The "reporters" at "The Sun" do it again

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Really? Go on, explain that to me.