Moggy wrote:Jenuall wrote:I find Sun boycott an interesting situation. I totally understand the reason why they do it, it's 100% justified and the least that rag deserves - ideally everyone would boycott it! But what goal is it intending to achieve?
It definitely sends a message - don't print gooseberry fool and lies in the wake of a hideous tragedy, that's a good message to get out there certainly. But is it supposed to be harming those responsible in some way - surely the writers/editors from the time of Hillsborough are no longer working at the newspaper so it's not targetting them? Also as far as I'm aware there is no boycott of other Murdoch owned media and services in the area? A lot of the people boycotting the paper are probably still giving News UK/Murdoch their cash through buying The Times or subscribing to Sky etc.
Sky are no longer anything to do with Murdoch.
Boycotting the Sun is just a good deed, it was a scummy piece of gooseberry fool in the 80’s, it’s a scummy piece of gooseberry fool today. If everyone boycotted it then it would achieve the goal of making it no longer exist.
The Times is at least a “proper” newspaper even if it has scummy owners.
Yes as of like 1 year ago Sky has nothing to do with Murdoch, but as far as I'm aware there wasn't a move to boycott it for the 20+ years that it existed before that!
Like I say I agree with the boycott and think The Sun and everyone associated with it deserves to be shot into the actual sun, but it just seems odd to specifically boycott that one paper and yet still effectively fund the "perpetrators" of the problem in other ways.
Also whilst The Times is clearly a far better newspaper it also has a pretty shitty track record when it comes to Hillsborough reporting - they made some real bad statements at the time and were also one of the only two papers that didn't put the 2016 inquest as front page news (no prizes for guessing what the other paper was!)