NationStates Jolt Archive

Page breaking URL turned into a link by NS Mod (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1084572619790&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724)

Editor ousted over Iraq photos

JILL LAWLESS
ASSOCIATED PRESS

LONDON—Piers Morgan, the editor whose newspaper ran discredited photographs claiming to show British troops abusing an Iraqi, has stepped down after the paper's board accepted the pictures were fake.

As evidence mounted that the Daily Mirror's photos were a hoax, Morgan had claimed the pictures — including one of a soldier allegedly urinating on a hooded prisoner — "accurately illustrated the reality about the appalling conduct of some British troops.''

But Trinity Mirror PLC, owner of the paper, acknowledged the photos were fake, apologized yesterday and said Morgan was out.

The move came hours after commanders of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment bitterly denounced the pictures, and said they had proof that the photos, said to be taken in Iraq, had been staged in Britain. The regiment said a truck seen in the photos had never been in Iraq, and showed reporters discrepancies between a rifle seen in the pictures and the weapon its members had used in the country.

The newspaper said in a statement it had published the photographs in good faith, believing them to be genuine. "However, there is now sufficient evidence to suggest that these pictures are fakes and that the Daily Mirror has been the subject of a calculated and malicious hoax," it said.

The paper said it would be "inappropriate" for Piers Morgan to continue as editor, and that he had stepped down with immediate effect.

Morgan, 39, is one of the most flamboyant figures in British journalism. He started on local newspapers in the 1980s, then became entertainment editor of the Sun, Britain's biggest-selling daily tabloid. He became editor of its Sunday stablemate, the News of the World, in 1994, and took over the Daily Mirror the next year.

The conclusion that the photographs are fake will be seen as a relief for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who faces growing dissent in his own Labour party over Iraq and speculation that his successful run in power is nearing an end. It comes as he told the Independent newspaper he was determined to stay in his position, and rejected suggestions that he distance himself from U.S. President George W. Bush

of course they're fake :roll:

Lucky-ass Tony Blair

of course they're fake :roll:


So what's the fuss about him getting sacked?

of course they're fake :roll:


So what's the fuss about him getting sacked?

eh?

of course they're fake :roll:


So what's the fuss about him getting sacked?

eh?

i concour

of course they're fake :roll:


So what's the fuss about him getting sacked?

eh?

i concour

what he said

of course they're fake :roll:


So what's the fuss about him getting sacked?

eh?

i concour

what he said

what colodia said

Another Media figure gone while Blair survives. :roll:

Interestingly he was taken out of Mirror headquarters by security, because he argued.

Somehow I've managed to develop a hatred of the entire english media. Is this fair?

That's the British Press for you. I'm seriously considering dropping Britain as an option for uni education in Journalism.

I have no understanding of what you are defending Morgan for.
He was the one that without checks, assumed that the soldiers were abusing prisoners in those photographs. The front page was filled with the word VILE, if you remember correctly. Maybe if he'd taken the time to go over the photographs, and notice the simple mistakes that made it fake, then he might still be here. He dug his own grave, by publishing such a sensationalist, and more importantly, WRONG story. This has damaged the reputation of the army everywhere, even though the photos are faked. Because of the reaction, militant organisations have even more ammunition against our soldiers in Iraq. But then, of course he should be kept. he's the editor of a newspaper, and therefore doesn't have any responsibility over what it publishes.

I'm no fan of Blair, but I don't see why Morgan was in the right. At any point.

Rant over. Sorry if it's flamey-incoherent, and whatever else.

Good riddance

Fake documents produced for financial gain that risk our troops abroad-

hmm, Tony, this sounds familiar. If anyone who produces fake documents to get their friends wealthy and that in the process risks British Citizens lives should resign. Like you.

...at least the British haven't lowered themselves to the level of the American armed forces...yet...

...at least the British haven't lowered themselves to the level of the American armed forces...yet...

Or they're better at hiding it. Although I think the ethos of the British Army is very different to that of the American Army....

...at least the British haven't lowered themselves to the level of the American armed forces...yet...

Or they're better at hiding it. Although I think the ethos of the British Army is very different to that of the American Army....

We'll have to wait and see... Or, better yet, dig up dirt on 'em!

One of the channel 4 newguys made me laugh when he said "When we've reached the stage where newspapers like The Sun and The Star can justifably take a moral high ground...."

Adios Morgan.

I think by this time if there are any abuses on the Iraqis by Brits they would have stopped now.

The man was an absolute disgrace. I said in another thread, the reading age of the Daily Mirror is 10?

