a newspaper being presented, by a completely different third party, with documented evidence of governments lying to people seems like two fairly distinct things to me

The parenthesis refer to the two types of wikileaks stories - one type being evidence of governments acting in a way they purported not to, or concealing information that is in the public interest; the second type being essentially a form of heat magazine for diplomats. In both cases, they were obtained by a means that is technically considered illegal.


I don't read red-tops and I don't care for their standards, but I don't see how leaking an illegally obtained flimsy story is OK, whether it's from a diplomat or a celebrity.

I hear what you are saying, but for me the difference comes down to initiating the subterfuge, as opposed to just reporting on it. If it was the NotW reporting wikileaks for example I wouldn't be so bothered


But using your own reporters and methods to do this is a step further

LTT, Wikileaks did not break the law to obtain any story. That is is the difference.


In the case of the NoTW, and no doubt other red tops, the newspaper's own staff broke the law on the off-chance of maybe finding out something about somebody's private life. In the case of Wikileaks, they didn't break the law, and it wasn't about anybody's private life, it was a diplomatic communication that someone is being paid a salary to produce, and others are being paid a salary to read/analyse/etc. It's a workplace communication.

Wikileaks publicised illegally-gained information - depending on the complexities of law (and your point of view) depends on whether you define that illegal or not.


I would consider the NoTW behaviour indefensible, but then I'm not sure that leaking 'news' that, say, the Duke of York acting like an offensive drunk is a) a suprise and b) morally superior. Anyway, I don't want to start a wikileaks debate given this is a NoTW thread. I just think The Guardian is really up itself sometimes, without any good reason.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Not with all the bins currently stored there.
    • We both own the freehold. They’re in the maisonette and I’m in the flat. They’re older, so with any luck, they’ll be selling soon. Unfortunately, due to recent events, all of this now has to be disclosed on the TA6 form. Honestly, I’d move out of sheer shame if I were them. Poisoning fruit trees planted for children is just cruel, and they haven’t even apologised. I genuinely wonder how they justify this to themselves. Envy is such a toxic and destructive emotion, and sadly, it often explains behaviour like this. I just wanted to say how grateful I am for the support from so many of you, especially at the East Dulwich Forum drinks and for the kind messages on both this forum and the Nextdoor app. It’s genuinely reassuring to know there are still decent, supportive neighbours around.
    • Hmm, you seem to have an agenda.  I like ait of measured that they have done to promote active travel, improving pedestrian and cyclist safety, whilst improving the streetscape. I avoid making sweeping statements about wildlife management as I don't know enough about their policies, and expect some in Southwark are passionate about what they do. Go along to a relevant local meeting and ask, I doubt if you will change a thing by posting here.  
    • It wouldn't surprise me at all.   The council used to spray the pavements all the time b4 lockdown.  They are probably doing it again.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...