FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The Daily Mail
The Daily Mail
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate." It is a ‘Tory propaganda’ paper, just look at who owns it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate. It is a ‘Tory propaganda’ paper, just look at who owns it " I classify it as a Rage Farm with it's own agenda. Utilising Tory propaganda serves that agenda however. It may oly be a small difference though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) " Also another DMG title | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate." . I cannot see too many people being concerned about what Wikipedia think . They themselves make no checks on what they publish. What newspapers publish is governed by various press regulatory organisations yet you can publish anything you like on the Internet without there being any control over it. The Daily Mail is an exceptionally successfull paper. I am sure that it's readers are more than capable of doing their own research on any areas on which there are doubts. To refer to a poorly educated electorate is a little derogatory and insulting. Maybe the electorate are educated , respectfully and hard working and you do not like the result that you see. We like it a democracy and do not have to have other peoples views forced upon us. If the Daily Mails reporting was inaccurate people would simply stop buying it . In addition they would go bankrupt because of people winning legal actions against them. The Daily Mail have won many press awards and their achievement is remarkable in a declining market . The pious self righteous woke brigade are simply a very vocal minority. The Daily Mail represents the voice of the people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate. . I cannot see too many people being concerned about what Wikipedia think . They themselves make no checks on what they publish. What newspapers publish is governed by various press regulatory organisations yet you can publish anything you like on the Internet without there being any control over it. The Daily Mail is an exceptionally successfull paper. I am sure that it's readers are more than capable of doing their own research on any areas on which there are doubts. To refer to a poorly educated electorate is a little derogatory and insulting. Maybe the electorate are educated , respectfully and hard working and you do not like the result that you see. We like it a democracy and do not have to have other peoples views forced upon us. If the Daily Mails reporting was inaccurate people would simply stop buying it . In addition they would go bankrupt because of people winning legal actions against them. The Daily Mail have won many press awards and their achievement is remarkable in a declining market . The pious self righteous woke brigade are simply a very vocal minority. The Daily Mail represents the voice of the people. " It isn’t and it doesn’t  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate. . I cannot see too many people being concerned about what Wikipedia think . They themselves make no checks on what they publish. What newspapers publish is governed by various press regulatory organisations yet you can publish anything you like on the Internet without there being any control over it. The Daily Mail is an exceptionally successfull paper. I am sure that it's readers are more than capable of doing their own research on any areas on which there are doubts. To refer to a poorly educated electorate is a little derogatory and insulting. Maybe the electorate are educated , respectfully and hard working and you do not like the result that you see. We like it a democracy and do not have to have other peoples views forced upon us. If the Daily Mails reporting was inaccurate people would simply stop buying it . In addition they would go bankrupt because of people winning legal actions against them. The Daily Mail have won many press awards and their achievement is remarkable in a declining market . The pious self righteous woke brigade are simply a very vocal minority. The Daily Mail represents the voice of the people. " Lawsuits won against the Mail 2001, February: Businessman Alan Sugar was awarded £100,000 in damages following a story commenting on his stewardship of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.[196] 2003, October: Actress Diana Rigg awarded £30,000 in damages over a story commenting on aspects of her personality.[197] 2006, May: £100,000 damages for Elton John, following false accusations concerning his manners and behaviour.[198] 2009, January: £30,000 award to Dr Austen Ivereigh, who had worked for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, following false accusations made by the newspaper concerning abortion.[199] 2010, July: £47,500 award to Parameswaran Subramanyam for falsely claiming that he secretly sustained himself with hamburgers during a 23-day hunger strike in Parliament Square to draw attention to the protests against the Sri Lankan Civil War in 2009.[200] 2011, November: the former lifestyle adviser Carole Caplin received damages over claims in the Mail that she would reveal intimate details about former clients.[201] 2014, May: author J. K. Rowling received "substantial damages" and the Mail printed an apology. The newspaper had made a false claim about Rowling's story written for the website of Gingerbread, a single parents' charity.[202] 2017, April: First Lady of the United States, Melania Trump, received an undisclosed settlement over claims in the Mail that she had worked as an escort in the 1990s.[203] In September 2016, she began litigation against the Daily Mail for an article which discussed escort allegations. The article included rebuttals and said that there was no evidence to support the allegations. The Mail regretted any misinterpretation that could have come from reading the article, and retracted it from its website.[204] Melania Trump filed a lawsuit in Maryland, suing for $150 million.[205] On 7 February 2017, the lawsuit was re-filed in the correct jurisdiction, New York, where the Daily Mail's parent company has offices, seeking damages of at least $150 million.[206] 2018, June: Earl Spencer accepted undisclosed libel damages from AP over a claim that he acted in an "unbrotherly, heartless and callous way" towards his sister Diana, Princess of Wales.[207] 2019, June: AP paid £120,000 in damages plus costs to Interpal, a UK-based charity which the Mail falsely accused of funding a "hate festival" in Palestine which acted out the murder of Jews.[208] 2020, November: The Mail apologised for distress caused and have agreed to pay her libel damages of £25,000 to University of Cambridge professor Priyamvada Gopal, who they falsely alleged "was attempting to incite an aggressive and potentially violent race war".[209] 2020, December: The Mail paid businessman James Dyson and his wife Lady Deirdre Dyson £100,000 in libel damages after suggesting they had behaved badly towards their former housekeeper.[210] 2021, January: AP paid damages and apologised to a British Pakistani couple about whom they had made false allegation in relation to their work as counter-extremism experts.[211] 2021, May: AP paid substantial damages and apologised for revealing the identity of a complainant in a r&pe case against film director Luc Besson.[212] | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate. . I cannot see too many people being concerned about what Wikipedia think . They themselves make no checks on what they publish. What newspapers publish is governed by various press regulatory organisations yet you can publish anything you like on the Internet without there being any control over it. The Daily Mail is an exceptionally successfull paper. I am sure that it's readers are more than capable of doing their own research on any areas on which there are doubts. To refer to a poorly educated electorate is a little derogatory and insulting. Maybe the electorate are educated , respectfully and hard working and you do not like the result that you see. We like it a democracy and do not have to have other peoples views forced upon us. If the Daily Mails reporting was inaccurate people would simply stop buying it . In addition they would go bankrupt because of people winning legal actions against them. The Daily Mail have won many press awards and their achievement is remarkable in a declining market . The pious self righteous woke brigade are simply a very vocal minority. The Daily Mail represents the voice of the people. " Why are non-racists a minority, and why do you think this is a good thing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate. . I cannot see too many people being concerned about what Wikipedia think . They themselves make no checks on what they publish. What newspapers publish is governed by various press regulatory organisations yet you can publish anything you like on the Internet without there being any control over it. The Daily Mail is an exceptionally successfull paper. I am sure that it's readers are more than capable of doing their own research on any areas on which there are doubts. To refer to a poorly educated electorate is a little derogatory and insulting. Maybe the electorate are educated , respectfully and hard working and you do not like the result that you see. We like it a democracy and do not have to have other peoples views forced upon us. If the Daily Mails reporting was inaccurate people would simply stop buying it . In addition they would go bankrupt because of people winning legal actions against them. The Daily Mail have won many press awards and their achievement is remarkable in a declining market . The pious self righteous woke brigade are simply a very vocal minority. The Daily Mail represents the voice of the people. " The voice of the right wing xenophobic people. You know, the kind that think "woke" is an insult, and that caring about the planet and other people is a bad thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate. . I cannot see too many people being concerned about what Wikipedia think . They themselves make no checks on what they publish. What newspapers publish is governed by various press regulatory organisations yet you can publish anything you like on the Internet without there being any control over it. The Daily Mail is an exceptionally successfull paper. I am sure that it's readers are more than capable of doing their own research on any areas on which there are doubts. To refer to a poorly educated electorate is a little derogatory and insulting. Maybe the electorate are educated , respectfully and hard working and you do not like the result that you see. We like it a democracy and do not have to have other peoples views forced upon us. If the Daily Mails reporting was inaccurate people would simply stop buying it . In addition they would go bankrupt because of people winning legal actions against them. The Daily Mail have won many press awards and their achievement is remarkable in a declining market . The pious self righteous woke brigade are simply a very vocal minority. The Daily Mail represents the voice of the people. Lawsuits won against the Mail 2001, February: Businessman Alan Sugar was awarded £100,000 in damages following a story commenting on his stewardship of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.[196] 2003, October: Actress Diana Rigg awarded £30,000 in damages over a story commenting on aspects of her personality.[197] 2006, May: £100,000 damages for Elton John, following false accusations concerning his manners and behaviour.[198] 2009, January: £30,000 award to Dr Austen Ivereigh, who had worked for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, following false accusations made by the newspaper concerning abortion.[199] 2010, July: £47,500 award to Parameswaran Subramanyam for falsely claiming that he secretly sustained himself with hamburgers during a 23-day hunger strike in Parliament Square to draw attention to the protests against the Sri Lankan Civil War in 2009.[200] 2011, November: the former lifestyle adviser Carole Caplin received damages over claims in the Mail that she would reveal intimate details about former clients.[201] 2014, May: author J. K. Rowling received "substantial damages" and the Mail printed an apology. The newspaper had made a false claim about Rowling's story written for the website of Gingerbread, a single parents' charity.[202] 2017, April: First Lady of the United States, Melania Trump, received an undisclosed settlement over claims in the Mail that she had worked as an escort in the 1990s.[203] In September 2016, she began litigation against the Daily Mail for an article which discussed escort allegations. The article included rebuttals and said that there was no evidence to support the allegations. The Mail regretted any misinterpretation that could have come from reading the article, and retracted it from its website.[204] Melania Trump filed a lawsuit in Maryland, suing for $150 million.[205] On 7 February 2017, the lawsuit was re-filed in the correct jurisdiction, New York, where the Daily Mail's parent company has offices, seeking damages of at least $150 million.[206] 2018, June: Earl Spencer accepted undisclosed libel damages from AP over a claim that he acted in an "unbrotherly, heartless and callous way" towards his sister Diana, Princess of Wales.[207] 2019, June: AP paid £120,000 in damages plus costs to Interpal, a UK-based charity which the Mail falsely accused of funding a "hate festival" in Palestine which acted out the murder of Jews.[208] 2020, November: The Mail apologised for distress caused and have agreed to pay her libel damages of £25,000 to University of Cambridge professor Priyamvada Gopal, who they falsely alleged "was attempting to incite an aggressive and potentially violent race war".[209] 2020, December: The Mail paid businessman James Dyson and his wife Lady Deirdre Dyson £100,000 in libel damages after suggesting they had behaved badly towards their former housekeeper.[210] 2021, January: AP paid damages and apologised to a British Pakistani couple about whom they had made false allegation in relation to their work as counter-extremism experts.[211] 2021, May: AP paid substantial damages and apologised for revealing the identity of a complainant in a r&pe case against film director Luc Besson.[212]" . It is interesting to see that you had to go back twenty years in order to find sufficient numbers. It is impossible to get every story right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate. . I cannot see too many people being concerned about what Wikipedia think . They themselves make no checks on what they publish. What newspapers publish is governed by various press regulatory organisations yet you can publish anything you like on the Internet without there being any control over it. The Daily Mail is an exceptionally successfull paper. I am sure that it's readers are more than capable of doing their own research on any areas on which there are doubts. To refer to a poorly educated electorate is a little derogatory and insulting. Maybe the electorate are educated , respectfully and hard working and you do not like the result that you see. We like it a democracy and do not have to have other peoples views forced upon us. If the Daily Mails reporting was inaccurate people would simply stop buying it . In addition they would go bankrupt because of people winning legal actions against them. The Daily Mail have won many press awards and their achievement is remarkable in a declining market . The pious self righteous woke brigade are simply a very vocal minority. The Daily Mail represents the voice of the people. Lawsuits won against the Mail 2001, February: Businessman Alan Sugar was awarded £100,000 in damages following a story commenting on his stewardship of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.[196] 2003, October: Actress Diana Rigg awarded £30,000 in damages over a story commenting on aspects of her personality.[197] 2006, May: £100,000 damages for Elton John, following false accusations concerning his manners and behaviour.[198] 2009, January: £30,000 award to Dr Austen Ivereigh, who had worked for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, following false accusations made by the newspaper concerning abortion.[199] 2010, July: £47,500 award to Parameswaran Subramanyam for falsely claiming that he secretly sustained himself with hamburgers during a 23-day hunger strike in Parliament Square to draw attention to the protests against the Sri Lankan Civil War in 2009.[200] 2011, November: the former lifestyle adviser Carole Caplin received damages over claims in the Mail that she would reveal intimate details about former clients.[201] 2014, May: author J. K. Rowling received "substantial damages" and the Mail printed an apology. The newspaper had made a false claim about Rowling's story written for the website of Gingerbread, a single parents' charity.[202] 2017, April: First Lady of the United States, Melania Trump, received an undisclosed settlement over claims in the Mail that she had worked as an escort in the 1990s.[203] In September 2016, she began litigation against the Daily Mail for an article which discussed escort allegations. The article included rebuttals and said that there was no evidence to support the allegations. The Mail regretted any misinterpretation that could have come from reading the article, and retracted it from its website.[204] Melania Trump filed a lawsuit in Maryland, suing for $150 million.[205] On 7 February 2017, the lawsuit was re-filed in the correct jurisdiction, New York, where the Daily Mail's parent company has offices, seeking damages of at least $150 million.[206] 2018, June: Earl Spencer accepted undisclosed libel damages from AP over a claim that he acted in an "unbrotherly, heartless and callous way" towards his sister Diana, Princess of Wales.[207] 2019, June: AP paid £120,000 in damages plus costs to Interpal, a UK-based charity which the Mail falsely accused of funding a "hate festival" in Palestine which acted out the murder of Jews.[208] 2020, November: The Mail apologised for distress caused and have agreed to pay her libel damages of £25,000 to University of Cambridge professor Priyamvada Gopal, who they falsely alleged "was attempting to incite an aggressive and potentially violent race war".[209] 2020, December: The Mail paid businessman James Dyson and his wife Lady Deirdre Dyson £100,000 in libel damages after suggesting they had behaved badly towards their former housekeeper.[210] 2021, January: AP paid damages and apologised to a British Pakistani couple about whom they had made false allegation in relation to their work as counter-extremism experts.[211] 2021, May: AP paid substantial damages and apologised for revealing the identity of a complainant in a r&pe case against film director Luc Besson.[212]. It is interesting to see that you had to go back twenty years in order to find sufficient numbers. It is impossible to get every story right " May 2021 , who do the Mail (and therefore you) want to be the next Tory leader? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Daily Mail is nothing more than an insidious gossip rag that deliberately sets out to mislead readers and defame people using its financial muscle to prevent any but the richest from taking action against them. It masquerades as a serious newspaper but it is sensationalist trash. And don’t forget the family that own it were vocal supporters of the British Fascist movement. Hideous and people who read it by choice are complicit!" People take its circulation to mean it is popular and/or "good" at its job When the truth is it's the highest paid for circular because the bulk of their readers have not embraced digital sources for news. nothing more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate. . I cannot see too many people being concerned about what Wikipedia think . They themselves make no checks on what they publish. What newspapers publish is governed by various press regulatory organisations yet you can publish anything you like on the Internet without there being any control over it. The Daily Mail is an exceptionally successfull paper. I am sure that it's readers are more than capable of doing their own research on any areas on which there are doubts. To refer to a poorly educated electorate is a little derogatory and insulting. Maybe the electorate are educated , respectfully and hard working and you do not like the result that you see. We like it a democracy and do not have to have other peoples views forced upon us. If the Daily Mails reporting was inaccurate people would simply stop buying it . In addition they would go bankrupt because of people winning legal actions against them. The Daily Mail have won many press awards and their achievement is remarkable in a declining market . The pious self righteous woke brigade are simply a very vocal minority. The Daily Mail represents the voice of the people. Lawsuits won against the Mail 2001, February: Businessman Alan Sugar was awarded £100,000 in damages following a story commenting on his stewardship of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.[196] 2003, October: Actress Diana Rigg awarded £30,000 in damages over a story commenting on aspects of her personality.[197] 2006, May: £100,000 damages for Elton John, following false accusations concerning his manners and behaviour.[198] 2009, January: £30,000 award to Dr Austen Ivereigh, who had worked for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, following false accusations made by the newspaper concerning abortion.[199] 2010, July: £47,500 award to Parameswaran Subramanyam for falsely claiming that he secretly sustained himself with hamburgers during a 23-day hunger strike in Parliament Square to draw attention to the protests against the Sri Lankan Civil War in 2009.[200] 2011, November: the former lifestyle adviser Carole Caplin received damages over claims in the Mail that she would reveal intimate details about former clients.[201] 2014, May: author J. K. Rowling received "substantial damages" and the Mail printed an apology. The newspaper had made a false claim about Rowling's story written for the website of Gingerbread, a single parents' charity.[202] 2017, April: First Lady of the United States, Melania Trump, received an undisclosed settlement over claims in the Mail that she had worked as an escort in the 1990s.[203] In September 2016, she began litigation against the Daily Mail for an article which discussed escort allegations. The article included rebuttals and said that there was no evidence to support the allegations. The Mail regretted any misinterpretation that could have come from reading the article, and retracted it from its website.[204] Melania Trump filed a lawsuit in Maryland, suing for $150 million.[205] On 7 February 2017, the lawsuit was re-filed in the correct jurisdiction, New York, where the Daily Mail's parent company has offices, seeking damages of at least $150 million.[206] 2018, June: Earl Spencer accepted undisclosed libel damages from AP over a claim that he acted in an "unbrotherly, heartless and callous way" towards his sister Diana, Princess of Wales.[207] 2019, June: AP paid £120,000 in damages plus costs to Interpal, a UK-based charity which the Mail falsely accused of funding a "hate festival" in Palestine which acted out the murder of Jews.[208] 2020, November: The Mail apologised for distress caused and have agreed to pay her libel damages of £25,000 to University of Cambridge professor Priyamvada Gopal, who they falsely alleged "was attempting to incite an aggressive and potentially violent race war".[209] 2020, December: The Mail paid businessman James Dyson and his wife Lady Deirdre Dyson £100,000 in libel damages after suggesting they had behaved badly towards their former housekeeper.[210] 2021, January: AP paid damages and apologised to a British Pakistani couple about whom they had made false allegation in relation to their work as counter-extremism experts.[211] 2021, May: AP paid substantial damages and apologised for revealing the identity of a complainant in a r&pe case against film director Luc Besson.[212]. It is interesting to see that you had to go back twenty years in order to find sufficient numbers. It is impossible to get every story right " Twaddle. The Daily Fail regularly make things up. There often is no story but they proceed because few can take them to task. They have spitefully destroyed people’s lives. The “reporters/editors” (should read fiction writers) working their are SCUM! