July 20th, 2020 / Leave Feedback / nezuppal

Who still reads The S*n? Who still works for The S*n? Why? Journalistic principles, investigative work, or so you can add click-bait to my Facebook page?

Everyone I know, everyone I’ve met and anyone I respect knows The S*n is the worst newspaper in Britain. I have never read it once, I am ashamed to admit.  In fact, I can’t recall a time when I’ve ever seen anyone read it. Yet it remains a jewel in Rupert Murdoch’s journalistic crown as the third most-read newspaper in the country.

The paper that dismissed Liverpool fans as ‘drunken hooligans’ and blamed them directly for the Hillsborough disaster, whilst simultaneously protecting corrupt police officers and politicians. That’s the paper you really want to be seen reading? I suspect it is largely read in private, out of shame.

The new problem The S*n now faces is the claims about domestic abuse from Amber Heard and Johnny Depp. The saga began because The S*n’s Executive Editor, Dan Wooton, referred to Depp as a ‘wife-beater’ in 2018 and claimed there was ‘overwhelming evidence’ that he had been attacking his then-wife Amber Heard. It goes without saying that there was no evidence. Normally, that wouldn’t be a problem for The S*n. They throw mud, it sticks, do they have to prove anything? No. Johnny Depp’s career is ruined and they can move on to the next target.

It was actually J.K Rowling’s decision to cast Johnny Depp in her new ‘Fantastic Beasts’ that re-ignited The S*n’s irrational hatred of Johnny Depp. How dare Rowling cast an incredibly successful actor in a lead role? They’d accused him without any evidence, this was over.

But Johnny Depp had recordings, terrible recordings of Heard punching him in the face, slicing his hand with a bottle of vodka and (sorry for this) defecating in his bed. Their relationship doesn’t interest me at all, I’m sure there were problems on both sides. What’s more important than Depp vs Heard, to me, is Depp vs The S*n.

In America libel laws are the exact opposite to those in the UK. In the USA if a newspaper wants to print an article it needs to have actual verifiable proof, which could hold up in court, before they can print a ‘revealing’ or ‘investigative’ article. This is what makes it so hard for American newspapers to take down Trump or any other senior politician, because the pressure is on them to find the evidence.

Rather bizarrely, in the UK libel laws require the accuser to provide proof of their innocence. In this instance, Depp has to prove that he was not a ‘wife-beater’, rather than The S*n being forced to reveal their evidence (of which there is probably little more than hearsay). This is why victory in libel cases in the UK is so low – because so much effort, evidence and money has to be funnelled into a court case that you will probably lose anyway.

Innocent until proven guilty? Unfortunately, not for Johnny Depp.