The Sun

[GUBRATS]

Just now, MZH said:

How do I know what?

That the Sun is a comic ? , If you don't read it ?

[JohnM]

6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Anyone any clearer on what has actually happened here?

Probably not. Lost in the noise, I think. 

[MZH]

Just now, GUBRATS said:

That the Sun is a comic ? , If you don't read it ?

I didn't say I don't read it.

I don't buy it, but there is often a copy or two lying around at work, so I do have a flick through from time to time. It's just full of celebrity rubbish and "also in the news" type stories. Meanwhile the more serious stuff will get an inch or two down the margin next to a double page spread of potatoes that look like things.

[GUBRATS]

1 minute ago, MZH said:

I didn't say I don't read it.

I don't buy it, but there is often a copy or two lying around at work, so I do have a flick through from time to time. It's just full of celebrity rubbish and "also in the news" type stories. Meanwhile the more serious stuff will get an inch or two down the margin next to a double page spread of potatoes that look like things.

Fair enough , that's what he was asking 

[Dave T]

If we are supportive of LFC's stance on The Sun, surely we don't want them covering our game?

Alternatively, we should think very carefully about using Anfield if they are going to prevent one of our most prominent media partners from covering OUR events there.

We don't ban the Sun from St Helen's, Wigan or Wire and this should have been factored into SLE and the RFLs decisions on using this ground.

[GUBRATS]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If we are supportive of LFC's stance on The Sun, surely we don't want them covering our game?

Alternatively, we should think very carefully about using Anfield if they are going to prevent one of our most prominent media partners from covering OUR events there.

We don't ban the Sun from St Helen's, Wigan or Wire and this should have been factored into SLE and the RFLs decisions on using this ground.

This is in no way excusing the way the Sun behaved , but apart from the ownership of the business who remains from the management at that time ? 

[bobbruce]

13 hours ago, hrtbps said:

The Premier League? Is this not what happens at every Liverpool home match?

Also for years didn’t fergie ban anyone who didn’t do a favourable article about Utd. At one point even the BBC. 

[Dave T]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

There is a difference between a passive allowance of the sun to cover games and an active facilitation of it. 

We used to pay for pullouts in the Sun. They have covered our game for decades.

[gingerjon]

10 hours ago, Hemel Stag said:

If I hire out the hall at my local village, football or rugby club, do they have a right to tell me who I can invite to my party?

 

Yes, they do. It'll be in any contract you agree to.

For example, the charity I work has a hall that is often hired out. The people who hire it have to agree that any activities they put on will be in line with the charity's values, plus a whole bunch of other rules to do with the position of the building in the wider community. We could easily add something about any people - say we had an exclusion list based on people who'd publicly said things against the charity's values in the past - who would not be welcome.

[Martyn Sadler]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Yes, they do. It'll be in any contract you agree to.

For example, the charity I work has a hall that is often hired out. The people who hire it have to agree that any activities they put on will be in line with the charity's values, plus a whole bunch of other rules to do with the position of the building in the wider community. We could easily add something about any people - say we had an exclusion list based on people who'd publicly said things against the charity's values in the past - who would not be welcome.

Any organisation will have a list of undesirable people it doesn't want to see in its premises and when signing a contract to stage events there you would naturally agree to those conditions. And if you didn't agree you wouldn't go there.

But it's a different thing when an organisation bans a media outlet.

As I have pointed out earlier, Super League apparently accredited Gary for the Magic Weekend, but was then overruled by Liverpool, which suggests that this wasn't drawn to their attention beforehand. Who knows whether the contract for the Magic Weekend made reference to the Sun ban?

[gingerjon]

12 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Any organisation will have a list of undesirable people it doesn't want to see in its premises and when signing a contract to stage events there you would naturally agree to those conditions. And if you didn't agree you wouldn't go there.

But it's a different thing when an organisation bans a media outlet.

As I have pointed out earlier, Super League apparently accredited Gary for the Magic Weekend, but was then overruled by Liverpool, which suggests that this wasn't drawn to their attention beforehand. Who knows whether the contract for the Magic Weekend made reference to the Sun ban?

But that's my point.

Say, as a charity, we'd had a bit of an issue with Nearwheregingerworks Gazette. We could easily add said publication to our list.

If you signed the contract that made it clear that the Gazette were banned but the accredited them anyway (say it's a concert and you put them on the guest list) then the charity can start pointing to the contract and pointing out you're in breech of it.

So, it seems to be there's a few things here - none of which anyone seem to be very clear on:

Does the Anfield standard terms make it clear that The Sun will not be accredited? Did the RFL sign it anyway? If they don't make it clear, then how do Liverpool FC get to overrule the RFL?

But, regardless of the above, on what grounds does the Sun appear to terminate the contract of its rugby league reporter? And why would a Murdoch paper undermine a sport that does pretty well for Murdoch's Sky Sports?

[gillmeister]

11 hours ago, Chamey said:

Yeah, it's a pretty rubbish paper, however it astounds me that some of the same people who decry the decline in RL's national media profile are cheering this.

 

The Daily Mail (7.8m daily reach) doesn't have a RL section on their website or a specific correspondent.