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Daily Mail is nothing more than an insidious gossip rag that deliberately sets out to mislead readers and defame people using its financial muscle to prevent any but the richest from taking action against them. It masquerades as a serious newspaper but it is sensationalist trash. And don’t forget the family that own it were vocal supporters of the British Fascist movement. Hideous and people who read it by choice are complicit! People take its circulation to mean it is popular and/or "good" at its job When the truth is it's the highest paid for circular because the bulk of their readers have not embraced digital sources for news. nothing more." Actually The Daily Mail’s financial success is ALL based on advertising revenue. The money from newspaper sales hardly even covers their production/distribution costs. BUT the dominant demographic that reads it (on paper or online) are wealthier pensioners (a prime target for advertisers that attracts a premium cost). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate. . I cannot see too many people being concerned about what Wikipedia think . They themselves make no checks on what they publish. What newspapers publish is governed by various press regulatory organisations yet you can publish anything you like on the Internet without there being any control over it. The Daily Mail is an exceptionally successfull paper. I am sure that it's readers are more than capable of doing their own research on any areas on which there are doubts. To refer to a poorly educated electorate is a little derogatory and insulting. Maybe the electorate are educated , respectfully and hard working and you do not like the result that you see. We like it a democracy and do not have to have other peoples views forced upon us. If the Daily Mails reporting was inaccurate people would simply stop buying it . In addition they would go bankrupt because of people winning legal actions against them. The Daily Mail have won many press awards and their achievement is remarkable in a declining market . The pious self righteous woke brigade are simply a very vocal minority. The Daily Mail represents the voice of the people. Lawsuits won against the Mail 2001, February: Businessman Alan Sugar was awarded £100,000 in damages following a story commenting on his stewardship of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.[196] 2003, October: Actress Diana Rigg awarded £30,000 in damages over a story commenting on aspects of her personality.[197] 2006, May: £100,000 damages for Elton John, following false accusations concerning his manners and behaviour.[198] 2009, January: £30,000 award to Dr Austen Ivereigh, who had worked for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, following false accusations made by the newspaper concerning abortion.[199] 2010, July: £47,500 award to Parameswaran Subramanyam for falsely claiming that he secretly sustained himself with hamburgers during a 23-day hunger strike in Parliament Square to draw attention to the protests against the Sri Lankan Civil War in 2009.[200] 2011, November: the former lifestyle adviser Carole Caplin received damages over claims in the Mail that she would reveal intimate details about former clients.[201] 2014, May: author J. K. Rowling received "substantial damages" and the Mail printed an apology. The newspaper had made a false claim about Rowling's story written for the website of Gingerbread, a single parents' charity.[202] 2017, April: First Lady of the United States, Melania Trump, received an undisclosed settlement over claims in the Mail that she had worked as an escort in the 1990s.[203] In September 2016, she began litigation against the Daily Mail for an article which discussed escort allegations. The article included rebuttals and said that there was no evidence to support the allegations. The Mail regretted any misinterpretation that could have come from reading the article, and retracted it from its website.[204] Melania Trump filed a lawsuit in Maryland, suing for $150 million.[205] On 7 February 2017, the lawsuit was re-filed in the correct jurisdiction, New York, where the Daily Mail's parent company has offices, seeking damages of at least $150 million.[206] 2018, June: Earl Spencer accepted undisclosed libel damages from AP over a claim that he acted in an "unbrotherly, heartless and callous way" towards his sister Diana, Princess of Wales.[207] 2019, June: AP paid £120,000 in damages plus costs to Interpal, a UK-based charity which the Mail falsely accused of funding a "hate festival" in Palestine which acted out the murder of Jews.[208] 2020, November: The Mail apologised for distress caused and have agreed to pay her libel damages of £25,000 to University of Cambridge professor Priyamvada Gopal, who they falsely alleged "was attempting to incite an aggressive and potentially violent race war".[209] 2020, December: The Mail paid businessman James Dyson and his wife Lady Deirdre Dyson £100,000 in libel damages after suggesting they had behaved badly towards their former housekeeper.[210] 2021, January: AP paid damages and apologised to a British Pakistani couple about whom they had made false allegation in relation to their work as counter-extremism experts.[211] 2021, May: AP paid substantial damages and apologised for revealing the identity of a complainant in a r&pe case against film director Luc Besson.[212]. It is interesting to see that you had to go back twenty years in order to find sufficient numbers. It is impossible to get every story right " It is interesting. Isn't it, that it's extremely hard for the majority to be able to bring a libel claim, against the likes of a rabid media outlet that's obviously untrustworthy. And yet this dubious outlet is somehow championed by some, which makes me rather queasy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate. . I cannot see too many people being concerned about what Wikipedia think . They themselves make no checks on what they publish. What newspapers publish is governed by various press regulatory organisations yet you can publish anything you like on the Internet without there being any control over it. The Daily Mail is an exceptionally successfull paper. I am sure that it's readers are more than capable of doing their own research on any areas on which there are doubts. To refer to a poorly educated electorate is a little derogatory and insulting. Maybe the electorate are educated , respectfully and hard working and you do not like the result that you see. We like it a democracy and do not have to have other peoples views forced upon us. If the Daily Mails reporting was inaccurate people would simply stop buying it . In addition they would go bankrupt because of people winning legal actions against them. The Daily Mail have won many press awards and their achievement is remarkable in a declining market . The pious self righteous woke brigade are simply a very vocal minority. The Daily Mail represents the voice of the people. Lawsuits won against the Mail 2001, February: Businessman Alan Sugar was awarded £100,000 in damages following a story commenting on his stewardship of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.[196] 2003, October: Actress Diana Rigg awarded £30,000 in damages over a story commenting on aspects of her personality.[197] 2006, May: £100,000 damages for Elton John, following false accusations concerning his manners and behaviour.[198] 2009, January: £30,000 award to Dr Austen Ivereigh, who had worked for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, following false accusations made by the newspaper concerning abortion.[199] 2010, July: £47,500 award to Parameswaran Subramanyam for falsely claiming that he secretly sustained himself with hamburgers during a 23-day hunger strike in Parliament Square to draw attention to the protests against the Sri Lankan Civil War in 2009.[200] 2011, November: the former lifestyle adviser Carole Caplin received damages over claims in the Mail that she would reveal intimate details about former clients.[201] 2014, May: author J. K. Rowling received "substantial damages" and the Mail printed an apology. The newspaper had made a false claim about Rowling's story written for the website of Gingerbread, a single parents' charity.[202] 2017, April: First Lady of the United States, Melania Trump, received an undisclosed settlement over claims in the Mail that she had worked as an escort in the 1990s.[203] In September 2016, she began litigation against the Daily Mail for an article which discussed escort allegations. The article included rebuttals and said that there was no evidence to support the allegations. The Mail regretted any misinterpretation that could have come from reading the article, and retracted it from its website.[204] Melania Trump filed a lawsuit in Maryland, suing for $150 million.[205] On 7 February 2017, the lawsuit was re-filed in the correct jurisdiction, New York, where the Daily Mail's parent company has offices, seeking damages of at least $150 million.[206] 2018, June: Earl Spencer accepted undisclosed libel damages from AP over a claim that he acted in an "unbrotherly, heartless and callous way" towards his sister Diana, Princess of Wales.[207] 2019, June: AP paid £120,000 in damages plus costs to Interpal, a UK-based charity which the Mail falsely accused of funding a "hate festival" in Palestine which acted out the murder of Jews.[208] 2020, November: The Mail apologised for distress caused and have agreed to pay her libel damages of £25,000 to University of Cambridge professor Priyamvada Gopal, who they falsely alleged "was attempting to incite an aggressive and potentially violent race war".[209] 2020, December: The Mail paid businessman James Dyson and his wife Lady Deirdre Dyson £100,000 in libel damages after suggesting they had behaved badly towards their former housekeeper.[210] 2021, January: AP paid damages and apologised to a British Pakistani couple about whom they had made false allegation in relation to their work as counter-extremism experts.[211] 2021, May: AP paid substantial damages and apologised for revealing the identity of a complainant in a r&pe case against film director Luc Besson.[212]. It is interesting to see that you had to go back twenty years in order to find sufficient numbers. It is impossible to get every story right Twaddle. The Daily Fail regularly make things up. There often is no story but they proceed because few can take them to task. They have spitefully destroyed people’s lives. The “reporters/editors” (should read fiction writers) working their are SCUM!" . If you were to make a story up the press complaints council would be knocking at your door very quickly . I guess you do not read the paper in detail otherwise you would not be making the comments that you do. The source of most stories can be checked out very easily . Maybe you should start working your way through to days paper to prove that . Also take note of the little box on the bottom right hand corner of page 4. At least the readers admire a very talented team of journalists who are driven by success in life | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate. . I cannot see too many people being concerned about what Wikipedia think . They themselves make no checks on what they publish. What newspapers publish is governed by various press regulatory organisations yet you can publish anything you like on the Internet without there being any control over it. The Daily Mail is an exceptionally successfull paper. I am sure that it's readers are more than capable of doing their own research on any areas on which there are doubts. To refer to a poorly educated electorate is a little derogatory and insulting. Maybe the electorate are educated , respectfully and hard working and you do not like the result that you see. We like it a democracy and do not have to have other peoples views forced upon us. If the Daily Mails reporting was inaccurate people would simply stop buying it . In addition they would go bankrupt because of people winning legal actions against them. The Daily Mail have won many press awards and their achievement is remarkable in a declining market . The pious self righteous woke brigade are simply a very vocal minority. The Daily Mail represents the voice of the people. Lawsuits won against the Mail 2001, February: Businessman Alan Sugar was awarded £100,000 in damages following a story commenting on his stewardship of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.[196] 2003, October: Actress Diana Rigg awarded £30,000 in damages over a story commenting on aspects of her personality.[197] 2006, May: £100,000 damages for Elton John, following false accusations concerning his manners and behaviour.[198] 2009, January: £30,000 award to Dr Austen Ivereigh, who had worked for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, following false accusations made by the newspaper concerning abortion.[199] 2010, July: £47,500 award to Parameswaran Subramanyam for falsely claiming that he secretly sustained himself with hamburgers during a 23-day hunger strike in Parliament Square to draw attention to the protests against the Sri Lankan Civil War in 2009.[200] 2011, November: the former lifestyle adviser Carole Caplin received damages over claims in the Mail that she would reveal intimate details about former clients.[201] 2014, May: author J. K. Rowling received "substantial damages" and the Mail printed an apology. The newspaper had made a false claim about Rowling's story written for the website of Gingerbread, a single parents' charity.[202] 2017, April: First Lady of the United States, Melania Trump, received an undisclosed settlement over claims in the Mail that she had worked as an escort in the 1990s.[203] In September 2016, she began litigation against the Daily Mail for an article which discussed escort allegations. The article included rebuttals and said that there was no evidence to support the allegations. The Mail regretted any misinterpretation that could have come from reading the article, and retracted it from its website.[204] Melania Trump filed a lawsuit in Maryland, suing for $150 million.[205] On 7 February 2017, the lawsuit was re-filed in the correct jurisdiction, New York, where the Daily Mail's parent company has offices, seeking damages of at least $150 million.[206] 2018, June: Earl Spencer accepted undisclosed libel damages from AP over a claim that he acted in an "unbrotherly, heartless and callous way" towards his sister Diana, Princess of Wales.[207] 2019, June: AP paid £120,000 in damages plus costs to Interpal, a UK-based charity which the Mail falsely accused of funding a "hate festival" in Palestine which acted out the murder of Jews.[208] 2020, November: The Mail apologised for distress caused and have agreed to pay her libel damages of £25,000 to University of Cambridge professor Priyamvada Gopal, who they falsely alleged "was attempting to incite an aggressive and potentially violent race war".[209] 2020, December: The Mail paid businessman James Dyson and his wife Lady Deirdre Dyson £100,000 in libel damages after suggesting they had behaved badly towards their former housekeeper.[210] 2021, January: AP paid damages and apologised to a British Pakistani couple about whom they had made false allegation in relation to their work as counter-extremism experts.[211] 2021, May: AP paid substantial damages and apologised for revealing the identity of a complainant in a r&pe case against film director Luc Besson.[212]. It is interesting to see that you had to go back twenty years in order to find sufficient numbers. It is impossible to get every story right Twaddle. The Daily Fail regularly make things up. There often is no story but they proceed because few can take them to task. They have spitefully destroyed people’s lives. The “reporters/editors” (should read fiction writers) working their are SCUM!. If you were to make a story up the press complaints council would be knocking at your door very quickly . I guess you do not read the paper in detail otherwise you would not be making the comments that you do. The source of most stories can be checked out very easily . Maybe you should start working your way through to days paper to prove that . Also take note of the little box on the bottom right hand corner of page 4. At least the readers admire a very talented team of journalists who are driven by success in life " This has to be a joke, 3 readers , anyway, the OP is about the next Tory leader, who do you (daily mail) want | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate. . I cannot see too many people being concerned about what Wikipedia think . They themselves make no checks on what they publish. What newspapers publish is governed by various press regulatory organisations yet you can publish anything you like on the Internet without there being any control over it. The Daily Mail is an exceptionally successfull paper. I am sure that it's readers are more than capable of doing their own research on any areas on which there are doubts. To refer to a poorly educated electorate is a little derogatory and insulting. Maybe the electorate are educated , respectfully and hard working and you do not like the result that you see. We like it a democracy and do not have to have other peoples views forced upon us. If the Daily Mails reporting was inaccurate people would simply stop buying it . In addition they would go bankrupt because of people winning legal actions against them. The Daily Mail have won many press awards and their achievement is remarkable in a declining market . The pious self righteous woke brigade are simply a very vocal minority. The Daily Mail represents the voice of the people. Lawsuits won against the Mail 2001, February: Businessman Alan Sugar was awarded £100,000 in damages following a story commenting on his stewardship of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.[196] 2003, October: Actress Diana Rigg awarded £30,000 in damages over a story commenting on aspects of her personality.[197] 2006, May: £100,000 damages for Elton John, following false accusations concerning his manners and behaviour.[198] 2009, January: £30,000 award to Dr Austen Ivereigh, who had worked for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, following false accusations made by the newspaper concerning abortion.[199] 2010, July: £47,500 award to Parameswaran Subramanyam for falsely claiming that he secretly sustained himself with hamburgers during a 23-day hunger strike in Parliament Square to draw attention to the protests against the Sri Lankan Civil War in 2009.[200] 2011, November: the former lifestyle adviser Carole Caplin received damages over claims in the Mail that she would reveal intimate details about former clients.[201] 2014, May: author J. K. Rowling received "substantial damages" and the Mail printed an apology. The newspaper had made a false claim about Rowling's story written for the website of Gingerbread, a single parents' charity.[202] 2017, April: First Lady of the United States, Melania Trump, received an undisclosed settlement over claims in the Mail that she had worked as an escort in the 1990s.[203] In September 2016, she began litigation against the Daily Mail for an article which discussed escort allegations. The article included rebuttals and said that there was no evidence to support the allegations. The Mail regretted any misinterpretation that could have come from reading the article, and retracted it from its website.[204] Melania Trump filed a lawsuit in Maryland, suing for $150 million.[205] On 7 February 2017, the lawsuit was re-filed in the correct jurisdiction, New York, where the Daily Mail's parent company has offices, seeking damages of at least $150 million.[206] 2018, June: Earl Spencer accepted undisclosed libel damages from AP over a claim that he acted in an "unbrotherly, heartless and callous way" towards his sister Diana, Princess of Wales.[207] 2019, June: AP paid £120,000 in damages plus costs to Interpal, a UK-based charity which the Mail falsely accused of funding a "hate festival" in Palestine which acted out the murder of Jews.[208] 2020, November: The Mail apologised for distress caused and have agreed to pay her libel damages of £25,000 to University of Cambridge professor Priyamvada Gopal, who they falsely alleged "was attempting to incite an aggressive and potentially violent race war".[209] 2020, December: The Mail paid businessman James Dyson and his wife Lady Deirdre Dyson £100,000 in libel damages after suggesting they had behaved badly towards their former housekeeper.[210] 2021, January: AP paid damages and apologised to a British Pakistani couple about whom they had made false allegation in relation to their work as counter-extremism experts.[211] 2021, May: AP paid substantial damages and apologised for revealing the identity of a complainant in a r&pe case against film director Luc Besson.[212]. It is interesting to see that you had to go back twenty years in order to find sufficient numbers. It is impossible to get every story right Twaddle. The Daily Fail regularly make things up. There often is no story but they proceed because few can take them to task. They have spitefully destroyed people’s lives. The “reporters/editors” (should read fiction writers) working their are SCUM!. If you were to make a story up the press complaints council would be knocking at your door very quickly . I guess you do not read the paper in detail otherwise you would not be making the comments that you do. The source of most stories can be checked out very easily . Maybe you should start working your way through to days paper to prove that . Also take note of the little box on the bottom right hand corner of page 4. At least the readers admire a very talented team of journalists who are driven by success in life " This is great! What else can you say about it?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate. . I cannot see too many people being concerned about what Wikipedia think . They themselves make no checks on what they publish. What newspapers publish is governed by various press regulatory organisations yet you can publish anything you like on the Internet without there being any control over it. The Daily Mail is an exceptionally successfull paper. I am sure that it's readers are more than capable of doing their own research on any areas on which there are doubts. To refer to a poorly educated electorate is a little derogatory and insulting. Maybe the electorate are educated , respectfully and hard working and you do not like the result that you see. We like it a democracy and do not have to have other peoples views forced upon us. If the Daily Mails reporting was inaccurate people would simply stop buying it . In addition they would go bankrupt because of people winning legal actions against them. The Daily Mail have won many press awards and their achievement is remarkable in a declining market . The pious self righteous woke brigade are simply a very vocal minority. The Daily Mail represents the voice of the people. Lawsuits won against the Mail 2001, February: Businessman Alan Sugar was awarded £100,000 in damages following a story commenting on his stewardship of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.[196] 2003, October: Actress Diana Rigg awarded £30,000 in damages over a story commenting on aspects of her personality.[197] 2006, May: £100,000 damages for Elton John, following false accusations concerning his manners and behaviour.[198] 2009, January: £30,000 award to Dr Austen Ivereigh, who had worked for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, following false accusations made by the newspaper concerning abortion.[199] 2010, July: £47,500 award to Parameswaran Subramanyam for falsely claiming that he secretly sustained himself with hamburgers during a 23-day hunger strike in Parliament Square to draw attention to the protests against the Sri Lankan Civil War in 2009.[200] 2011, November: the former lifestyle adviser Carole Caplin received damages over claims in the Mail that she would reveal intimate details about former clients.[201] 2014, May: author J. K. Rowling received "substantial damages" and the Mail printed an apology. The newspaper had made a false claim about Rowling's story written for the website of Gingerbread, a single parents' charity.[202] 2017, April: First Lady of the United States, Melania Trump, received an undisclosed settlement over claims in the Mail that she had worked as an escort in the 1990s.[203] In September 2016, she began litigation against the Daily Mail for an article which discussed escort allegations. The article included rebuttals and said that there was no evidence to support the allegations. The Mail regretted any misinterpretation that could have come from reading the article, and retracted it from its website.[204] Melania Trump filed a lawsuit in Maryland, suing for $150 million.[205] On 7 February 2017, the lawsuit was re-filed in the correct jurisdiction, New York, where the Daily Mail's parent company has offices, seeking damages of at least $150 million.[206] 2018, June: Earl Spencer accepted undisclosed libel damages from AP over a claim that he acted in an "unbrotherly, heartless and callous way" towards his sister Diana, Princess of Wales.