• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

(UK) The Daily Mail joins the circus!

Eh the mail feel for the monoatomic gold thing at one point.
 
Mine didn't either, but then I may have been a bit too snarky. Also I tried to link to NIST and the 9/11 Commission report, and they may not accept any links in comments.
 
Indeed, the Mail is easily one of the most vomit inducing papers in the UK.

It is full of veiled racism. Whenever they run a story on say, asylum seekers, you can be sure it will be accompanied by a photo of someone jumping over a fence with a hood over their head.

The Express is a piece of crap as well.
 
Mancman said:
Indeed, the Mail is easily one of the most vomit inducing papers in the UK.

It is full of veiled racism. Whenever they run a story on say, asylum seekers, you can be sure it will be accompanied by a photo of someone jumping over a fence with a hood over their head.

The Express is a piece of crap as well.
Click to expand...

Yep, to repeat another post, the author of this article has written a lot of rightwing BS in the Mail.

Looking through a few of Sue Reid's articles, I'm now unsure what the real threat is - the foreingers pouring into the UK or governments murdering their citizens and stealing their children. Hm, maybe Reid is the British mainstream media version of Alex Jones.

They didn't publish my comment, either. Not that I'm bitter ;)
 
Aha. The Daily Mail.

I made a complant to the Press Complaint Commission (PPC) back in December (when first off with the gammy knee and hence lots of spare time) because it ran an article "Are we going to let this Scot ruin our green and pleasant land" (bolding theirs) complaining that Gordon Brown had given permission to build on their Green Belt land.

Problem was (i) it wasn't Brown that commissioned the report, (ii) the report didn't actually say that, and (iii) the reference to ethnicity irrelevant and in clear breach of the PPC code of conduct.

Funnily enough, their Scottish national edition didn't include the article.

But even allowing for that, it is a right wing comic with horrendously low journalistic standards masquarading as a broadsheet. See by way of example Max Hasting's weekly "essays". Even the Express is better.

So basically, my American friends, if the CTers parade it as some sort of authoritive source then do feel free to put them right.
 
For more on the Daily Mail (and the Express):

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/

The thing is that Mail readers are instinctively pro-authority stay-at-home Little Englanders. The chances of a Mail reader taking to the streets in support of the "Truth Movement" are zero. They just like to be scared by things without thinking about them or doing anything - so this fits the bill quite well.
 
The Daily Mail.
Better known around Connolly Mansions as "The Daily Malice"
Their journalistic integrity may be judged by a quote from an editor in the 80's - "Our job is to make sure the Tories win the next election!"
I remember them attempting to smear the IRA as drug dealers in the late 80's with no evidence. No evidence, but lots of inchoate invective. I'm no fan of the IRA but the Daily Mail's approach made me consider becoming sympathetic ...
 
maccy said:
For more on the Daily Mail (and the Express):

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/

The thing is that Mail readers are instinctively pro-authority stay-at-home Little Englanders. The chances of a Mail reader taking to the streets in support of the "Truth Movement" are zero. They just like to be scared by things without thinking about them or doing anything - so this fits the bill quite well.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall that the Mail hates Bush even more than it hates Blair, which is strange given that the former is so right wing...
 
they've not posted my comment either, which i submitted over 12 hours ago, when this thread was still quite new, and i should have been asleep, haha.

my comment was simply a plea for readers to read through loosechangeguide.com before concluding either way.

i'm not sure what makes me more upset-- the fact that the article was written, or the fact that my comment wasn't posted. regardless, it's quite disheartening...
 
They have not posted my comment either. I mentioned that the author clearly did not read any of the official reports and as a result may have damaged her credability.

The author of the article has also provided the following works

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/dm...ue reid&in_name=on&in_order_by=relevance+date

And the national union of journalists state that feature writers can claim £180 per day for working for a National Newspaper.

http://www.londonfreelance.org/feesguide/prnatrat.html

Does anyone else see the words 'Loose Change' being connected with the value or worth of her work as opposed to the cost to the publisher?
 
The Press Complaints Commission in the UK has a conde of conduct.

http://www.pcc.org.uk.codecircus.co.uk/code/practice.html

On the subject of accuracy it states that

" i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, mis-leading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact."

I am going to take a few hours and ponder if I want to make a complaint as at the moment I feel that the article crossed the boundary between conjecture and fact by not stating the counter opinion. Maybe I will feel better in a few hours.

A complaint can be made online

http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/form.html?
 
Burrell said:
The Press Complaints Commission in the UK has a conde of conduct.

http://www.pcc.org.uk.codecircus.co.uk/code/practice.html

On the subject of accuracy it states that

" i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, mis-leading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact."

I am going to take a few hours and ponder if I want to make a complaint as at the moment I feel that the article crossed the boundary between conjecture and fact by not stating the counter opinion. Maybe I will feel better in a few hours.

A complaint can be made online

http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/form.html?
Click to expand...

Their response to my complaint was the complainer had to be directly affected by the piece.
 
The Press Complaints Commission is about as useful as tits on a bull her in England. If ever there was an organisation that needs a total overhaul and a new set of fangs this is it!

Given the relative "crapness" of the English media and how they regularly slander individuals its clear the PCC has no respect amongst the media!

Mailman
 
mailman said:
The Press Complaints Commission is about as useful as tits on a bull her in England. If ever there was an organisation that needs a total overhaul and a new set of fangs this is it!

Given the relative "crapness" of the English media and how they regularly slander individuals its clear the PCC has no respect amongst the media!

Mailman
Click to expand...


Ahem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom