Good call Claire. SNCR says: "The survey was conducted between July 2009 and October 2009, and received responses from 341 journalists, resulting in a 95 percent confidence ratio." I swear that's incorrect - especially with global population parameters.

@LeahB, 'just' another version of the printing press? The printing press was a big deal.

just trying to sow those seeds of reconciliation on the sparse common ground brother

er thanks Andy
But yes, new shit has come to light, as the Dude says. The link here has extensive guardian stuff on it... http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/willlewis

Sorry. I guess I'm curious about your involvement with Michael Jackson. Did you know him personally? Or as a fan, reading about him in the papers, seeing him on the TV, listening to his albums? And if your relationship with him is through the media, I don't really understand how you can get emotionally worked up about what people say about him.

As a thought exercise:

In the eyes of the law, Michael Jackson was not a paedophile. But many people believe, maybe want to believe, or need to believe that he was. Why did they do this? I don't know. But maybe for the excitement of it. Maybe because it's a way to undercut an otherwise hugely successful man. Maybe as a way of handling his weirdness. (He was a bit weird). Could you bring yourself to say, if they want to believe that, let them believe it. I don't want to upset anyone?

"The horrible truth is that all of this; all the lies and rumours and speculation, is going to continue in spite of Michael being dead. The press didn’t respect him when he was alive, why would they start now? They never cared, and they never will care."

Sandra, you talk about respect for Michael and caring for Michael as if the Michael Jackson that we - the public - witnessed was anything more than a media construction. In fact - I don't know about anyone else - but I even find it weird that you call him Michael, not Michael Jackson. It's like your trying to personalise, humanise him. Like calling Jordan, Katie. Or MacDonalds, Mac. God knows what happened to the man behind/under/within the idea of Michael Jackson that we consumed and clearly - yourself included - still have a voracious appetite for. But it seems to me that the battles you're carefully picking are over an interpretation of an idea. Michael Jackson as homosexual. Michael Jackson as heterosexual. Michael Jackson as philanthropist. Michael Jackson as paedophile. I suppose its a bit like the heated theological debates between early Christians over the nature of Christ's divinity. Surely the important thing is that you all believe in him? In the idea of Michael Jackson. No?

(In the name of Michael…Amen.)

That was an incredibly thorough dissection of the relationship betwen The Sun and political power. Great read. I can't agree with you on the TV debates though. Although the live audience might have been old, middle class and white, the response from the viewers at home was largely from 18-24 year olds. It's inspired a lot of first time voters. It's caused Cleggmania. I don't think you can comfortably dismiss that. For me, if anything it has emphasised the staidness of the print media, their editorial positions around a two party system - amounting, sometimes, arguably, to a manufacture of consent.

I took you up on this article in my blog, greedierformedia.wordpress.com