
Days after fallout with The Don, he gets the virus. Coincidence? I think not.
Don't fúck with The Don

Will be a sad day for journalism if he goes. Why is it always the good guys??
frankster wrote:I think you've over-egged that a little...
Frodder wrote:He tested negative
Well, there's a f**king surprise that the bullying, self-centred cvnt is also a pathetic hypochondriac.Frodder wrote:He tested negative
jdogscoop wrote:He may be all those things and more but he is a good journalist.
The man who put the word cnut in countryside...jdogscoop wrote:He may be all those things and more but he is a good journalist.
Fair enough but I've dealt with enough to know that you don't need to be a good guy to be a good journalist.Fat Albert wrote:The man who put the word cnut in countryside...jdogscoop wrote:He may be all those things and more but he is a good journalist.
If he was on fire on the other side of the street and I held a bucket of water I'd drink it and wait for it to work through before going across and pissing on the embers
If, as a measure of 'good journalism' you take the sort of people who would illegally intercept phone conversations, send people to camp on the doorstep and go through the bins of 'celebrities' that they've taken a dislike to, or have decided are 'too big for their boots', then he's a bad journalist, as he's never, ever done any of that.jdogscoop wrote:Fair enough but I've dealt with enough to know that you don't need to be a good guy to be a good journalist.Fat Albert wrote:The man who put the word cnut in countryside...jdogscoop wrote:He may be all those things and more but he is a good journalist.
If he was on fire on the other side of the street and I held a bucket of water I'd drink it and wait for it to work through before going across and pissing on the embers
He was a par for the course tabloid editor then, in other words?message #2527204 wrote:If, as a measure of 'good journalism' you take the sort of people who would illegally intercept phone conversations, send people to camp on the doorstep and go through the bins of 'celebrities' that they've taken a dislike to, or have decided are 'too big for their boots', then he's a bad journalist, as he's never, ever done any of that.jdogscoop wrote:Fair enough but I've dealt with enough to know that you don't need to be a good guy to be a good journalist.Fat Albert wrote:The man who put the word cnut in countryside...jdogscoop wrote:He may be all those things and more but he is a good journalist.
If he was on fire on the other side of the street and I held a bucket of water I'd drink it and wait for it to work through before going across and pissing on the embers
He's cost what was The Mirror Group around £70m in the damages they've had to pay so farmessage #2527204 wrote:If, as a measure of 'good journalism' you take the sort of people who would illegally intercept phone conversations, send people to camp on the doorstep and go through the bins of 'celebrities' that they've taken a dislike to, or have decided are 'too big for their boots', then he's a bad journalist, as he's never, ever done any of that.jdogscoop wrote:Fair enough but I've dealt with enough to know that you don't need to be a good guy to be a good journalist.Fat Albert wrote:The man who put the word cnut in countryside...jdogscoop wrote:He may be all those things and more but he is a good journalist.
If he was on fire on the other side of the street and I held a bucket of water I'd drink it and wait for it to work through before going across and pissing on the embers
I think we have to make clear that the litigious, vindictive bastard want aware that anything like that was going on under his watch.SaintK wrote:He's cost what was The Mirror Group around £70m in the damages they've had to pay so farmessage #2527204 wrote:If, as a measure of 'good journalism' you take the sort of people who would illegally intercept phone conversations, send people to camp on the doorstep and go through the bins of 'celebrities' that they've taken a dislike to, or have decided are 'too big for their boots', then he's a bad journalist, as he's never, ever done any of that.jdogscoop wrote:Fair enough but I've dealt with enough to know that you don't need to be a good guy to be a good journalist.Fat Albert wrote:The man who put the word cnut in countryside...jdogscoop wrote:He may be all those things and more but he is a good journalist.
If he was on fire on the other side of the street and I held a bucket of water I'd drink it and wait for it to work through before going across and pissing on the embers
Drunk again ?jdogscoop wrote:He may be all those things and more but he is a good journalist.
