Talk:News of the World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Paedophile Campaign

Portsmouth not Southampton I thought? Will check before I try and alter it.

The female paediatrician was neither attacked nor driven from her home: see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4719364.stm for the full story ChrisTheDude 09:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The female paediatrician had "paedo" painted on the door of her surgery/office. She claims to be the victim of ignorance, which makes a lot of sense considering that the "News Of The World" caters to that demographic. The NewsOfWorld protecting children is all about public relations, the parents of children who read the NewsOfWorld and believe they're (and ultimately act) crusaders in morality is worrysome. It was the NWO and various other sunday pornographic tabloids that pioneered Telephone Sex Chat lines to make a few quid. (even stories of parents of children who had to remortgage their houses because their kids were running up huge phone bills didn't deter the porno barons from snubbing lucrative ad-space from fellow seedy smut peddlers)

More recently, Rupert Murdoch (CEO of NewsCorp which owns the Pornographic Tabloid) accepted an award from Nicole Kidman whom Murdoch on accepting the award from her called her a "dear friend". Nicole Kidmans latest movie "Birth" had just recently been released on DVD. The movie created a lot of attention in that a boy aged 9 or 10 who starred in the movie shared scenes in an intimate sexual nature. Where is the line drawn? I guess its "just acting"Shall i sign the Sarah Payne petition before i go and rent a copy of "Birth" or after?

User: Dean1970, April 5th/2006

I have removed the link to the paediatrician story as it has no direct relevance to the News of the World, i.e. there is no proven link between the incident and the paper's campaign. If you want to put the story in the paedophilia or child sex offender pages where it belongs then go ahead. SaintedLegion 15:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irony?

"Of course the paper had missed the irony of starting the campaign in the same issue that they published a centre page spread of former Atomic Kitten star Kerry Katona posing topless in a series of pictures taken when she was aged 16."

Where's the irony here? The age of consent in the UK is 16. Therefore, the Katona pictures had nothing to do with paedophilia. It's easy to accuse the NotW of hypocrisy over this, but the fact that she was over the age of consent makes all the difference. --Richardrj 09:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it is illegal to publish pornographic or semi-pornographic pictures of anybody in the UK under the age of 18, although I maybe mistaken--Edchilvers 21:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the lower age limit for pictures is 16, the same as the age of sexual consent. Which is the point I was making. --Richardrj talk email 21:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I am right: http://sexualoffencesact2003.quickseek.com/

The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 amended this to deal with the concept of pseudo-photographs. 1.– (1) It is an offence for a person– (a) to take, or permit to be taken or to make, any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or (b) to distribute or show such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs; or (c) to have in his possession such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs, with a view to their being distributed or shown by himself or others; or (d) to publish or cause to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser distributes or shows such indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs or intends to do so. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 further amended the 1978 Act so as to increase the age of a child from 16 to 18; consequently, the 2003 Act also added a defence to cover the situation where an "indecent photograph of a child" was created by that child's partner. Because of the Bowden decision, it was also necessary to add a defence where it was necessary to make an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph for the purposes of a criminal investigation.

