Stokes Family Abused

[smoker]

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.

Some good points there.

The Sun is a despicable rag and I have no doubt the way their journos handled themselves was typically shitty, and they really should have asked Ben first, but he is a major public figure and his success under the shadow of this tragedy shows just what remarkable people he and his parents are. Perhaps the moral minority who wanted him strung up for the Bristol fracas will now be more understanding.

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

No, it isn’t.

The actions of a politician 31 years ago may be of interest if it could be linked to policy or voting intention or if it borders criminality.

This has absolutely no value whatsoever to anyone and all it does is to serve to completely unnecessarily hurt the Stokes family.

Vile vile story from a vile vile rag.

Ok, so politicians have no privacy, but what about everyone else. I accept the time lag here makes it different - but what about if someone gets murdered tomorrow. Should that be on the news. If the family don't want it? Won't that hurt them? Wouldn't the police be able to do their job better if it wasn't on BBC News?

 

[Bri]

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.

Well said. Too often the reaction is influenced on whether it's a story about someone you like or not.

All papers are like this. Their stories often hurt the innocent - even look at the Guardian, had to apologise for a brutal and cruel editorial yesterday.

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

How is something from 31 year ago newsworthy? Why do people need to know about this?

How do you know anything about it? Why didn't you just ignore the headline?

People are more complicit in the way our media operates than they like to let on.

 

[Chappers]

Ok, so politicians have no privacy, but what about everyone else. I accept the time lag here makes it different - but what about if someone gets murdered tomorrow. Should that be on the news. If the family don't want it? Won't that hurt them? Wouldn't the police be able to do their job better if it wasn't on BBC News?

If ben stokes mam and dad had been murdered yesterday then i would have thought it would be front page news.

This happened before stokes was even born, has no bearing at all on anything and for me just isnt relevant as being newsworthy.

 

[brandon]

Ok, so politicians have no privacy, but what about everyone else. I accept the time lag here makes it different - but what about if someone gets murdered tomorrow. Should that be on the news. If the family don't want it? Won't that hurt them? Wouldn't the police be able to do their job better if it wasn't on BBC News?

Where did I say that politicians have no privacy?

I’m saying it could be deemed newsworthy if it fits a particular criteria.

A murder tomorrow is current, a murder 30 odd years ago was newsworthy 30 odd f***ing years ago.

If you can’t see the difference you aren’t worth a f***ing login, nevermind a debate.

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

Where did I say that politicians have no privacy?

I’m saying it could be deemed newsworthy if it fits a particular criteria.

A murder tomorrow is current, a murder 30 odd years ago was newsworthy, 30 odd f***ing years ago.

If you can’t see the difference you aren’t worth a f***ing login, nevermind a debate.

Can't you read? I admitted it makes a difference. You seem to completely not understanding my point. My point is that - sure, outrage about the Sun. But if we really want a society that protects privacy in the way that Stokes' is calling for implictly, then I am sorry: we are all way more guilty with our prurience than people like to let on. I mean, how the fuck does anyone know what happened? You did the right thing imo in not linking to anything and in trying to squash details in calling on the mods. You were acting exactly as Stokes would have wanted there - but still everyone seems to know what f***ing happened.

Basically what I am saying is: people are screaming at the Sun out their mouth then googling all the details with their hands and eyes. Their's a hypocrisy going on here that most are guilty of - you may be the exception on this thread - and unless people are prepared to confront that, then there is no way we are changing the way the media operates. We legitimise it.

 

[Mainze]

Where did I say that politicians have no privacy?

I’m saying it could be deemed newsworthy if it fits a particular criteria.

A murder tomorrow is current, a murder 30 odd years ago was newsworthy 30 odd f***ing years ago.

If you can’t see the difference you aren’t worth a f***ing login, nevermind a debate.

I can see why Stokes is upset by it, who wouldn’t be. Tbh though I wouldn’t have ever known about the story if he hadn’t released that statement. The Sun isn’t high on my daily reading list.

 

[GordonMuchallNo1Fan]

I've tweeted Durham to ban The Sun more so aimed at the international next year.

 

[tunstallhill]

Ok, so politicians have no privacy, but what about everyone else. I accept the time lag here makes it different - but what about if someone gets murdered tomorrow. Should that be on the news. If the family don't want it? Won't that hurt them? Wouldn't the police be able to do their job better if it wasn't on BBC News?

if someone was murdered in a sunderland street tomorrow, then it quite rightfully is newsworthy. not realising official details would lead the rumour mill to take over, and we all know how quickly that spirals out of control in this day and age. if it was kept secret by the authorities, inevitably the family, friends, work collegues etc.. of the murdered person would find out, and a conspiracy would follow. i imagine if the family want as little exposure as possible they could keep their identities a secret and have the police mearly state that a person was murdered and the culprit has been arrested/enquiries are ongoing/we are looking for *this* person.

its outrageous to think that its similar in any way to what The Sun have done here. the poor woman will have spent 30 years trying to get over it, and probably never will. and now she has to see it splashed across the front page of a newspaper, for no reason at all. it has served no purpose other than as click bait and to sell a few papers on a slow news day.

of course people will be naturally curious now as to what all the fuss is about. perpetuating the problem

 

[Bri]

It’s not newsworthy at all

It happened 31 years ago

Of course it's newsworthy. That's not the same as it should be published.

tbh, I don't know where the border lies between publishing and not publishing - in many stories someone is going to get hurt.