[207] 2019, June: AP paid £120,000 in damages plus costs to Interpal, a UK-based charity which the Mail falsely accused of funding a "hate festival" in Palestine which acted out the murder of Jews.[208] 2020, November: The Mail apologised for distress caused and have agreed to pay her libel damages of £25,000 to University of Cambridge professor Priyamvada Gopal, who they falsely alleged "was attempting to incite an aggressive and potentially violent race war".[209] 2020, December: The Mail paid businessman James Dyson and his wife Lady Deirdre Dyson £100,000 in libel damages after suggesting they had behaved badly towards their former housekeeper.[210] 2021, January: AP paid damages and apologised to a British Pakistani couple about whom they had made false allegation in relation to their work as counter-extremism experts.[211] 2021, May: AP paid substantial damages and apologised for revealing the identity of a complainant in a r&pe case against film director Luc Besson.[212]. It is interesting to see that you had to go back twenty years in order to find sufficient numbers. It is impossible to get every story right Twaddle. The Daily Fail regularly make things up. There often is no story but they proceed because few can take them to task. They have spitefully destroyed people’s lives. The “reporters/editors” (should read fiction writers) working their are SCUM!. If you were to make a story up the press complaints council would be knocking at your door very quickly . I guess you do not read the paper in detail otherwise you would not be making the comments that you do. The source of most stories can be checked out very easily . Maybe you should start working your way through to days paper to prove that . Also take note of the little box on the bottom right hand corner of page 4. At least the readers admire a very talented team of journalists who are driven by success in life " Oh Pat if only you knew... my job involves reading ALL papers. I can absolutely assure you The Fail makes things up. They stoke scandal and cover their tracks in such a way that only the wealthy and powerful can ever take them to task (court). Their double standards are astounding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just to add... The Factual said this: “Over a dataset of 1,000 articles, the Daily Mail scored an average Factual Grade of 39.7%. This is well below the average of 61.9% for all 240 news sources that we analyzed. This places the site in the 1st percentile of our dataset — it scored the third-lowest of any news source.”" I cannot see too many people having any interest in what The Factual write . They appear to be simply a commercial organisation trying to promote themselves and gain subscriptions . They are minute and insignificant compared to the Daily Mails one million readers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just to add... The Factual said this: “Over a dataset of 1,000 articles, the Daily Mail scored an average Factual Grade of 39.7%. This is well below the average of 61.9% for all 240 news sources that we analyzed. This places the site in the 1st percentile of our dataset — it scored the third-lowest of any news source.”I cannot see too many people having any interest in what The Factual write . They appear to be simply a commercial organisation trying to promote themselves and gain subscriptions . They are minute and insignificant compared to the Daily Mails one million readers " By your logic Justin Beiber & Ed Sheeran are more significant to music than U2, Aerosmith, Phil Collins or Rod Stewart, because they have more certified sales... Just because they have more muppets believing their lies does not make them more credible or factual than they actually are | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just to add... The Factual said this: “Over a dataset of 1,000 articles, the Daily Mail scored an average Factual Grade of 39.7%. This is well below the average of 61.9% for all 240 news sources that we analyzed. This places the site in the 1st percentile of our dataset — it scored the third-lowest of any news source.”I cannot see too many people having any interest in what The Factual write . They appear to be simply a commercial organisation trying to promote themselves and gain subscriptions . They are minute and insignificant compared to the Daily Mails one million readers " One side of me really wants to know if you're just posting the most ridiculous things you can think of for a laugh, or if you genuinely believe this rhubarb. But then again, I don't want to lose the magic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Mail writers are experts in saying stuff that is factually correct, but in a misleading way. They might write a story that starts: "HAYTURNERS VANISHES Fab user Hayturners has not been seen recently in the forums. The Fab moderators have been very busy banning racist bigots from posting their vile hate messages. ..." A casual reader will think that Hayturners had been banned from the forums for racism, but the story doesn't actually say that. If he were to complain, the Mail would say that those 2 sentences are not meant to be read together. If he pointed out that the first sentence was untrue, they get to print a second story: "HAYTURNERS RETURNS Fab member Hayturners yesterday posted one of his distinctive messages in the forums. The Fab moderators can only ban racist bigots for a set time, and after that they have to be be allowed to return to posting their disgusting views. ..." Once again, each sentence is accurate, but the impression given is that Hayturners was banned but is now back again. It's a technique that has served them well for years." That comment is both funny + depressing in equal measure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its the comments section which are literally a hate platform, e.g. Rishi Sunak, was being slated not because he is a terrible individual, but they got really personal questioning his loyalty to the UK and certain racial undertones. Where the Mail article implies, it’s their comment posters which take the logical next step, as the paper can claim it has no control over who posts what, taking no responsibility whatsoever is being said. I would say the daily fail is the enabler, which winds up certain reader who will do the remaining legwork." . You appear to be referring to the comments column on the online version. People have queried the validity of hie non domicile status and some donot regard it as bring acceptable. Are you implying that this should be kept quiet from the public. ? He was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The newspapers have no control over what is published in the comments column of an on line version. You can of course always add you own comment to any online version . The same applies to any social media . In any event there are usually so many comments in media that they become boring and are not worth reading . If you are really interested in the Daily Mail why not just buy it in a newsagents and you can then read the letters page . You will then see the arguments both for and against various topics . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Mail writers are experts in saying stuff that is factually correct, but in a misleading way. They might write a story that starts: "HAYTURNERS VANISHES Fab user Hayturners has not been seen recently in the forums. The Fab moderators have been very busy banning racist bigots from posting their vile hate messages. ..." A casual reader will think that Hayturners had been banned from the forums for racism, but the story doesn't actually say that. If he were to complain, the Mail would say that those 2 sentences are not meant to be read together. If he pointed out that the first sentence was untrue, they get to print a second story: "HAYTURNERS RETURNS Fab member Hayturners yesterday posted one of his distinctive messages in the forums. The Fab moderators can only ban racist bigots for a set time, and after that they have to be be allowed to return to posting their disgusting views. ..." Once again, each sentence is accurate, but the impression given is that Hayturners was banned but is now back again. It's a technique that has served them well for years." You win post of the week award. Spot on and genius. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its the comments section which are literally a hate platform, e.g. Rishi Sunak, was being slated not because he is a terrible individual, but they got really personal questioning his loyalty to the UK and certain racial undertones. Where the Mail article implies, it’s their comment posters which take the logical next step, as the paper can claim it has no control over who posts what, taking no responsibility whatsoever is being said. I would say the daily fail is the enabler, which winds up certain reader who will do the remaining legwork.. You appear to be referring to the comments column on the online version. People have queried the validity of hie non domicile status and some donot regard it as bring acceptable. Are you implying that this should be kept quiet from the public. ? He was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The newspapers have no control over what is published in the comments column of an on line version. You can of course always add you own comment to any online version . The same applies to any social media . In any event there are usually so many comments in media that they become boring and are not worth reading . If you are really interested in the Daily Mail why not just buy it in a newsagents and you can then read the letters page . You will then see the arguments both for and against various topics . " Topics? Hmm…let me guess White exceptionalism? Boris being a victim of nasty brown people rather than his own hubris? Woke people who don’t deserve to be where they are changing the country for the worse? Everything in the Daily Mail is straight out of the populist/fascist playbook It is horrible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Mail writers are experts in saying stuff that is factually correct, but in a misleading way. They might write a story that starts: "HAYTURNERS VANISHES Fab user Hayturners has not been seen recently in the forums. The Fab moderators have been very busy banning racist bigots from posting their vile hate messages. ..." A casual reader will think that Hayturners had been banned from the forums for racism, but the story doesn't actually say that. If he were to complain, the Mail would say that those 2 sentences are not meant to be read together. If he pointed out that the first sentence was untrue, they get to print a second story: "HAYTURNERS RETURNS Fab member Hayturners yesterday posted one of his distinctive messages in the forums. The Fab moderators can only ban racist bigots for a set time, and after that they have to be be allowed to return to posting their disgusting views. ..." Once again, each sentence is accurate, but the impression given is that Hayturners was banned but is now back again. It's a technique that has served them well for years." . Surely if there was any validity to your comment you would as a minimum attempt to at least go through the newspaper and provide an example. Instead you have simply posted a hypothetical example . If the newspaper concerned were doing what you claimed you would be spoilt for choice with real life illustrations . It would seem that this is not the case . A more realistic assessment might be that the newspaper simply reports facts and employ top quality journalists. If you have at least a million people who buy or subscribe their stoy is one of success for both the readers , publishers , newsagents who sell it , and all the associated businneses such as print suppliers. There will always be disgruntled individuals who criticise it . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Mail writers are experts in saying stuff that is factually correct, but in a misleading way. They might write a story that starts: "HAYTURNERS VANISHES Fab user Hayturners has not been seen recently in the forums. The Fab moderators have been very busy banning racist bigots from posting their vile hate messages. ..." A casual reader will think that Hayturners had been banned from the forums for racism, but the story doesn't actually say that. If he were to complain, the Mail would say that those 2 sentences are not meant to be read together. If he pointed out that the first sentence was untrue, they get to print a second story: "HAYTURNERS RETURNS Fab member Hayturners yesterday posted one of his distinctive messages in the forums. The Fab moderators can only ban racist bigots for a set time, and after that they have to be be allowed to return to posting their disgusting views. ..." Once again, each sentence is accurate, but the impression given is that Hayturners was banned but is now back again. It's a technique that has served them well for years. . Surely if there was any validity to your comment you would as a minimum attempt to at least go through the newspaper and provide an example. Instead you have simply posted a hypothetical example . If the newspaper concerned were doing what you claimed you would be spoilt for choice with real life illustrations . It would seem that this is not the case . A more realistic assessment might be that the newspaper simply reports facts and employ top quality journalists. If you have at least a million people who buy or subscribe their stoy is one of success for both the readers , publishers , newsagents who sell it , and all the associated businneses such as print suppliers. There will always be disgruntled individuals who criticise it . " "Presents facts". Lol. This is amazing. Truly. I had a look today, out of interest. The absolute state of the opinion based bullshit all the way down the digital version. What an absolute embarrassment for Daily Mail readers (a term which is a now a part of British culture to describe someone small minded, bigoted, easily distracted and easily outraged by an opinion). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Mail writers are experts in saying stuff that is factually correct, but in a misleading way. They might write a story that starts: "HAYTURNERS VANISHES Fab user Hayturners has not been seen recently in the forums. The Fab moderators have been very busy banning racist bigots from posting their vile hate messages. ..." A casual reader will think that Hayturners had been banned from the forums for racism, but the story doesn't actually say that. If he were to complain, the Mail would say that those 2 sentences are not meant to be read together. If he pointed out that the first sentence was untrue, they get to print a second story: "HAYTURNERS RETURNS Fab member Hayturners yesterday posted one of his distinctive messages in the forums. The Fab moderators can only ban racist bigots for a set time, and after that they have to be be allowed to return to posting their disgusting views. ..." Once again, each sentence is accurate, but the impression given is that Hayturners was banned but is now back again. It's a technique that has served them well for years. . Surely if there was any validity to your comment you would as a minimum attempt to at least go through the newspaper and provide an example. Instead you have simply posted a hypothetical example . If the newspaper concerned were doing what you claimed you would be spoilt for choice with real life illustrations . It would seem that this is not the case . A more realistic assessment might be that the newspaper simply reports facts and employ top quality journalists. If you have at least a million people who buy or subscribe their stoy is one of success for both the readers , publishers , newsagents who sell it , and all the associated businneses such as print suppliers. There will always be disgruntled individuals who criticise it . " The daily mail is losing readers every year | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Mail writers are experts in saying stuff that is factually correct, but in a misleading way. They might write a story that starts: "HAYTURNERS VANISHES Fab user Hayturners has not been seen recently in the forums. The Fab moderators have been very busy banning racist bigots from posting their vile hate messages. ..." A casual reader will think that Hayturners had been banned from the forums for racism, but the story doesn't actually say that. If he were to complain, the Mail would say that those 2 sentences are not meant to be read together. If he pointed out that the first sentence was untrue, they get to print a second story: "HAYTURNERS RETURNS Fab member Hayturners yesterday posted one of his distinctive messages in the forums. The Fab moderators can only ban racist bigots for a set time, and after that they have to be be allowed to return to posting their disgusting views. ..." Once again, each sentence is accurate, but the impression given is that Hayturners was banned but is now back again. It's a technique that has served them well for years. . Surely if there was any validity to your comment you would as a minimum attempt to at least go through the newspaper and provide an example. Instead you have simply posted a hypothetical example . If the newspaper concerned were doing what you claimed you would be spoilt for choice with real life illustrations . It would seem that this is not the case . A more realistic assessment might be that the newspaper simply reports facts and employ top quality journalists. If you have at least a million people who buy or subscribe their stoy is one of success for both the readers , publishers , newsagents who sell it , and all the associated businneses such as print suppliers. There will always be disgruntled individuals who criticise it . " The Satire is strong in this one! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It never fails to amuse that some people , who I would assume are otherwise quite intelligent, get so worked up over a newspaper. Some even think they are being very clever by referring to it as “the DailyFail” or “Daily Heil”. Isn’t that funny? What’s not so funny is the nasty way these ‘intelligent elite’ dismiss and ridicule people that read it - bigoted , racist, narrow minded pensioners , seems to be their rhetoric. Need to be careful here, it’s a short distance from ridiculing people simply for what they read, to rounding them up and sending them off to correction camps. The ‘leftists’ showing their true colours perhaps? It’s a fucking paper for gods sake and I would imagine that nearly everyone that does actually read it, are more than capable of forming their own intelligent opinions and are lovely." Like I have said earlier, your only a thick racist if you believe ‘everything’ that is written in the Mail, hopefully, most people who read it realise that . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It never fails to amuse that some people , who I would assume are otherwise quite intelligent, get so worked up over a newspaper. Some even think they are being very clever by referring to it as “the DailyFail” or “Daily Heil”. Isn’t that funny? What’s not so funny is the nasty way these ‘intelligent elite’ dismiss and ridicule people that read it - bigoted , racist, narrow minded pensioners , seems to be their rhetoric. Need to be careful here, it’s a short distance from ridiculing people simply for what they read, to rounding them up and sending them off to correction camps. The ‘leftists’ showing their true colours perhaps? It’s a fucking paper for gods sake and I would imagine that nearly everyone that does actually read it, are more than capable of forming their own intelligent opinions and are lovely." Nice rant. However, I’d suggest you do not understand the influence the paper (and online versions) has or seem prepared to acknowledge the clear political agenda and far right fascist supporting heritage of the proprietor’s family. Perhaps your personal politics means you have some sympathy for far right and fascist ideology. In a free country that is your prerogative (though that ideology would soon remove your freedoms). Personally I think that ideology is abhorrent and anything (like a newspaper) that supports is highly deserving of criticism. The Daily Mail etc is quite simply insidious. Signed a Centrist (not leftist). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It never fails to amuse that some people , who I would assume are otherwise quite intelligent, get so worked up over a newspaper. Some even think they are being very clever by referring to it as “the DailyFail” or “Daily Heil”. Isn’t that funny? What’s not so funny is the nasty way these ‘intelligent elite’ dismiss and ridicule people that read it - bigoted , racist, narrow minded pensioners , seems to be their rhetoric. Need to be careful here, it’s a short distance from ridiculing people simply for what they read, to rounding them up and sending them off to correction camps. The ‘leftists’ showing their true colours perhaps? It’s a fucking paper for gods sake and I would imagine that nearly everyone that does actually read it, are more than capable of forming their own intelligent opinions and are lovely." Why is it that you think only leftists don't think that publishing bigoted hate to distract people, is a good idea? Bit of an insult to all the decent right leaning people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It never fails to amuse that some people , who I would assume are otherwise quite intelligent, get so worked up over a newspaper. Some even think they are being very clever by referring to it as “the DailyFail” or “Daily Heil”. Isn’t that funny? What’s not so funny is the nasty way these ‘intelligent elite’ dismiss and ridicule people that read it - bigoted , racist, narrow minded pensioners , seems to be their rhetoric. Need to be careful here, it’s a short distance from ridiculing people simply for what they read, to rounding them up and sending them off to correction camps. The ‘leftists’ showing their true colours perhaps? It’s a fucking paper for gods sake and I would imagine that nearly everyone that does actually read it, are more than capable of forming their own intelligent opinions and are lovely." . I think we just have to accept that there will always be narrow minded bigots who think that no one is entitled to express an opinion that is different or at variance to theirs . They are simply a very vocal and small self opinionated minority . Anyone whose opinion differs to theirs they simply regard as being thick. It is rather ironic that those who constantly criticise the paper never actually read the paper and have no idea what they are criticising . They simply repeat old clichés. Those whom they regard as being thick usually play a vital role in society. Care workers , nurses , police officers plumbers , electricians, builders , Doctors and dentists . Those who read the paper are more than capable of forming their own opinions , they do not need others to do it for them . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It never fails to amuse that some people , who I would assume are otherwise quite intelligent, get so worked up over a newspaper. Some even think they are being very clever by referring to it as “the DailyFail” or “Daily Heil”. Isn’t that funny? What’s not so funny is the nasty way these ‘intelligent elite’ dismiss and ridicule people that read it - bigoted , racist, narrow minded pensioners , seems to be their rhetoric. Need to be careful here, it’s a short distance from ridiculing people simply for what they read, to rounding them up and sending them off to correction camps. The ‘leftists’ showing their true colours perhaps? It’s a fucking paper for gods sake and I would imagine that nearly everyone that does actually read it, are more than capable of forming their own intelligent opinions and are lovely.. I think we just have to accept that there will always be narrow minded bigots who think that no one is entitled to express an opinion that is different or at variance to theirs . They are simply a very vocal and small self opinionated minority . Anyone whose opinion differs to theirs they simply regard as being thick. It is rather ironic that those who constantly criticise the paper never actually read the paper and have no idea what they are criticising . They simply repeat old clichés. Those whom they regard as being thick usually play a vital role in society. Care workers , nurses , police officers plumbers , electricians, builders , Doctors and dentists . Those who read the paper are more than capable of forming their own opinions , they do not need others to do it for them . " So to be clear. You're celebrating that the minority are opposed to the hate in the Daily Mail. So if 1 million people buy it. That means 66 million people don't. Strange definition of "minority". But then again, you do seem to be proud about being a daily mail reader. