The Sun takes a stand on tasteless tours

The Sun were quick to criticise ‘goulish tourists’ who were taking tours around the hotel complex in Praia da Luz where Madeleine McCann went missing over a year ago.

The report said that some of the ’sick sightseers’ were even taking snaps of their children outside the hotel room were Maddie was believed to have been abducted from.

It was even suggested that the tours were official with tour guides.

The very idea of such prurient curiosity and interference into the private grieving of a family, especially with a mind to profit from it, is clearly offensive to an organisation which has shifted millions of newspapers on the story which has had very few genuine developments since it broke.

And as Anorak News point out, the Sun’s sister paper the News of the World were the first to give the British public a guided tour into the McCann’s holiday flat. They played a very tasteful child catcher hide and seek, suggesting methods in which the devious fiend could have grabbed Maddie and avoided the returning Kate and Gerry. 

And such outrage does not extend to the victims of ‘dungeon beast’ Josef Fritzl, whose homemade torture cellar you can now visit through the Sun’s virtual tour.

 

 

The Sun is no longer bonkers

It was an unusually apologetic response to criticism by the usually bullish, self assured Sun.

Insensitive reporting of Frank Bruno’s detention in a mental health facility provoked an angry response from mental health charties and the public.

The Sun duly bowed its head, said they were very sorry and promised steps would be taken to ensure increased sensitivity for future stories involving mental health issues.

So the old dog agreed to learn some new tricks. But it didn’t take long for the training to wear off.

Admittedly the Sun has toned down its language from the much criticised, insensitive ’barmy’ and ‘bonkers’.

In its place has come much more subtler turns of phrase; ‘bizarre’, ‘oldball’.

But the continued day in, day out intrusive reporting of troubled stars such as Kerry Katona and Britney Spears seems to indicate the Sun has developed little sensitivity on this issue.

Doubtlessly editors would argue that sales increases and website hits show there is a public interest in these star’s personal problems.

And the paper and the majority of its readers would argue these particular young ladies lost their rights to privacy a long time ago after selling every life detail and inch of flesh to any reporter with a big enough chequebook.

But this free ride surely does not extend to intrusively snapping a young mother, regardless of whether she’s a multi-million selling record artist, in an ambulance in the throes of a severe breakdown.

Imagine if the scenario had been an elderly member of the public suffering from Alzheimer’s. Would front row seat coverage be used?

The main problem here is also the Sun’s main strength, brevity. The Sun is an impact paper, its writing is tight and without unnecesary detail. But it also means its reporting can be lacking in depth and detail.

Whether a celeb is suffering from exhastion, stress, drug abuse or bi-polar diorder the Sun very rarely gives details or explanations. Invariably we are told that the star is troubled. The aim is not to inform, its mere voyeurism. The 21st century circus freak show.

 The paper also fails to acknowledge its own responsibility for the struggling mental health of these stars.

Both Katona and Spears have been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder. Undoubtedly the continual intrusion into the everyday life by paparazzi photographers can only exacerbate their conditions.

It seems that not content on playing a huge role in raising these vulnerable women to worldwide fame, the Sun and other tabloids are equally keen to monitor every painful step of their decline.

     

What controlled immigration means to the Sun

Discussing the issue of immigration can be extremely controversial and requires sensitive handling.

The Sun for their part are at pains to point out that they do recognise some benefit to controlled immigration.

But its interesting to see who they think are beneficial.

In their case study of good and bad immigration on 2/4/08 readers are introduced to Jarek Radwannski.

Mr Radwannski loves the UK, is happy to pay his taxes and doesn’t believe in claiming benefits.

Mr Radwannski, you may have guessed, is a good immigrant.

We also meet Nawaz Sharif.

Mr Sharif built a seven bedroom mansion in Pakistan on the back of lucrative benefit fraud, credit card scams and passport forgeries. Mr Sharif was unemployed before his arrest.

Mr Sharif is a bad immigrant.

Whats interesting to note that good immigrant Mr Radwannski is a white Eastern European man whereas Mr Nawaz Sharif was born in Pakistan.

What these examples infer, whether intentionally or not,  is the divisive and oft-repeated stereotype that while East European immigrants are hard working, immigrants from sub continent Asia are prone to criminal activity and most probably terrorism.

Why choose Mr Sharif who was jailed way back in 2006 as the bad immigrant example?

The Sun should maybe take more heed of columnist David Blunkett in the same day’s edition who said:

“There is still deep prejudice just below the surface in many aspects of life here.

