News of the World: shock, tears and anger as staff fear a conspiracy
MM
protect Rebekah Brooks"
"Inside the News of the World the announcement was followed first by
shock, then tears, and then anger. There was also immediate
speculation about whether the axed newspaper's best-selling place in
the Sunday market would soon be the target of a seven-day Sun.
"The News of the World's political editor, David Wooding, said the
news was greeted with great shock. 'Some people are crying, very
upset,' he told the press outside News International's offices in
Wapping, east London.
"He added: 'People are just standing round in the office looking
dazed. They just can't believe what's happened. All I am concerned
about is that 200 professional people who have done nothing wrong have
lost their jobs because of what's happened five or six years ago.'"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-staff
My heart bleeds. At least one hate sheet gone. Why can't all tabloids
be closed down? They're all shite.
Bet ole Becs ain't going to show her face at former NOTW towers any
time soon!
Of course, with the staff now dispersed to the four winds, or some of
them certainly, questioning will be that little bit more difficult,
although I couldn't possibly suggest that the closure might have been
motivated by such a cynical ploy!
MM
The Todal
I disagree with your final para - it will be quite easy to find the
journalists and interview them, and closing the paper is merely a very
savage way of chopping off the toxic limb in the belief that the readers
will quickly transfer their loyalty to a new Sun On Sunday run by the same
journalists and under the same cynical top management.
Andy Coulson and for that matter Kelvin Mackenzie always put their
journalists under intolerable pressure to come up with sensational scoops
about the private lives of celebrities or people in the public eye,
threatening them with the sack if they failed to come up with the goods.
That mentality presumably lives on, but it's as deniable as the "final
solution". Senior management can say "I must have been misunderstood. I
never expected him to break the law".
Some of us still remember the odious Piers Morgan on "Have I Got News For
You", boasting that if Hislop or Merton weren't nice to him he could very
easily have them watched by his private detectives. Those editors are drunk
with power.
An insight into the character of the lovely Rebekah can be found in this
Evening Standard story:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/politics/article-23968124-some-mps-suspected-a-year-ago-but-nobody-wouldve-believed-it.do
"With a grimace, Chris Bryant recalls the last time he met Rupert Murdoch's
embattled lieutenant Rebekah Brooks face to face.
"She came up to me and said, 'Oh, Mr Bryant, it's after dark - shouldn't you
be on Clapham Common?"
"At which point Ross Kemp [the ex-EastEnders actor and her then husband]
said, 'Shut up, you homophobic cow'." The MP, who is openly gay, can afford
to smile at the incident, which happened during a News International
reception at the Labour Party conference several years ago."
Mentalguy2k8
"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vs8d1799kriq7o9e1...@4ax.com...
> "Many of tabloid's 200 staff understood to perceive closure as move to
> protect Rebekah Brooks"
>
> "Inside the News of the World the announcement was followed first by
> shock, then tears, and then anger. There was also immediate
> speculation about whether the axed newspaper's best-selling place in
> the Sunday market would soon be the target of a seven-day Sun.
>
> "The News of the World's political editor, David Wooding, said the
> news was greeted with great shock. 'Some people are crying, very
> upset,' he told the press outside News International's offices in
> Wapping, east London.
>
> "He added: 'People are just standing round in the office looking
> dazed. They just can't believe what's happened. All I am concerned
> about is that 200 professional people who have done nothing wrong have
> lost their jobs because of what's happened five or six years ago.'"
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-staff
>
> My heart bleeds. At least one hate sheet gone. Why can't all tabloids
> be closed down? They're all shite.
That just about sums you up, gloating about innocent people losing their
jobs.
AlanG
There is this little bit in the Indy.
"We've heard a lot about disgusting behaviour here in recent days,"
said one. "This is another example." Another said: "Those of us who
lose our jobs will be out for revenge. And Murdoch and Brooks should
know better than most that we're very good at getting it."
Oooh I hope so :)
The Todal
We don't know for sure that they have lost their jobs - presumably Murdoch
cannot launch a new Sunday paper without allowing a discreet interval first.
Maybe a month. The NoW was probably the market leader and he will want to
ensure those readers don't drift away to the Sunday People.
Mentalguy2k8
"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:97o4pv...@mid.individual.net...