The Telegraph (3.2m daily reach) has an RL section, averaging 1 article a week this year, and no specific correspondent.

The Times (1.6m dr) seems to have one article a week from Chris Irvine in season. 

The Sun (7.4m dr) now isn't covering RL.

The Express (1m print dr) doesn't have a single RL story on it's website, never bought the print edition.

The I (700k dr) has token RL snippets in the quick bytes section.

The metro (3.6m dr) is much the same as the I in my experience.

The Daily Star's (1.1m dr) website is useless, and never bought the print edition, any idea how much they cover RL?

The Guardian (5.4m dr) has about one article a day, albeit about half of them are NRL-related, and hence don't appear in the print edition.

 

So out of all the national papers in the UK, only one (Gruinard) covers RL somewhat adequately, losing the Sun's coverage would be a very bad thing.

Daily Mirror?

[hrtbps]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Any organisation will have a list of undesirable people it doesn't want to see in its premises and when signing a contract to stage events there you would naturally agree to those conditions. And if you didn't agree you wouldn't go there.

But it's a different thing when an organisation bans a media outlet.

As I have pointed out earlier, Super League apparently accredited Gary for the Magic Weekend, but was then overruled by Liverpool, which suggests that this wasn't drawn to their attention beforehand. Who knows whether the contract for the Magic Weekend made reference to the Sun ban?

This whole thing stinks of The Sun's shenanigans. They knew what they were doing trying to send a hack to Anfield, just like they knew what they were doing when they paid Wayne Rooney £250,000 for an interview or when they cornered Graeme Souness into appearing on its front page.

[redjonn]

2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

That doesn't really change what I said. 

There is a big difference between allowing the sun to go to games at St's, Wire, Wigan wherever, and disregarding a stadium holding games because they don't allow the sun in. 

We aren't beholden to any newspaper, let alone a racist, homophobic, sexist, bigoted rag. The idea that Gary Carter's job should be given any consideration when deciding where to hold the magic weekend is preposterous. 

The fact is that a very small minority of people read newspapers, a small minority read The ####. No newspaper decides where we can and can't hold games, such an idea is preposterous. 

That is rather strong with regard to your assertion that its a  racist, homophobic, sexist, bigoted rag.   That is the people that work for the newspaper organisation as the organisation is the people.

[redjonn]

2 hours ago, gillmeister said:

Daily Mirror?

mind you that's pretty poor newspaper too,,,, 

[redjonn]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

Im not sure that's necessarily true, not everybody has influence over editorial policy 

Though, personally, If I were to work for such an organisation there would probably be some serious questions I would ask myself about what I was contributing to. 

whomever they are you are still attributing them with rather strong attitudes/beliefs which are also against the law.. so I think you are wrong.

[paulwalker71]

17 hours ago, Jim Prendle said:

Actually, that would be The Metro, but never mind.

OK, I should have said 'paid for' newspaper, clever clogs  

[Jim Prendle]

1 hour ago, paulwalker71 said:

OK, I should have said 'paid for' newspaper, clever clogs  

[Cheshire Setter]

Ultimately (unless we're talking about the Independent*) all Newspapers publish content that's biased towards their intended market.   I'm not going to get upset if The Sun prints some twaddle about something or other just to be controversial and sensationalise a story that will increase sales in that intended market.   The Hillsborough situation was wrong and I've got no problem with a section of society boycotting the paper, but let's not kid ourselves that none of the other papers would have chosen to take that line just to sensationalise a tragedy.   You have the scandal with The Mirror and the News of the World, The Daily Mail's right-wing NIMBY vitriol etc.   

If we don't like it, just don't buy it.

Personally, I'll pick up a copy of The Sun that's been left around at work and scan through it if I'm bored.   If I want proper information I'll read something like the Independent, and If I want to get filled with rage I'll read the sports pages of the Daily Mail 

*notwithstanding it's lean towards Russian Oligarchies 

[Gooleboy]

7 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Also for years didn’t fergie ban anyone who didn’t do a favourable article about Utd. At one point even the BBC. 

He didn't ban the BBC, he refused to talk to them or do interviews. It went on for a few years.

[Cheshire Setter]

37 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

He didn't ban the BBC, he refused to talk to them or do interviews. It went on for a few years.

Sort of like Hanley did with ALL the media then.

If only Schofield had done the same! 

[DimmestStar]

On 11/06/2019 at 16:16, gingerjon said:

Liverpool, leftly, do not let The Sun into Anfield.

 

[Lowdesert]

17 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Sort of like Hanley did with ALL the media then.

If only Schofield had done the same! 

Hanley didn’t do that at all.  He asked for money first and if it wasn’t provided he didn’t talk.  

[bazzzz65]

5 hours ago, redjonn said:

mind you that's pretty poor newspaper too,,,, 

It gave me a good living for 37 years and a decent pension!

[wasginger]

John M you say it's the paper of the ordinary man, well it certainly doesn't speak for me, and as for Murdoch saving the paper and jobs , you're a buffoon, I suggest you look at his track record of unemployment and twisting the truth, and don't forget this was the same rag who reported Herr Thatcher calling the miners the enemy within, and glorified in distorting it's reporting of the strike.