Boycott the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday

[bigreddog]

Isn't the core problem here that some people think that papers have some kind of social responsibility to act in the national interest, be balanced and realistic. except those some people aren't journalists. some people make the point that if it didn't sell newspapers they wouldn't write it. from my experiences of knowing a few journalists from some of the papers that have been mentioned in this thread, I'm afraid the harsh reality is that they'd still write it because they can't be arsed with the alternative. and by the way I'm no just talking about the written media when it comes to that attitude.

[Richard Head]

I'm not sure what relevance a headline from 1934 has so we can forget that one

It's as relevant today as it was then. The Daily Mail is majority owned by the Harmsworth family, aka Viscount Rothermere, except that now it's the grandson. They were bigoted Jew-haters then and their intolerance hasn't changed much since then. The current Viscount is domiciled in Paris but lives in the UK so avoids millions in tax every year.

P.S. I worked for Associated Newspapers, the owners of the Mail, for three years and I know a lot of stories that could further illustrate my points.

As fascinating as your stories about the Mail might be they are completely irrelevant when it comes to the Triesman story

[Richard Head]

I'm not sure what relevance a headline from 1934 has so we can forget that one but all the other examples quoted are when lies or inaccuracies were used in a story. That did not happen in this case, Triesman just let his mouth runaway with itself.

Since the story broke has anyone confirmed whether Triesman actually believed what he was saying about Spain and Russia or was he just blowing hot air? If he believed it, is there any evidence out there to back him up?

If triesman believes what he said, then he will have his reasons and I would think it more likely that this is true than not.
However, you are missing thr main point, this wasn't something in the public interest as with some political scandals. This was a clear and deliberate ploy to undermine the bid for the World Cup in 2018. As a football fan, you really should be looking at the implications of that.

If Triesman believed what he said and had evidence to back it up then why would he not go through official channels rather than mouth off in private.

The World Cup bid has been a shambles and doesnt need undermining. Just as i am not particularly bothered how England get on in South Africa, i am not particularly bothered where the World Cup is payed in 2018.

[shrimper]

He said these things IN PRIVATE and to someone he thought (because of his relationship previously with her) he could trust to be discreet. That doesn't make him indiscreet. He didn't say them in any forum which he thought for a minute may reach the wider world. He was tricked.
That's because he knew they were only rumours, therefore didn't carry any weight, as yet.
He wasn't the only one who had heard these rumours and won't have been the only one to discuss them in private. He was, though, the only one to trust his comments to this woman.
Had he found evidence then he would have gone through the appropriate channels.

Had he, himself, been suspected of corruption and the paper operated a sting to establish whether he was 'open to bribes' (like in other notorious cases) and found to be sleazy, I'd have a different view. That could be argued to be in the public interest.

But this was gutter, chequebook journalism, the sort the 'serious' press is supposed to have dispensed with.