macmurphy wrote:Actually, I said the paper promoted a conservative political agenda, as opposed to any specific article, though the front page I linked seems to qualify perfectly well. Do get it right old chap.
Orpheus's point was that a story promoted a conservative political agenda. I disputed that it had anything to do with politics. He raised the political point, not me.
And, as to your most recent post, the idea that the papers' (undeniable) right wing tone does not have a basis in politics is laughable, to say the least. That the paper openly switched allegiances is only relevant if you conflate 'promoting a conservative political viewpoint' with 'promoting the Conservative party', which are not the same thing. And, just to throw another spanner in your somewhat creaky mentally constructed works, during the 'switch' in the 90s, Labour became 'New Labour', now widely accepted as the most right-wing period the Labour party has ever seen (anti union, pro free market, etc).
The Sun promotes the politics of its owner, as do all of Murdoch's media. That this is an accepted fact across almost all of Europe when discussing something like Fox News, but impossible to concieve of when it comes to The Sun is hypocrisy (or ignorance) of the highest calibre. The paper promotes a disgusting 'little britain' ideology, front loaded with assumption, sneering at what it perceives to be 'social deviance', regularly printing outright fabrications and generally doing it's best to drag its readers back to the dark ages.
The only reason it's not 'as bad' as Fox is the UKs rather stringent libel and other associated laws. If those laws didn't exist, I have no doubt whatsoever that it would be equally as vile - and even as it is now, it's not far off.
Edited by orpheus at 18:22:55 12-02-2013