Dubstepforum.com

This is horrible.



Ex NOTW journalist Paul McMullan, BBC Radio 4, 2010, repeated, July 2011.

hes like a viz caricature of your typical bleary eyed drunken hack.



edit: just heard steve coogan tore him apart on newsnight... iplayering that shit


editedit: the newsnight presenter just called him a tortured soul, will self called him feral and rat like, and according to another forum im on he hasnt changed his clothes in any of his interviews for a week

got to wonder why that guy keeps agreeing to appear on tv, just gets ripped a new one every time

Ouch. Sounds like he's gona be the next person taking their own life.

McMullan's been a glorious car crash throughout this whole thing. I thought Paxman was going to nut him when he said "everybody's talking about phone hacking like's it a big deal" on Newsnight the other day

Words wrote:got to wonder why that guy keeps agreeing to appear on tv, just gets ripped a new one every time

He gives his reasons quite explicitly towards the end of the video.

mcmullen gets shot down again

yoowan wrote:

Jurrasic Park!

Is it wrong that I half-agree with the NOTW chap?

He has a point, as immoral and trashy as their use of phone hacking was, could clamping down with regulation be a greater cost? Greater Govt. control of the press is a really, really not a solution to this.

Also, as much as I like Coogan, he's just irate for being called out on his own scandals rather than the overall morality of the issue.

Tabloids etc should just be banned.

NilsFG wrote:Tabloids etc should just be banned.

WHAT?A JUST LIKE HITLA DID??? YOU NAZ!

.onelove. wrote:Is it wrong that I half-agree with the NOTW chap?

He has a point, as immoral and trashy as their use of phone hacking was, could clamping down with regulation be a greater cost? Greater Govt. control of the press is a really, really not a solution to this.

Also, as much as I like Coogan, he's just irate for being called out on his own scandals rather than the overall morality of the issue.

yes but this isnt about governments taking control of the press, its about journalists committing crime and thinking themselves above the law in the name of "free press". telling the truth in news doesnt mean blackmail and hacking.

and anyway, government control of the press or rupert murdoch control of the press: which is worse? or, even, what is the difference?

ahier wrote:and anyway, government control of the press or rupert murdoch control of the press: which is worse? or, even, what is the difference?

Precisely. The only preferable alternative is to revolutionise the press altogether. A very good book which concerns the radical roots of republicanism and what kind of press a democratic society needs is The Return of the Public by Dan Hind. It puts a very compelling case forward and is generally a cracking read.

http://news.fitzrovia.org.uk/2011/06/21 ... -dan-hind/

ahier wrote:

.onelove. wrote:Is it wrong that I half-agree with the NOTW chap?

He has a point, as immoral and trashy as their use of phone hacking was, could clamping down with regulation be a greater cost? Greater Govt. control of the press is a really, really not a solution to this.

Also, as much as I like Coogan, he's just irate for being called out on his own scandals rather than the overall morality of the issue.

yes but this isnt about governments taking control of the press, its about journalists committing crime and thinking themselves above the law in the name of "free press". telling the truth in news doesnt mean blackmail and hacking.

and anyway, government control of the press or rupert murdoch control of the press: which is worse? or, even, what is the difference?

But this is exactly the type of excuse the Government would use to clamp down on things that can question their order. It's all too familiar in recent years with the censoring of the internet and laws against terror.

I'm not against regulation, for instance yeah Murdoch's monopoly should definitely be reigned in. But would I rather have him enforcing his own agenda on the public, or be faced with a Government monitored paper that covers up any negative light upon them? Hmmmmm

It's quite clear that there is a lot of tit for tat between government and the media. There is a point at which their interests coalesce but I don't think people take that fact with nearly the amount of due seriousness it deserves when mulling over the idea of press freedom vs. government control which is by and large a false dichotomy.

.onelove. wrote:

ahier wrote:

.onelove. wrote:Is it wrong that I half-agree with the NOTW chap?

He has a point, as immoral and trashy as their use of phone hacking was, could clamping down with regulation be a greater cost? Greater Govt. control of the press is a really, really not a solution to this.

Also, as much as I like Coogan, he's just irate for being called out on his own scandals rather than the overall morality of the issue.

yes but this isnt about governments taking control of the press, its about journalists committing crime and thinking themselves above the law in the name of "free press". telling the truth in news doesnt mean blackmail and hacking.

and anyway, government control of the press or rupert murdoch control of the press: which is worse? or, even, what is the difference?

But this is exactly the type of excuse the Government would use to clamp down on things that can question their order. It's all too familiar in recent years with the censoring of the internet and laws against terror.

I'm not against regulation, for instance yeah Murdoch's monopoly should definitely be reigned in. But would I rather have him enforcing his own agenda on the public, or be faced with a Government monitored paper that covers up any negative light upon them? Hmmmmm

yes but his enforced agenda is the government; notice the pattern that who he is backing is who wins, since margaret thatcher. if his influence was dissolved then politics could surely become more about real politics than appeasing redtops? its idealistic, but its a hope - all this rocking of establishment is far too exciting for me to feel cynical about it yet

It's only idealistic if it isn't rooted in concrete analysis and a plan of action. Shall we set a date?

the acid never lies wrote:It's only idealistic if it isn't rooted in concrete analysis and a plan of action. Shall we set a date?

IM IN

(http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 09535.html this is who i stole my ideas off)

I quite like him.