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It never fails to amuse that some people , who I would assume are otherwise quite intelligent, get so worked up over a newspaper. Some even think they are being very clever by referring to it as “the DailyFail” or “Daily Heil”. Isn’t that funny? What’s not so funny is the nasty way these ‘intelligent elite’ dismiss and ridicule people that read it - bigoted , racist, narrow minded pensioners , seems to be their rhetoric. Need to be careful here, it’s a short distance from ridiculing people simply for what they read, to rounding them up and sending them off to correction camps. The ‘leftists’ showing their true colours perhaps? It’s a fucking paper for gods sake and I would imagine that nearly everyone that does actually read it, are more than capable of forming their own intelligent opinions and are lovely.. I think we just have to accept that there will always be narrow minded bigots who think that no one is entitled to express an opinion that is different or at variance to theirs . They are simply a very vocal and small self opinionated minority . Anyone whose opinion differs to theirs they simply regard as being thick. It is rather ironic that those who constantly criticise the paper never actually read the paper and have no idea what they are criticising . They simply repeat old clichés. Those whom they regard as being thick usually play a vital role in society. Care workers , nurses , police officers plumbers , electricians, builders , Doctors and dentists . Those who read the paper are more than capable of forming their own opinions , they do not need others to do it for them . " How often do you purchase and read the Daily Mail? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It never fails to amuse that some people , who I would assume are otherwise quite intelligent, get so worked up over a newspaper. Some even think they are being very clever by referring to it as “the DailyFail” or “Daily Heil”. Isn’t that funny? What’s not so funny is the nasty way these ‘intelligent elite’ dismiss and ridicule people that read it - bigoted , racist, narrow minded pensioners , seems to be their rhetoric. Need to be careful here, it’s a short distance from ridiculing people simply for what they read, to rounding them up and sending them off to correction camps. The ‘leftists’ showing their true colours perhaps? It’s a fucking paper for gods sake and I would imagine that nearly everyone that does actually read it, are more than capable of forming their own intelligent opinions and are lovely. Why is it that you think only leftists don't think that publishing bigoted hate to distract people, is a good idea? Bit of an insult to all the decent right leaning people. " Anyone understand this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It never fails to amuse that some people , who I would assume are otherwise quite intelligent, get so worked up over a newspaper. Some even think they are being very clever by referring to it as “the DailyFail” or “Daily Heil”. Isn’t that funny? What’s not so funny is the nasty way these ‘intelligent elite’ dismiss and ridicule people that read it - bigoted , racist, narrow minded pensioners , seems to be their rhetoric. Need to be careful here, it’s a short distance from ridiculing people simply for what they read, to rounding them up and sending them off to correction camps. The ‘leftists’ showing their true colours perhaps? It’s a fucking paper for gods sake and I would imagine that nearly everyone that does actually read it, are more than capable of forming their own intelligent opinions and are lovely. Why is it that you think only leftists don't think that publishing bigoted hate to distract people, is a good idea? Bit of an insult to all the decent right leaning people. Anyone understand this? " Do you not understand this extremely basic question? Not sure how I could dum it down any further sorry. I'll just assume you have no answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It never fails to amuse that some people , who I would assume are otherwise quite intelligent, get so worked up over a newspaper. Some even think they are being very clever by referring to it as “the DailyFail” or “Daily Heil”. Isn’t that funny? What’s not so funny is the nasty way these ‘intelligent elite’ dismiss and ridicule people that read it - bigoted , racist, narrow minded pensioners , seems to be their rhetoric. Need to be careful here, it’s a short distance from ridiculing people simply for what they read, to rounding them up and sending them off to correction camps. The ‘leftists’ showing their true colours perhaps? It’s a fucking paper for gods sake and I would imagine that nearly everyone that does actually read it, are more than capable of forming their own intelligent opinions and are lovely. Why is it that you think only leftists don't think that publishing bigoted hate to distract people, is a good idea? Bit of an insult to all the decent right leaning people. Anyone understand this? Do you not understand this extremely basic question? Not sure how I could dum it down any further sorry. I'll just assume you have no answer." Please stop being so rude. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It never fails to amuse that some people , who I would assume are otherwise quite intelligent, get so worked up over a newspaper. Some even think they are being very clever by referring to it as “the DailyFail” or “Daily Heil”. Isn’t that funny? What’s not so funny is the nasty way these ‘intelligent elite’ dismiss and ridicule people that read it - bigoted , racist, narrow minded pensioners , seems to be their rhetoric. Need to be careful here, it’s a short distance from ridiculing people simply for what they read, to rounding them up and sending them off to correction camps. The ‘leftists’ showing their true colours perhaps? It’s a fucking paper for gods sake and I would imagine that nearly everyone that does actually read it, are more than capable of forming their own intelligent opinions and are lovely. Why is it that you think only leftists don't think that publishing bigoted hate to distract people, is a good idea? Bit of an insult to all the decent right leaning people. Anyone understand this? Do you not understand this extremely basic question? Not sure how I could dum it down any further sorry. I'll just assume you have no answer. Please stop being so rude." Okay. Let's try again. 1. Apart from the Hayturner parody account. We all agree that the Daily Mail publishes hate based distraction news to further their agenda? 2. You suggested that only leftists are opposed to this. 3. I asked for clarification, because this seems rather insulting to everyone not "leftist". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It never fails to amuse that some people , who I would assume are otherwise quite intelligent, get so worked up over a newspaper. Some even think they are being very clever by referring to it as “the DailyFail” or “Daily Heil”. Isn’t that funny? What’s not so funny is the nasty way these ‘intelligent elite’ dismiss and ridicule people that read it - bigoted , racist, narrow minded pensioners , seems to be their rhetoric. Need to be careful here, it’s a short distance from ridiculing people simply for what they read, to rounding them up and sending them off to correction camps. The ‘leftists’ showing their true colours perhaps? It’s a fucking paper for gods sake and I would imagine that nearly everyone that does actually read it, are more than capable of forming their own intelligent opinions and are lovely. Why is it that you think only leftists don't think that publishing bigoted hate to distract people, is a good idea? Bit of an insult to all the decent right leaning people. Anyone understand this? Do you not understand this extremely basic question? Not sure how I could dum it down any further sorry. I'll just assume you have no answer. Please stop being so rude. Okay. Let's try again. 1. Apart from the Hayturner parody account. We all agree that the Daily Mail publishes hate based distraction news to further their agenda? 2. You suggested that only leftists are opposed to this. 3. I asked for clarification, because this seems rather insulting to everyone not "leftist"." I don’t think ‘we’ all agree that at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It never fails to amuse that some people , who I would assume are otherwise quite intelligent, get so worked up over a newspaper. Some even think they are being very clever by referring to it as “the DailyFail” or “Daily Heil”. Isn’t that funny? What’s not so funny is the nasty way these ‘intelligent elite’ dismiss and ridicule people that read it - bigoted , racist, narrow minded pensioners , seems to be their rhetoric. Need to be careful here, it’s a short distance from ridiculing people simply for what they read, to rounding them up and sending them off to correction camps. The ‘leftists’ showing their true colours perhaps? It’s a fucking paper for gods sake and I would imagine that nearly everyone that does actually read it, are more than capable of forming their own intelligent opinions and are lovely. Why is it that you think only leftists don't think that publishing bigoted hate to distract people, is a good idea? Bit of an insult to all the decent right leaning people. Anyone understand this? Do you not understand this extremely basic question? Not sure how I could dum it down any further sorry. I'll just assume you have no answer. Please stop being so rude. Okay. Let's try again. 1. Apart from the Hayturner parody account. We all agree that the Daily Mail publishes hate based distraction news to further their agenda? 2. You suggested that only leftists are opposed to this. 3. I asked for clarification, because this seems rather insulting to everyone not "leftist". I don’t think ‘we’ all agree that at all. " Hayturner is a parody account. Who else doesn't agree? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate. . I cannot see too many people being concerned about what Wikipedia think . They themselves make no checks on what they publish. What newspapers publish is governed by various press regulatory organisations yet you can publish anything you like on the Internet without there being any control over it. The Daily Mail is an exceptionally successfull paper. I am sure that it's readers are more than capable of doing their own research on any areas on which there are doubts. To refer to a poorly educated electorate is a little derogatory and insulting. Maybe the electorate are educated , respectfully and hard working and you do not like the result that you see. We like it a democracy and do not have to have other peoples views forced upon us. If the Daily Mails reporting was inaccurate people would simply stop buying it . In addition they would go bankrupt because of people winning legal actions against them. The Daily Mail have won many press awards and their achievement is remarkable in a declining market . The pious self righteous woke brigade are simply a very vocal minority. The Daily Mail represents the voice of the people. " If the daily mail echos the voice of the people it’s not a newspaper, it’s an echo chamber filled with inaccuracy. You are defending lies and misinformation. The lies you defend are the reason Britain lists so low on international democratic ratings, literally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It never fails to amuse that some people , who I would assume are otherwise quite intelligent, get so worked up over a newspaper. Some even think they are being very clever by referring to it as “the DailyFail” or “Daily Heil”. Isn’t that funny? What’s not so funny is the nasty way these ‘intelligent elite’ dismiss and ridicule people that read it - bigoted , racist, narrow minded pensioners , seems to be their rhetoric. Need to be careful here, it’s a short distance from ridiculing people simply for what they read, to rounding them up and sending them off to correction camps. The ‘leftists’ showing their true colours perhaps? It’s a fucking paper for gods sake and I would imagine that nearly everyone that does actually read it, are more than capable of forming their own intelligent opinions and are lovely. Why is it that you think only leftists don't think that publishing bigoted hate to distract people, is a good idea? Bit of an insult to all the decent right leaning people. Anyone understand this? Do you not understand this extremely basic question? Not sure how I could dum it down any further sorry. I'll just assume you have no answer. Please stop being so rude. Okay. Let's try again. 1. Apart from the Hayturner parody account. We all agree that the Daily Mail publishes hate based distraction news to further their agenda? 2. You suggested that only leftists are opposed to this. 3. I asked for clarification, because this seems rather insulting to everyone not "leftist". I don’t think ‘we’ all agree that at all. Hayturner is a parody account. Who else doesn't agree?" What is a parody account? I’ve not heard that term before. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It never fails to amuse that some people , who I would assume are otherwise quite intelligent, get so worked up over a newspaper. Some even think they are being very clever by referring to it as “the DailyFail” or “Daily Heil”. Isn’t that funny? What’s not so funny is the nasty way these ‘intelligent elite’ dismiss and ridicule people that read it - bigoted , racist, narrow minded pensioners , seems to be their rhetoric. Need to be careful here, it’s a short distance from ridiculing people simply for what they read, to rounding them up and sending them off to correction camps. The ‘leftists’ showing their true colours perhaps? It’s a fucking paper for gods sake and I would imagine that nearly everyone that does actually read it, are more than capable of forming their own intelligent opinions and are lovely. Why is it that you think only leftists don't think that publishing bigoted hate to distract people, is a good idea? Bit of an insult to all the decent right leaning people. Anyone understand this? Do you not understand this extremely basic question? Not sure how I could dum it down any further sorry. I'll just assume you have no answer. Please stop being so rude. Okay. Let's try again. 1. Apart from the Hayturner parody account. We all agree that the Daily Mail publishes hate based distraction news to further their agenda? 2. You suggested that only leftists are opposed to this. 3. I asked for clarification, because this seems rather insulting to everyone not "leftist". I don’t think ‘we’ all agree that at all. Hayturner is a parody account. Who else doesn't agree? What is a parody account? I’ve not heard that term before." Not sure I can help you any further. I am still interested why you think only leftists are against the use of hate based distraction news. But as you seem determined not to answer. So I don't see the point of any further interactions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It never fails to amuse that some people , who I would assume are otherwise quite intelligent, get so worked up over a newspaper. Some even think they are being very clever by referring to it as “the DailyFail” or “Daily Heil”. Isn’t that funny? What’s not so funny is the nasty way these ‘intelligent elite’ dismiss and ridicule people that read it - bigoted , racist, narrow minded pensioners , seems to be their rhetoric. Need to be careful here, it’s a short distance from ridiculing people simply for what they read, to rounding them up and sending them off to correction camps. The ‘leftists’ showing their true colours perhaps? It’s a fucking paper for gods sake and I would imagine that nearly everyone that does actually read it, are more than capable of forming their own intelligent opinions and are lovely. Why is it that you think only leftists don't think that publishing bigoted hate to distract people, is a good idea? Bit of an insult to all the decent right leaning people. Anyone understand this? Do you not understand this extremely basic question? Not sure how I could dum it down any further sorry. I'll just assume you have no answer. Please stop being so rude. Okay. Let's try again. 1. Apart from the Hayturner parody account. We all agree that the Daily Mail publishes hate based distraction news to further their agenda? 2. You suggested that only leftists are opposed to this. 3. I asked for clarification, because this seems rather insulting to everyone not "leftist". I don’t think ‘we’ all agree that at all. Hayturner is a parody account. Who else doesn't agree? What is a parody account? I’ve not heard that term before." Parody ‘an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hayturner is a parody account. Who else doesn't agree?" I don't agree. I have met too many people that read the Mail and believe every word that's in it. Sadly, in my experience, those people that have the strongest belief are also the ones that consider themselves to be "free thinkers" who "do their own research". I wish Hayturners was a parody account, but the things he says seem too familiar from my dealings with Mail readers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hayturner is a parody account. Who else doesn't agree? I don't agree. I have met too many people that read the Mail and believe every word that's in it. Sadly, in my experience, those people that have the strongest belief are also the ones that consider themselves to be "free thinkers" who "do their own research". I wish Hayturners was a parody account, but the things he says seem too familiar from my dealings with Mail readers." I guess I was trying to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I was wrong to have. Hayturners feels like a parody, most of the posts are either saying the most ludicrous thing possible, or copy and paste from various anti-British websites. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It never fails to amuse that some people , who I would assume are otherwise quite intelligent, get so worked up over a newspaper. Some even think they are being very clever by referring to it as “the DailyFail” or “Daily Heil”. Isn’t that funny? What’s not so funny is the nasty way these ‘intelligent elite’ dismiss and ridicule people that read it - bigoted , racist, narrow minded pensioners , seems to be their rhetoric. Need to be careful here, it’s a short distance from ridiculing people simply for what they read, to rounding them up and sending them off to correction camps. The ‘leftists’ showing their true colours perhaps? It’s a fucking paper for gods sake and I would imagine that nearly everyone that does actually read it, are more than capable of forming their own intelligent opinions and are lovely. Why is it that you think only leftists don't think that publishing bigoted hate to distract people, is a good idea? Bit of an insult to all the decent right leaning people. Anyone understand this? Do you not understand this extremely basic question? Not sure how I could dum it down any further sorry. I'll just assume you have no answer. Please stop being so rude. Okay. Let's try again. 1. Apart from the Hayturner parody account. We all agree that the Daily Mail publishes hate based distraction news to further their agenda? 2. You suggested that only leftists are opposed to this. 3. I asked for clarification, because this seems rather insulting to everyone not "leftist". I don’t think ‘we’ all agree that at all. Hayturner is a parody account. Who else doesn't agree? What is a parody account? I’ve not heard that term before. Not sure I can help you any further. I am still interested why you think only leftists are against the use of hate based distraction news. But as you seem determined not to answer. So I don't see the point of any further interactions. " I’ve never seen any other publication singled out for so much criticism as the Mail. No further interaction sounds good to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve never seen any other publication singled out for so much criticism as the Mail. No further interaction sounds good to me." I've never seen a publication that requires singling out and criticising more than the Mail. So it kind of makes sense | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"he does indeed remind me very much of a person who was a passanger on an aeroplane when i once travelled to cap d'agde france. the said passanger kicked up a dramatic fuss about a lady who sat quietly and calmly knitting during the flight. the passanger kept loudly complaining about 'surgically shar'p points of the blunt knitting needles repeatedly going up and down near his face. eventually the complainant was removed from their seat and made to sit in a seat next to the malfunctioning toilet at the rear of the aeroplane out of the way of causing any further disruption to the rest of the passengers. "I remember that.. Sounds similar to another poster on here who sadly and very naively sent money to some scoundrel on here who properly scammed him.. All had similar views and several profiles, almost like a classic bot operation..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its the comments section which are literally a hate platform, e.g. Rishi Sunak, was being slated not because he is a terrible individual, but they got really personal questioning his loyalty to the UK and certain racial undertones. Where the Mail article implies, it’s their comment posters which take the logical next step, as the paper can claim it has no control over who posts what, taking no responsibility whatsoever is being said. I would say the daily fail is the enabler, which winds up certain reader who will do the remaining legwork.. You appear to be referring to the comments column on the online version. People have queried the validity of hie non domicile status and some donot regard it as bring acceptable. Are you implying that this should be kept quiet from the public. ? He was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The newspapers have no control over what is published in the comments column of an on line version. You can of course always add you own comment to any online version . The same applies to any social media . In any event there are usually so many comments in media that they become boring and are not worth reading . If you are really interested in the Daily Mail why not just buy it in a newsagents and you can then read the letters page . You will then see the arguments both for and against various topics . " The paper itself is not generally the preferred medium of the masses these days (who want to pay for something these days?), such is progress. Of course he is a a duplicitous character relating to his families dealings, however the comments section is is widely available to anyone, and all you see is pure hate speech, I am absolutely suprised that the site hasn’t be taken down yet for posting extremist content and its posters haven’t been tracked down and arrested, unless the Daily Mail knows who these people are and refuse to submit their details to an investigation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It never fails to amuse that some people , who I would assume are otherwise quite intelligent, get so worked up over a newspaper. Some even think they are being very clever by referring to it as “the DailyFail” or “Daily Heil”. Isn’t that funny? What’s not so funny is the nasty way these ‘intelligent elite’ dismiss and ridicule people that read it - bigoted , racist, narrow minded pensioners , seems to be their rhetoric. Need to be careful here, it’s a short distance from ridiculing people simply for what they read, to rounding them up and sending them off to correction camps. The ‘leftists’ showing their true colours perhaps? It’s a fucking paper for gods sake and I would imagine that nearly everyone that does actually read it, are more than capable of forming their own intelligent opinions and are lovely. Why is it that you think only leftists don't think that publishing bigoted hate to distract people, is a good idea? Bit of an insult to all the decent right leaning people. Anyone understand this? Do you not understand this extremely basic question? Not sure how I could dum it down any further sorry. I'll just assume you have no answer. Please stop being so rude. Okay. Let's try again. 1. Apart from the Hayturner parody account. We all agree that the Daily Mail publishes hate based distraction news to further their agenda? 2. You suggested that only leftists are opposed to this. 3. I asked for clarification, because this seems rather insulting to everyone not "leftist". I don’t think ‘we’ all agree that at all. Hayturner is a parody account. Who else doesn't agree? What is a parody account? I’ve not heard that term before. Not sure I can help you any further. I am still interested why you think only leftists are against the use of hate based distraction news. But as you seem determined not to answer. So I don't see the point of any further interactions. I’ve never seen any other publication singled out for so much criticism as the Mail. No further interaction sounds good to me." Considering the universal agreement by professional bodies which rate the trustworthiness of the Daily fail as poor, it’s pretty damning. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surely if there was any validity to your comment you would as a minimum attempt to at least go through the newspaper and provide an example." There's a nice example on the front page of today's Daily Mail. The headline is "Rishi Sunak caught in Dominic Cummings 'toxic smears' storm", and the story goes on to say "former Chancellor is forced to deny links to Boris Johnson's poison-spreading ex-adviser" and "Rishi Sunak was forced to deny links to ‘toxic’ former No10 adviser Dominic Cummings last night." Nowhere in the story does it actually state what Rishi Sunak was asked, or what he replied. In fact the story doesn't contain a single quote from Rishi Sunak, or his team. The whole story is just a collection of smears against Sunak, with nothing at all to justify the headline. There really is no excuse for defending the Mail. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every time I visit the supermarket I bury all the copies of the daily fail under the (slightly) more moderate papers. I see this as both public service and therapy... You should all give it a go. Now I'm off to find that guy who was defending the hateful rag and block his right wing arse #Proudtobewoke" Very ‘woke’? The tolerant left - intolerant of anyone that doesn’t share their views. Easily offended by a newspaper. I don’t read it by the way but would never dream of criticising or ridiculing those that do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every time I visit the supermarket I bury all the copies of the daily fail under the (slightly) more moderate papers. I see this as both public service and therapy... You should all give it a go. Now I'm off to find that guy who was defending the hateful rag and block his right wing arse #Proudtobewoke Very ‘woke’? The tolerant left - intolerant of anyone that doesn’t share their views. Easily offended by a newspaper. I don’t read it by the way but would never dream of criticising or ridiculing those that do. " Is it okay to be intolerant of people who don't tolerate hate? What about if I am intolerant of your intolerance of people's intolerance of hate? Then what about if someone else doesn't tolerate my intolerance of your intolerance of people's intolerance of hate? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every time I visit the supermarket I bury all the copies of the daily fail under the (slightly) more moderate papers. I see this as both public service and therapy... You should all give it a go. Now I'm off to find that guy who was defending the hateful rag and block his right wing arse #Proudtobewoke Very ‘woke’? The tolerant left - intolerant of anyone that doesn’t share their views. Easily offended by a newspaper. I don’t read it by the way but would never dream of criticising or ridiculing those that do. Is it okay to be intolerant of people who don't tolerate hate? What about if I am intolerant of your intolerance of people's intolerance of hate? Then what about if someone else doesn't tolerate my intolerance of your intolerance of people's intolerance of hate?" Are you on the sauce? Where does ‘hate’ come into it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every time I visit the supermarket I bury all the copies of the daily fail under the (slightly) more moderate papers. I see this as both public service and therapy... You should all give it a go. Now I'm off to find that guy who was defending the hateful rag and block his right wing arse #Proudtobewoke Very ‘woke’? The tolerant left - intolerant of anyone that doesn’t share their views. Easily offended by a newspaper. I don’t read it by the way but would never dream of criticising or ridiculing those that do. Is it okay to be intolerant of people who don't tolerate hate? What about if I am intolerant of your intolerance of people's intolerance of hate? Then what about if someone else doesn't tolerate my intolerance of your intolerance of people's intolerance of hate?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every time I visit the supermarket I bury all the copies of the daily fail under the (slightly) more moderate papers. I see this as both public service and therapy... You should all give it a go. Now I'm off to find that guy who was defending the hateful rag and block his right wing arse #Proudtobewoke Very ‘woke’? The tolerant left - intolerant of anyone that doesn’t share their views. Easily offended by a newspaper. I don’t read it by the way but would never dream of criticising or ridiculing those that do. Is it okay to be intolerant of people who don't tolerate hate? What about if I am intolerant of your intolerance of people's intolerance of hate? Then what about if someone else doesn't tolerate my intolerance of your intolerance of people's intolerance of hate? Are you on the sauce? Where does ‘hate’ come into it? " Daily Mail. Anyway, I was highlighting the difficulty in claiming that people who don't tolerate bigotry and hate, are intolerant. Because of course they are being intolerant. The important thing is what people choose to not tolerate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every time I visit the supermarket I bury all the copies of the daily fail under the (slightly) more moderate papers. I see this as both public service and therapy... You should all give it a go. Now I'm off to find that guy who was defending the hateful rag and block his right wing arse #Proudtobewoke Very ‘woke’? The tolerant left - intolerant of anyone that doesn’t share their views. Easily offended by a newspaper. I don’t read it by the way but would never dream of criticising or ridiculing those that do. Is it okay to be intolerant of people who don't tolerate hate? What about if I am intolerant of your intolerance of people's intolerance of hate? Then what about if someone else doesn't tolerate my intolerance of your intolerance of people's intolerance of hate?" Let’s see if I can work this out. I would be intolerant of anyone that preaches hate. I can’t really work out the rest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every time I visit the supermarket I bury all the copies of the daily fail under the (slightly) more moderate papers. I see this as both public service and therapy... You should all give it a go. Now I'm off to find that guy who was defending the hateful rag and block his right wing arse #Proudtobewoke Very ‘woke’? The tolerant left - intolerant of anyone that doesn’t share their views. Easily offended by a newspaper. I don’t read it by the way but would never dream of criticising or ridiculing those that do. Is it okay to be intolerant of people who don't tolerate hate? What about if I am intolerant of your intolerance of people's intolerance of hate? Then what about if someone else doesn't tolerate my intolerance of your intolerance of people's intolerance of hate? Let’s see if I can work this out. I would be intolerant of anyone that preaches hate. I can’t really work out the rest." The bit you claim not to be able to work out, is what you're doing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every time I visit the supermarket I bury all the copies of the daily fail under the (slightly) more moderate papers. I see this as both public service and therapy... You should all give it a go. Now I'm off to find that guy who was defending the hateful rag and block his right wing arse #Proudtobewoke Very ‘woke’? The tolerant left - intolerant of anyone that doesn’t share their views. Easily offended by a newspaper. I don’t read it by the way but would never dream of criticising or ridiculing those that do. Is it okay to be intolerant of people who don't tolerate hate? What about if I am intolerant of your intolerance of people's intolerance of hate? Then what about if someone else doesn't tolerate my intolerance of your intolerance of people's intolerance of hate? Are you on the sauce? Where does ‘hate’ come into it? Daily Mail. Anyway, I was highlighting the difficulty in claiming that people who don't tolerate bigotry and hate, are intolerant. Because of course they are being intolerant. The important thing is what people choose to not tolerate. " But they (whoever they are? Anyone that reads the Mail?) are not claiming to be woke , to then go on and express their intolerance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every time I visit the supermarket I bury all the copies of the daily fail under the (slightly) more moderate papers. I see this as both public service and therapy... You should all give it a go. Now I'm off to find that guy who was defending the hateful rag and block his right wing arse #Proudtobewoke Very ‘woke’? The tolerant left - intolerant of anyone that doesn’t share their views. Easily offended by a newspaper. I don’t read it by the way but would never dream of criticising or ridiculing those that do. Is it okay to be intolerant of people who don't tolerate hate? What about if I am intolerant of your intolerance of people's intolerance of hate? Then what about if someone else doesn't tolerate my intolerance of your intolerance of people's intolerance of hate? Let’s see if I can work this out. I would be intolerant of anyone that preaches hate. I can’t really work out the rest. The bit you claim not to be able to work out, is what you're doing." What am I doing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every time I visit the supermarket I bury all the copies of the daily fail under the (slightly) more moderate papers. I see this as both public service and therapy... You should all give it a go. Now I'm off to find that guy who was defending the hateful rag and block his right wing arse #Proudtobewoke Very ‘woke’? The tolerant left - intolerant of anyone that doesn’t share their views. Easily offended by a newspaper. I don’t read it by the way but would never dream of criticising or ridiculing those that do. Is it okay to be intolerant of people who don't tolerate hate? What about if I am intolerant of your intolerance of people's intolerance of hate? Then what about if someone else doesn't tolerate my intolerance of your intolerance of people's intolerance of hate? Let’s see if I can work this out. I would be intolerant of anyone that preaches hate. I can’t really work out the rest. The bit you claim not to be able to work out, is what you're doing. What am I doing? " Being intolerant of those who are intolerant of hate/bigotry. (You seem to spend a lot of time attacking people who speak up about the hate, bigotry and deliberate misinformation printed in the DM). The rest of my post was to highlight how silly it gets with a chain of intolerance. My opinion is that the important element is actually what someone choose to be intolerant of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being intolerant of those who are intolerant of hate/bigotry. (You seem to spend a lot of time attacking people who speak up about the hate, bigotry and deliberate misinformation printed in the DM). The rest of my post was to highlight how silly it gets with a chain of intolerance. My opinion is that the important element is actually what someone choose to be intolerant of. " 100% The paradox of intolerance isn't a difficult concept. Unending tolerance is the road to authoritarianism. So you need to be intolerant of hate and bifotry! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being intolerant of those who are intolerant of hate/bigotry. (You seem to spend a lot of time attacking people who speak up about the hate, bigotry and deliberate misinformation printed in the DM). The rest of my post was to highlight how silly it gets with a chain of intolerance. My opinion is that the important element is actually what someone choose to be intolerant of. 100% The paradox of intolerance isn't a difficult concept. Unending tolerance is the road to authoritarianism. So you need to be intolerant of hate and bifotry!" I can’t disagree, but then it is kind of stating the obvious. My comment was in response to someone claiming to be ‘woke’ then expressing his intolerance of people simply based on what newspaper they read. A bit more tolerance and some ‘woke’ thinking , he may find that talking to them they are actually quite nice people. Not right wing bigots at all! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why are people getting so concerned (upset, angry or what ever) about people criticising the Mail, such snowflakes " this thread has been mostly criticising the Mail, it's tactics, it's hate lies and propaganda. Yet people take it personally. That raises questions in itself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being intolerant of those who are intolerant of hate/bigotry. (You seem to spend a lot of time attacking people who speak up about the hate, bigotry and deliberate misinformation printed in the DM). The rest of my post was to highlight how silly it gets with a chain of intolerance. My opinion is that the important element is actually what someone choose to be intolerant of. 100% The paradox of intolerance isn't a difficult concept. Unending tolerance is the road to authoritarianism. So you need to be intolerant of hate and bifotry! I can’t disagree, but then it is kind of stating the obvious. My comment was in response to someone claiming to be ‘woke’ then expressing his intolerance of people simply based on what newspaper they read. A bit more tolerance and some ‘woke’ thinking , he may find that talking to them they are actually quite nice people. Not right wing bigots at all! " I get the point. People might read the DM for all kinds of reasons. There is a stereotype of people who read it, based on the content of the newspaper. Especially seems to apply to people who are proud to be DM readers. (The pride indicates they whole heartedly agree with the content of the newspaper). Just like champagne socialists reading poor quality journalism in the poorly funded Guardian. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why are people getting so concerned (upset, angry or what ever) about people criticising the Mail, such snowflakes this thread has been mostly criticising the Mail, it's tactics, it's hate lies and propaganda. Yet people take it personally. That raises questions in itself." Definitely, it is a terrible ‘news’ paper that prints lies and fully deserves the criticism, I don’t understand why these is causing people to get concerned (upset, angry whatever ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I avoid any semi extremist rag, whether that be the Mail or the Guardian, both in their own way they paint a distorted reality which doesn't represent the vast majority of decent people who occupy the middle ground." I agree, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being intolerant of those who are intolerant of hate/bigotry. (You seem to spend a lot of time attacking people who speak up about the hate, bigotry and deliberate misinformation printed in the DM). The rest of my post was to highlight how silly it gets with a chain of intolerance. My opinion is that the important element is actually what someone choose to be intolerant of. 100% The paradox of intolerance isn't a difficult concept. Unending tolerance is the road to authoritarianism. So you need to be intolerant of hate and bifotry! I can’t disagree, but then it is kind of stating the obvious. My comment was in response to someone claiming to be ‘woke’ then expressing his intolerance of people simply based on what newspaper they read. A bit more tolerance and some ‘woke’ thinking , he may find that talking to them they are actually quite nice people. Not right wing bigots at all! I get the point. People might read the DM for all kinds of reasons. There is a stereotype of people who read it, based on the content of the newspaper. Especially seems to apply to people who are proud to be DM readers. (The pride indicates they whole heartedly agree with the content of the newspaper). Just like champagne socialists reading poor quality journalism in the poorly funded Guardian. " we could be in real danger of agreeing here. I have some friends that could be described as ‘champagne socialists’, others that read the Mail , a couple that take the Sun. We debate these issues over a few beers, I guess because we’ve all gone beyond the cliche name calling and familiarity has set in, it’s a shock to see it matters so much to others on here. We have one regular ( a retired copper) who references YouTube, he often gets told to “shut the fuck up”. I often quote Viz. As I posted the other day - a quote from a guy that predates woke by over half a century. A famous black guy as it happens: ‘The kindness you give to others is the rent you pay for your place here on Earth’ . I guess we are all guilty of forgetting that at times, especially when online. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I avoid any semi extremist rag, whether that be the Mail or the Guardian, both in their own way they paint a distorted reality which doesn't represent the vast majority of decent people who occupy the middle ground. I agree, "Thirded | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being intolerant of those who are intolerant of hate/bigotry. (You seem to spend a lot of time attacking people who speak up about the hate, bigotry and deliberate misinformation printed in the DM). The rest of my post was to highlight how silly it gets with a chain of intolerance. My opinion is that the important element is actually what someone choose to be intolerant of. 100% The paradox of intolerance isn't a difficult concept. Unending tolerance is the road to authoritarianism. So you need to be intolerant of hate and bifotry! I can’t disagree, but then it is kind of stating the obvious. My comment was in response to someone claiming to be ‘woke’ then expressing his intolerance of people simply based on what newspaper they read. A bit more tolerance and some ‘woke’ thinking , he may find that talking to them they are actually quite nice people. Not right wing bigots at all! I get the point. People might read the DM for all kinds of reasons. There is a stereotype of people who read it, based on the content of the newspaper. Especially seems to apply to people who are proud to be DM readers. (The pride indicates they whole heartedly agree with the content of the newspaper). Just like champagne socialists reading poor quality journalism in the poorly funded Guardian. we could be in real danger of agreeing here. I have some friends that could be described as ‘champagne socialists’, others that read the Mail , a couple that take the Sun. We debate these issues over a few beers, I guess because we’ve all gone beyond the cliche name calling and familiarity has set in, it’s a shock to see it matters so much to others on here. We have one regular ( a retired copper) who references YouTube, he often gets told to “shut the fuck up”. I often quote Viz. As I posted the other day - a quote from a guy that predates woke by over half a century. A famous black guy as it happens: ‘The kindness you give to others is the rent you pay for your place here on Earth’ . I guess we are all guilty of forgetting that at times, especially when online." Interesting ‘story’, on par with your ‘dating disaster ‘ post , anyway, when did the Woke era begin? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I avoid any semi extremist rag, whether that be the Mail or the Guardian, both in their own way they paint a distorted reality which doesn't represent the vast majority of decent people who occupy the middle ground." The guardian is shit. But it's not "extremist". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I posted the other day - a quote from a guy that predates woke by over half a century. A famous black guy as it happens:" so much wrong with this sentence. First being, why bring up his race when race isn't a part of the conversation, other than to virtue signal you're not being racist. Second Muhammad Ali was most definitely Woke, they just didn't call it that then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being intolerant of those who are intolerant of hate/bigotry. (You seem to spend a lot of time attacking people who speak up about the hate, bigotry and deliberate misinformation printed in the DM). The rest of my post was to highlight how silly it gets with a chain of intolerance. My opinion is that the important element is actually what someone choose to be intolerant of. 100% The paradox of intolerance isn't a difficult concept. Unending tolerance is the road to authoritarianism. So you need to be intolerant of hate and bifotry! I can’t disagree, but then it is kind of stating the obvious. My comment was in response to someone claiming to be ‘woke’ then expressing his intolerance of people simply based on what newspaper they read. A bit more tolerance and some ‘woke’ thinking , he may find that talking to them they are actually quite nice people. Not right wing bigots at all! I get the point. People might read the DM for all kinds of reasons. There is a stereotype of people who read it, based on the content of the newspaper. Especially seems to apply to people who are proud to be DM readers. (The pride indicates they whole heartedly agree with the content of the newspaper). Just like champagne socialists reading poor quality journalism in the poorly funded Guardian. we could be in real danger of agreeing here. I have some friends that could be described as ‘champagne socialists’, others that read the Mail , a couple that take the Sun. We debate these issues over a few beers, I guess because we’ve all gone beyond the cliche name calling and familiarity has set in, it’s a shock to see it matters so much to others on here. We have one regular ( a retired copper) who references YouTube, he often gets told to “shut the fuck up”. I often quote Viz. As I posted the other day - a quote from a guy that predates woke by over half a century. A famous black guy as it happens: ‘The kindness you give to others is the rent you pay for your place here on Earth’ . I guess we are all guilty of forgetting that at times, especially when online. Interesting ‘story’, on par with your ‘dating disaster ‘ post , anyway, when did the Woke era begin? "In general terms I don’t know. It seems a fairly recent thing to me but then I’m getting on a bit, no longer active in a buzzy workplace so it could have passed me by for a while. In a personal sense it’s always been there so it started over sixty years ago. Me and my five siblings were taught from the get go ‘be nice’. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being intolerant of those who are intolerant of hate/bigotry. (You seem to spend a lot of time attacking people who speak up about the hate, bigotry and deliberate misinformation printed in the DM). The rest of my post was to highlight how silly it gets with a chain of intolerance. My opinion is that the important element is actually what someone choose to be intolerant of. 100% The paradox of intolerance isn't a difficult concept. Unending tolerance is the road to authoritarianism. So you need to be intolerant of hate and bifotry! I can’t disagree, but then it is kind of stating the obvious. My comment was in response to someone claiming to be ‘woke’ then expressing his intolerance of people simply based on what newspaper they read. A bit more tolerance and some ‘woke’ thinking , he may find that talking to them they are actually quite nice people. Not right wing bigots at all! I get the point. People might read the DM for all kinds of reasons. There is a stereotype of people who read it, based on the content of the newspaper. Especially seems to apply to people who are proud to be DM readers. (The pride indicates they whole heartedly agree with the content of the newspaper). Just like champagne socialists reading poor quality journalism in the poorly funded Guardian. we could be in real danger of agreeing here. I have some friends that could be described as ‘champagne socialists’, others that read the Mail , a couple that take the Sun. We debate these issues over a few beers, I guess because we’ve all gone beyond the cliche name calling and familiarity has set in, it’s a shock to see it matters so much to others on here. We have one regular ( a retired copper) who references YouTube, he often gets told to “shut the fuck up”. I often quote Viz. As I posted the other day - a quote from a guy that predates woke by over half a century. A famous black guy as it happens: ‘The kindness you give to others is the rent you pay for your place here on Earth’ . I guess we are all guilty of forgetting that at times, especially when online. Interesting ‘story’, on par with your ‘dating disaster ‘ post , anyway, when did the Woke era begin?