OK, my mistake. However, this does not change my point since the Act did not become law until 2004. The Katona pictures were published in 2000, at which time the lower age limit was 16 and hence the pictures were legal. The point being made in the article is that the newspaper was being hypocritical in campaigning against paedophilia while at the same time publishing titillating pictures of a teenage girl. My point is that in the eyes of the law the pictures were, at the time they were published, of a consenting adult, and therefore there was no hypocrisy. --Richardrj talk email 05:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I recall a story about four years ago in which it was told that a UK tabloid newspaper had printed topless pictures of a woman (sic) celebrating her 16th birthday. The date of her birthday was said by the paper to be the date of publishing, not the date of the shoot itself. If true, it was pointed out that in order to publish semi-pornographic pictures of a person on the ocassion of his/her 16th birthday it was necessary for the pictures to be taken and stored while that person was legally still a child, and even after the passing of the birthday the pictures were still of a child and consequently the paper was involved - technically at least - in producing and circulating child pornography. I cannot recall which paper it was: I believe it may have been The Sun or the NotW and the story may have appeared in Private Eye. Does anyone else have any recollection of this story? If sources can be found then I consider it a possible addition to the relevant newspaper article - especially if the paper in question was edited by Wade at the time. -- Delsource (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It was the Daily Sport - the pictorial was to mark the 16th birthday of the glamour model Linsey Dawn McKenzie. Citations are on her wiki page. --Uncleboaby 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it wasn't her or that paper, and it was much later than 1994 (about five years ago at most). Delsource (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Removed that unpleasant 'ironically', which has been buzzing around in my head like a fly for the last week - it's exactly the kind of lazy editorialising that the NoW's detractors frequently atrribute to the paper itself. I've added in an acknowledgement that some people think it hypocritical - if anyone has an example of this online, let's link to it.--Uncleboaby 23:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability?

I'm rather curious. The editors here are probably more familiar with NotW than I am. An editor on an article on a living person has been inserting a negative claim using News of the World as a source. It's precisely the sort of celebrity sex/drugs scandal that this article claims NotW specializes in.

So what is the consensus among editors here as to NotW's credibility and reliability? Note that per WP:LIVING, such negative claims must be reliably sourced. I have so far been reverting to remove the claim on the presumption that NotW is not reliable, but I felt it would also be good to ask for another opinion here. So is NotW reliable, or not? Kasreyn 03:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

NotW is decently reliable. They've certainly had a few libel lawsuits against them, but they've also successfully revealed many, many scandals. I would consider a claim by NotW worth including, but I would write it as "The tabloid News of the World reported that . . . ." It's not broadsheet quality, but it's more reliable than the American tabloid press/glossy magazines. Hope that helps! Vickser 20:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End of the NotW

Ouch: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5176522.stm

NotW is certainly heading to bankruptcy. They will not be able to stand the financial damages stemming from the just collapsed "red mercury bomb" trial. The british police and secret services alone had 10+ million UKP expense investigating this false calse and the now acquitted three muslim defendants will also need millions per capita to settle or they'll go to Strasbourg, where EU law is very harsh against libel and slander. The burden of proof is reversed there compared to anglo-saxon law. 195.70.32.136 13:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused; I always heard that British laws against libel were tougher (as in, tougher on the defendant) than elsewhere. Are you saying the EU's are even tougher on the defendant? Kasreyn 13:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Truth is NOT absolute defence in continental Europe. Even if you say or publish something true, but embarrassing about X. Y. the court may still determine that such info had no legitimate public interest (utterly wihout redeeming value) and rule that you have to pay damages to X. Y. and apologize to him publicly. Even if X. Y. was a public figure. In Europe the dignity of people takes absolute precedence over freedom of creating scandal. 195.70.32.136 08:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phone Scandal

I did a poor rush job on this section and encourage someone to clean it up if they have time. Some helpful links: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] We should also keep an eye on this possibly developing into its own article. Good luck! Vickser 06:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a lot missing

Inevitable really considering the history of the paper, but here are a few things I can think of that should be included:-

Exposed Frank Bough for the illegal use of drugs, consorting with prostitutes and for dressing in womens lingerie, an expose that cost him his job with the BBC

Had the first female editor of a UK national newspaper (Wendy Henry)

Was credited by George Orwell, in his essay, The Decline of the English Murder, as being significent in some part in forming and reinforcing cultural views in post war Britain.

But with a paper with such a history there is so much more that should really be recorded here. Smileyc 21:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

news of the world just broke a news story about british soldiers beating iraqi civilians/youth, this doesnt really jive with its traditional image of being uber-right-wing, whats up?

Kerry Katona was 18 or 19 in the year 2000 (according to Wiki page), so are you sure the photos of her where when she was 16?

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:News of the World.png

Image:News of the World.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)