PDA

View Full Version : Daily ****** Mail


Unwell_Raptor
14th Sep 2005, 21:05
You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to.

------------------------------------------------

I have just had a look at the Mail website and read the leader which pours bile on Tony Blair for having the effrontery to welcome the England cricketers to no. 10.

What, I wonder would the Mail have said if he had not done so?

In another piece the paper talks about the fuel protests and, in a prime example of weasel words, says that it can never condone illegality ---- but ---- you have to understand the protesters' point.


Yuck.

Flying Lawyer
14th Sep 2005, 21:24
I'm no fan of the Mail and haven't read the article, but ....

Does the leader writer accuse Blair of 'effrontery' or of (predictably IMHO) jumping on the bandwagon?

The Mail says "it can never condone illegality ---- but ---- you have to understand the protesters' point."
What's wrong with that? :confused:

Unwell_Raptor
14th Sep 2005, 21:44
"So what happens? With depressing predictability Tony Blair - whose love of cricket has been a well-kept secret - leaps aboard the bandwagon.

The Prime Minister managed to squeeze in a Downing Street reception for the squad yesterday a few hours before he flew overseas (yet again).

While the shameless Mr Blair basks in England's reflected glory, what exactly has his Government done for cricket?"

All understandable, if predictable, polemic. What I beg leave to wonder is what the same paper would have said if the Prime Minister had not congratulated the team?

If St Francis of Assissi had held a Labour Party card the Mail would have slagged him off for exploiting innocent creatures to forward his sinister (literally) agenda.

Doors to Automatic
14th Sep 2005, 21:52
Whilst I'm no Guardian reader I agree that the editorial in today's Mail was bang out of order.

It seems the paper has become anti-government for the sake of it rather than based on any hard facts.

Yesterday was a glorious day for our country. It is a shame that aspects of it have been reported in such a negative way.

Dave Martin
14th Sep 2005, 22:00
Always shocks me the level of language that comes out of Newpapers here in the UK.

Not saying we are the worst of the lot, but while we castigate various regimes around the world for their improper alignment or manipulation of public view, our papers do exactly the same.

Free choice is one thing, but this isn't much differnt from BNP propaganda.

And yes, I loath Bliar.

Wedge
14th Sep 2005, 23:41
Totally with you on this U_R.

The Daily Mail's hypocritical bile drips from the pages like urine from Satan's bladder. Turning the page is like opening a fold of used toilet paper.

Their hatred of all things new and old Labour and love for all things Tory (and Royal for that matter) is becoming almost laughable.

Indeed if Blair had not invited the players to number 10 there would have been a similar anti-Blair 'he takes no interest in the ordinary people of this country and presides like royalty' rant.

"it can never condone illegality ---- but ---- you have to understand the protesters' point."

What's wrong with this is that the Mail is lying about it's opposition to 'condoning illegality' and is encouraging the general public to join in an illegal blockade of oil refineries.

And while we are on that subject - I'm totally behind the government's stance on fuel tax, the roads are a poisonous mess as they are and the more disincentives people are given against using their cars the better. (Yes I AM a motorist myself).

Brown is absolutely right - if the UK public want cheaper fuel then they should pressurise the oil producing nations who control the supply with an iron fist to maximise their profits.

I buy the Mail sometimes when I fancy a good laugh. Especially at the letters page.

Conan the Librarian
15th Sep 2005, 00:04
Errr... Oil producing nations? Are we not one of those?

The duty is set, but we then pay VAT on that duty, which strikes me as being "Convenient"

The roads may well be in a mess, but for us country dwellers, you are shafted without a car. Ask all those BA and Virgin Pilots that live here.

Regards from rural Gloucestershire,

Conan

PS I hate the Daily Fail.

eal401
15th Sep 2005, 06:57
I have just had a look at the Mail website
Well, that's your own stupid fault isn't it?

;)

Parapunter
15th Sep 2005, 07:25
Years ago, a few of us were going out for a drink to celebrate a schoolfriends engagement, one of Punters buddies said to me, 'now you know what you're like, you can be a bit tactless, so mind yourself, cos we don't know this chap & we have to be nice for Claire, even if we don't like her fiance'

Naturally, one was a bit put out by this - tactless? me? Anyways, we meet up with our friend Claire (not her real name & incidentally, she is a weathergirl now on BBC1) & a few drinks ensue whereupon I & my friend who had warned me to behave end up talking to Claire's husband to be. Social intercourse takes place & my friend Ben (real name) asks 'So, what do you do then?' to which fiance replies: 'I'm a staff writer on the Daily Mail'

'Daily Mail? Daily Mail?' says Ben, 'I wouldn't wipe my arse on that'


Stuck with me, that has.

