(UK) The Daily Mail joins the circus!

[Architect]

The first was unforgivable, the second should be taken as a complement.

Actually you could argue that there is such a thing as the English media, as NI and Scotland have their own newspapers which wipe the floor with the so-called nationals, but then the Welsh would have a right to get upset.

As if they needed it after Saturday's result....

 

[Chedda]

Wha? The Daily Mail writing fear-mongering articles without any substantiated proof to back it up?......Not on my shift!

 

[jon]

btw, it looks like the related Evening Standard paper is running the same article on its website. Not sure if this is in the print version of the paper (a *lot* of the 'lite' version are given free to commuters on the tube).

 

[brodski]

btw, it looks like the related Evening Standard paper is running the same article on its website. Not sure if this is in the print version of the paper (a *lot* of the 'lite' version are given free to commuters on the tube).

Nothing so weighty would appear in the "Lite" version, unless it was mentioned on celebrity Big Brother. Last week one of their lead stories was (to paraphrase) "Girl who's sleeping with future Heir to the throne gets in a Taxi".

 

[jon]

Nothing so weighty would appear in the "Lite" version, unless it was mentioned on celebrity Big Brother. Last week one of their lead stories was (to paraphrase) "Girl who's sleeping with future Heir to the throne gets in a Taxi".

Thanks - it's been a while since I was in London. I was there around when the Lite version launched - I remember it as being more like the Metro in terms of content. Am I looking back with rose-tinted glasses, or has the Lite version declined

 

[mookid]

Hmmmm...

So let me get this straight..

You're accusing 'believers' of listening to and believing what they're told on the basis that you've listened to and believed another theory from the other side of the fence.

Picking on the most outlandish and obviously OTT points does not constitute a defense by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe if you took the time to read deeper into why these people believe so adamantly that the last 5/6 years have not been all that they seem. Once you've done that maybe you can compile and/or write a few explanations about the more sensible questions that are being raised (and still remaining unanswered).

The amount of media-esque, ill-founded, badly phrased, pointless, hypocritical ejaculations as excuses for sentences within this post is astounding quite frankly.

It's great that some of you don't value what certain people/media entities have to say.. but could you keep that to your blog.. and keep this on the subject at hand which is "why should I believe xyz?" - which applies to both sides of the fence equally.

 

[Brainache]

So let me get this straight..

You're accusing 'believers' of listening to and believing what they're told on the basis that you've listened to and believed another theory from the other side of the fence.

Picking on the most outlandish and obviously OTT points does not constitute a defense by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe if you took the time to read deeper into why these people believe so adamantly that the last 5/6 years have not been all that they seem. Once you've done that maybe you can compile and/or write a few explanations about the more sensible questions that are being raised (and still remaining unanswered).

The amount of media-esque, ill-founded, badly phrased, pointless, hypocritical ejaculations as excuses for sentences within this post is astounding quite frankly.

It's great that some of you don't value what certain people/media entities have to say.. but could you keep that to your blog.. and keep this on the subject at hand which is "why should I believe xyz?" - which applies to both sides of the fence equally.

Hello Mookid.
I think you'll find that most people here don't accept anything at face value. Read a few threads, get acquainted with the place, then see if there is anything you would say has not been scrutinized to death.

 

[brodski]

Thanks - it's been a while since I was in London. I was there around when the Lite version launched - I remember it as being more like the Metro in terms of content. Am I looking back with rose-tinted glasses, or has the Lite version declined

The lite paper declined, steeply. It contains even less legitimate news than the Metro.

 

[jon]

Actually, I don't normally mind the metro - not much news, but about all I can handle if I'm up early enough to read one. There was a full page ad for colonic irigation in today's metro, though, with a wonderful offer at the bottom: "gift vouchers for valentines day now available". I thought I was still dreaming - I mean, I've bought some pretty crappy gifts in my time, but would anyone really go for this...