As a good journalist, l’m sure he would never have published fabricated pictures that purported to show British soldiers committing war crimes, without bothering to conduct even rudimentary checks. Nor would he have purchased shares in companies just days before his paper tipped the same companies thereby increasing the value of his newly purchased shares.message #2527204 wrote:If, as a measure of 'good journalism' you take the sort of people who would illegally intercept phone conversations, send people to camp on the doorstep and go through the bins of 'celebrities' that they've taken a dislike to, or have decided are 'too big for their boots', then he's a bad journalist, as he's never, ever done any of that.jdogscoop wrote:Fair enough but I've dealt with enough to know that you don't need to be a good guy to be a good journalist.Fat Albert wrote:The man who put the word cnut in countryside...jdogscoop wrote:He may be all those things and more but he is a good journalist.
If he was on fire on the other side of the street and I held a bucket of water I'd drink it and wait for it to work through before going across and pissing on the embers
It's difficult to call it an interview when it's just him shouting his opinions as someone else tries to get a word in.Gospel wrote:Piers Morgan is a sort of swiss-army cunt. If his views on a given subject happen to align with your own then he's the right kind of cunt. Else he's just a cunt. A Piers Morgan interview seems to be a baptism of fire for junior ministers - where most don't make it out alive.
Wait, we are still talking Morgan here, right?message #2527204 wrote:Well, there's a f**king surprise that the bullying, self-centred cvnt is also a pathetic hypochondriac.
He's not alone in behaving like that. A career politician should be able to stand their ground as Matt Hancock did recently.message #2527204 wrote:It's difficult to call it an interview when it's just him shouting his opinions as someone else tries to get a word in.Gospel wrote:Piers Morgan is a sort of swiss-army cunt. If his views on a given subject happen to align with your own then he's the right kind of cunt. Else he's just a cunt. A Piers Morgan interview seems to be a baptism of fire for junior ministers - where most don't make it out alive.
It could be anyone he's interviewing as the only person you hear is the prize cvnt himself.
On a Tuesday night? Not generally.Anonymous. wrote:Drunk again ?jdogscoop wrote:He may be all those things and more but he is a good journalist.
Nothing to litigate there. He was editor and he didn’t have the rigorous culture in place amongst his staff to ensure they didn’t leave the organisation liable for damages. Even if he didn’t know about it, as editor he bears responsibility for the journalism taking place on his watch and shoulders the blame.message #2527204 wrote:I think we have to make clear that the litigious, vindictive bastard want aware that anything like that was going on under his watch.SaintK wrote:He's cost what was The Mirror Group around £70m in the damages they've had to pay so farmessage #2527204 wrote:If, as a measure of 'good journalism' you take the sort of people who would illegally intercept phone conversations, send people to camp on the doorstep and go through the bins of 'celebrities' that they've taken a dislike to, or have decided are 'too big for their boots', then he's a bad journalist, as he's never, ever done any of that.jdogscoop wrote:Fair enough but I've dealt with enough to know that you don't need to be a good guy to be a good journalist.Fat Albert wrote:The man who put the word cnut in countryside...
If he was on fire on the other side of the street and I held a bucket of water I'd drink it and wait for it to work through before going across and pissing on the embers
+1message #2527204 wrote:Absolutely no idea about his politics, he'd lick anyone's arse and then spit at them the following day.
Two faced cvnt.
An absolutely vile human being.
But aside from providing TV for people who can't get to the local dog-fight due to lockdown, what value does it add? Do we learn any more from an interviewee being shouted at and hectored? I'm all for holding politicians to account and not letting them get away with non-answers or evasive answers, but there has to be a point where the interviewer shuts up and lets the interviewee talk. I've not watched much of Morgan's interviews, but the few I have seen all seem to be all about him.Gospel wrote:He's not alone in behaving like that. A career politician should be able to stand their ground as Matt Hancock did recently.message #2527204 wrote:It's difficult to call it an interview when it's just him shouting his opinions as someone else tries to get a word in.Gospel wrote:Piers Morgan is a sort of swiss-army cunt. If his views on a given subject happen to align with your own then he's the right kind of cunt. Else he's just a cunt. A Piers Morgan interview seems to be a baptism of fire for junior ministers - where most don't make it out alive.
It could be anyone he's interviewing as the only person you hear is the prize cvnt himself.
