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??

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@silverfaun wrote:

So no outrage that Rees is an adulterer, fixed up his mistress public housing , fixed her son's legal problems?? just outrage that it has been made public & it was made public before Murdock press released it.

Hypocrite much, your hatred for News Corp is boundless but nothing about the British owned Guardian  releasing damaging leaks to damage The Abbott government eh?

---

The only person who has a right to be outraged is his wife. 

And as for the other accusations that the paper made - none has been substantiated. Quite the opposite (particularly to her earlier allegations) which is the reason no one else was prepared to take on the story.

And no, it was not made public before "Murdock" released it - the Telegraph were heralding it as their "exclusive" (and still are).

And Johns "research" was neither here nor there in regards to the point of this OP - lowbrow 'journalism' by the most moronic newspaper in the country. All those other media outlets reported the story mildly, most without mentioning the ridiculous allegations, most only affter Ree made his announcement and all without the name calling the telegraph engages in.

So seriously silverfaun - continue to read your favourite newspaper. You clearly like it so it suits you.

[freddie*rooster]

---

@silverfaun wrote:

So no outrage that Rees is an adulterer, fixed up his mistress public housing , fixed her son's legal problems?? just outrage that it has been made public & it was made public before Murdock press released it.

Hypocrite much, your hatred for News Corp is boundless but nothing about the British owned Guardian  releasing damaging leaks to damage The Abbott government eh?

---

I don't recall anyone high fiving this affair, he's not the first and he won't be the last. The issue is regarding the reporting of this private and personal affair, as front page news. Was there any thought for the wife and family? nah!! that's not in the plan.

[silverfaun]

So reporting a story "mildly" is better than just reporting a story without nuance??? Please, you're just digging the hole deeper & deeper.

Your hatred for all News Corp newspapers who report  the news is well known on here, you love the left wing rags though.

This post is just a Murdoch bashing thread but it hasn't worked too well for you as there are many readers on here who educate themselves before going off into hate rant of Murdoch print which you are so fond of doing, everybody knows this.

Just stick to the Guardian & The  Age in future, more to your liking, they only print what you like.

[freddie*rooster]

Thank goodness most people are aware of the trash rag Murdoch rubbish.

[red_wolfey]

---

@silverfaun wrote:

So reporting a story "mildly" is better than just reporting a story without nuance??? Please, you're just digging the hole deeper & deeper.

Your hatred for all News Corp newspapers who report  the news is well known on here, you love the left wing rags though.

This post is just a Murdoch bashing thread but it hasn't worked too well for you as there are many readers on here who educate themselves before going off into hate rant of Murdoch print which you are so fond of doing, everybody knows this.

Just stick to the Guardian & The  Age in future, more to your liking, they only print what you like.

---

So can you substantiate your claims or are you hypocriically bashing someone?

[spotweldersfriend]

Please,please people.Lets get this straight. Murdoch's rags are not newspapers.They are the print version of Today Tonight/ACA.

[i-need-a-martini]

There is a great article by Jonathan Holmes in todays SMH about the critcism levelled at the ABC for reporting the Indoneasian spy story.

His last paragraphs are particularly pertinent to this OP:

Of course, there's a legitimate argument about whether or not the national broadcaster should have co-operated in breaking a story that was bound to be damaging to the Australian-Indonesian relationship.

But the story was going to break anyway. ''Mark Scott'', wrote Paul Sheehan, ''had a clear choice''. So he did. He could have told his senior editors to turn down the scoop, wait until The Guardian had broken the story, and then follow it up as best they could. Or he could let them take the offered documents and run first.

To any real journalist, that's no choice at all. If it's legal, and it's verifiable, and it's not endangering lives, and it's not invading privacy or intruding on grief, and it's a huge story, you publish, and let the chips fall where they may.

Unless you're Bolt, or Devine, or Sheehan. It's for them, not the ABC, that the politics matter more than the story.

That last line summs up the problem with most Murdoch media and more specifically the Telegraph.

If you would like to read the entire article silverfaun, here it is: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/spying-on-indonesia--here-is-the-news-a-good-story-gets-told-not-held-...

Or perhaps you don't read Firfax because it is a bit like watching the ABC?

[*ibis]

And people read this garbage

and people comment on this garbage for 4 days straight

why?

 newspaper for morons .......HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[just_me_karen]

They cater to their readership, obviously.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@*ibis wrote:

And people read this garbage

and people comment on this garbage for 4 days straight

why?

 newspaper for morons .......HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

---

Well how is this for a novel idea ibis - start a thread you think more worthwhile for discussion.

No? Can't think of anything? Can't be bothered? Adult conversation is a bit difficult to master sometimes? You prefer trolling other peoples threads instead of adding anything vaguely intelligent to a conversation?