When a paper is making claims as serious as those pictures were, they have to be 100% sure. I'm not sure if the Queens Lancashire Regiment can legally sue the paper. If so, I believe they have every right to sue them into the ground.

The Mirror especially under Morgan is trash anyway. It is sleazy, quintessentially tabloid, has poor quality reporting and writing and concentrates on bringing celebrities down to Piers Morgan's low, stinking level.

As you say Hatcham Woods, when The Sun is taking the moral high ground, we're in trouble.

The Mirror especially under Morgan is trash anyway. It is sleazy, quintessentially tabloid, has poor quality reporting and writing and concentrates on bringing celebrities down to Piers Morgan's low, stinking level.


It IS a tabloid. But yeah, tabloid journalism in this country is appalling, but it was nice to have a more left wing tabloid counter weight to the usual guff that The Sun, The Daily Mail et al throw out. I hope the next editor doesn't pull his punches for fear of retribution.

Within minutes of the pictures being published a wide portion of Fleet Street believed them to be fakes. Therefore it would seem that the Mirror did not employ the most basic of checks before publishing photos that are nothing less than political dynamite and put our troops at even greater risk. Piers Morgan has showed a complete lack of journalistic integrity in publishing these photos without employing these checks, merely because they suited the Mirrors own political agenda. The man is not to be editor of a national newspaper.

Well said Genaia. You say that the Mirror didn't make the most basic of checks, and if thats the case he isn't fit to work in or manage any business, never mind one like newspaper editing.

...at least the British haven't lowered themselves to the level of the American armed forces...yet...

Or they're better at hiding it. Although I think the ethos of the British Army is very different to that of the American Army....

What?....you think the British Army is any less capable of committing abuses?

...at least the British haven't lowered themselves to the level of the American armed forces...yet...

Or they're better at hiding it. Although I think the ethos of the British Army is very different to that of the American Army....

What?....you think the British Army is any less capable of committing abuses?


Just as capable, but I don't think it's as likely as the way the British Army operate is fundamentally different from the way the American Army works. And I think because of that Americans are more likely to abuse their power than British. Also the amount of combat experience is relevant.

...at least the British haven't lowered themselves to the level of the American armed forces...yet...

Or they're better at hiding it. Although I think the ethos of the British Army is very different to that of the American Army....

What?....you think the British Army is any less capable of committing abuses?


Just as capable, but I don't think it's as likely as the way the British Army operate is fundamentally different from the way the American Army works. And I think because of that Americans are more likely to abuse their power than British. Also the amount of combat experience is relevant.

Perhaps you should read up on some of the histories of some of these British Regiments..they are more then capable, and just as easily if not eagerly capable of abuse....and just how does the British Army operate differently..not being a member of that august body...but from my contact with the British Royal Marines they have similar ranks, conducts, etc. I failed to see any discernible difference....what is the correlation as far as combat experience?.

...at least the British haven't lowered themselves to the level of the American armed forces...yet...

Or they're better at hiding it. Although I think the ethos of the British Army is very different to that of the American Army....

What?....you think the British Army is any less capable of committing abuses?


Just as capable, but I don't think it's as likely as the way the British Army operate is fundamentally different from the way the American Army works. And I think because of that Americans are more likely to abuse their power than British. Also the amount of combat experience is relevant.

Perhaps you should read up on some of the histories of some of these British Regiments..they are more then capable, and just as easily if not eagerly capable of abuse....and just how does the British Army operate differently..not being a member of that august body...but from my contact with the British Royal Marines they have similar ranks, conducts, etc. I failed to see any discernible difference....what is the correlation as far as combat experience?.

The whole ethos of the British Army is different. The soldiers it produces tend to be more level-headed and work more professionally and with more responsibility, as opposed to America which produces pumped up, power fulled war machines. Both have pros and cons as fighting forces, and one of the American cons is it is harder to control abuse. I don't deny that British regiments can and do behave appallingly, I just think that incidents are rarer and less likely amongst British forces.

...at least the British haven't lowered themselves to the level of the American armed forces...yet...

Or they're better at hiding it. Although I think the ethos of the British Army is very different to that of the American Army....

What?....you think the British Army is any less capable of committing abuses?


Just as capable, but I don't think it's as likely as the way the British Army operate is fundamentally different from the way the American Army works. And I think because of that Americans are more likely to abuse their power than British. Also the amount of combat experience is relevant.

Perhaps you should read up on some of the histories of some of these British Regiments..they are more then capable, and just as easily if not eagerly capable of abuse....and just how does the British Army operate differently..not being a member of that august body...but from my contact with the British Royal Marines they have similar ranks, conducts, etc. I failed to see any discernible difference....what is the correlation as far as combat experience?.