Not much chance of that, the Sunday People is poor these days. No doubt
they'll raise their game for the next couple of weeks to try and hold on to
the readers who buy it in the meantime, but it's not a great paper.
The Todal
I suppose the tabloids must be increasingly worried that people will stop
buying tabloids and get all their news and titillation from websites.
There's something rather desperate about the red-tops these days. It's
surprising what sort of rubbish people want to read.
"NEWLYWEDS William and Kate are keen to have a baby as soon as possible,
The People can reveal."
"How Princess Diana would have looked today at 50 "
"CHERYL Cole’s birthday party reunion with ex-husband Ashley Cole turned
sour yesterday after her mother flew into a rage."
Mentalguy2k8
True, but look at the explosion of similar magazines in the shops... in my
Co-Op there's a whole row in the magazine section purely for these gossipy
mags... no doubt aimed at women who really need to know whether Cheryl Cole
is shagging Kerry Katona or Ryan Giggs.
tim....
> protect Rebekah Brooks"
>
> "Inside the News of the World the announcement was followed first by
> shock, then tears, and then anger. There was also immediate
> speculation about whether the axed newspaper's best-selling place in
> the Sunday market would soon be the target of a seven-day Sun.
>
> "The News of the World's political editor, David Wooding, said the
> news was greeted with great shock. 'Some people are crying, very
> upset,' he told the press outside News International's offices in
> Wapping, east London.
>
> "He added: 'People are just standing round in the office looking
> dazed. They just can't believe what's happened. All I am concerned
> about is that 200 professional people who have done nothing wrong have
> lost their jobs because of what's happened five or six years ago.'"
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-staff
>
> My heart bleeds. At least one hate sheet gone. Why can't all tabloids
> be closed down? They're all shite.
There's obviously a demand otherwise they would have shut.
There are lots of shite products in the market that sell, not just
newspapers.
tim
Cassandra
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:vs8d1799kriq7o9e1...@4ax.com...
>> "Many of tabloid's 200 staff understood to perceive closure as move to
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-staff
>>
>> My heart bleeds. At least one hate sheet gone. Why can't all tabloids
>> be closed down? They're all shite.
>
>That just about sums you up, gloating about innocent people losing their
>jobs.
>
Did you feel sorry for the Stasi when the Berlin Wall fell ?
Mentalguy2k8
"Cassandra" <shaun....@ntlworld.comq> wrote in message
news:4e16e88b...@news.virginmedia.com...
Why, did it hit some of them?
MM
Neither is, sorry was, the NOTW.
MM
MM
wrote:
Yeah, and how did the press get wind of THAT, I wonder? Like I said,
they're all shite, all worth less than cat litter, despite what Mental
says.
MM
Mentalguy2k8
Zapp Brannigan
> That just about sums you up, gloating about innocent people losing their
> jobs.
There is no such thing as an innocent NOTW employee. They lived cheap &
dirty, and they've perished by the same rules.
Turk182
Unusually for me, I have little compassion for ANY News of The World
staff. The paper has been a promoter of hatred for many years. It
has had a corrosive influence on society and has done nothing to
advance the ordinary man or woman's self image. It has promoted every
vice while castigating anyone who fell out of their narrow description
of 'decent'. The staff have all taken their share of the spoils of
this behaviour over decades - but now we know that the paper that was
always was pointing the finger at the 'scum' in society - was the
genuine thing itself.
I don't think that people working in the distribution department or
accounts section of a child porn factory, can ask for forgiveness
because they were not the ones taking the pictures. The evidence that
the News Of The World was anti-human, rascist, homophobic and
judgemental, was available every Sunday over decades. Let them rot -
let them all rot. They all did their bit to keep this vile paper
afloat. It's demise happened 50 years too late. Now let's get The
Sun.
Turk182
Mentalguy2k8
"Turk182" <digital...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9000c052-8435-41c4...@g16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
Why's that, because they're not child killers or sex offenders?
MM
Huh, who has a good word to say about the NOTW?
MM
MM
<digital...@aol.com> wrote:
> Now let's get The
>Sun.
Amen to that!
Followed by yet another hate sheet, the Daily Express (used to be a
good paper in the 1950s).