“We must tackle head-on those that wil be whipping up division in the run-up to local elections in a month’s time.”

Does that include your paymasters Mr Blunkett? 

Jon Gaunt: Our lost link with ancient Greece

Freedom of speech and the expression of our own opinions without fear of censor or reprisal is one of the defining characteristics of a free society.

The ability to articulate reasoned arguments was the cornerstone of the ancient Greek civilisation and this tradition of artful rhetoric remains a hallmark of any great civlisation.

In the footsteps of great thinkers like Plato and Cicero and walks the hefty plod of Jon Gaunt, Sun columnist and voice of the common man.

 Gaunty, clearly inspired by those ancient masters, has honed his debating skills. His chief weapon is the rhetorical question.

The rhetorical question is an art form. The answer to the question must be so obvious to us that we cannot help but agree. We are swept along with the argument.

 It is a skill Gaunty is working on, with mixed success.

 For example from his article on 07/02/08 on disgraced Tory MP Derek Conway. “But forgive me, isn’t he just like the disgraced Lib Dem MP Mark Oaten, who performed a sex act with a rent boy too disgusing to write about in a family newspaper?”

Ignoring his bizarre claim that the Sun is a family newspaper, one would not find it hard to say well Gaunty there probably is quite a big difference between an MP who uses tax payers funds to pay his family for little or no work and an MP with unorthodox sexual practices. Whatever the relative morality of either misdemeanour, they are not the same.

Here is another from 29/02/08. “Can anyone really convince us that animals like [Levi] Bellfield, Steve Wright and Mark Dixie deserve more rights than a rabid dog?”

Again the relative merits of Gaunty’s argument are not my complaint. It is more that a complex argument on whether capital punishment is an acceptable form of state justice in the most extreme cases is reduced to a simple rhetorical, isn’t the answer bleeding obvious question in the hands of the great thinker Gaunty. The answer to your question is yes probably if you give me a minute of your time Jon. I’m not sure this is his intention.

Gaunty is definitely trying with this technique, but is he improving? Here is a more recent example from 13/03/08 in response to Margaret Hodge’s complaint that some people from different backgrounds feel uncomfortable when attending the Proms.

“Do they Margaret? Well some survivors of child abuse feel ill at ease about you ignoring the pleas of the abused when you were head of Islington council.”

Close again Gaunty but not quite. Previous Gaunty questions provoked a “not really Jon” response when attempting to gain our unequivocal support. This not only misses “not really” territory bu lands smack bang in “bafflement” country. What Jon? How are the two things related? What has Mrs Hodge’s previous employment nearly 20 years ago to do with this debate of national identity and access to the arts? It began as a rhetorical question but has become just an attempt to snow-blind the reader. We see the word child abuse, its linked to Mrs Hodge, we hate Mrs Hodge, everything she says is wrong. We are Pavlov’s dogs.

Sometimes Gaunty forgets the question in his rhetorical device but the outcome is equally baffling. In a way it is a streamlining of the ancient art.

From 28/02/08 on his favourite subject of “Immigration-R-Us” Britain. “To wrap yourself in the Union Flag and try to protect your homeland from an unwanted invasion like our forefathers did in 1940 is NOT racist.”  

 Er yes it is Jon. To compare an influx of foreign workers to an internationally recognised attempt to invade and remove the sovereign power of another state is racist. But in Gaunty’s world it is not some much the reasoning behind what you say but the impact of how you say it. The ancient Greeks were slow to pick up on this.

The Sun, sex and xmas

Its hard to read The Sun without your bile duct working in excess of safety capacity and believing that the world is going to the dogs. For an hour every lunchtime, three million people are shouted at in print by a sniggering school kid with a particularly vindictive streak. It tells us the proles who we should like but more importantly who we should despise.

Who should we despise;                                 

- people who tell it like it is                                  

- women who are ‘up for it’                                    

- sports people who are winning                          

And who should we despise;

- people who insist on political correctness

- women who have let themselves go a bit. Or are money grabbers. Or basically aren’t up for it 24/7

- sports people who have lost

Its a pretty fine line for famous people to cope with. One day you’re being feted as a hero, the next you are responsible for the most heinous atrocities in the world. Its only what you would expect from a small kid who changes his friends daily. The sort of kid that calls breasts boobs, bangers, balloons, bristols, globes. Anything just so that mummy doesn’t hear him talking about rude words.