Humphreys was irritating with his technique of asking a second question while the interviewee was 2 words into his answer to the first, ditto his 3rd question. In normal circumstances you'd say 'give me a fuçking chance to speak' but the media love pretending to be offended by straight talk.A5D5E5 wrote:But aside from providing TV for people who can't get to the local dog-fight due to lockdown, what value does it add? Do we learn any more from an interviewee being shouted at and hectored? I'm all for holding politicians to account and not letting them get away with non-answers or evasive answers, but there has to be a point where the interviewer shuts up and lets the interviewee talk. I've not watched much of Morgan's interviews, but the few I have seen all seem to be all about him.Gospel wrote:He's not alone in behaving like that. A career politician should be able to stand their ground as Matt Hancock did recently.message #2527204 wrote:It's difficult to call it an interview when it's just him shouting his opinions as someone else tries to get a word in.Gospel wrote:Piers Morgan is a sort of swiss-army cunt. If his views on a given subject happen to align with your own then he's the right kind of cunt. Else he's just a cunt. A Piers Morgan interview seems to be a baptism of fire for junior ministers - where most don't make it out alive.
It could be anyone he's interviewing as the only person you hear is the prize cvnt himself.
A good interviewer (Paxman & John Humphreys for example) get the information we want to hear. Does Morgan?
Brian Walden was very good back in the day.A5D5E5 wrote:But aside from providing TV for people who can't get to the local dog-fight due to lockdown, what value does it add? Do we learn any more from an interviewee being shouted at and hectored? I'm all for holding politicians to account and not letting them get away with non-answers or evasive answers, but there has to be a point where the interviewer shuts up and lets the interviewee talk. I've not watched much of Morgan's interviews, but the few I have seen all seem to be all about him.Gospel wrote:He's not alone in behaving like that. A career politician should be able to stand their ground as Matt Hancock did recently.message #2527204 wrote:It's difficult to call it an interview when it's just him shouting his opinions as someone else tries to get a word in.Gospel wrote:Piers Morgan is a sort of swiss-army cunt. If his views on a given subject happen to align with your own then he's the right kind of cunt. Else he's just a cunt. A Piers Morgan interview seems to be a baptism of fire for junior ministers - where most don't make it out alive.
It could be anyone he's interviewing as the only person you hear is the prize cvnt himself.
A good interviewer (Paxman & John Humphreys for example) get the information we want to hear. Does Morgan?
I always assume Wark was Paxman's natural successor for Newsnight and in being that big fearful political beast the BBC have around. I also think Jo Coburn is another great interviewer, tough but not as forceful as Andrew Neil, but the BBC seem to only want her for daytime and sideline her in big events. THe BBC seem more interested in female journalists if the media have commentated or speculated a bit about them, like some saucy dress at an awards night etc.Glaston wrote:Brian Walden was very good back in the day.A5D5E5 wrote:But aside from providing TV for people who can't get to the local dog-fight due to lockdown, what value does it add? Do we learn any more from an interviewee being shouted at and hectored? I'm all for holding politicians to account and not letting them get away with non-answers or evasive answers, but there has to be a point where the interviewer shuts up and lets the interviewee talk. I've not watched much of Morgan's interviews, but the few I have seen all seem to be all about him.Gospel wrote:He's not alone in behaving like that. A career politician should be able to stand their ground as Matt Hancock did recently.message #2527204 wrote:It's difficult to call it an interview when it's just him shouting his opinions as someone else tries to get a word in.Gospel wrote:Piers Morgan is a sort of swiss-army cunt. If his views on a given subject happen to align with your own then he's the right kind of cunt. Else he's just a cunt. A Piers Morgan interview seems to be a baptism of fire for junior ministers - where most don't make it out alive.
It could be anyone he's interviewing as the only person you hear is the prize cvnt himself.
A good interviewer (Paxman & John Humphreys for example) get the information we want to hear. Does Morgan?
Andrew Neil is ok but he does like himself a bit too much.
Peston is shit, Marr used to be good but is now shouty and talks too much.
I also like Kirsty Wark but the BBC seem to rarely use her.