…and if anyone wants to see Nick Davies and Anne Robinson stick it to a former NoW hack, they can view last night’s Newsnight on iPlayer (though I’m sure it’ll also end up on YouTube). Never has the phrase ‘like being called ugly by a frog’ been so apt.

The Guardian corrected its story as soon as it had new information, and also ran Davies’ piece to give background. As the Sun wants to talk transparency and honesty, perhaps they could consider that:

» But at least the paper managed to concede its figures on knife crime were wrong in just three weeks.

Not forgetting their story about Liverpool fans looting the dead and pissing on their corpses at Hillsborough.

shatterface

Be fair their editor of the time continues to defend the story – he only apologised many years after the event because murdoch made him – and even then he only apologised for believeing blindly the police and a Tory MP (something most sane people instinctively know not to do).

And he has since retracted his apology.

How dare you, Tim – the Scum only deals in one thing – albeit the sort of ‘truth’ mediated through the mind of people like our Kelvin!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/67/Hillsborough_disaster_Sun.jpg/220px-Hillsborough_disaster_Sun.jpg

Most journos are right wing scum bags.

Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but Murdoch’s papers still hacked into a dead teenager’s voicemail. Which is what was monstrously wrong in the first place.

Claude: they hacked into a dead kid’s voicemail, and their hacking (because, at the time, 121′s policy was to keep messages for a month if unlistened, but delete them after 72 hours if listened) caused the message to be deleted, making her parents believe she was still alive. The bullshit nonsense fake debate that the Sun is trying to kick up is literally about whether the hacks in question pressed 3 to delete after listening to the message or not.

(actually, on 121 you’d press 7 – I loved the edit-comment-just-after-posting thing that Sunny used to have, but got rid of for some reason)

At least The Sun pays it’s taxes into the UK coffers which is more than the Guardian does.

When the Guardian screams about bankers avoiding paying taxes it just stinks of rank hypocrisy…

Ref post 7 john b

What you have stated there is incorrect.

Please do some research and then post the correct information.

It looks as if some people here are turning a blind eye to the importance of The Guardian having reported a factually incorrect story. A story which was widely used by the media at a critical moment as evidence of malpractices at the News of The World.

There were plenty of wrongdoings by people at News International, however this aspect of the the NOTW / Milly Dowler episode was the one which, in my opinion, lead to the closure of the paper. So why should other papers not be supported in criticising this error by the Guardian? The greater good?

Had Nick Davies/The Guardian’s story been used as evidence to successfully prosecute James Murdoch for these offences in a criminal court – well, the case would have later been overturned and the moral high-ground surrendered to News International.

Had Nick Davies/The Guardian’s story been used as evidence to successfully prosecute James Murdoch for these offences in a criminal court – well, the case would have later been overturned and the moral high-ground surrendered to News International.

Yes, I’m, er – I’m sure that’s why The Sun is so outraged.

@OP, Tim Fenton: “Much has been made in the past couple of days of the Police revising their view over how the voicemails of Milly Dowler were deleted, and how this impacted on the Guardian’s exclusive.”

Examine the facts:

1. Police had loads of information about Milly Dowler. She used a mobile phone. Mobile phone usage was used in the period when she was presumed missing. Competent police officers would have retained all of those records.

2. Nick Davies made an incorrect assumption about message deletion.

3. Had the police investigation been competent, they would have understood the need to talk with the phone provider to retain records. More detailed records than the norm.

4. Davies pointed his finger at the right people on mistaken grounds. On the basis of flawed evidence, Davies happenchance pointed his finger in the right direction.

whenever i go into a newsagents there always seems to be piles of unsold suns which never used to be the case before the scandal. i think its done irreversible damage to the sun . for a laugh read a book self published in 2004 and republished in 2009 called CAMERA ASSASSIN by Ian Cutler,a photographer who used to work in the tabloid press and NEWS OF THE WORLD in particular. No wonder he had difficulty getting it published . He reveals the true disgusting truth about the Murdoch press.

The right-wing tabloids are the absolute worst enemy of any chance of a decent politics in this country. They are the enforcers of the ruling class and they must be defeated.

Nick Davies is amazing, tears that moron apart!

Davies & Diamond versus NOTW scrote here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=704Z7bWazxg

You only need the first five words of the headline to this post.

@13

What you manage to miss is that Davies based his story on four (yes, four) sources, including two police forces. He didn’t make any new assumptions.

Heck, even Mulcaire owned up to it.

Compare with the Sun over Hillsborough where they used one police source that was voicing an opinion.

@19. Tim Fenton: “What you manage to miss is that Davies based his story on four (yes, four) sources…”

But what I said @13 was supportive of you and Nick Davies. Is reading difficult?

@20. Charlieman: “Is reading difficult?”

Apologies. My remark was wrong and unnecessary.