But what business is that of ours? Even if he is a "cocaine snorting, philanderer, sex junkie" then it doesn't change anything about what he does, which is write, and perform comedy. Surely that fits squarely under being "of interest to the public", not "in the public interest". He never set out to sell his work on the basis of being a saint, or being decent in the slightest for that matter. And trying to paint him as a hypocrite for taking money from a Murdoch company for some of his work is a pretty shaky criticism. You'd be hard pressed to find support for the kind of stuff done by the NOTW, but that doesn't mean everything that Rupert Murdoch's many subsidiary companies do is evil. It's like calling someone who doesn't like the ethics of battery chicken eggs a hypocrite for shopping at Asda, even though they always buy the free range ones. As for his Champagne socialism; it doesn't make the tiniest bit of difference to me or you or anybody else what his views are. As soon as he becomes a politician then let me know and I'll give a monkey's, but until then it 's just totally inconsequential.
(, Sat 9 Jul 2011, 23:40, Reply)
thats a massively obtuse over-simplification. You categorically cannot take cash off the organization your espousing to slate on the one hand, just in exchange for 'a TV appearance' on the other. Im sorry for your lack of perception in this matter, not mention ,lack of experience in lifes wider margins.
(, Sun 10 Jul 2011, 9:51, Reply)
The point is that he's critisising the tabloid press, and their practices. At no point in that interview does he actually lay into the Murdoch media as a whole. You can get grubby tabloid "news" from The Sun, The Mirror, The Star, The Daily mail... It doesn't have to be owned by Rupert Murdoch to be a tabloid, or to employ the underhand tactics exposed over the last few years. To work in TV and Film and rule out dealings with the rest of Rupert Murdoch's media empire based on your distaste for a tiny, tabloid-shaped corner of it would be foolish and over-idealistic. You accuse me of an obtuse over-simplification, and then feel compelled to tar the entire holdings of News Corporation with the same brush because of the NOTW?!
Also, I think the personal attack ("Im sorry for your lack of perception in this matter, not mention ,lack of experience in lifes wider margins.") was entirely unjustified. You know absolutely nothing about me other than half-a-dozen lines written on the messageboard of a site that has an obsession for purple cocks. It's pretty judgmental to infer my experience of "lifes wider margins" from that.
(, Sun 10 Jul 2011, 10:37, Reply)