 

[keybuk]

Perhaps professional sportsman could take a united stand here and tell the Sun where to go.

What they did was a ***** trick played on someone who did something exceptional to make most of the country smile for a few days.

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

if someone was murdered in a sunderland street tomorrow, then it quite rightfully is newsworthy. not realising official details would lead the rumour mill to take over, and we all know how quickly that spirals out of control in this day and age. if it was kept secret by the authorities, inevitably the family, friends, work collegues etc.. of the murdered person would find out, and a conspiracy would follow. i imagine if the family want as little exposure as possible they could keep their identities a secret and have the police mearly state that a person was murdered and the culprit has been arrested/enquiries are ongoing/we are looking for *this* person.

its outrageous to think that its similar in any way to what The Sun have done here. the poor woman will have spent 30 years trying to get over it, and probably never will. and now she has to see it splashed across the front page of a newspaper, for no reason at all. it has served no purpose other than as click bait and to sell a few papers on a slow news day.

of course people will be naturally curious now as to what all the fuss is about. perpetuating the problem

This is all fair enough and the summary of what I was saying is that it's easy to be outraged, but nothing changes unless you do something about the "naturally curious" part. It is, as you say, perpetuating the problem.

 

[tunstallhill]

Perhaps professional sportsman could take a united stand here and tell the Sun where to go.

What they did was a ***** trick played on someone who did something exceptional to make most of the country smile for a few days.

and they would do it to any single one of us, other than a Tory donor. even if we won the footy world cup, not a single player would be safe from having something like this dragged up. i imagine that they have the 'stories' already penned, and just wait for the most opportunistic moment to publish them.

 

[brandon]

Can't you read? I admitted it makes a difference. You seem to completely not understanding my point. My point is that - sure, outrage about the Sun. But if we really want a society that protects privacy in the way that Stokes' is calling for implictly, then I am sorry: we are all way more guilty with our prurience than people like to let on. I mean, how the fuck does anyone know what happened? You did the right thing imo in not linking to anything and in trying to squash details in calling on the mods. You were acting exactly as Stokes would have wanted there - but still everyone seems to know what f***ing happened.

Basically what I am saying is: people are screaming at the Sun out their mouth then googling all the details with their hands and eyes. Their's a hypocrisy going on here that most are guilty of - you may be the exception on this thread - and unless people are prepared to confront that, then there is no way we are changing the way the media operates. We legitimise it.

Speak for yourself pal, but I tend not to want to know the minutest details about people in the public eye. I couldn’t give a fuck, if they want to share it that’s up to them. Some do, that’s their choice.

Regarding this story, someone posted the gist of the story on another forum, that’s what little information I know and I’ve got no desire whatsoever to find anymore out.

The fact anyone is defending The Sun here is a f***ing disgrace.

 

[tunstallhill]

This is all fair enough and the summary of what I was saying is that it's easy to be outraged, but nothing changes unless you do something about the "naturally curious" part. It is, as you say, perpetuating the problem.

but the Sun could simply not publish the article, therefore everyone would be non the wiser. you can't stop the natural instincts of humans, but you can stop being an utter c*nt and publishing things like this

Banned a bit severe but I am happy to take it down if any body lets me know

does that go for all Sun articles? can we add the Daily Mail to that ? no good whatsoever comes from either of those Tory mouthpieces, but a lot of damage does

 

[brandon]

but the Sun could simply not publish the article, therefore everyone would be non the wiser. you can't stop the natural instincts of humans, but you can stop being an utter c*nt and publishing things like this

Quite simply, the shit rag in question have abused people, bringing up traumatic memories and feelings from the past - just to make money.

That is the definition of scum.

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

Speak for yourself pal, but I tend not to want to know the minutest details about people in the public eye. I couldn’t give a fuck, if they want to share it that’s up to them. Some do, that’s their choice.

Regarding this story, someone posted the gist of the story on another forum, that’s what little information I know and I’ve got no desire whatsoever to find anymore out.

The fact anyone is defending The Sun here is a f***ing disgrace.

I'm not defending the Sun. I'm attacking society's hypocrisy. If you are above that, good for you.

 

[brandon]

Well played BBC - applause necessary for them.

Been a report on the Lunchtime news there which gave short thrift to the rag and showed a very sympathetic view to Stokes and his family.

No surprise that the toilet paper have issued a statement in response which includes NO APOLOGY.

A look at Stokes’ Twitter restores my faith in humanity somewhat. If only one of the muppets on here took note.

I'm not defending the Sun.

So what the fuck are you doing then? Because it looks very much like you are.

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

I'm not at all. I'm trying to channel peoples' outage about this to reflect on their behaviour - and I'm serious. How does everyone know what happened, eh? If you know, you're supporting the way we currently think about news. If you don't know then good for you.

Because the response drives the story?