In general terms I don’t know. It seems a fairly recent thing to me but then I’m getting on a bit, no longer active in a buzzy workplace so it could have passed me by for a while. In a personal sense it’s always been there so it started over sixty years ago. Me and my five siblings were taught from the get go ‘be nice’."It's a new word (as far as I know), but it's not a new concept. People have been speaking out about social injustice for 1000s of years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I posted the other day - a quote from a guy that predates woke by over half a century. A famous black guy as it happens: so much wrong with this sentence. First being, why bring up his race when race isn't a part of the conversation, other than to virtue signal you're not being racist. Second Muhammad Ali was most definitely Woke, they just didn't call it that then." Nothing wrong at all with it thank you. I was just adding context. He absolutely was. Blimey, we agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being intolerant of those who are intolerant of hate/bigotry. (You seem to spend a lot of time attacking people who speak up about the hate, bigotry and deliberate misinformation printed in the DM). The rest of my post was to highlight how silly it gets with a chain of intolerance. My opinion is that the important element is actually what someone choose to be intolerant of. 100% The paradox of intolerance isn't a difficult concept. Unending tolerance is the road to authoritarianism. So you need to be intolerant of hate and bifotry! I can’t disagree, but then it is kind of stating the obvious. My comment was in response to someone claiming to be ‘woke’ then expressing his intolerance of people simply based on what newspaper they read. A bit more tolerance and some ‘woke’ thinking , he may find that talking to them they are actually quite nice people. Not right wing bigots at all! I get the point. People might read the DM for all kinds of reasons. There is a stereotype of people who read it, based on the content of the newspaper. Especially seems to apply to people who are proud to be DM readers. (The pride indicates they whole heartedly agree with the content of the newspaper). Just like champagne socialists reading poor quality journalism in the poorly funded Guardian. we could be in real danger of agreeing here. I have some friends that could be described as ‘champagne socialists’, others that read the Mail , a couple that take the Sun. We debate these issues over a few beers, I guess because we’ve all gone beyond the cliche name calling and familiarity has set in, it’s a shock to see it matters so much to others on here. We have one regular ( a retired copper) who references YouTube, he often gets told to “shut the fuck up”. I often quote Viz. As I posted the other day - a quote from a guy that predates woke by over half a century. A famous black guy as it happens: ‘The kindness you give to others is the rent you pay for your place here on Earth’ . I guess we are all guilty of forgetting that at times, especially when online. Interesting ‘story’, on par with your ‘dating disaster ‘ post , anyway, when did the Woke era begin?
In general terms I don’t know. It seems a fairly recent thing to me but then I’m getting on a bit, no longer active in a buzzy workplace so it could have passed me by for a while. In a personal sense it’s always been there so it started over sixty years ago. Me and my five siblings were taught from the get go ‘be nice’."You stated that it predates woke by at least half a century? But you don’t know ‘roughly ‘ when woke started? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I posted the other day - a quote from a guy that predates woke by over half a century. A famous black guy as it happens: so much wrong with this sentence. First being, why bring up his race when race isn't a part of the conversation, other than to virtue signal you're not being racist. Second Muhammad Ali was most definitely Woke, they just didn't call it that then. Nothing wrong at all with it thank you. I was just adding context. He absolutely was. Blimey, we agree. " So your happy with woke and people who are woke ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I posted the other day - a quote from a guy that predates woke by over half a century. A famous black guy as it happens: so much wrong with this sentence. First being, why bring up his race when race isn't a part of the conversation, other than to virtue signal you're not being racist. Second Muhammad Ali was most definitely Woke, they just didn't call it that then." Muhammad Ali went on a very long journey with regards to his political and religious beliefs, one thing he remained consistent in was his decency to other people, other than a couple of his opponents. Probably the most accessable superstar ever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being intolerant of those who are intolerant of hate/bigotry. (You seem to spend a lot of time attacking people who speak up about the hate, bigotry and deliberate misinformation printed in the DM). The rest of my post was to highlight how silly it gets with a chain of intolerance. My opinion is that the important element is actually what someone choose to be intolerant of. 100% The paradox of intolerance isn't a difficult concept. Unending tolerance is the road to authoritarianism. So you need to be intolerant of hate and bifotry! I can’t disagree, but then it is kind of stating the obvious. My comment was in response to someone claiming to be ‘woke’ then expressing his intolerance of people simply based on what newspaper they read. A bit more tolerance and some ‘woke’ thinking , he may find that talking to them they are actually quite nice people. Not right wing bigots at all! I get the point. People might read the DM for all kinds of reasons. There is a stereotype of people who read it, based on the content of the newspaper. Especially seems to apply to people who are proud to be DM readers. (The pride indicates they whole heartedly agree with the content of the newspaper). Just like champagne socialists reading poor quality journalism in the poorly funded Guardian. we could be in real danger of agreeing here. I have some friends that could be described as ‘champagne socialists’, others that read the Mail , a couple that take the Sun. We debate these issues over a few beers, I guess because we’ve all gone beyond the cliche name calling and familiarity has set in, it’s a shock to see it matters so much to others on here. We have one regular ( a retired copper) who references YouTube, he often gets told to “shut the fuck up”. I often quote Viz. As I posted the other day - a quote from a guy that predates woke by over half a century. A famous black guy as it happens: ‘The kindness you give to others is the rent you pay for your place here on Earth’ . I guess we are all guilty of forgetting that at times, especially when online. Interesting ‘story’, on par with your ‘dating disaster ‘ post , anyway, when did the Woke era begin?
In general terms I don’t know. It seems a fairly recent thing to me but then I’m getting on a bit, no longer active in a buzzy workplace so it could have passed me by for a while. In a personal sense it’s always been there so it started over sixty years ago. Me and my five siblings were taught from the get go ‘be nice’.
You stated that it predates woke by at least half a century? But you don’t know ‘roughly ‘ when woke started? "Not too sure what you are angling for but as I said as a term, the use of ‘woke’ is ‘roughly’ recent but time flies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I posted the other day - a quote from a guy that predates woke by over half a century. A famous black guy as it happens: so much wrong with this sentence. First being, why bring up his race when race isn't a part of the conversation, other than to virtue signal you're not being racist. Second Muhammad Ali was most definitely Woke, they just didn't call it that then. Nothing wrong at all with it thank you. I was just adding context. He absolutely was. Blimey, we agree. So your happy with woke and people who are woke ? " Yes. I know you have me down as Pol Pot so it may come as a surprise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being intolerant of those who are intolerant of hate/bigotry. (You seem to spend a lot of time attacking people who speak up about the hate, bigotry and deliberate misinformation printed in the DM). The rest of my post was to highlight how silly it gets with a chain of intolerance. My opinion is that the important element is actually what someone choose to be intolerant of. 100% The paradox of intolerance isn't a difficult concept. Unending tolerance is the road to authoritarianism. So you need to be intolerant of hate and bifotry! I can’t disagree, but then it is kind of stating the obvious. My comment was in response to someone claiming to be ‘woke’ then expressing his intolerance of people simply based on what newspaper they read. A bit more tolerance and some ‘woke’ thinking , he may find that talking to them they are actually quite nice people. Not right wing bigots at all! I get the point. People might read the DM for all kinds of reasons. There is a stereotype of people who read it, based on the content of the newspaper. Especially seems to apply to people who are proud to be DM readers. (The pride indicates they whole heartedly agree with the content of the newspaper). Just like champagne socialists reading poor quality journalism in the poorly funded Guardian. we could be in real danger of agreeing here. I have some friends that could be described as ‘champagne socialists’, others that read the Mail , a couple that take the Sun. We debate these issues over a few beers, I guess because we’ve all gone beyond the cliche name calling and familiarity has set in, it’s a shock to see it matters so much to others on here. We have one regular ( a retired copper) who references YouTube, he often gets told to “shut the fuck up”. I often quote Viz. As I posted the other day - a quote from a guy that predates woke by over half a century. A famous black guy as it happens: ‘The kindness you give to others is the rent you pay for your place here on Earth’ . I guess we are all guilty of forgetting that at times, especially when online. Interesting ‘story’, on par with your ‘dating disaster ‘ post , anyway, when did the Woke era begin?
In general terms I don’t know. It seems a fairly recent thing to me but then I’m getting on a bit, no longer active in a buzzy workplace so it could have passed me by for a while. In a personal sense it’s always been there so it started over sixty years ago. Me and my five siblings were taught from the get go ‘be nice’.
You stated that it predates woke by at least half a century? But you don’t know ‘roughly ‘ when woke started?
Not too sure what you are angling for but as I said as a term, the use of ‘woke’ is ‘roughly’ recent but time flies."It has been around for decades, it has recently become more common, you should be proud to be woke | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I posted the other day - a quote from a guy that predates woke by over half a century. A famous black guy as it happens: so much wrong with this sentence. First being, why bring up his race when race isn't a part of the conversation, other than to virtue signal you're not being racist. Second Muhammad Ali was most definitely Woke, they just didn't call it that then. Nothing wrong at all with it thank you. I was just adding context. He absolutely was. Blimey, we agree. So your happy with woke and people who are woke ? Yes. I know you have me down as Pol Pot so it may come as a surprise." Good to hear, I never doubted you were | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why are people getting so concerned (upset, angry or what ever) about people criticising the Mail, such snowflakes this thread has been mostly criticising the Mail, it's tactics, it's hate lies and propaganda. Yet people take it personally. That raises questions in itself." You’ve hit the nail on the head. “The lady doth protest too much” Unless any of the people on here defending the Faily Heil actually work for it, then why are they so defensive? Unless the raw nerve has been hit and all the vile things the Heily Fail stand for are actually what these people do actually believe? Would it not be braver to just say...”I agree with all this racist nazi bigoted “news”paper has to say.” Quite the quandary? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t think anyone is defending it? " maybe not but they have been taking attacks on it, as attacks on them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t think anyone is defending it? maybe not but they have been taking attacks on it, as attacks on them." Who? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t think anyone is defending it? " Scroll up. They are! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hate to say it folks, but the forum is fast turning into the Mail! We've created this common "enemy", the DM. We've then spun this idea of the DM reader, who has a load of common characteristics, but reading the DM isn't one of them. We've then decided said readers will be crying over BoJo before we even saw evidence of it. And have said (true) DM readers get offended when we pick apart their paper. Even tho, the evidence for this is light. Hay doesn't count. Sure, the DM is there for picking off. But this doesn't feel to me like not tolerating the intolerable. You can do that they debating points and trying to get people to see other views. It is starting to feel like silencing other posters through power of numbers. Lets not make this another echochamber. I come here because fab has a range of views. I want to hear them and challenge them and be challenged by them. " common sence prevails post of the day | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hate to say it folks, but the forum is fast turning into the Mail! We've created this common "enemy", the DM. We've then spun this idea of the DM reader, who has a load of common characteristics, but reading the DM isn't one of them. We've then decided said readers will be crying over BoJo before we even saw evidence of it. And have said (true) DM readers get offended when we pick apart their paper. Even tho, the evidence for this is light. Hay doesn't count. Sure, the DM is there for picking off. But this doesn't feel to me like not tolerating the intolerable. You can do that they debating points and trying to get people to see other views. It is starting to feel like silencing other posters through power of numbers. Lets not make this another echochamber. I come here because fab has a range of views. I want to hear them and challenge them and be challenged by them. " Well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hate to say it folks, but the forum is fast turning into the Mail! We've created this common "enemy", the DM. We've then spun this idea of the DM reader, who has a load of common characteristics, but reading the DM isn't one of them. We've then decided said readers will be crying over BoJo before we even saw evidence of it. And have said (true) DM readers get offended when we pick apart their paper. Even tho, the evidence for this is light. Hay doesn't count. Sure, the DM is there for picking off. But this doesn't feel to me like not tolerating the intolerable. You can do that they debating points and trying to get people to see other views. It is starting to feel like silencing other posters through power of numbers. Lets not make this another echochamber. I come here because fab has a range of views. I want to hear them and challenge them and be challenged by them. " Good post but I simply cannot agree (today anyway, I might tomorrow I don’t know, feeling quite mercurial). If we were discussing The Telegraph, The Times, The Sun, The Mirror, The Star, The Financial Times, The Guardian, etc etc then yes, they all have their issues, but the Faily Heil...no! It is literally the most vile hate inducing scandal fostering disgusting rag ever! It masquerades as a real newspaper when it is nothing more than a tabloid nasty spiteful piece of far right wing propaganda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hate to say it folks, but the forum is fast turning into the Mail! We've created this common "enemy", the DM. We've then spun this idea of the DM reader, who has a load of common characteristics, but reading the DM isn't one of them. We've then decided said readers will be crying over BoJo before we even saw evidence of it. And have said (true) DM readers get offended when we pick apart their paper. Even tho, the evidence for this is light. Hay doesn't count. Sure, the DM is there for picking off. But this doesn't feel to me like not tolerating the intolerable. You can do that they debating points and trying to get people to see other views. It is starting to feel like silencing other posters through power of numbers. Lets not make this another echochamber. I come here because fab has a range of views. I want to hear them and challenge them and be challenged by them. " The only times I have looked at a daily mail article in the last year or so has been because it's been mentioned on these forums (often by those that don't read it oddly). I rarely take notice of what they say and condemn any lies but to demonize or poke fun at others just does not sit well with me. Treat others how you would like to be treated I guess. Anyway jolly well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hate to say it folks, but the forum is fast turning into the Mail! We've created this common "enemy", the DM. We've then spun this idea of the DM reader, who has a load of common characteristics, but reading the DM isn't one of them. We've then decided said readers will be crying over BoJo before we even saw evidence of it. And have said (true) DM readers get offended when we pick apart their paper. Even tho, the evidence for this is light. Hay doesn't count. Sure, the DM is there for picking off. But this doesn't feel to me like not tolerating the intolerable. You can do that they debating points and trying to get people to see other views. It is starting to feel like silencing other posters through power of numbers. Lets not make this another echochamber. I come here because fab has a range of views. I want to hear them and challenge them and be challenged by them. " There's more right and far right wing people here than I meet in daily life. Some days if feels overwhelmingly right wing on here, and other days not so much. I'm sure the right wingers could copy and paste the above, changing out "right" for "left", and vice versa. So we're not close to an echo chamber. Like it or not "daily mail reader" is a insult that's used widely in this country. But as people have pointed out, it is a blanket generalisation that anyone who reads it, has the same views as the editing team. Which might not be the case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hate to say it folks, but the forum is fast turning into the Mail! We've created this common "enemy", the DM. We've then spun this idea of the DM reader, who has a load of common characteristics, but reading the DM isn't one of them. We've then decided said readers will be crying over BoJo before we even saw evidence of it. And have said (true) DM readers get offended when we pick apart their paper. Even tho, the evidence for this is light. Hay doesn't count. Sure, the DM is there for picking off. But this doesn't feel to me like not tolerating the intolerable. You can do that they debating points and trying to get people to see other views. It is starting to feel like silencing other posters through power of numbers. Lets not make this another echochamber. I come here because fab has a range of views. I want to hear them and challenge them and be challenged by them. " . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hate to say it folks, but the forum is fast turning into the Mail! We've created this common "enemy", the DM. We've then spun this idea of the DM reader, who has a load of common characteristics, but reading the DM isn't one of them. We've then decided said readers will be crying over BoJo before we even saw evidence of it. And have said (true) DM readers get offended when we pick apart their paper. Even tho, the evidence for this is light. Hay doesn't count. Sure, the DM is there for picking off. But this doesn't feel to me like not tolerating the intolerable. You can do that they debating points and trying to get people to see other views. It is starting to feel like silencing other posters through power of numbers. Lets not make this another echochamber. I come here because fab has a range of views. I want to hear them and challenge them and be challenged by them. There's more right and far right wing people here than I meet in daily life. Some days if feels overwhelmingly right wing on here, and other days not so much. I'm sure the right wingers could copy and paste the above, changing out "right" for "left", and vice versa. So we're not close to an echo chamber. Like it or not "daily mail reader" is a insult that's used widely in this country. But as people have pointed out, it is a blanket generalisation that anyone who reads it, has the same views as the editing team. Which might not be the case." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hate to say it folks, but the forum is fast turning into the Mail! We've created this common "enemy", the DM. We've then spun this idea of the DM reader, who has a load of common characteristics, but reading the DM isn't one of them. We've then decided said readers will be crying over BoJo before we even saw evidence of it. And have said (true) DM readers get offended when we pick apart their paper. Even tho, the evidence for this is light. Hay doesn't count. Sure, the DM is there for picking off. But this doesn't feel to me like not tolerating the intolerable. You can do that they debating points and trying to get people to see other views. It is starting to feel like silencing other posters through power of numbers. Lets not make this another echochamber. I come here because fab has a range of views. I want to hear them and challenge them and be challenged by them. There's more right and far right wing people here than I meet in daily life. Some days if feels overwhelmingly right wing on here, and other days not so much. I'm sure the right wingers could copy and paste the above, changing out "right" for "left", and vice versa. So we're not close to an echo chamber. Like it or not "daily mail reader" is a insult that's used widely in this country. But as people have pointed out, it is a blanket generalisation that anyone who reads it, has the same views as the editing team. Which might not be the case." It’s not an insult. It’s just daft. Unless everyone thinks it good to insult someone simply for their choice of newspaper? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Like it or not "daily mail reader" is a insult that's used widely in this country. But as people have pointed out, it is a blanket generalisation that anyone who reads it, has the same views as the editing team. Which might not be the case. It’s not an insult. It’s just daft. Unless everyone thinks it good to insult someone simply for their choice of newspaper? " Seb your comment seems to be based on the first sentence of the paragraph but then ignores the rest of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hate to say it folks, but the forum is fast turning into the Mail! We've created this common "enemy", the DM. We've then spun this idea of the DM reader, who has a load of common characteristics, but reading the DM isn't one of them. We've then decided said readers will be crying over BoJo before we even saw evidence of it. And have said (true) DM readers get offended when we pick apart their paper. Even tho, the evidence for this is light. Hay doesn't count. Sure, the DM is there for picking off. But this doesn't feel to me like not tolerating the intolerable. You can do that they debating points and trying to get people to see other views. It is starting to feel like silencing other posters through power of numbers. Lets not make this another echochamber. I come here because fab has a range of views. I want to hear them and challenge them and be challenged by them. There's more right and far right wing people here than I meet in daily life. Some days if feels overwhelmingly right wing on here, and other days not so much. I'm sure the right wingers could copy and paste the above, changing out "right" for "left", and vice versa. So we're not close to an echo chamber. Like it or not "daily mail reader" is a insult that's used widely in this country. But as people have pointed out, it is a blanket generalisation that anyone who reads it, has the same views as the editing team. Which might not be the case. It’s not an insult. It’s just daft. Unless everyone thinks it good to insult someone simply for their choice of newspaper? " Would you be happy if someone called you a "daily mail reader"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hate to say it folks, but the forum is fast turning into the Mail! We've created this common "enemy", the DM. We've then spun this idea of the DM reader, who has a load of common characteristics, but reading the DM isn't one of them. We've then decided said readers will be crying over BoJo before we even saw evidence of it. And have said (true) DM readers get offended when we pick apart their paper. Even tho, the evidence for this is light. Hay doesn't count. Sure, the DM is there for picking off. But this doesn't feel to me like not tolerating the intolerable. You can do that they debating points and trying to get people to see other views. It is starting to feel like silencing other posters through power of numbers. Lets not make this another echochamber. I come here because fab has a range of views. I want to hear them and challenge them and be challenged by them. There's more right and far right wing people here than I meet in daily life. Some days if feels overwhelmingly right wing on here, and other days not so much. I'm sure the right wingers could copy and paste the above, changing out "right" for "left", and vice versa. So we're not close to an echo chamber. Like it or not "daily mail reader" is a insult that's used widely in this country. But as people have pointed out, it is a blanket generalisation that anyone who reads it, has the same views as the editing team. Which might not be the case. It’s not an insult. It’s just daft. Unless everyone thinks it good to insult someone simply for their choice of newspaper? Would you be happy if someone called you a "daily mail reader"?" Enjoy the entertainment value of the "Daily" seb. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hate to say it folks, but the forum is fast turning into the Mail! We've created this common "enemy", the DM. We've then spun this idea of the DM reader, who has a load of common characteristics, but reading the DM isn't one of them. We've then decided said readers will be crying over BoJo before we even saw evidence of it. And have said (true) DM readers get offended when we pick apart their paper. Even tho, the evidence for this is light. Hay doesn't count. Sure, the DM is there for picking off. But this doesn't feel to me like not tolerating the intolerable. You can do that they debating points and trying to get people to see other views. It is starting to feel like silencing other posters through power of numbers. Lets not make this another echochamber. I come here because fab has a range of views. I want to hear them and challenge them and be challenged by them. There's more right and far right wing people here than I meet in daily life. Some days if feels overwhelmingly right wing on here, and other days not so much. I'm sure the right wingers could copy and paste the above, changing out "right" for "left", and vice versa. So we're not close to an echo chamber. Like it or not "daily mail reader" is a insult that's used widely in this country. But as people have pointed out, it is a blanket generalisation that anyone who reads it, has the same views as the editing team. Which might not be the case." This is true, some people might read the mail for the sports section, or the cross word , the really stupid ones are those that read it for the ‘news’ they publish and believe it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hate to say it folks, but the forum is fast turning into the Mail! We've created this common "enemy", the DM. We've then spun this idea of the DM reader, who has a load of common characteristics, but reading the DM isn't one of them. We've then decided said readers will be crying over BoJo before we even saw evidence of it. And have said (true) DM readers get offended when we pick apart their paper. Even tho, the evidence for this is light. Hay doesn't count. Sure, the DM is there for picking off. But this doesn't feel to me like not tolerating the intolerable. You can do that they debating points and trying to get people to see other views. It is starting to feel like silencing other posters through power of numbers. Lets not make this another echochamber. I come here because fab has a range of views. I want to hear them and challenge them and be challenged by them. Well said "Emotional outrage that leans towards the faux, is easily spotted, it is a human trait to notice such things. I can change my mind and do regularly, based on reasonable counter arguments, and I think this was the prompt for the post. Many here can't back down, or wont listen to anything other than their own beliefs, a stalemate. Which begs the question, why bother posting? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Emotional outrage that leans towards the faux, is easily spotted, it is a human trait to notice such things. I can change my mind and do regularly, based on reasonable counter arguments, and I think this was the prompt for the post. Many here can't back down, or wont listen to anything other than their own beliefs, a stalemate. Which begs the question, why bother posting? " The thing is regardless of your beliefs and actual ability to change your mind based on facts. You are going to believe that you are capable of changing your mind based on factual information. Who would actively think of themselves incapable of doing so? So if everyone thinks they are capable, whether correctly or incorrectly, how can you trust the statement of someone saying it about themselves? The best you can do is claim you think you are open to change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Emotional outrage that leans towards the faux, is easily spotted, it is a human trait to notice such things. I can change my mind and do regularly, based on reasonable counter arguments, and I think this was the prompt for the post. Many here can't back down, or wont listen to anything other than their own beliefs, a stalemate. Which begs the question, why bother posting? The thing is regardless of your beliefs and actual ability to change your mind based on facts. You are going to believe that you are capable of changing your mind based on factual information. Who would actively think of themselves incapable of doing so? So if everyone thinks they are capable, whether correctly or incorrectly, how can you trust the statement of someone saying it about themselves? The best you can do is claim you think you are open to change." I would argue you might think you can change your mind after reasonable debate, but can't. I have and do change my mind, openly, if the rationale is good. When was the last time you changed your mind, based on counter arguments? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Emotional outrage that leans towards the faux, is easily spotted, it is a human trait to notice such things. I can change my mind and do regularly, based on reasonable counter arguments, and I think this was the prompt for the post. Many here can't back down, or wont listen to anything other than their own beliefs, a stalemate. Which begs the question, why bother posting? The thing is regardless of your beliefs and actual ability to change your mind based on facts. You are going to believe that you are capable of changing your mind based on factual information. Who would actively think of themselves incapable of doing so? So if everyone thinks they are capable, whether correctly or incorrectly, how can you trust the statement of someone saying it about themselves? The best you can do is claim you think you are open to change. I would argue you might think you can change your mind after reasonable debate, but can't. I have and do change my mind, openly, if the rationale is good. When was the last time you changed your mind, based on counter arguments?" In your deleted comment you claimed I missed the point. But you just proved mine. It doesn't matter how I answer your question on when the last time I changed my mind was, because you won't believe me. I could say yesterday, last week (which is the actual answer) or I could say last year. You will conflate any answer to your preconceived picture of me. And that view wont change based on what I say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Emotional outrage that leans towards the faux, is easily spotted, it is a human trait to notice such things. I can change my mind and do regularly, based on reasonable counter arguments, and I think this was the prompt for the post. Many here can't back down, or wont listen to anything other than their own beliefs, a stalemate. Which begs the question, why bother posting? The thing is regardless of your beliefs and actual ability to change your mind based on facts. You are going to believe that you are capable of changing your mind based on factual information. Who would actively think of themselves incapable of doing so? So if everyone thinks they are capable, whether correctly or incorrectly, how can you trust the statement of someone saying it about themselves? The best you can do is claim you think you are open to change. I would argue you might think you can change your mind after reasonable debate, but can't. I have and do change my mind, openly, if the rationale is good. When was the last time you changed your mind, based on counter arguments? In your deleted comment you claimed I missed the point. But you just proved mine. It doesn't matter how I answer your question on when the last time I changed my mind was, because you won't believe me. I could say yesterday, last week (which is the actual answer) or I could say last year. You will conflate any answer to your preconceived picture of me. And that view wont change based on what I say." You could try answering the question and not second guessing the result. It show integrity and a more human approach, rather than assuming the outcome at every turn. As an example, I like the challenge you bring, I rarely agree with you, but I read what you type. Can you change my mind on everything you write, not a chance, but being less abrasive, could swing my opinion at times. I will not be alone in this, view. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Emotional outrage that leans towards the faux, is easily spotted, it is a human trait to notice such things. I can change my mind and do regularly, based on reasonable counter arguments, and I think this was the prompt for the post. Many here can't back down, or wont listen to anything other than their own beliefs, a stalemate. Which begs the question, why bother posting? The thing is regardless of your beliefs and actual ability to change your mind based on facts. You are going to believe that you are capable of changing your mind based on factual information. Who would actively think of themselves incapable of doing so? So if everyone thinks they are capable, whether correctly or incorrectly, how can you trust the statement of someone saying it about themselves? The best you can do is claim you think you are open to change. I would argue you might think you can change your mind after reasonable debate, but can't. I have and do change my mind, openly, if the rationale is good. When was the last time you changed your mind, based on counter arguments? In your deleted comment you claimed I missed the point. But you just proved mine. It doesn't matter how I answer your question on when the last time I changed my mind was, because you won't believe me. I could say yesterday, last week (which is the actual answer) or I could say last year. You will conflate any answer to your preconceived picture of me. And that view wont change based on what I say. You could try answering the question and not second guessing the result. It show integrity and a more human approach, rather than assuming the outcome at every turn. As an example, I like the challenge you bring, I rarely agree with you, but I read what you type. Can you change my mind on everything you write, not a chance, but being less abrasive, could swing my opinion at times. I will not be alone in this, view. " I did answer your question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Emotional outrage that leans towards the faux, is easily spotted, it is a human trait to notice such things. I can change my mind and do regularly, based on reasonable counter arguments, and I think this was the prompt for the post. Many here can't back down, or wont listen to anything other than their own beliefs, a stalemate. Which begs the question, why bother posting? The thing is regardless of your beliefs and actual ability to change your mind based on facts. You are going to believe that you are capable of changing your mind based on factual information. Who would actively think of themselves incapable of doing so? So if everyone thinks they are capable, whether correctly or incorrectly, how can you trust the statement of someone saying it about themselves? The best you can do is claim you think you are open to change. I would argue you might think you can change your mind after reasonable debate, but can't. I have and do change my mind, openly, if the rationale is good. When was the last time you changed your mind, based on counter arguments? In your deleted comment you claimed I missed the point. But you just proved mine. It doesn't matter how I answer your question on when the last time I changed my mind was, because you won't believe me. I could say yesterday, last week (which is the actual answer) or I could say last year. You will conflate any answer to your preconceived picture of me. And that view wont change based on what I say. You could try answering the question and not second guessing the result. It show integrity and a more human approach, rather than assuming the outcome at every turn. As an example, I like the challenge you bring, I rarely agree with you, but I read what you type. Can you change my mind on everything you write, not a chance, but being less abrasive, could swing my opinion at times. I will not be alone in this, view. I did answer your question." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t trust mainstream media, including the Daily Mail to get all stories right. Each paper / news outlet has a particular political stance, I think the trick is to let them bring something to your attention and then go off find more detail. As for a poorly educated electorate, I wouldn’t suggest that DM readers are the best guide. I personally have no issue with someone being poorly educated and voting, people can go with their hearts as well as minds, but I believe the electorate in this country are educated enough to make electoral decisions. As for the brainy ones, I think you’ll find none of our political parties memberships can claim a monopoly on that." A poorly educated electorate are more easily fooled into voting against their own interests based on a snappy slogan, which offers a fake simple solution to a complex problem. Education is the key. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t trust mainstream media, including the Daily Mail to get all stories right. Each paper / news outlet has a particular political stance, I think the trick is to let them bring something to your attention and then go off find more detail. As for a poorly educated electorate, I wouldn’t suggest that DM readers are the best guide. I personally have no issue with someone being poorly educated and voting, people can go with their hearts as well as minds, but I believe the electorate in this country are educated enough to make electoral decisions. As for the brainy ones, I think you’ll find none of our political parties memberships can claim a monopoly on that. A poorly educated electorate are more easily fooled into voting against their own interests based on a snappy slogan, which offers a fake simple solution to a complex problem. Education is the key." Agreed and a more robust, neutral media. Having said that, we don’t know if each voter was taken in by a snappy slogan. I voted for Brexit, to some that will seem mad, but I don’t believe I was taken in by a slogan. I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to each voter regarding the direction they go in regardless of which side of the political spectrum they fall in. All will have their reasons for doing so. Neither side of the arguable in possession of the absolute truth | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I hate to say it folks, but the forum is fast turning into the Mail! We've created this common "enemy", the DM. We've then spun this idea of the DM reader, who has a load of common characteristics, but reading the DM isn't one of them. We've then decided said readers will be crying over BoJo before we even saw evidence of it. And have said (true) DM readers get offended when we pick apart their paper. Even tho, the evidence for this is light. Hay doesn't count. Sure, the DM is there for picking off. But this doesn't feel to me like not tolerating the intolerable. You can do that they debating points and trying to get people to see other views. It is starting to feel like silencing other posters through power of numbers. Lets not make this another echochamber. I come here because fab has a range of views. I want to hear them and challenge them and be challenged by them. There's more right and far right wing people here than I meet in daily life. Some days if feels overwhelmingly right wing on here, and other days not so much. I'm sure the right wingers could copy and paste the above, changing out "right" for "left", and vice versa. So we're not close to an echo chamber. Like it or not "daily mail reader" is a insult that's used widely in this country. But as people have pointed out, it is a blanket generalisation that anyone who reads it, has the same views as the editing team. Which might not be the case. It’s not an insult. It’s just daft. Unless everyone thinks it good to insult someone simply for their choice of newspaper? Would you be happy if someone called you a "daily mail reader"?" Depends who it is. I would either laugh or simply point out that I’m not. If it was a white liberal pointing out that it’s racist and anyone who reads it is a thick racist, I think I would just shake my head in despair and walk away. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t trust mainstream media, including the Daily Mail to get all stories right. Each paper / news outlet has a particular political stance, I think the trick is to let them bring something to your attention and then go off find more detail. As for a poorly educated electorate, I wouldn’t suggest that DM readers are the best guide. I personally have no issue with someone being poorly educated and voting, people can go with their hearts as well as minds, but I believe the electorate in this country are educated enough to make electoral decisions. As for the brainy ones, I think you’ll find none of our political parties memberships can claim a monopoly on that. A poorly educated electorate are more easily fooled into voting against their own interests based on a snappy slogan, which offers a fake simple solution to a complex problem. Education is the key. Agreed and a more robust, neutral media. Having said that, we don’t know if each voter was taken in by a snappy slogan. I voted for Brexit, to some that will seem mad, but I don’t believe I was taken in by a slogan. I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to each voter regarding the direction they go in regardless of which side of the political spectrum they fall in. All will have their reasons for doing so. Neither side of the arguable in possession of the absolute truth" Why did you vote for Brexit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t trust mainstream media, including the Daily Mail to get all stories right. Each paper / news outlet has a particular political stance, I think the trick is to let them bring something to your attention and then go off find more detail. As for a poorly educated electorate, I wouldn’t suggest that DM readers are the best guide. I personally have no issue with someone being poorly educated and voting, people can go with their hearts as well as minds, but I believe the electorate in this country are educated enough to make electoral decisions. As for the brainy ones, I think you’ll find none of our political parties memberships can claim a monopoly on that. A poorly educated electorate are more easily fooled into voting against their own interests based on a snappy slogan, which offers a fake simple solution to a complex problem. Education is the key. Agreed and a more robust, neutral media. Having said that, we don’t know if each voter was taken in by a snappy slogan. I voted for Brexit, to some that will seem mad, but I don’t believe I was taken in by a slogan. I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to each voter regarding the direction they go in regardless of which side of the political spectrum they fall in. All will have their reasons for doing so. Neither side of the arguable in possession of the absolute truth Why did you vote for Brexit?" I had a feeling that question was coming, I’m not a fan of federalisation. Being tied in for market purposes was sound but the EU appears to me to be a political entity. I want the UK to be independent but trade with everyone. I won’t ask you which way you voted and your reasons for doing so, I’m sure they were sound judgements you made. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t trust mainstream media, including the Daily Mail to get all stories right. Each paper / news outlet has a particular political stance, I think the trick is to let them bring something to your attention and then go off find more detail. As for a poorly educated electorate, I wouldn’t suggest that DM readers are the best guide. I personally have no issue with someone being poorly educated and voting, people can go with their hearts as well as minds, but I believe the electorate in this country are educated enough to make electoral decisions. As for the brainy ones, I think you’ll find none of our political parties memberships can claim a monopoly on that. A poorly educated electorate are more easily fooled into voting against their own interests based on a snappy slogan, which offers a fake simple solution to a complex problem. Education is the key. Agreed and a more robust, neutral media. Having said that, we don’t know if each voter was taken in by a snappy slogan. I voted for Brexit, to some that will seem mad, but I don’t believe I was taken in by a slogan. I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to each voter regarding the direction they go in regardless of which side of the political spectrum they fall in. All will have their reasons for doing so. Neither side of the arguable in possession of the absolute truth Why did you vote for Brexit? I had a feeling that question was coming, I’m not a fan of federalisation. Being tied in for market purposes was sound but the EU appears to me to be a political entity. I want the UK to be independent but trade with everyone. I won’t ask you which way you voted and your reasons for doing so, I’m sure they were sound judgements you made." I’m a remainer. It wasn’t a loaded question. Unlike some on here I don’t jump to the conclusion that everyone that voted leave is a thick Daily Mail reading racist. My decision was based on my work situation which depended on free trading and my personal wish to live then retire in France. Brexit has been a disaster for me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t trust mainstream media, including the Daily Mail to get all stories right. Each paper / news outlet has a particular political stance, I think the trick is to let them bring something to your attention and then go off find more detail. As for a poorly educated electorate, I wouldn’t suggest that DM readers are the best guide. I personally have no issue with someone being poorly educated and voting, people can go with their hearts as well as minds, but I believe the electorate in this country are educated enough to make electoral decisions. As for the brainy ones, I think you’ll find none of our political parties memberships can claim a monopoly on that. A poorly educated electorate are more easily fooled into voting against their own interests based on a snappy slogan, which offers a fake simple solution to a complex problem. Education is the key. Agreed and a more robust, neutral media. Having said that, we don’t know if each voter was taken in by a snappy slogan. I voted for Brexit, to some that will seem mad, but I don’t believe I was taken in by a slogan. I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to each voter regarding the direction they go in regardless of which side of the political spectrum they fall in. All will have their reasons for doing so. Neither side of the arguable in possession of the absolute truth Why did you vote for Brexit? I had a feeling that question was coming, I’m not a fan of federalisation. Being tied in for market purposes was sound but the EU appears to me to be a political entity. I want the UK to be independent but trade with everyone. I won’t ask you which way you voted and your reasons for doing so, I’m sure they were sound judgements you made. I’m a remainer. It wasn’t a loaded question. Unlike some on here I don’t jump to the conclusion that everyone that voted leave is a thick Daily Mail reading racist. My decision was based on my work situation which depended on free trading and my personal wish to live then retire in France. Brexit has been a disaster for me. " Sorry to hear of the impact on you and completely understand why you voted the way you did. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t trust mainstream media, including the Daily Mail to get all stories right. Each paper / news outlet has a particular political stance, I think the trick is to let them bring something to your attention and then go off find more detail. As for a poorly educated electorate, I wouldn’t suggest that DM readers are the best guide. I personally have no issue with someone being poorly educated and voting, people can go with their hearts as well as minds, but I believe the electorate in this country are educated enough to make electoral decisions. As for the brainy ones, I think you’ll find none of our political parties memberships can claim a monopoly on that. A poorly educated electorate are more easily fooled into voting against their own interests based on a snappy slogan, which offers a fake simple solution to a complex problem. Education is the key. Agreed and a more robust, neutral media. Having said that, we don’t know if each voter was taken in by a snappy slogan. I voted for Brexit, to some that will seem mad, but I don’t believe I was taken in by a slogan. I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to each voter regarding the direction they go in regardless of which side of the political spectrum they fall in. All will have their reasons for doing so. Neither side of the arguable in possession of the absolute truth" The media has to be free. So I don't think a neutral media is ever going to be plausible. There will always be opinion and slants, and an angle. If the population is savy about understanding sources, agendas, the wider implications, how to fact check, how to think critically about the media they are consuming etc, then we can beat any bias in the media. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t trust mainstream media, including the Daily Mail to get all stories right. Each paper / news outlet has a particular political stance, I think the trick is to let them bring something to your attention and then go off find more detail. As for a poorly educated electorate, I wouldn’t suggest that DM readers are the best guide. I personally have no issue with someone being poorly educated and voting, people can go with their hearts as well as minds, but I believe the electorate in this country are educated enough to make electoral decisions. As for the brainy ones, I think you’ll find none of our political parties memberships can claim a monopoly on that." Completely agree with that. My views on this matter is that a newspaper's goal is to sell papers, just like a poltician's goal is to gain power. Newspapers have to write things in such a way to pander to their audience. If they take a stance that's opposite to that of its usual audience, they are in for a disaster. The best approach is to read papers from either side. Yes, there are levels to how far these newspapers would go. Daily mail is probably not the paper I would choose for the right wing perspective. I would probably choose the Telegraph over it. Same way, I would choose the Independent over the guardian for left wing perspective. Based on the above theory, I do feel the Financial times and the Economist are far more factual in their reporting simply because their target audience are people making financial decisions based on these news and making misleading reports will destroy their market. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The best approach is to read papers from either side. " I know you added more context to this point. And it makes sense in most cases. With the DM, I'm not sure why you'd want to read the bigoted hate side, as well as the non-bigoted none hate-side of the news. I just use the news to highlight what's going on, ignore the opinions, and if it's something that interests me, I go to the source material and read it there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t trust mainstream media, including the Daily Mail to get all stories right. Each paper / news outlet has a particular political stance, I think the trick is to let them bring something to your attention and then go off find more detail. As for a poorly educated electorate, I wouldn’t suggest that DM readers are the best guide. I personally have no issue with someone being poorly educated and voting, people can go with their hearts as well as minds, but I believe the electorate in this country are educated enough to make electoral decisions. As for the brainy ones, I think you’ll find none of our political parties memberships can claim a monopoly on that. A poorly educated electorate are more easily fooled into voting against their own interests based on a snappy slogan, which offers a fake simple solution to a complex problem. Education is the key. Agreed and a more robust, neutral media. Having said that, we don’t know if each voter was taken in by a snappy slogan. I voted for Brexit, to some that will seem mad, but I don’t believe I was taken in by a slogan. I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to each voter regarding the direction they go in regardless of which side of the political spectrum they fall in. All will have their reasons for doing so. Neither side of the arguable in possession of the absolute truth The media has to be free. So I don't think a neutral media is ever going to be plausible. There will always be opinion and slants, and an angle. If the population is savy about understanding sources, agendas, the wider implications, how to fact check, how to think critically about the media they are consuming etc, then we can beat any bias in the media. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the DM is as bigoted and hate filled as some would have us believe, why is it used, referenced and quoted by other news media reporting and delivering the information of a story or the news of the day ? Surely such a publication would be shunned/ avoided?" You mean like how Wikipedia classify it as an unreliable source, or how year on year, it ranks as the most unreliable and untrustworthy publication by the Independent Press Standards Organisation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the DM is as bigoted and hate filled as some would have us believe, why is it used, referenced and quoted by other news media reporting and delivering the information of a story or the news of the day ? Surely such a publication would be shunned/ avoided?" Do you mean GB news  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the DM is as bigoted and hate filled as some would have us believe, why is it used, referenced and quoted by other news media reporting and delivering the information of a story or the news of the day ? Surely such a publication would be shunned/ avoided?" Hold on. Are you suggesting that the DM isn't full of bigotry and misinformation? I've read some absolute rhubarb on here. But I don't think I've seen anything as far fetched as this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The best approach is to read papers from either side. I know you added more context to this point. And it makes sense in most cases. With the DM, I'm not sure why you'd want to read the bigoted hate side, as well as the non-bigoted none hate-side of the news. I just use the news to highlight what's going on, ignore the opinions, and if it's something that interests me, I go to the source material and read it there." for me, it's know your enemy. Newspapers and their readers like in a circular relationship. The DM gives an idea of what many in this country is feeling. Dismissing their fears as "hate" or "racism" doesn't help anyone. While facts are important when it comes to forming my views, I also want to know what others may be seeing to form their views. If I don't know why someone has a different view on refugees, the EU, Trans etc, how am I going to even have a chance to change their mind. And for many that's part of the end game.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The best approach is to read papers from either side. I know you added more context to this point. And it makes sense in most cases. With the DM, I'm not sure why you'd want to read the bigoted hate side, as well as the non-bigoted none hate-side of the news. I just use the news to highlight what's going on, ignore the opinions, and if it's something that interests me, I go to the source material and read it there.for me, it's know your enemy. Newspapers and their readers like in a circular relationship. The DM gives an idea of what many in this country is feeling. Dismissing their fears as "hate" or "racism" doesn't help anyone. While facts are important when it comes to forming my views, I also want to know what others may be seeing to form their views. If I don't know why someone has a different view on refugees, the EU, Trans etc, how am I going to even have a chance to change their mind. And for many that's part of the end game.... " Very true. I suppose I am less interested in trying to change someone's opinion, especially if it is abhorrent Daily Mail type opinion. I like a good debate if someone has some interesting opposing opinions though. Many people think a certain way in this country because of the BS printed in the DM et al, more than the DM giving an idea how people are thinking. Although maybe it's a vicious circle of hate filled confusion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the DM is as bigoted and hate filled as some would have us believe, why is it used, referenced and quoted by other news media reporting and delivering the information of a story or the news of the day ?" Is it referenced and quoted by other new organisations? Can you give us an example of a reputable news site referencing the Mail? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The best approach is to read papers from either side. I know you added more context to this point. And it makes sense in most cases. With the DM, I'm not sure why you'd want to read the bigoted hate side, as well as the non-bigoted none hate-side of the news. I just use the news to highlight what's going on, ignore the opinions, and if it's something that interests me, I go to the source material and read it there." What you said makes sense. It's just that I haven't read DM enough to know how bad they really are. For some reason, their headlines alway put me off. Every time I search for news article about an event, I scroll past the DM because their headlines are way too sensationalist and I get the feeling that there is going to be too much hyperbole to sift through and I find it a waste of time. If someone is willing to rinse through it all, it's up to them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate." I object to the stereotyping profiling that this post and others stands for. You could not get away with it with other minorities, races, geographical profiling and other discriminatory practices. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The best approach is to read papers from either side. I know you added more context to this point. And it makes sense in most cases. With the DM, I'm not sure why you'd want to read the bigoted hate side, as well as the non-bigoted none hate-side of the news. I just use the news to highlight what's going on, ignore the opinions, and if it's something that interests me, I go to the source material and read it there. What you said makes sense. It's just that I haven't read DM enough to know how bad they really are. For some reason, their headlines alway put me off. Every time I search for news article about an event, I scroll past the DM because their headlines are way too sensationalist and I get the feeling that there is going to be too much hyperbole to sift through and I find it a waste of time. If someone is willing to rinse through it all, it's up to them. " Like I have said before, the front is a newspapers most important page, it sets the agenda for the rest of the paper | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate. I object to the stereotyping profiling that this post and others stands for. You could not get away with it with other minorities, races, geographical profiling and other discriminatory practices." Are Daily Mail readers a minority, race or geographic demographic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, and totally wrong that their beliefs are being subjected to ridicule. " What are their ‘beliefs’ ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, and totally wrong that their beliefs are being subjected to ridicule. " Do they hate themselves? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did you know: The Daily Mail is banned by Wikipedia as a source for "poor fact checking" and "flat-out fabrication" and Microsoft's fact-check plugin tool warns Daily Mail "fails basic standards of accuracy and accountability" mediabiasfactcheck dot com lists them as right wing, low factual reporting and low credibility. Yet it has a daily circulation of almost 1 million (second only to the free Metro) This is in my opinion one of the reasons why we have such a poorly educated electorate. I object to the stereotyping profiling that this post and others stands for. You could not get away with it with other minorities, races, geographical profiling and other discriminatory practices." Race, gender, ethnicity etc are things your born with, not something you chose. So you can't compare that with reading a newspaper. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your not born with a religious belief, yet you wouldn't criticise a Christian for reading the Bible, a Muslim for reading the Koran. So stereotyping in choice of reading is discrimination. Plus, in other posts where this publication is mentioned, it is written as a derogatory manner towards the way people lean not the fact they read it. So, even if they don't read said publication - it is being used to stereotype!!" Can you give any examples of a Daily Mails readers beliefs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Your not born with a religious belief, yet you wouldn't criticise a Christian for reading the Bible, a Muslim for reading the Koran. So stereotyping in choice of reading is discrimination. Plus, in other posts where this publication is mentioned, it is written as a derogatory manner towards the way people lean not the fact they read it. So, even if they don't read said publication - it is being used to stereotype!!" So just to be clear, you're saying that the daily mail and it's readers, who stereotype minorites. Should be except from being stereotyped as people who stereotype minorites? Seems logical. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is 'labelling'. Such behaviour in a sexual context would be deemed offensive, what is the difference?" Bit it isn’t in a sexual context, an age context, a religious context, a sexual orientation context, etc etc, they are being ‘ridiculed’ because some of them believe utter shit that is written in a newspaper? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is 'labelling'. Such behaviour in a sexual context would be deemed offensive, what is the difference?" Because it's not a sexual context. Have you given up suggesting DM readers are a race? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not for one minute have I suggested they are a 'race', but alienation doesn't have to be based on race. You can offend Beano readers by putting them in a 'class' and writing derogatory comments about them. How do 'train spotters' feel about the stereotyping of wearing an anorak and standing on railway platforms with notepads? That bird watchers get labelled as 'twitchers'? It's wrong and defending by trying to redirect is not incorrect. Most of the people referred to by this term, don't even read the publication - so it's an affront on the type of thinking. " Trainspotters are fair game - we can all have a go at them. DM readers would just laugh off any criticism, as was pointed out early on here or maybe another post, I’ve lost track. They are all thick racists pensioners so of a generation where they do laugh things off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not for one minute have I suggested they are a 'race', but alienation doesn't have to be based on race. You can offend Beano readers by putting them in a 'class' and writing derogatory comments about them. How do 'train spotters' feel about the stereotyping of wearing an anorak and standing on railway platforms with notepads? That bird watchers get labelled as 'twitchers'? It's wrong and defending by trying to redirect is not incorrect. Most of the people referred to by this term, don't even read the publication - so it's an affront on the type of thinking. " The Daily Mail is renowned for ‘ridiculing ‘ a number of people, immigrants, lefty lawyers, the woke, labour voters, Jeremy Corbyn , do you agree with their stance on these groups/people? People are laughing at Daily mail readers for only one reason, some of them believe the shit they write, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not for one minute have I suggested they are a 'race', but alienation doesn't have to be based on race. You can offend Beano readers by putting them in a 'class' and writing derogatory comments about them. How do 'train spotters' feel about the stereotyping of wearing an anorak and standing on railway platforms with notepads? That bird watchers get labelled as 'twitchers'? It's wrong and defending by trying to redirect is not incorrect. Most of the people referred to by this term, don't even read the publication - so it's an affront on the type of thinking. Trainspotters are fair game - we can all have a go at them. DM readers would just laugh off any criticism, as was pointed out early on here or maybe another post, I’ve lost track. They are all thick racists pensioners so of a generation where they do laugh things off. " Wrong, some of them are thick racists , not all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not for one minute have I suggested they are a 'race', but alienation doesn't have to be based on race. You can offend Beano readers by putting them in a 'class' and writing derogatory comments about them. How do 'train spotters' feel about the stereotyping of wearing an anorak and standing on railway platforms with notepads? That bird watchers get labelled as 'twitchers'? It's wrong and defending by trying to redirect is not incorrect. Most of the people referred to by this term, don't even read the publication - so it's an affront on the type of thinking. Trainspotters are fair game - we can all have a go at them. DM readers would just laugh off any criticism, as was pointed out early on here or maybe another post, I’ve lost track. They are all thick racists pensioners so of a generation where they do laugh things off. Wrong, some of them are thick racists , not all "Where do you get this damning data? Or is it just an assumption on your part? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not for one minute have I suggested they are a 'race', but alienation doesn't have to be based on race. You can offend Beano readers by putting them in a 'class' and writing derogatory comments about them. How do 'train spotters' feel about the stereotyping of wearing an anorak and standing on railway platforms with notepads? That bird watchers get labelled as 'twitchers'? It's wrong and defending by trying to redirect is not incorrect. Most of the people referred to by this term, don't even read the publication - so it's an affront on the type of thinking. Trainspotters are fair game - we can all have a go at them. DM readers would just laugh off any criticism, as was pointed out early on here or maybe another post, I’ve lost track. They are all thick racists pensioners so of a generation where they do laugh things off. " Trainspotting is fair game? So now double standards is acceptable. It is wrong on every level to alienate, shame, isolate or insult any other group or individual on their lifestyle, belief or persuasion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not for one minute have I suggested they are a 'race', but alienation doesn't have to be based on race. You can offend Beano readers by putting them in a 'class' and writing derogatory comments about them. How do 'train spotters' feel about the stereotyping of wearing an anorak and standing on railway platforms with notepads? That bird watchers get labelled as 'twitchers'? It's wrong and defending by trying to redirect is not incorrect. Most of the people referred to by this term, don't even read the publication - so it's an affront on the type of thinking. Trainspotters are fair game - we can all have a go at them. DM readers would just laugh off any criticism, as was pointed out early on here or maybe another post, I’ve lost track. They are all thick racists pensioners so of a generation where they do laugh things off. Wrong, some of them are thick racists , not all
Where do you get this damning data? Or is it just an assumption on your part? "I got the ‘damming evidence’ from the same source you used | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not for one minute have I suggested they are a 'race', but alienation doesn't have to be based on race. You can offend Beano readers by putting them in a 'class' and writing derogatory comments about them. How do 'train spotters' feel about the stereotyping of wearing an anorak and standing on railway platforms with notepads? That bird watchers get labelled as 'twitchers'? It's wrong and defending by trying to redirect is not incorrect. Most of the people referred to by this term, don't even read the publication - so it's an affront on the type of thinking. Trainspotters are fair game - we can all have a go at them. DM readers would just laugh off any criticism, as was pointed out early on here or maybe another post, I’ve lost track. They are all thick racists pensioners so of a generation where they do laugh things off. Trainspotting is fair game? So now double standards is acceptable. It is wrong on every level to alienate, shame, isolate or insult any other group or individual on their lifestyle, belief or persuasion." Really? Then why does the daily mail regularly do exactly that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not for one minute have I suggested they are a 'race', but alienation doesn't have to be based on race. You can offend Beano readers by putting them in a 'class' and writing derogatory comments about them. How do 'train spotters' feel about the stereotyping of wearing an anorak and standing on railway platforms with notepads? That bird watchers get labelled as 'twitchers'? It's wrong and defending by trying to redirect is not incorrect. Most of the people referred to by this term, don't even read the publication - so it's an affront on the type of thinking. Trainspotters are fair game - we can all have a go at them. DM readers would just laugh off any criticism, as was pointed out early on here or maybe another post, I’ve lost track. They are all thick racists pensioners so of a generation where they do laugh things off. Wrong, some of them are thick racists , not all
Where do you get this damning data? Or is it just an assumption on your part? "Even more stereotyping, that ALL pensioners are racists, are "thick" and age shaming for good measure. You'll be a pensioner one day, is that what you'd like others to think you just because you hold a bus pass? Terrible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the DM is as bigoted and hate filled as some would have us believe, why is it used, referenced and quoted by other news media reporting and delivering the information of a story or the news of the day ? Is it referenced and quoted by other new organisations? Can you give us an example of a reputable news site referencing the Mail?" Newsnight, Channel4 news, Sly news, to mention a few (real bastions of reliable news reporting ) Have all quoted, referenced it’s reporting and it’s stories at some point. Surely these organisations wouldn’t even mention its name if it’s a hate filled bigoted rag? Who wants to be linked by association? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not for one minute have I suggested they are a 'race', but alienation doesn't have to be based on race. You can offend Beano readers by putting them in a 'class' and writing derogatory comments about them. How do 'train spotters' feel about the stereotyping of wearing an anorak and standing on railway platforms with notepads? That bird watchers get labelled as 'twitchers'? It's wrong and defending by trying to redirect is not incorrect. Most of the people referred to by this term, don't even read the publication - so it's an affront on the type of thinking. " Those people aren't reading a newspaper that publishes hate and bigotry. Why are you so upset about people expressing opinions about people who read and believe that kind of misleading hate based news? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
