Stokes Family Abused
- Thread starter brandon
- Start date
Spennymackem1981
Winger
f***ing hate that media company and all it stands for, dpnt know why anyone buys the f***ing thing anyway
The Voice Of Reason
Striker
No body should read or buy that rubbish
Just when you think the gutter press couldn't get any lower.
They probably have a department just to dig the dirt on anyone who has the temerity to be successful.
Who's next Jofra Archer?
f***ing shitehawks.
They probably have a department just to dig the dirt on anyone who has the temerity to be successful.
Who's next Jofra Archer?
f***ing shitehawks.
GordonMuchallNo1Fan
Striker
Gutter press aimed at him again, unbelievable. Some people chose to believe the gutter press aimed at him not too long ago. Disgusting
jjarra_mackem
Winger
Utter scum. Sending a reporter cold calling his mam.
Like she wants to have some twat dredge that up
Like she wants to have some twat dredge that up
brandon
Striker
Can I ask that anyone posting a link to that newspaper article be banned?
Horrific “journalism” from scum
And give the cricket coverage rights to someone other than Sky
A close friend of mine was murdered a few months ago.
I got contacted via Facebook with reporters from another daily wanting some "quotes"
The brother of a very recent murder in Newcastle was also contacted via Facebook.
Comeback_Kenwyne
Winger
TIn hat firmly on, but I think this is more complicated than people are making out.
I'm not going to defend the way the Sun goes about journalism. The tone of their reporting is always sensationalist and unacceptable - and I know a bit about how they operate. They will, as Stokes implied, have gone about hounding his mother and family for comment. That is, as he says, the absolute lowest of the low.
Where I think this is more complicated is that this is definitely news. I am afraid to say I have looked at the non-Sun reporting of it (most of which has been taken down) and it is absolutely newsworthy - and could almost certainly have been found out by anyone in New Zealand with Google alone i.e. absolutely no need to hound his family. It is actually such a huge story its remarkable it hasn't come out before.
Stokes's line is that his family have a right to privacy. They certainly have a right to not be bothered. But where is the line on stories like this? If it were a politician or a celebrity that nobody has particular affinity to on here then everybody would deem the reporting of the mere facts (i.e. not the houding) as fair game if not outright public interest. And what about non celebrities who do not, as Stokes does, have the privileged position of lawyers and fame to stop life events like this being reported? What are the limits of the public's right to know stuff? I think this genuinely gets to the messy middle point of these type of conversations, where it's not clear either way.
I honestly don't know. If he has a right to this kind of privacy then we need to rethink the way society operates and we all behave. Maybe we should, but we are all guilty of intruding on stuff like this - even the way we go on about Sunderland players.
I'm not going to defend the way the Sun goes about journalism. The tone of their reporting is always sensationalist and unacceptable - and I know a bit about how they operate. They will, as Stokes implied, have gone about hounding his mother and family for comment. That is, as he says, the absolute lowest of the low.
Where I think this is more complicated is that this is definitely news. I am afraid to say I have looked at the non-Sun reporting of it (most of which has been taken down) and it is absolutely newsworthy - and could almost certainly have been found out by anyone in New Zealand with Google alone i.e. absolutely no need to hound his family. It is actually such a huge story its remarkable it hasn't come out before.
Stokes's line is that his family have a right to privacy. They certainly have a right to not be bothered. But where is the line on stories like this? If it were a politician or a celebrity that nobody has particular affinity to on here then everybody would deem the reporting of the mere facts (i.e. not the houding) as fair game if not outright public interest. And what about non celebrities who do not, as Stokes does, have the privileged position of lawyers and fame to stop life events like this being reported? What are the limits of the public's right to know stuff? I think this genuinely gets to the messy middle point of these type of conversations, where it's not clear either way.
I honestly don't know. If he has a right to this kind of privacy then we need to rethink the way society operates and we all behave. Maybe we should, but we are all guilty of intruding on stuff like this - even the way we go on about Sunderland players.
Last edited:
Spennymackem1981
Winger
D
