-
What part of what I wrote don't you understand?
The "angle" is that the newspapers had a juicy story, but didn't publish it in order to exert influence over someone who could exert influence over them.
Scilly.Suffolk-
So the story should be that there isn't a story anywhere but in the BBC?
-
The "angle" is that the newspapers had a juicy story
But why was it "juicy"? Doesn't sound like it in this case.
If the story was specifically spiked by the government, then that'd be interesting. Is that the case?
-
"What part of what I wrote don't you understand?"
I said: usually the angle is hypocrisy/dishonesty. This doesn't feature in this case.
Titillation is a much harder angle to get away with in the current climate.
"Juicy" is a very subjective measure that any tabloid editor has to measure up against the risk of opprobrium or stricter regulation.
I think this story, without the hypocrisy/dishonesty angle, is quite hard to justify.
(I think most stories about public figures' sex lives are largely unjustifiable titillation IMHO)
So - I understood what you wrote perfectly well, thanks. I just disagree with you on whether this is a story a tabloid editor would find worth publishing.
Have a nice evening.
Kidneys
Drakien
h2o
I think generally the argument for caring about public figures' sex lives is that if they're cheating on their spouse, they're dishonest.
If they're single, what's the angle?
(awaits accusations of being a crypto-Tory)