Not Worth Paying For

Martin Kelly writes:

The BBC joins The Times in failing to mention that Rembert Weakland, the first witness for the prosecution in the liberal media's attempt to subject Benedict XVI to trial by public opinion, has been proven to have occasioned more scandal for the Church than the Holy Father ever has.

Does one sense a desire to settle scores hanging in the ether? And can such omissions, themselves failures of media's duties of care to its consumers, really be described as responsible and objective journalism? After all, you don't expect to buy what is described as a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich and expect to find out that the bacon has been deliberately withheld from you. Why should one buy a newspaper and expect it not to report the news?

In an aside, it has been reported that News International will soon start charging viewers to read the Times and Sunday Times online. If its chairman believes that this should be considered a progressive step, he's up a gum tree. Keith is not the only person in the world who incurs costs to use the Internet. Those who read his publications online at the moment may well resist the idea of having to incur more. I for one will not, and The Thunderer may one day just become a squeak in the distance of memory.

In the inimitable words of The Exile:

The BBC reports that as of June punters will have to pay Rupert Murdoch £2.00 a week to access the Times and Sunday Times on-line. The Sun and News of the World will remain free for the time being and since they contain the same news, but with added tits, it is hard to see what Murdoch is playing at.