MM
The Todal
Not long ago, lots of foolish people (mainly here) were saying that the
NOTW was performing a valuable public service whenever it exposed the
sexual indiscretions of footballers and other celebrities. And that when
the judges imposed injunctions to prevent such outrageous intrusions
into privacy, the judges were wrong and stupid.
I think most of what the NOTW published over the years was mindless
crap, a form of pornography. Prurient rubbish to entertain foolish
members of the public. I do actually feel sorry for some of the
journalists involved. I think they would have liked to report on real,
important stories but were put under intolerable pressure by Andy
Coulson and others to come up with juicy sex and cocaine stories which
would boost circulation, and to do that by any possible means or risk
losing their jobs. Coulson and Rebekah Brooks deserve the severest
punishment and should be barred from any further involvement in journalism.
Norman Wells
> I think most of what the NOTW published over the years was mindless
> crap, a form of pornography.
Nothing wrong with that.
> Prurient rubbish to entertain foolish members of the public.
Nothing wrong with that.
> I do actually feel sorry for some of the
> journalists involved. I think they would have liked to report on real,
> important stories
How very patronising of you. Got any evidence of that? Any evidence at
all?
> but were put under intolerable pressure by Andy
> Coulson and others to come up with juicy sex and cocaine stories which
> would boost circulation
Nothing wrong with that.
> and to do that by any possible means or risk losing their jobs.
Oh, at last! Something that could be wrong. But only if the pressure
included _illegal_ means, which you cannot possibly know. 'Andy Coulson and
others' would of course say they only wanted stories obtained by legal
means, and that it was only one or two disreputable journalists they had the
misfortune to inherit and employ who acted illegally, if in fact anyone did,
which actually still has to be established.
> Coulson and Rebekah Brooks deserve the severest
> punishment and should be barred from any further involvement in
> journalism.
In view of the fact that neither has yet been found guilty of anything, you
seem to be jumping the gun and pre-empting the British legal system which
elsewhere you seem to support. And this seems to stem merely from your own
haughty and patronisingly superior sense of worthiness.
MM
wrote:
>In article <97nt9r...@mid.individual.net>, deadm...@beeb.net
>says...
>There is also another reason why shutting down the newspaper as a move
>in a game being played out makes sense:
>
>When organisations are shut down, lots of things get thrown away -
>emails get deleted, records get shredded, and so on. In other words,
>evidence gets destroyed, and if that evidence is later asked for, then
>the response could be "Oh, we can't find it, it must have been got rid
>of when we shut it down. We kept the important stuff, like accounts and
>so on, but emails we thought would be better destroyed, and other
>records were no longer needed. I think that must have happened. No, we
>can't easily identify who actually did the destroying, but we are sure
>they did it with no intention to deny any investigation..."
>
>Would this be convincing? Given the slowness with which the police are
>moving on arresting people, and so on, and given the corruption that
>existed (and may still exist within their ranks) on the matter of
>payments made to certain police officers (some of whom may still be
>employed there), then I see this as being at least a possibility. Add to
>that the too close-for-comfort links that David Cameron has had with
>certain people involved, it all becomes to seem very murky and dirty.
This is why Ed Milliband has been calling for Cameron to appoint a
judge TODAY Saturday, so that a certain message is sent to News
International that NO email deletion or other shenanigans shall be
tolerated. Of course, NI is strenuously denying that any such deletion
has occurred, but they would say that, wouldn't they? After all the
other revelations, who can trust them as far as one can smell the
ordure?
The police should be standing outside the doors right now and as soon
as the presses have stopped running tonight be in there double quick.
MM
The Todal
>
> In view of the fact that neither has yet been found guilty of anything,
> you seem to be jumping the gun and pre-empting the British legal system
> which elsewhere you seem to support. And this seems to stem merely from
> your own haughty and patronisingly superior sense of worthiness.
>
I can't remember whether you were one of the lamebrains who reckoned
that the NoW was legally and morally right to print prurient stories
about footballers. If you were, you should hang your head in shame.
Infringement of privacy isn't only about listening to private
voicemails. To say that it's okay to infringe privacy so long as you
don't actually break the law is the attitude of an ignorant fool - and
it's exactly the attitude of the Murdoch empire.
