[Threxy]

The Sun has alarmist headlines practically every day. What's new?

[Chindits]

(Original post by Threxy)
The Sun has alarmist headlines practically every day. What's new?

He's dead. It's not an alarmist headline. It's a headline that reminds us what Gaddafi did to this country.

[PendulumBoB]

(Original post by Chindits)
If you had any idea about politics and journalism, you'd have noted that the Sun was picking up on David Cameron's short speech in which he said that yesterday was a day to remember the Lockerbie victims, Fletcher and the victims of the IRA who were armed by Gaddafi.

Maybe you'd be better reading the Guardian. I haven't checked, are they eulogising him? it's just that the left wing were sucking on the teat of Libya and Syria until very recently.

Pfft, both the Guardian and the Sun deserve to be on the bonfire next to each other; they're the different sides of the same coin.

[callum9999]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
It suggests that his killing and capture was done for those reasons, when it obviously wasn't.



Well I realise it's the sort of thing you'd come to expect from them, however once in a while they do something that is even more awful it's hard not to pass comment on it

Not really. As I said, that phrase is in common use as a gloat as well as a description. It didn't even occur to me that they were listing the reasons for his capture. It's a typical "serves you right for doing xxxx" headline.

What's so awful about it? Other than it being the Sun of course.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by Chindits)
They aren't saying the capture and death was as a result of those incidents, they're alluding to him deserving his comeuppance because of those incidents.

By saying "that's for" they a drawing a direct line from those events to his death, and since those events are not directly the cause for his death....

Plus his death was at the hands of a Libyan, not a Brit. A Libyan wouldn't kill him in revenge for any of the forementioned events so saying "that's for...." is rather daft.

Basically it's shoddy journalism.

and find your need to create a thread about it rather baffling.

You find it baffling that someone might want to once again highlight the poor reporting of a newspaper?
Poor you.

(Original post by Chindits)
He's dead. It's not an alarmist headline. It's a headline that reminds us what Gaddafi did to this country.

It's the sort of headline someone might read out in a very high pitched excitable tone of voice.

(Original post by callum9999)
What's so awful about it? Other than it being the Sun of course.

It's shoddy reporting.
It's basically the newpaper reporter version of teenage girls shrieking because some idiot from their favourite boyband just came out of the closet.
It's hysterical nonsense.

[abc:)]

As well as the fact that yeah he wasn't actually shot as revenge for lockerbie, I just find it a bit of a vulgar headline. Since when did the British public get sick pleasure out of someone's death? Even an evil tyrant. It's just not very British imo.

[thisisnew]

(Original post by Chindits)
They aren't saying the capture and death was as a result of those incidents, they're alluding to him deserving his comeuppance because of those incidents.

I thought that was fairly clear and find your need to create a thread about it rather baffling.

Pretty much this.

[abc:)]

(Original post by PendulumBoB)
Pfft, both the Guardian and the Sun deserve to be on the bonfire next to each other; they're the different sides of the same coin.

I read The Guardian and yeah I see what you mean I don't always agree with what's in there or how they report things but at least their reporters are literate. Some of the language used in The Sun is abominable.

[callum9999]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
By saying "that's for" they a drawing a direct line from those events to his death, and since those events are not directly the cause for his death....

Plus his death was at the hands of a Libyan, not a Brit. A Libyan wouldn't kill him in revenge for any of the forementioned events so saying "that's for...." is rather daft.

Basically it's shoddy journalism.




You find it baffling that someone might want to once again highlight the poor reporting of a newspaper?
Poor you.




It's the sort of headline someone might read out in a very high pitched excitable tone of voice.




It's shoddy reporting.
It's basically the newpaper reporter version of teenage girls shrieking because some idiot from their favourite boyband just came out of the closet.
It's hysterical nonsense.

For the final time, it is a saying. They are not stating the reasons for his death. I initially thought it was obvious but took your point at the beginning of the thread. However, I really cannot understand why you can't grasp the simple concept of a saying.

Obviously it's going to be shoddy, hysterical reporting, it's the Sun! Shoddy hysterical reporting is the kind of news most people seem to want.

