From: "Andy" <as-AT-spelthorne.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Comments on sensational U.K. journalism on -AT-s
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:15:14 +0100


Sadly, for many people the Times and Sunday Times are still regarded as
voices of authority akin to the BBC.

However, for younger readers on the list who don't know, they are owned by
Rupert Murdoch aka The Dirty Digger, the ex-pat Aussie owner of Fox TV etc.
who moved to the UK and thence to the USA, and is now moving into China,
hence Harper-Collins' refusal to publish Chris Patten's [former Governor of
Hong Kong] book -critical of Beijing- about the handover of our former
colony to the butchers who brought us Tienneman [sp?] Square.

The Times and Sunday Times are therefore more partial and less to be trusted
than probably any other of our newspapers, not that any are to be trusted
that much. Those with a liking for less sloppy right wing journalism are
better off with Conrad Black's Daily Telegraph, which tends to hold a more
consistent line, presumably because Black's business empire is less diverse
than Murdoch's and possibly impacts less inconsistently on editorial, or the
Spectator which at least has jokes.

Us over 40s fondly remember the Sunday Times of the early 70s edited by
Harold Evans, former beau of Tina Brown {who edits one of NY's trivial mags,
I think}, which ran some good investigative journalism, notably the campaign
against Distillers [then makers of various whiskies and spirits] over the
Thalidomide drug scandal.

Andy