So yes, I think I am very superior to you. Thanks for reminding me. But
I'm willing to educate you if you're willing to learn.
Zapp Brannigan
Aw, bless. Norman's found a new lost cause to champion.
Norman Wells
> On 09/07/2011 09:43, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> In view of the fact that neither has yet been found guilty of
>> anything, you seem to be jumping the gun and pre-empting the British
>> legal system which elsewhere you seem to support. And this seems to
>> stem merely from your own haughty and patronisingly superior sense
>> of worthiness.
>
> I can't remember whether you were one of the lamebrains who reckoned
> that the NoW was legally and morally right to print prurient stories
> about footballers. If you were, you should hang your head in shame.
> Infringement of privacy isn't only about listening to private
> voicemails. To say that it's okay to infringe privacy so long as you
> don't actually break the law is the attitude of an ignorant fool
It's OK legally to do anything as long as you don't actually break the law.
That's how the law works, you see.
And the law protects privacy exactly to the extent that parliament has
decided.
What is morally acceptable within the law is an entirely subjective
judgement. But disagreeing with someone else's position does not make them
'an ignorant fool'. That's a complete non-sequitur.
I think a holiday might do you good.
> - and it's exactly the attitude of the Murdoch empire.
>
> So yes, I think I am very superior to you. Thanks for reminding me.
> But I'm willing to educate you if you're willing to learn.
You really have lost it, big time. Have you considered going on retreat?
The Todal
Milliband like most politicians is trying to make some political capital for
himself by claiming the moral high ground. Needless to say, under the last
government while the poor were being shafted and we were being led into
illegal wars, both Blair and Brown were cosying up to Rebekah Brooks,
inviting her regularly to Downing Street and making sure that she was
treated like a valued politicial advisor. Blair felt the hand of history
on his shoulder but it was actually Rebekah's hand, going where it
shouldn't.
If News International make any attempts at all to destroy evidence, knowing
as they do how important it is, they know that their efforts to enlarge
their satellite TV empire will founder and their share price will plummet
again. It's now a question of deciding who the fall guys will be and making
sure that the Murdochs and Rebekah escape the fallout.. Maybe as you say
they will destroy letters and emails if necessary but they'll have to be
very skilful to avoid detection.
MM
wrote:
>MM wrote:
I'd be very surprised if NI don't succeed in getting BSkyB, because so
far the Tories have kept saying their hands are tied in legal mumbo
jumbo and there's nothing to be done. One caller to Any Answers
yesterday (Any Questions was given over totally this week to only one
question, NI and phone hacking) said, "He's the PM, he can make a
decision" or words to that effect. Probably there IS legal mumbo
jumbo, but, for instance, the police bail 'problem' wasn't a problem
for Teresa May. She just rushed emergency legislation through
Parliament, so I don't believe the government's hands are tied on the
issue at all.
MM
MM
wrote:
I particularly liked the self-referential "haughty and patronisingly
superior sense of worthiness"
MM
harry
> In article <97nt9rFk6...@mid.individual.net>, deadmail...@beeb.net
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8626421/Phone-
> hacking-David-Cameron-is-not-out-of-the-sewer-yet.html
>
> and as a tinyurl:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6a3ae6x
>
> --
> David D S.
> Use Reply-To address for email.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, I think you're spot on there.
The Todal
Disappointingly, Chris Huhne on TV this morning was saying that before NI
gets BSKYB we will need a categorical assurance from Rupert Murdoch that the
all the misdeeds were confined to the one title, News of the World, and were
not used in other Murdoch newspapers.
So it sounds as if Murdoch only has to sign the necessary assurances and
he'll be home and dry. People believe what they want to believe, when the
relationship is mutually beneficial.
The Todal
It's probably a usenet tradition that when thinking up the most powerful
insult against another contributor, we use an insult that we ourselves would
find most painful.
Anyway, the idea that we should all refrain from judging Rebekah because she
hasn't yet been brought before a court of law is a nice one.
I decided to buy the final edition of the News of the World today. The best
part of it ought to have been the souvenir edition of famous front pages
from history including the sinking of the Titanic, but all you could read
was the headlines, and all the small print of the actual story was blurry.
Which is symptomatic of tabloid journalism. These newspapers are for people
who don't actually want to read for more than five minutes at a time.