TURIN
15th Sep 2005, 09:24
This says it all really.

Daily Mail Watch! (http://www.bigdaddymerk.co.uk/mailwatch/?m=200509)

Shaggy Sheep Driver
15th Sep 2005, 10:49
It really is [email protected] - absolutely no editorial integrity whatsoever. As someone has said, the letters page gives you an idea of the sort of morons who buy it. They have a 'questions and answers' section where a few seconds of Googling would elicit the answer to most of the questions - but that's probably beyond the capabilities of DM readers.

Many of the questions begin with "Why oh why...?". So I once wrote in with my own question: "Why oh why do so many of the questions on 'Questions & Answers' begin with 'why oh why?'.
They didn't publish it.

SSD

rustle
15th Sep 2005, 11:23
As someone has said, the letters page gives you an idea of the sort of morons who buy it. They have a 'questions and answers' section where a few seconds of Googling would elicit the answer to most of the questions - but that's probably beyond the capabilities of DM readers.
Judging by some of the questions found in the "Private Flying" forum and the "Computer and Internet" forum here the bulk of the readership of the Daily Mail must also be pilots or wannabes ;)

Nick Riviera
15th Sep 2005, 12:10
So which non-biased, totally apolitical papers do you all read then? Whichever it is, I guarantee I could get plenty of people to slag it off in the same manner.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
15th Sep 2005, 12:30
So which non-biased, totally apolitical papers do you all read then? Whichever it is, I guarantee I could get plenty of people to slag it off in the same manner.

The Guardian. There'll be plenty on 'ere who won't agree with it's political and social stance (neither do I a lot of the time), but it is well and intelligently written, and has no propriator or shareholders, so is beholden to no-one.

That's why I read it, even if Polly Toynbee makes me scream at her stuff in total disagreement most of the time. At least it is challenging and makes one think. No-one can say that of the Daily mail.

SSD

Wanquer with a wig
15th Sep 2005, 12:39
Mr Blair is obviously at it too.......:( :uhoh: :O

Nick Riviera
15th Sep 2005, 12:44
SSD

The Guardian? Yeh right, intelligently written. Beholden to no one? Apart from the government which is its main benefactor with regard to job ads. Plus it seems to have a particularly one track view of the world for a paper 'beholden to no one'.

Just my view, you understand, but you see how easy it is to belittle papers that you don't like.

Wedge
15th Sep 2005, 12:57
It is easy to belittle newspapers you don't like, yes.

The Daily Mail falls far short of being a newspaper.

Monarchy loving white middle-England Tory newsletter is a better description.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
15th Sep 2005, 12:57
Ooh, Mr Riviera, I seem to have touched a raw nerve with you. Not a DM reader by any chance, are you?? :eek:

SSD

None of the above
15th Sep 2005, 14:05
Let's lighten the mood shall we?

http://www.dailynail.co.uk/

"Whatever it is, it's a bloody disgrace!"

Curious Pax
15th Sep 2005, 14:24
You forgot the other main Daily Mail slant;


Why oh why ....(insert scare story)........ disastrous effect on house prices.

Also (though this is true of all papers) remember the following:
- read the second paragraph of a story and look for quote marks. If there is hard fact in the second paragraph there may be something in it. If there are direct quotes then someone is a definite source. óne industry analyst is probably the guy sitting nearest the journalist. 'observers' is probably made up altogether! Above all be suspicious of stories whose headline ends with a question mark, and even more if there are quotes in it.

The above paragraph is paraphrased from Andrew Marr's book about journalism, which will raise the hackles of some, but having used the checks against newspapers of all shades of opinion it holds some merit.

Binoculars
15th Sep 2005, 14:33
Once read something along those lines, Curious Pax, which gave a list of definitions, along the lines of:
"A source close to Mr X" means "Mr. X",
"Impeccable sources" means "the tealady".... etc, but I've never been able to find it since.

Got a good Fred Dagg piece on similar explanations of real estate advertising if anybody's interested.

(Thinks: hmmm, that didn't add much to the thread really, could be time for bed). :uhoh:

Wrongstuff
15th Sep 2005, 17:17
Fantastic newspaper, every day it has a pop at Blair and his cronies and that gets my vote. Guardian read by every nutter employed by this government and poor people.

tart1
15th Sep 2005, 17:41
Well I don't care a bit what you all say - the Daily Mail has been my favourite newspaper for 30 years.

