I might be wrong on the Gary Speed one. I know at the time there were some very unsavoury internet/twitter rumours going around but thought they came from the Sun or were rumoured to be a Sun scoop that never got published.
I think you maybe right. With a quick google search, the top suggestion was from earlier in the year from the sun. The headline was along the lines of Gary Speed was almost certainly a victim of footy pedo. What an utter disgrace they are.
A friend of mine reads it occasionally. I just don't understand. He's an intelligent bloke, had a very good job that's given him a very comfortable retirement. Somewhat 1950s in his mindset but then he grew up partly in the 50s. I feel like asking him why he reads it. He's capable of digesting any paper on the market so is it laziness? I wouldn't say it's because he likes the salacious stories either. Is it because it's cheap? I guess I'm taking a long way round of saying that there's an awful lot of people that read it who you'd expect would want something a lot more balanced and informative. It baffles me. I genuinely don't see what anyone with an adult reading age and politics left of Yaxley Lennon would get out of it. The paper, like it's owner, is disgusting.
Is the Stokes story wrong because it's about a popular sporting hero. Had a similar story been about the Australian batsman Smith or say a Tory MP it's unlikely that anyone on this site would object. Should we judge a story like the one about Stokes in isolation, that is we object to it whoever it's about, or do we criticise its publication because it's about someone we like.
It’s wrong because it’s a needless invasion of privacy. It’s not news and it has no value beyond sensationalism. If the ‘victim’ had been a Tory MP maybe a different set of people would have taken to the internet to complain about it.
Irrespective of the political persuasions of the victims or those commenting Donny there’s right and there’s wrong, that leftie rag the guardian at least had the intelligence to realise the self harm it had caused itself and apologised, no such stance from the sun but what else would you expect.
It might be how my mind works but if I'm into cricket. A cricketing story is what I want to read about Stokes. I couldn't care less about his or his families private life. This is a violation.
The Sun bent over backwards to get Stokes banned with the nightclub brawl video some 18 months ago so I would say no. In fact I think they have some unhealthy agenda against him.
There were lots of rumours about Gary Speed & been at Crewe as a young lad but I’ve no idea whether the scum or any other paper were writing a story about it
The article on Stokes was invasive and the Sun were to my mind wrong to print it. But the point I'm making DR is that we can't cherry pick what is invasive/bad journalism and what isn't. We shouldn't be saying - I don't like that guy so the press can say what they like and I'm doing nothing about it or because I like someone the press shouldn't be invasive etc. Invasive/bad journalism is just that - it's not relevant who is the 'victim' of the bad journalism.
It's worse for Gareth Thomas because of the follow up stories that him having HIV will bring about. I admire how he turns things into a positive though. He's now going to campaign for better awareness of the disease. A lesser character might commit suicide. My point is not everyone handles situations in the same way. If newspaper intrusion did in any way lead to Gary Speed's death that's horrific.
I don't think anyone is saying it is out of order because of who it is. I'd feel the same regardless of whether I liked them or not.
We don't disagree about the story or what makes 'bad' journalism - we slightly disagree about the fact you thought it was pertinent to point out that it was raised here but if the victim had been someone else it might not have been. Whilst I have very strong opinions about the behaviour of the Sun; I don't feel strongly enough about Stokes to be 'up in arms' though if it had been a Barnsley player or a WRC driver I may have been. Does that mean I value some peoples privacy more than others? No; it just means I would 'feel' differently depending on who the victim was, that's human nature.