Today's NoW, full of self-congratulatory waffle, is as much a waste of money
as past editions.
My favourite part of the News of the World's colourful history can be found
in Goodman's book "The Moors Murderers". The main witness against the couple
was David Smith. The questioning was like this, word for word (though I've
omitted one or two repetitive questions). As in the book, the answers are
preceded by a dash.
Quote
Is it right that you have entered into an arrangement with a newspaper
whereby you will have a very large sum in certain eventualities? - Yes, sir
And do the certain eventualities included the conviction of Brady and
Hindley? - I should imagine that would be the -
So you have a vested financial interest, have you not, and have had since
November, in their conviction? - Yes
Do you mind telling us the name of the newspaper with whom you have entered
into this arrangement? - No, sir.
Well I am asking you to tell us. (No answer)
Judge: Come on, You know the name. Tell it to us. - I don't know if the
newspaper would wish me to do that.
Judge: They may have some questions to answer about this. Who are they? -
I'm sorry, sir. I can't answer that.
Judge: You must tell us. - I can't answer that question, sir.
Barrister: You heard My Lord say you must tell us. - I refuse to answer the
question unless I have the sanction of the newspaper.
Judge: Mr Hooson, it seems to me that there is no point in taking any steps
against him for contempt of court in refusing to answer, because you have
got to ask him about a lot more relevant matters. But Mr Attorney, is this
not a matter which requires investigation?
Attorney General: My Lord, the investigation will take place immediately.
Judge; It sounds to me like a gross interference with the course of justice.
MM
wrote:
Oh, I switched off when Huhne came on. Can't stand the bloke. I
thought, however, Ed Milliband didn't do too badly.
Afterwards, Susanna Reid's Sunday Morning Live was most interesting
with three characters on: Peter Hitchens, Derek Hatton and the newly
infamous (famous?) Paul McMullan. Peter Hitchens was his usual
pontificating, self-righteous self -- have you noticed how he always
rounds off each verbal broadside with a reach for his glass of water;
it's a habit I've noticed of him. Derek Hatton gave his usual
machine-gun delivery, but was obviously not cowed from his argy-bargy
with Neil Kinnock. (Derek is now apparently an entrepreneur.) And so
we come to Paul McMullan. He was kind of talking to himself a lot of
the time; saying things that I think were unwise of him to reveal. At
one point he said he hadn't been home for five days and was still
wearing the same suit, which, he admitted, was looking a bit manky by
now (it was). Then he said that the police had asked him three times
to attend a police station, but he hadn't been yet because he didn't
consider he'd done anything wrong. All this was related in this folksy
style that Paul has made his own since appearing on Newsnight, and
he's kind of an endearing soul if one looks beyond the newsgathering
bit.
MM
Norman Wells
> MM wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 19:31:39 +0100, "Zapp Brannigan" zbr...@doop.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> Coulson and Rebekah Brooks deserve the severest
>>>>> punishment and should be barred from any further involvement in
>>>>> journalism.
> Anyway, the idea that we should all refrain from judging Rebekah
> because she hasn't yet been brought before a court of law is a nice
> one.
Yes, it is, and is one that I thought you'd have appreciated given your
professed support of the legal system and due process. But it seems all
that flies out of the window when it suits you.
Anyway, your comment wasn't about judging her but punishing her. It's one
thing to judge someone from an ignorant layman's point of view like your
own, but punishment should surely only follow due process, not be dished out
by a lynch mob.
> I decided to buy the final edition of the News of the World today.
Nothing wrong with that.
> The best part of it ought to have been the souvenir edition of famous
> front pages from history including the sinking of the Titanic, but
> all you could read was the headlines, and all the small print of the
> actual story was blurry.
You could of course have opened up the 40 page souvenir supplement inside.
> Which is symptomatic of tabloid journalism. These newspapers are for
> people who don't actually want to read for
> more than five minutes at a time.
Nothing wrong with that.
Unless you have a haughty and patronisingly superior sense of worthiness of
course.
> Today's NoW, full of self-congratulatory waffle, is as much a waste of
> money as past editions.
More fool you then for buying it.