It has become really fashionable to look down on the DM. I wonder how many people who run it down actually read anything better ........... they're probably Mirror/Sun readers in reality!

I don't want to read anything too large/too serious. I like the news content (just enough for me as an obvious airhead), the gossip, the health articles and the cryptic crossword. (I also very much like the Telegraph crossword but it seems silly to buy 2 papers when I often don't even have time to read one properly.)

So you can look down on me all you like ............ but I know I am better at spelling/punctuation than you!! :ooh: :ooh:

(The fact that the Mail is slating Tony and his cronies is just a bonus as far as I'm concerned.)

phnuff
15th Sep 2005, 18:35
Agreed - Daily Mail is the biggest pile of poo ever to grace the newstand. It has less jounalistic credibility that the Sun and is tailor made for Sun readers who consider themselves above it.

Oh Blair - yes, far too right wing for me :D

tart1
15th Sep 2005, 18:47
phnuff - I think that's a load of faecal matter!!



........and I assume you mean tailor-made!! :D :D

Astrodome
15th Sep 2005, 19:57
Wonderful to see the Lefties in full rant !
;) ;) :ok: :ok: :E

Perhaps we should all read the paper that brought you Robert Maxwell ?

Interestingly enough within the last year or so a senior Labour Cabinet Minister complimented the editor of the Daily Mail on the quality of the reporting.

Just a shame that so few other papers have the balls to report the truth of what Bliar and his cronies are up to.

It is probably this that brings forth the bile and violent hatred ?

Send Clowns
15th Sep 2005, 20:45
The Mirror is worse than the Mail, as it has no more independence (no one criticising the editoria stance of the Mail as a right-wing rag could have the cheek to defend the Mirror being a left-wing rag) but has far less substance. It is complete light-weight crap from end to end.

Anyone defending the editorial stance of the Guardian is clearly having a laugh. I have never seen anyone but lefties writing in the editorial section - at least the Telegraph regularly uses left-wing columnists to contrast the mainly centre-right viewpoint. It might be beholden to no-one but it's management, but have you seen the pay rise the boss gets? I believe it was 30-odd percent (to 400 and some thousand), announced in a very small article in the same week they ranted against senior executive pay rising by an average of 16%, keeping to the left-wing credentials. Hypocrisy with your morning toast, sir?

I do detest champagne socialism. The worst of all worlds, divorced entirely from reality or any thought that the standards they demand apply to them.

Info from Private Eye, by the way, not known for directing attacks primarily at left-wing institutions.

Astro

Would that be the late Robert Maxwell, MP (Lab, Buckingham)?

Phnuff - nothing like a well-crafted argument.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
15th Sep 2005, 21:06
Astrodome

No. The reason it generates such distain is that it's just crap, regarless of its political stance. It is the worst kind of rag, lacking any sort of integrity.


Send Clowns

Have you actually read the paper? It does often display a leftie slant (and as I'm a rightie, I need that challenge. Who wants to read stuff that just reflects what you already think is the truth? That won't make you test your beleifs!).

It is no Blair supporter, and is not scared of offending 'sacred cows'. It carries a lot of public sector job adverts, but supports pension reform in that sector for instance (because such reform is common sense in today's world, and being non-dogmatic the Guardian recognises that - even though the public sector workers are apoplectic over it).

SSD

Send Clowns
15th Sep 2005, 21:12
I have frequently read it. Mostly however I get my leftist news and views from Radio 4.

I never said it was a Blair supporter, I don't think it is because Blair hides his left-wing decisions and has made some scary right-wing ones. The Times and Sun are Blairite, but that has given Murdoch all he wants except anti-Europe policy. I said it was left-wing, which it clearly is in its editorial slant, and always has been. I know many people who would not read it were it not left wing!

Astrodome
15th Sep 2005, 21:21
Indeed that would be !

The first person of the Labour variety to f*ck pensions, and now being followed by "Brewwn"

The Daily Mirror as we know is a paper prepared to criticise the Labour Government (Not !).

I seem to recall the DM being very anti Major, and critical of a number of Conservative Government policies between 1989 and 1997, but then again such small matters of important detail are too much of an inconvenience to spoil a Leftie "hate-fest".

SSD You are welcome to your opinion of the "Grauniad". What is less welcome is the arrogant assertion that one of the most popular daily newspapers is somehow lacking in integrity. Your reading circle must be quite small to allow you to overlook some of the worst cases of Labour bias and truth distortion in the Left Wing press.