[RyanT]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
That's not the point though. Gadaffi's capture and death had nothing to do with any of those events mentioned on the front page of todays "The Sun" yet they make out like it is.

He made himself a very personal enemy of the UK by bombing citizens of an allied state in our airspace.

No of course he did not die literally because of lockerbie, however he did have his card marked and our planes did attack his government when the opportunity arose. How you are failing to see the link between the UK involvement in Libya and the subsequent "Gotcha" is beyond me.

I don't even like the Sun, but do they have a point.

[Skaterkid]

Dont know why your talking like you saw it happen.

[Cesar Lecat]

(Original post by PendulumBoB)
Pfft, both the Guardian and the Sun deserve to be on the bonfire next to each other; they're the different sides of the same coin.

Really? Go on, explain that to me.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by RyanT)
He made himself a very personal enemy of the UK by bombing citizens of an allied state in our airspace.

No of course he did not die literally because of lockerbie, however he did have his card marked and our planes did attack his government when the opportunity arose. How you are failing to see the link between the UK involvement in Libya and the subsequent "Gotcha" is beyond me.

I'm not failing to see the link, I know the link is there but it's not even close to as potent as how the Sun makes out.
Plus the UK only really decided to get involved when the rebels started up.

Before that there were open channels of communications between our country and Libya.

Spoiler:

Show

Yep, that's what I'd call a "marked card" alright.

I don't even like the Sun, but do they have a point.

It's over the top hysterical nonsense.

[C_B_C]

They're not morons, they're smart: they live off the morons who buy and believe this ****.

[Martyn*]

Free press.

[House Dagoth]

educationally subnormal perverts is the target market?

[House Dagoth]

(Original post by C_B_C)
They're not morons, they're smart: they live off the morons who buy and believe this ****.

This.

[PendulumBoB]

(Original post by Cesar Lecat)
Really? Go on, explain that to me.

The Sun/The Guardian:

Alarmist-Yobs running riot etc/The government are all Nazis etc

Extreme opinions with regard to this nation-This country is the greatest country ever, we literally invented everything/The west is a scourge on this planet and everything bad was caused by it, not like those lovely Tibetans.

Infuriatingly smug readership-We've got common sense not like those pencil pushers in Westminister/We all have degrees in African studies, I think we're better qualified than that Mr. Cameron is when it comes to the economy.

"We represent democracy"-**** off Europe we fought for our independence/Ban tabloids and give children, socialist brainwashing... sorry political education so they can make informed decisions at the ballot box.

One sided-Do you need my commentary for this one (not that you really do for any of them)?

How to deal with crime-Hang 'em high/Use highly trained sociologists to work out the factors influencing criminal behaviour so that society society can take collective responsibility for its reduction

The economy-No immigrants, and no JSA, everyone out of work is in such a state by choice/Tax those evil bankers more so that we can implement a full Keynesian economic strategy (most of them don't even now what Keynesian economics is).

Foreign policy-Guns, tanks, nukes-ATTACK NOW/If they are a capitalist or pseudo-fascist government send in the chav...eh chaps...the soldiers, if they are socialist or Islamist then resort to a post-modernist type line of thinking which goes something like, "who are we as westerners to assert that our system of not oppressing our people is a superior system of government, in fact Robert Mugabe is actually quite a good leader-leave them be."

Israel-Izwhat?/Those Jews are just like the Nazis, *Ignores what the Arabs do to gays and apostates in the rest of the Middle East*, their state is an abomination and should not exist *Heckles anyone who even so much as eats humus* Oh and before you call me racist, I should tell you I'm part of an anti-racist organisation *Shows you his token white person membership card, for the black panthers/any other equally racist organisation*.

[H.JJJ]

I glanced this as I was walking by a newsagents. I thought "Nah, I must have read that wrong..."

Seems like I didn't.

[Cheese_Monster]

IRA semtex? Fighting for freedom actually. Americans supplying the Germans and British with weapons in WW2, the British training Bin Laden, its all messed up and all comes back to us.

When I saw this paper, I felt physically sick, yes this man should probably have died but he didn't die for his victims.