« Home | Redwatch-watch: Fascist filth exposed. » | Save us, John! » | Casual xenophobia. » | Nosing of the non-Brown order. » | Blair's speech: The last gasp of a delusional, mes... » | Brown is still Brown. » | Scum-watch: Selective reporting about human rights... » | To be dead, or not to be dead, that is the questio... » | Lessons still not learned. » | Why were they there in the first place? » 

Friday, September 29, 2006 

Scum-watch: Getting ready to back Reid?

While there's no leader comment praising Reid's speech yesterday, the article published makes it clear that the newspaper deeply admired his reactionary oratory:

Battling Reid has got the grit

TOUGH guy John Reid yesterday became the only real leadership challenger to Gordon Brown — with a power-packed speech to the Labour conference.

He left no one in any doubt that he fancies his chances of taking on the Chancellor for the top job when Tony Blair stands down next year.

In a rousing speech in Manchester, the Home Secretary warned that leaders need to lead — with a clear implication that HE would be a tough and fearless PM, able to take on the resurgent Tories.

Even so, Murdoch's minions don't much like his criticisms of the Bush administration:
Mr Reid seemed to pander to the left with a rebuke to President Bush over climate change and other issues. Despite opponents saying Mr Reid will not get enough support from Labour MPs to stand against Mr Brown, he is now giving it serious thought.

Pandering to the left over climate change? Could this possibly be the same Sun newspaper that in recent weeks has suddenly decided that climate change is both real and a threat, rather than just something that idiot navel-gazing tree-hugging lefties worry about? Does the Sun also disagree about stem cell research and civil partnerships? We should be told.

Over on the letters page, the paper's correspondents are united in being opposed to local imams being informed of the possibility of anti-terror raids or arrests in their communities, a laughable Sun-exclusive report, in that it's bollocks. Albert Philpin gets £10 for his following brainstorm:
WILL cops also tip off the Archbishop of Canterbury? Why should Muslims be treated differently?

No, I have no idea what he's talking about either.

Finally, the Sun website drools over photographs of Pamela Anderson, while just slightly down the page has an article about women with breast implants being more likely to commit suicide. Joined-up editing? What's that?

Share |

Links to this post

Create a Link