Actually I wonder if the Leftie feeding frenzy will result in them all getting high blood pressure and heart attacks? No worries they could go to their local mostly Privatised (under Labour) NHS hospital could they not ?

TURIN
15th Sep 2005, 21:33
The word 'newspaper' is a misnomer.

They don't print 'news' they print 'olds'.

People buy the rag that prints what they want to hear, not what challenges their views.

Perhaps an INDEPENDENT daily would fill the gap.:rolleyes:

answer=42
15th Sep 2005, 21:36
Ah Clowns, so we meet again.Anyone defending the editorial stance of the Guardian is clearly having a laugh. I have never seen anyone but lefties writing in the editorial section
So, that would make Max Hastings (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1570252,00.html) a leftie then? Didn't he used to edit the Telegraph and have a column in the Mail? Don't you ever check your facts before posting?

But enough of this idle banter. Back to the thread's subject - putting the boot into the Daily Mail.

Why not read this article? (http://www.ketupa.net/dmg.htm) Read the whole article, the meat is at the bottom. Now, I dare you ever to buy or advertise in the Mail again.

What do I, as a self-confessed news junkie, read? The FT, for a global perspective. The Guardian website (with a pinch of salt). BBC website. Le Monde. Occasionally the CNN website to see what's made it through the censors to the American media. Occasionally The Sun website to see what Sun readers are being told. My local newspaper.

Flying Lawyer
15th Sep 2005, 21:43
Wedge

I understand your environment argument (although I disagree with it) but I don't understand ..... "Brown is absolutely right - if the UK public want cheaper fuel then they should pressurise the oil producing nations who control the supply with an iron fist to maximise their profits." Brown's comments about OPEC are not only hypocritical, but misleading to the point of dishonesty IMHO.
How much difference would it make to the price we (in the UK) pay at the pumps even if we managed to "pressurise" OPEC to slash the price of oil by half?
For every £30 we have to pay at the pumps, only about £5 is for the petrol - the rest is tax. The £5 (approx) is shared between the oil producers and the many other links in the long chain from raw material to petrol station. Even with the recent hikes in oil price, petrol itself is still quite cheap.

BTW, I'm not making a party political point. There's nothing to choose between the two main parties on this issue.

phnuff
15th Sep 2005, 22:42
I think that's a load of faecal matter!!

Nope, faecal antimatter.



Wonderful to see the Lefties in full rant

No, no rant. Just a desire to see all newspapers report with the same accuracy as those I read (which in a week are the FT, Observer, Sun) - sort that one out !!

nothing like a well-crafted argument

Well, it is for the Mail after all

There's nothing to choose between the two main parties on this issue

Or many other issues

Send Clowns
15th Sep 2005, 22:54
answer=42

Please read what I actually say, not what you assume I mean!You even quote what I said then make out I said something completely different, very dishonest. I have not read today's Guardian, so I could not have seen that article. I have, however, read the Guardian on many other occasions. Were I reading the Telegraph with similar frequency I would expect to see many articles by Labour politicians and prominent left-wing commentators, as well as various regular columnists who have a left-wing viewpoint. I have never seen such thing fromt he right in the Guardian. While rare, I always assumed they did occasionally publish one, therefore a regular reader being able to point me to one such. In fact you can only point to an article which has no strong political stance either way, regardless of the other opinions of hte author (maybe a little soft left in conclusion IMHO, but I would not press the point if you disagree), certainly not an argument against my point.

Why do you say I should not buy or advertise the Mail "ever again"? That implies very strongly that I have both bought and advertised the Mail. I have never done either in my entire life. Don't you ever check your facts before posting?

I also suspect you have missed something in the article you link to. In case you failed to read it carefully, the 'meat' you refer to at the bottom refers to the Mail in the 1930s. This has very little to do with the Mail today, unless of course you suggest that the incumbent proprietor has no influence on the paper.

phnuff, at risk of complaint for repeating myself, your new post is also nothing like a well-crafted argument.

Astrodome
15th Sep 2005, 23:19
Just a desire to see all newspapers report with the same accuracy as those I read ................ Sun Christ To quote mcEnroe. "You cannot be serious !"......

Your post is on the wrong thread ?

Please put it into my Friday Joke ??

Curious Pax
16th Sep 2005, 06:59
With all due respect it's a lot more complex than you are trying to make it. The appearance of different columnists in papers that hold contrary views is all electioneering in one form or another. Labour appear to have been more cynical about it, but a lot of that is because they are the party in power as the media has changed over the last decade - I don't think the Tories are much different, but there is more kudos for an editor in getting a column from a senior government minister than an opposition spokesman.