Anyway, shame to hear that the lite is going for the lower (what does that mean - bottom scraping? Below the Sport?) part of the market

 

[mookid]

Hello Mookid.
I think you'll find that most people here don't accept anything at face value. Read a few threads, get acquainted with the place, then see if there is anything you would say has not been scrutinized to death.

In which case it would be helpful if people would cite their previous postings with links or at least give some indication as to why they believe what they believe.

There seems to be a fairly broad view here that the Mail is attempting to indoctrinate British society with it's 'outlandish' views. This clearly is complete rubbish and if anyone disagrees I challenge them to find sufficient and consistent evidence of such a claim.

For the record I don't buy any newspapers.

 

[Architect]

There seems to be a fairly broad view here that the Mail is attempting to indoctrinate British society with it's 'outlandish' views. This clearly is complete rubbish and if anyone disagrees I challenge them to find sufficient and consistent evidence of such a claim.

Fact: The Daily Mail is right wing. The quality of some aspects of the journalism is coloured by this political bias. Of course one would have to be an idiot not to realise this.

 

[mookid]

You do realise that the Bush 'gang' is right wing yeah?

Not entirely sure where that leaves us with the 'political bias' argument, although I'm sure you know what you're talking about

 

[cludgie]

I always used to think of the 'red tops' (Sun, Mirror, Star) as the gutter press in the UK. To be honest these days its the Daily Mail that seems to most consistently print the most disturbing bullplop out of any British paper. And sometimes you think its reporting is more aligned with the National Front/BNP than with the Tories.

 

[brodski]

You do realise that the Bush 'gang' is right wing yeah?

Not entirely sure where that leaves us with the 'political bias' argument, although I'm sure you know what you're talking about

Yes. but he's the wrong type of right wing, and Not British to boot.
The Daily Mail longs for the glory days of the Edwardian period, when Brittan had her Empire and foreigners jolly well knew their place, Bush doesn't fit well into that worldview.
The only people that the Daily Mail like to embarrass more than Americans are Europeans.

 

[mookid]

I think it's far to easy to categorise anyone who questions anything or anyone as 'bias' in some way or another.

Quite frankly it's all academic to the discussion which would be much more constructive and less tiresome: "Why should or shouldn't I believe that the events of 9/11 were somehow connected to the US administration?" rather than a boring, opinionated, stagnant argument over the merits and validity of one article of one of the Mail's journalists.

Has it ever struck you that no-one really cares what you think about the Mail or the Express or whatever? By expressing such condemnation of said organizations (without clearly explaining yourself), you are immediately guilty of the exact same propaganda that you are accusing them of.

Here's a way of looking at the Mail article: The journalist who wrote it believes that there is sufficient information out there to support the accusation that the administration were involved in the 9/11 'terrorist attack'. He understands that he may well be accused of 'brain washing' or 'political bias' if he attempts to write the equivalent of a court case against the accused.. so instead he outlines some of the basic points that are raised to STIR UP INTEREST.. and allow readers to question, research, DEBATE, and eventually work it out for themselves (whether that means to agree or disagree with his proposal).

It's comical that many of you feel that you somehow have access to resources, and a better analytical logic than this journalist who has made a living out of making excellent use of both.

Is there any chance we can take this away from a critique of said journalist and towards some kind of discussion about the 'conspiracy' in question?

 

[walthrup48]

It's comical that many of you feel that you somehow have access to resources, and a better analytical logic than this journalist who has made a living out of making excellent use of both.

Yeah, 'cos tabloid journalists are well-known for their excellent use of analytical logic. And resources? Which of the sources mentioned in the article are unavailable to anyone without an Internet connection and local bookshop?

(Edit: There's a response to the article in today's letter section of the Mail.)