The Todal
> The Todal wrote:
>> MM wrote:
>>> On Sat, 9 Jul 2011 19:31:39 +0100, "Zapp Brannigan" zbr...@doop.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Norman Wells wrote:
>
>>>>>> Coulson and Rebekah Brooks deserve the severest
>>>>>> punishment and should be barred from any further involvement in
>>>>>> journalism.
>
>> Anyway, the idea that we should all refrain from judging Rebekah
>> because she hasn't yet been brought before a court of law is a nice
>> one.
>
> Yes, it is, and is one that I thought you'd have appreciated given
> your professed support of the legal system and due process. But it
> seems all that flies out of the window when it suits you.
>
> Anyway, your comment wasn't about judging her but punishing her. It's one
> thing to judge someone from an ignorant layman's point of
> view like your own, but punishment should surely only follow due
> process, not be dished out by a lynch mob.
Needless to say, I am referring neither to a lynch mob nor to a court of
law. She should have been sacked by her employer. Her phoney pretend
resignation should have been accepted. It should be a government-imposed
condition that if Murdoch is to go ahead with the BSkyB deal, Brooks should
have no managerial or other part to play.
>
>> I decided to buy the final edition of the News of the World today.
>
> Nothing wrong with that.
Was there any proper "news" in it? Self-congratulatory waffle, mainly the
sort of lies that you'd find on an adolescent's CV. Sample: "You are holding
the world's greatest investigative newspaper. That may sound strange, after
this week's revelations, but it's true". "The always tasteful Nudes of the
World cheered up many a Sunday". "Coronation Street faces a ratings crisis".
"Fat Bulgarian vice king grins with delight after sealing a deal to smuggle
sex slaves into Britain.. [....] in the wakd of a police intelligence
operation". Carol Malone saying "I know there have always been those who
hate the News of the World, who hated our politics, our power, the kind of
stories we ran. But they're the people who hate the existence of ALL
tabloids, who sneer at the people who read them". [She's bolder than I am
with the offensive generalisations]. "Try to remember us with affection.
Try to remember the good times, the great exclusives, the stories that
didn't just change lives but sometimes governments, laws and the course of
history".
>
>> The best part of it ought to have been the souvenir edition of famous
>> front pages from history including the sinking of the Titanic, but
>> all you could read was the headlines, and all the small print of the
>> actual story was blurry.
>
> You could of course have opened up the 40 page souvenir supplement
> inside. it.
That is what I was referring to. Perhaps your copy was better printed and
the words were legible.
Norman Wells
It's still the law of the jungle you're advocating. No prosecution, no
evidence, no defence, no due process, just a punishment.
The similarity to a lynch mob is inescapable.
>>> I decided to buy the final edition of the News of the World today.
>>
>> Nothing wrong with that.
>
> Was there any proper "news" in it?
I've no idea. I didn't buy it. You did, so you tell us.
> Self-congratulatory waffle,
> mainly the sort of lies that you'd find on an adolescent's CV.
> Sample: "You are holding the world's greatest investigative
> newspaper. That may sound strange, after this week's revelations, but
> it's true". "The always tasteful Nudes of the World cheered up many a
> Sunday". "Coronation Street faces a ratings crisis". "Fat Bulgarian
> vice king grins with delight after sealing a deal to smuggle sex
> slaves into Britain.. [....] in the wakd of a police intelligence
> operation". Carol Malone saying "I know there have always been those
> who hate the News of the World, who hated our politics, our power,
> the kind of stories we ran. But they're the people who hate the
> existence of ALL tabloids, who sneer at the people who read them".
> [She's bolder than I am with the offensive generalisations]. "Try to
> remember us with affection. Try to remember the good times, the great
> exclusives, the stories that didn't just change lives but sometimes
> governments, laws and the course of history".
>>> The best part of it ought to have been the souvenir edition of
>>> famous front pages from history including the sinking of the
>>> Titanic, but all you could read was the headlines, and all the
>>> small print of the actual story was blurry.
>>
>> You could of course have opened up the 40 page souvenir supplement
>> inside. it.
>
> That is what I was referring to. Perhaps your copy was better printed
> and the words were legible.
No, I only looked at the front cover in passing when I bought my usual
Sunday paper, and noticed it said there was such a supplement inside. I've
no idea whether it was legible, but assumed it would be.