Thus Labour has targetted the Sun and the Mail, as the 2 largest circulation papers in their particular categories, as a means of getting their point across to groups that aren't natural Labour voters. Works the other way too, as mentioned previously - the editors feel more important if the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary wants to fill some of their column inches.

If the Tories ever get back in (or looked like they might) then you could expect to see regular appearances in the Guardian and the Mirror by their senior politicians for the same reasons as described above.

Anyway, lets get back to the original point. The criticism was aimed at the style of journalism of the Mail rather than the political slant. I often read the Mail as my brother gets it (he isn't right wing, but tends to get it because a) it's a tabloid which is easier to handle, and b) you get a lot of pages for your money! I've no great problem with its political views - I know what you are going to get when I pick it up and I like to think I can see behind most of the froth to the real issues. It's the style that frankly just makes me laugh - the 'why oh why' handwringing, and the effect on house prices of anything from asylum seekers to the price of milk!

My main gripe with them however is their sports writer Jeff Powell, who attributes every error by the England football team as being down to the FA appointing a Swede as manager - his columns on the subject are the worst examples I've ever seen by a journalist of failing to control his own views on a subject whilst writing a column. But that might be thread creep.......

FL: slightly out of date, but using the AA's fuel price watch info, the average price of a litre of unleaded in August was 91p. Take off 13.6p VAT and 47.1p duty, and you are left with 30.3p basic cost, so for 30 quids worth of petrol at the pump you are paying 10 quid for the fuel and the rest in tax. As pump prices increase further due to the price of a barrel of oil the proportion that is tax will fall. Doesn't invalidate your point about high tax on fuel, but it's not quite as bad as you think!

eal401
16th Sep 2005, 07:00
If the Daily Mail didn't exist, there would be less opportunity for a portion of the population to massage their egos and try to make themselves look intelligent and clever.

I used to read the Daily Mail and see no reason why I should have to justify it to anyone. I now read the Times because I got more out of it, but even that is not what it used to be.

ORAC
16th Sep 2005, 07:28
The Times: Read by the people who run the country.
Daily Mirror: Read by the people who think they run the country.
Guardian: Read by the people who think they ought to run the country.
Morning Star: Read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
Daily Mail: Read by the wives of the people who own the country.
Financial Times: Read by people who own the country.
Daily Express: Read by the people who think that the country ought to be run as it used to be.
Daily Telegraph: Read by the people who think it still is.
The Sun: Their readers don't care who runs the country as long as she has big tits.

Send Clowns
16th Sep 2005, 07:35
Astrodome

Actually while I doubt the integrity of the whole statement from phnuff, the Sun is in fact, according to academics in the field, the most accurate daily newspaper. This is probably related to the legal implications of inaccuracises in their gossip. Ironically it is the FT that he says he wants accuracy matched with that makes me laugh. The same academics see this as one of the most inaccurate papers for its news (rather than financial) coverage, less accurate certainly than the Mail.

Wedge
16th Sep 2005, 09:09
ORAC, I'm surprised at you, credit your source! One of my favourites, although your version is slightly different:

Yes, Prime Minister

Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

------

FL, I take your point about fuel tax.

Some rather bizarre assumptions being made here that anyone who hates the Daily Mail must be a Daily Mirror reader. FWIW I view the Mirror as even worse than the Mail. Agree with the point though that the Mail is for those with an appetite for irresponsible 'reporting', hysterical editorial content and tittle-tattle who consider themselves above reading the Sun.

I hate all of the gutter press, under which I include the Mail and the Express.

phnuff
16th Sep 2005, 11:23
Re the Sun.

"You cannot be serious

Yes I am. Their football coverage is fantastic. !! - ok the rest is a bit, um dodgy, but it has more integrity than the Mail. At least it doesnt pretend to be a real newspaper

answer=42
16th Sep 2005, 11:27
Curious Pax,

With respect, I don’t agree that you can separate out the Mail’s style of writing from its right-wing content. I recently came across a quotation from (if I remember correctly) Lord Rothermere that talked about aiming to engender a four minute period of hatred among his readers. I speculate that this was the origin of Orwell’s ‘four minute hate’ in ‘1984’.

