Journalism hits new low.

[i-need-a-martini]

That newspaper for morons owned by Murdoch, The Daily Telegraph, has decided to run a story that no other journalist/paper was willing to touch for obvious reason - Nathan Rees had an affair.

Given that the story has no public value, why on earth would they do this??

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/

And people read this garbage and think it's news??

[**meep**]

it was on a newsbreak on one of the early morning shows.....

[cherry*135]

I can't read the article unless I register.

Does it give nitty gritty details? I did read in the SMH online yesterday they knew of the affair but wouldn't publish details. However just printing that publicized the fact he had an affair.

[*ibis]

dont read it if you dont like it 

geez why whine?

[rawr*i*r*dinosaur]

---

@am*3 wrote:

I can't read the article unless I register.

Does it give nitty gritty details? I did read in the SMH online yesterday they knew of the affair but wouldn't publish details. However just printing that publicized the fact he had an affair.

---

News sites often leave a hole in their paywall for people who are referred to the site through search engines. Copy and paste the link to the news story into google, and then click on the link again in the google search results and there you go - full news story without subscribing.

[i-need-a-martini]

That's odd am - The Telegraph doesn't have a paywall so not sure why you can' read it.

Anyway, they are going all out and it's pretty gross. Particularly as all of the accusations are allegations. And given that the woman lied to start off with (she initially claimed the sex wasn't consensual) and that she is clearly out for revenge, you'd have to carefully consider every accusation she said before you published.

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

That newspaper for morons owned by Murdoch, The Daily Telegraph, has decided to run a story that no other journalist/paper was willing to touch for obvious reason - Nathan Rees had an affair.

Given that the story has no public value, why on earth would they do this??

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/

And people read this garbage and think it's news??

---

If Miley Cyrus twerking is world news, why should this not be news?? Why do you think it has no public value??? Someone in a position of power sets an example, why should he be made an example of?

[i-need-a-martini]

It's not a case of not liking what I read.

I am pointing out the appalling 'standards' our newspapers offer and it is sucked up without thought by it's readers.

The latter is a very sad reflection of our society.

[i-need-a-martini]

bob - there is a reason other newspapers wouldn't touch it. Not just because they were being decent.

[the_bob_delusion]

It's called what sells. Sensationalism  sells papers. You're talking about standards. That's an entirely different issue.