 

[Rich M]

Speaking as someone who not only knows a journalist who works for the Daily Telegraph (which is basically the Daily Mail with a bushier moustache and a nice little place in the country) but has also passed on tips to stories that have ended up being printed then yeah, I for one am sure that I have better access to these mystical resources of which you speak. They look at the same internet we do, difference being they're paid to summarise it in 500 words.

 

[chipmunk stew]

So let me get this straight..

You're accusing 'believers' of listening to and believing what they're told on the basis that you've listened to and believed another theory from the other side of the fence.

Picking on the most outlandish and obviously OTT points does not constitute a defense by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe if you took the time to read deeper into why these people believe so adamantly that the last 5/6 years have not been all that they seem. Once you've done that maybe you can compile and/or write a few explanations about the more sensible questions that are being raised (and still remaining unanswered).

The amount of media-esque, ill-founded, badly phrased, pointless, hypocritical ejaculations as excuses for sentences within this post is astounding quite frankly.

It's great that some of you don't value what certain people/media entities have to say.. but could you keep that to your blog.. and keep this on the subject at hand which is "why should I believe xyz?" - which applies to both sides of the fence equally.

Christ, not another Truther who thinks if only we'd "take the time to read more deeply" we'd Wake Up.

Here's some advice, mookid:

• Rather than accusing us of avoiding the more sensible questions, pick the top five or so that you find most sensible and list them.
• Don't underestimate the depth of familiarity many people here already have about the questions you will ask.
• Be willing to re-examine your position.
• Try to understand the answers given.
• Try to stay on topic.

 

[jon]

I think it's far to easy to categorise anyone who questions anything or anyone as 'bias' in some way or another.

Quite frankly it's all academic to the discussion which would be much more constructive and less tiresome: "Why should or shouldn't I believe that the events of 9/11 were somehow connected to the US administration?" rather than a boring, opinionated, stagnant argument over the merits and validity of one article of one of the Mail's journalists.

In a thread that was started to discuss, um, one article by one Mail journo. There's lots of other threads discussing other issues (use the search function, or start your own)

Has it ever struck you that no-one really cares what you think about the Mail or the Express or whatever? By expressing such condemnation of said organizations (without clearly explaining yourself), you are immediately guilty of the exact same propaganda that you are accusing them of.

Most of the attacks in the thread have focused on the specific article. However, if you want evidence that the Mail is a rightwing paper, you might not for example research showing how its writing on refugees "refugees is characterised by stereotyping, exaggeration and inaccurate language". Hey, I've already provided more evidence than most truthers - and I'm just saying a newspaper pushes views I don't like, not accusing anyone of murder.

Here's a way of looking at the Mail article: The journalist who wrote it believes that there is sufficient information out there to support the accusation that the administration were involved in the 9/11 'terrorist attack'. He understands that he may well be accused of 'brain washing' or 'political bias' if he attempts to write the equivalent of a court case against the accused.. so instead he outlines some of the basic points that are raised to STIR UP INTEREST.. and allow readers to question, research, DEBATE, and eventually work it out for themselves (whether that means to agree or disagree with his proposal).

I'm guessing Sue Reid is a she. Anyway, that would be one explanation. However, a better bet would be that she couldn't be bothered to research the article properly - just as, as I pointed out in the previous post, the author makes quite radical claims in other articles in the Mail (again without backing them up with adequate evidence).

Here's a challenge for you - find *just one* article in the Mail that provides the kind of compelling, balanced evidence that one might get in a judge's summing up of a court case. There's a lot of articles - the Mail isn't known for evidence or balance, but you never know - you might find one somewhere Is there any chance we can take this away from a critique of said journalist and towards some kind of discussion about the 'conspiracy' in question?

This is a thread about the Mail. Use another thread for a broader debate, if you'd like one.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Is there any chance we can take this away from a critique of said journalist and towards some kind of discussion about the 'conspiracy' in question?

Erm... try another thread. There are plenty to choose from. This one is called "(UK) The Daily Mail joins the circus!"

Are you new to Teh Internets?