david yelland leaves the sun

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

to be replaced by rebekah wade.

― toby (tsg20), Monday, 13 January 2003 15:01 (twenty-three years ago)

David Yelland is a bit ikky but Rebekah Wade did that whole stupid print a paedophile thing till the police told her to stop.

― N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 13 January 2003 15:04 (twenty-three years ago)

If the police tell you not to do something then whatever you're doing can't be that bad

― dave q, Monday, 13 January 2003 15:06 (twenty-three years ago)

What you mean like "Don't Stand So Close To Me"?

― Marcello Carlin, Monday, 13 January 2003 15:09 (twenty-three years ago)

Perhaps this explains their psychology in the seige. "Don't give up" they kept shouting to the fella - but he didn't go fro the reverse psychology nor the terror of the Kate Bush/Pete Gabriel duet.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 13 January 2003 15:14 (twenty-three years ago)

how much potential damage do you think will be caused to the government if as the guardian mooted yesterday, wade will take the sun into opposition again?

― zemko (bob), Wednesday, 15 January 2003 21:29 (twenty-three years ago)

Much more if she gets rid of Page 3.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 15 January 2003 23:14 (twenty-three years ago)

I think it will be more "disaffected with all politicians" rather than pro-Tory as it was in the 80s.

― robin carmody (robin carmody), Thursday, 16 January 2003 11:47 (twenty-three years ago)

On the radio the other day, Andrew Neil (ew) was saying that the political positioning of The Sun is out of the Editor's control and completely in the hands of Mr. Murdoch.

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 16 January 2003 12:17 (twenty-three years ago)

well duh

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 16 January 2003 12:36 (twenty-three years ago)

Unless of course, as people are speculating, Yelland didn't jump and was actually pushed in order to make way for a more anti-Blair editor as we (probably) get closer to a Euro referendum. Which Murdoch almost certainly cares about far more than whether Labour or the Tories are in power.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 16 January 2003 12:43 (twenty-three years ago)

However, it will be endlessly entertaining watching the Daily Mirror try and dig up dirt on Wade's bloke, Ross Kemp, out of sheer spite.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 16 January 2003 12:45 (twenty-three years ago)

page 3 girl on tuesday was 'Rebekah from Wapping' so I think page 3 is pretty safe.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 16 January 2003 12:48 (twenty-three years ago)

Mark, Neil seemed to be saying that of Murdoch's UK papers, The Sun is allowed least editorial control over its political stance.

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 16 January 2003 12:49 (twenty-three years ago)

i think that claim that the others DO have leeway is the dog-bites-man item here

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 16 January 2003 12:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Hm which is the man?

― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 16 January 2003 12:59 (twenty-three years ago)

I have heard ex-editors of the Times insist that Murdoch never interfered with their editorial job. Maybe an unspoken understanding existed though.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 16 January 2003 13:04 (twenty-three years ago)

The Times editorial line on most issues the two publications have in common is pretty much the same as the one behind the Sun, though.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 16 January 2003 13:11 (twenty-three years ago)

What an awful sentence. What I mean to say is that in terms of political stance (pro-Blair, pro-Iraq war, anti-Euro etc) the Sun and Times are pretty much the same. Obviously the Times has far more in terms of depth and subtlety and so forth, but I have never seen a pro-Euro comment piece appear in the Times, whearas they aren't unheard of in Telegraph or FT.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 16 January 2003 13:14 (twenty-three years ago)

Times v.anti-euro, yes. Pro-Blair, though? I don't think it's as simple as that. At the last election they urged voters to cast their ballot on a candidate by candidate basis, for whoever was the most eurosceptic of the main parties. They published a handy guide. This was usually the Conservative candidate (tho not always, of course).

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 16 January 2003 13:18 (twenty-three years ago)

Really? I remember BBC news saying at the last election that the Times had told its voters to vote Labour for the first time in its history. Of course, this could also cover "vote Labour in some seats" as well. Possibly there was also an element of not wanting to alienate its established readership.

Still, it seems like the most supine of the broadsheets towards the govt.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 16 January 2003 13:52 (twenty-three years ago)

the times did do an editorial telling its readers to vote for blair.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 16 January 2003 13:55 (twenty-three years ago)

You're right about the last election - sorry. They offered 'cautious but clear' endorsement. It was such a dull election I'd kind of forgotten it. The anti-euro vote advice was for the 1997 election. Does anyone actually read the 'vote this or that' leaders in papers? I mean the Times is still predominently right wing regardless of this editorial. (yes yes so is Blair blah blah).

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 16 January 2003 14:01 (twenty-three years ago)

''Does anyone actually read the 'vote this or that' leaders in papers?''

my dad gets the times and i did read that leader (though i hardly read the papers actually).

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Thursday, 16 January 2003 14:12 (twenty-three years ago)

Don't forget that Rebekah Wade was a young Conservative too. This is not a good sign.

― stephen. s (yaye), Thursday, 16 January 2003 19:08 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.