I tweeted yesterday afternoon about the fact that a Sun reporter - I did not note his name - had rung me wanting to talk about a story on tax evasion.
My reaction was immediate. I said 'I do not cooperate with the Sun'.
He was surprised. His appeal was 'But it's on tax evasion'.
I replied that I did not care: I reiterated that I do no cooperate with The Sun.
He asked why.
My reply was 'Hillsborough'.
I could have said 'Coulson' but that only occurred to me later.
And the answer is, yes I do want stories on tax evasion out there, but not at any price. I would not do Press TV for what I thought to be good reason. I do not do The Sun for good reason too.
And before anyone points it out - I have been quoted in The Sun once, to my knowledge, but I did not place the story: others did. I would avoid it again if I could.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Hillsborough was probably the worst thing The Sun have done in the last 30 years but is merely the tip of the iceberg! Well done for standing up to these people – somebody has to (I once thought Ed Miliband would stand up to them but that was before he decided it would be a good idea to be photographed with a copy of The Sun saying good luck to the England World Cup team. What a muppet.)
That tells you all you need to know about Miliband -buying into cultural banality in order to get the perceived vox populi vote. Part of the anti intellectual neo-liberal dumbing down project.
you could also add Page 3 to your list!
And rightly so Richard. The Murdoch empire goes to the very heart of our distorted power system and how past PMs and the Metropolitan police etc seemed to have entangled them selves up with his empire. The whole story not least the five thousand and five hundred victims of phone interception is unpleasant but the response since of not enacting a proper regulation of the tabloids which the Dowlers and McCans and other victims want shows how deep that power goes.
Sound judgement: whatever you say, the Sun will distort it.
It is entirely possible that the distortions in the published article will be intended to mislead the readers into beliefs that are untrue, and damaging to their interests.
Worse, the Sun has an agenda: their owners avoid tax, their advertisers avoid tax, the governments they favour are aiding and abetting tax avoidance. And, lets face it, tax evasion is less titillating that tits: why would they even be thinking of running an unprofitable story?
My first thought is: they’re going after someone.
Best not to collaborate in that: the only downside to your refusal is that it hastens the day when the Sun goes after you.
DO you have any real evidence that the sun avoids tax, also how many of their advertisers avoid tax.
The Murdoch empire makes extensive use of tax havens
I’m sure the reporter could not make sense of your response because he/she lives in a principle-free world. Good for you (and us!) Richard – do you apply this to the Mail, Express?
“I could have said ‘Coulson’ but that only occurred to me later.”
Just as well you didn’t then, because Coulson left the Sun in 1994.
The NoW was always the Sunday Sun
There has been absolutely no evidence of phone hacking by The Sun. NotW yes, The Sun no. I hope you aren’t suggesting that The Sun is guilty of phone hacking.
News International was
And why are you so keen to defend abuse?
PS The Sun published the Blunkett story with all names first – how did it get them?
Absolutely correct NOT to deal with these horrible people. Well done Richard for taking a stand.
The guardian media group avoid tax, but you seem to have no problem in writing for them…
No one is pure
Compared to The Sun shall we get real here?
The Guardian falsely claimed that voicemails to Milly Dowler’s phone had been deleted. Is this any worse, morally, than the false claims of Hillsborough? If so, why?
And yes, the GMG avoids a helluva lot of tax.
They made a claim in good faith
And corrected it
And they were right – the phone was hacked
You show your depravity by comparing this with industrial scale crime
I guess the key difference is that the Sun weren’t going to pay you, unlike the Guardian??
The Guardian is wholly immaterial to my financial well being
A couple of weeks ago the Guardian ran an article about the factors which have contributed to increasing euro-scepticism over the last 30 years. The influence of Thatcher was crucial, but a very important factor was the take-over of the Times and the Sun by News International. Sure, the EU needs reform, but voters have simply been fed 30 years of anti-EU propaganda by Murdoch and I fear that the influence of NI is one of the major barriers to any really radical reform. After all opinion was fairly evenly divided on electoral reform before the referendum, but a concerted campaign by the tabloids turned people against it. Miliband is rightly afraid of the ‘red Ed’ tag, because like it or not, the drip-drip effect of the propaganda will destroy him.
LOL, well played Richard!!
You have the facts and right on your side on this one.
It is so important to remember what the Sun / Murdoch did, and would do, given half the chance.
Working people need to wake TF up.
It is no exaggeration to say we need to worry about our democracy when these greedy chancers are loitering around.
Watch out.
One consolation: if or when the Sun goes after you, you can be certain that you have stung the powerful – Murdoch and his dismal minions included.
No media organisation is perfect but one could write whole volumes on the Murdoch empire. Their efforts to manipulate the political landscape are ‘legendary’. I would have to include them in the ranks of anti-democratic forces. Take this recent example from Australia: http://www.independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/academics-and-the-australian-go-up-in-smoke,6599
It’s an example of everything journalism shouldn’t be.
See your point, but where do you stop with this? Are you going to blank the BBC
for employing and letting loose Jimmy Saville?
No
I do not think the BBC let loose Jimmy Saville
It may not have done enough to stop him – but I think to draw comparison between this and the corruption at News International is absurd
Didn’t do enough?! It didn’t do anything. There were a lot of people very high up at the BBC who knew what was going on.
And is hacking phones really worse than the kind of abuse that Savile undertook over such a long period? Is it? And if so, why? On what moral basis?
To be honest, if someone hacked my phone I probably wouldn’t care very much at all. Let’s face it, like it or not, governments and big business have access to far more important information than what’s on my phone. Whether that is right or not is kind of beside the point.
I am not saying phone hacking is worse than Saville
I am saying the News International permitted phone hacking – Coulson did
He even issued a demand for it
And the Sun deliberately reported Hillsborough as it did
The BBC did not instruct Savile
In think that a massive distinction
But you always remain on he side of abuse
It seems that lots of individuals say evidence of Jimmy Savile’s behaviour, but didn’t think it untoward enough at the time to say anything. As a result, lots of stories were swirling around the BBC and elsewhere and lots of people who, with the benefit of hindsight, say they ‘knew’ actually mean that they had heard all the stories but had no direct evidence.
Thank you for taking this stand.