Quote Originally Posted by Ram59 View Post
Probably one of your more polite responses Swale, on your first point, you are correct in assuming that I don't read the tabloids, I stopped reading comics while I was still at school. When I do want to read fiction, I have a number of books on my Kindle.

Perhaps you didn't read where I questioned the reasons behind the 20 year delay in her brother releasing these notes and I share your distain for her manipulation of certain events, but this doesn't take away from the facts that a 'respected' journalist from a 'respected' news agency resorted to coercion, to get a vindictive interview. Would she have come up with some of her stories had she had not been stoked up first, I think not. Whether, you like her or not, it was well known that she had issues and to play on that mental state using forgeries and lies was immoral and something that I would have expected from a tabloid, not as many on here describe the 'worldwide respected BBC'.

So you seem to be agreeing with me that the BBC are no better than the tabloids. You also seem to be claiming that it's okay for journalists to do what they want when going for a big story. Maybe we should give them a blue light to put on their car, when they're racing to a new story developing? lol

I'm not naive, but I do object to being forced to pay £150 per year, to have left leaning crap thrown at me. I bet you'd love to being forced to pay £150 per year to have the Daily Fail delivered to your door every morning.
But how is it left leaning crap? The tactics employed by journalists to obtain stories can vary but often involve subterfuge - you personally may not agree with it, indeed I was at one stage considering a career in journalism but realised that I wouldn't ahve the stomach to do what was required in order to get stories. Now you and I for that matter may recoil at the methods used to get news, and its not restricted to the tabloids, though it is common there as the phone hacking scandals demonstrate.

That proves my case really, one could hardly accuse the Murdoch press of pushing left leaning crap! So I think your wide of the mark on that one.

But unless you totally avoid reading any newspaper, then you, me and the rest of us feed this behaviour as we devour stories that sell! Personally I don't give a flying **** about the personal affairs of the royal family or x or y celebrity for that matter. I would wager however that every respected journalist, I'm referring to those that have actually gone out and got scoops, exclusives on major stories has used all types of tricks in order to get them. Whilst you can harrumph about the morality of it all, I do think "thank goodness" they do because lots of quite important stories would never have become public knowledge otherwise.

Would she have come up with her stories? Mm difficult to answer that one without knowing the person and her motives, my view is yes she would, she felt wronged by that family and wanted her side of the story put across and there were a number of media organisations eager to interview her.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, as is looking back and making judgements on actions that happened in another time, I'm not saying the rights and wrongs of events should not be considered and applied in a different way going forward, but for me this is a non story!

I can see your point about the dealings with Diana, cannot see how that makes the BBC a left leaning organisation, either then or now.