Now some revile a moralising media. Others, such as myself, believe it is the duty of the media to take an ethical stand
Ethics and morals are subjective.
As far as I’m aware, Justice Eady is applying the law as it is written. As it has been debated and voted upon by democratically elected leaders. That is his authority. Justice Eadys’ decision can be appealed. It is expensive and time consuming, but that is a different argument.
What authority has Paul Dacre got? Was he elected? Was he even appointed by anyone who has been elected? Has Mr Dacres ethics and morals been debated and voted on? Does his industry take the time to listen to all sides without exaggerating or scaremongering? Why the fuck should I listen to Paul and his gangs moralising?
There isn’t a plethora of websites dedicated to watching the right wing press for no reason, and just because a lot of people read your paper, doesn’t make your opinions and views right or any less disgusting.
Update:
Just spotted this Dave Osler/LC:
Few would argue that adultery is commendable in any positive sense. But it remains a popular pastime. It happens in life. On some estimates, a full one-third of over fifties are having affairs.
What’s more, two-thirds of unfaithful over 55s reportedly do not feel ‘any regret about straying’; I read that fact in the Mail of Sunday, the Daily Mail’s sister paper. That alone would seem to indicate that Dacre is seriously out of touch with his readership base.
Leave a Reply