The whole ethos of the British Army is different. The soldiers it produces tend to be more level-headed and work more professionally and with more responsibility, as opposed to America which produces pumped up, power fulled war machines. Both have pros and cons as fighting forces, and one of the American cons is it is harder to control abuse. I don't deny that British regiments can and do behave appallingly, I just think that incidents are rarer and less likely amongst British forces.

I take issue with that..I was a Marine Drill Instructor for almost 3 yrs.put in over 500 new Marines over that time..I regard them as full of initiative, intelligent young men....I've seen brand new E-1's, basic privates lead squads in maneuvers..I've also seen my equal in the British Royal Marines be a complete kiss ass and screw up...British training however stifles individual initiative...which can kill a man in a combat zone.

I have no understanding of what you are defending Morgan for.
He was the one that without checks, assumed that the soldiers were abusing prisoners in those photographs. The front page was filled with the word VILE, if you remember correctly. Maybe if he'd taken the time to go over the photographs, and notice the simple mistakes that made it fake, then he might still be here. He dug his own grave, by publishing such a sensationalist, and more importantly, WRONG story. This has damaged the reputation of the army everywhere, even though the photos are faked. Because of the reaction, militant organisations have even more ammunition against our soldiers in Iraq. But then, of course he should be kept. he's the editor of a newspaper, and therefore doesn't have any responsibility over what it publishes.

I'm no fan of Blair, but I don't see why Morgan was in the right. At any point.

Rant over. Sorry if it's flamey-incoherent, and whatever else.
That's why one nevers believes anything that comes from a tabloid. If we believed them, the apocolypse would happen a few times already, Opera would really be a lesbian with her friend Gail, and Elvis would have really been abducted by aliens.

I take issue at saying the British army training stifles creativity.
British soldiers are regarded by everyone but the Americans as being the best.
Then, we have the Aussies, who use a similar training system, in wargames, beat the Americans.

I have no understanding of what you are defending Morgan for.
He was the one that without checks, assumed that the soldiers were abusing prisoners in those photographs. The front page was filled with the word VILE, if you remember correctly. Maybe if he'd taken the time to go over the photographs, and notice the simple mistakes that made it fake, then he might still be here. He dug his own grave, by publishing such a sensationalist, and more importantly, WRONG story. This has damaged the reputation of the army everywhere, even though the photos are faked. Because of the reaction, militant organisations have even more ammunition against our soldiers in Iraq. But then, of course he should be kept. he's the editor of a newspaper, and therefore doesn't have any responsibility over what it publishes.

I'm no fan of Blair, but I don't see why Morgan was in the right. At any point.

Rant over. Sorry if it's flamey-incoherent, and whatever else.
That's why one nevers believes anything that comes from a tabloid. If we believed them, the apocolypse would happen a few times already, Opera would really be a lesbian with her friend Gail, and Elvis would have really been abducted by aliens.

Bear in mind British tabloids are totally different from American tabloids...

I take issue at saying the British army training stifles creativity.
British soldiers are regarded by everyone but the Americans as being the best.
Then, we have the Aussies, who use a similar training system, in wargames, beat the Americans.

Not creativity...I said initiative..difference...the obedience to unit and unquestioned obedience to order is stressed over the individual initiative...

I take issue at saying the British army training stifles creativity.
British soldiers are regarded by everyone but the Americans as being the best.
Then, we have the Aussies, who use a similar training system, in wargames, beat the Americans.

Not creativity...I said initiative..difference...the obedience to unit and unquestioned obedience to order is stressed over the individual initiative...

Surely this would lessen the abuse? By which I mean, you make it sound like there is less original thought (which I do not disagree with), so that abuse what happen in rare cases or cases when it was ordered

I take issue at saying the British army training stifles creativity.
British soldiers are regarded by everyone but the Americans as being the best.
Then, we have the Aussies, who use a similar training system, in wargames, beat the Americans.

Not creativity...I said initiative..difference...the obedience to unit and unquestioned obedience to order is stressed over the individual initiative...

Surely this would lessen the abuse? By which I mean, you make it sound like there is less original thought (which I do not disagree with), so that abuse what happen in rare cases or cases when it was ordered

Ah...but the man who thinks for himself might question that order as did the Army Reservist who leaked the photos...

One thing which I would like to point out is that when UK army reserves from the TA are sent into combat they are amalgamated with units containing soldiers with better equipment, more training and more combat experience, when the US deploys reserves, they are not combined with other units but in mass.

Whilst I am no military strategist, it would seem to me that the kind of abuses we have seen are more likely to occur in units which lack experience and training and so perhaps the US military might wish to reconsider this form of deployment.