The method has not changed over the years. I think that if you read on from ‘Why, oh why’, you will usually find a well-defined target, often foreign or an ethnic minority. In this context, I don’t think that the sports writer you mention, Jeff Powell, is an aberration from the Mail’s normal standards but central to the ‘party line’. (I have to take your word for the writer’s anti-Sven stance, as I don’t read the Mail’s sports pages). The Mail does not permit aberrations – that is why it pays its writers so well.

To all:

I can’t decide whether to respond to Send Clowns’ reply to my previous post. Is it that:
a) His reply shoots himself in the foot so accurately that nothing I could write could be better targeted.
Or
b) One should always respond. If I don’t, I might be thought to be running away from the battle.
What should I do?

Nick Riviera
16th Sep 2005, 11:45
SSD

No, you didn't touch a nerve. I do buy the Mail but also read a selection of other papers scattered around the office. I just wanted to show you how easy it is to sneer at papers you don't like. As a Guardian reader you are such an easy target, but I will let it rest there.

Wedge

Any comment you make regarding the Mail must surely follow the apology that you owe that paper concerning a conversation we had on this forum a few months back. You know what I am talking about, when you were proved totally incorrect in an attack you made on the Mail (and proved by a Labour minister, no less!) yet on 4 separate threads since you have not had the balls to admit this. When you have the guts to be a man then we can debate the Mail.

Wedge
16th Sep 2005, 11:59
Any comment you make regarding the Mail must surely follow the apology that you owe that paper concerning a conversation we had on this forum a few months back.

Haha! Thanks Nick, funniest thing I've read all day!!!!!! :ok::D :)

Send Clowns
16th Sep 2005, 12:03
42

Another dishonest argument! That is not a record here, but still not pleasant. You now try to make out I have shot myself in the foot, and hide the fact that you have not bothered to justify this assertion behind bluster. A nasty, sneaky way to conduct an argument, if you think about it. One that cannot be addressed as you have said nothing of substance to debate, therefore forcing me into something I do not wish to do, which is to point out the dishonesty of your tactic. This is the only way I can actually answer your post.

Nick Riviera
16th Sep 2005, 12:16
Wedge

So not man enough then. Fair enough.

newswatcher
16th Sep 2005, 12:20
From Wikipedia:

"The Daily Mail is a target of satire and criticism by centrist and left-of centre media and individuals as well as certain satirical magazines.

As a target of satire the stereotypical Daily Mail reader is characterised as a borderline-racist, homophobic, aspiring middle-class conservative who lacks the intelligence to read the broadsheet equivalent the Daily Telegraph. In fact, in recent years the phrase 'Daily Mail reader' has become increasingly used in general parlance (not just in the media) as shorthand for any person with such attitudes.

Due to its stance on moral issues - for instance, its continuing condemnation of already-punished criminals such as Myra Hindley and Maxine Carr, and its editorial outrage at television programmes such as Jerry Springer - The Opera or Brass Eye - some left-wingers refer to the paper with nicknames such as the "Daily Wail" and the "Daily Hate". The latter is in part because - according to Polly Toynbee in The Guardian - the Mail's founder, Lord Northcliffe, said his winning formula was to give his readers "a daily hate".

Another common criticism of the Mail is its treatment of asylum seekers. Several opponents (including London Mayor Ken Livingstone in a well-publicised argument) have claimed that the newspaper panders to racism in this respect. On a related note, the paper's past is also criticized, most notably the fact that the Daily Mail supported the British Union of Fascists for a while during the 1930's.

The Mail is often ridiculed for its supposed obsession with the property market. This has led to Private Eye mock-headlines such as Influx of asylum seekers cause house values to plummet and Property prices fall as asteroid prepares to wipe out life on Earth.

Another aspect of the Mail that draws controversy is its alleged promotion of pseudoscience. Astrology is often the subject of articles, and the newspaper runs a profitable telephone astrology service through its association with Jonathan Cainer. Regular features are also run on Alien abduction, the Bible code, and other such paranormal subjects. In the same vein, the Mail's opposition to the "single-jab" MMR vaccine was condemned by medical practitioners. It is, however, inconsistent in such areas, and marked the 250th anniversary of the birth of homeopathy's founder with an article calling it "Undiluted Tosh!".

The style of the Daily Mail is frequently criticised for its perceived conservatism. The Guardian, for example, referred to it as a "thick, grey tombstone of a tabloid"."

Wedge
16th Sep 2005, 12:42
To be quite honest, I can't remember what it is that I owe the Daily Mail an 'apology' for. By all means refresh my memory, something I said appears to have stuck in your gullet.

But I won't be apologising to the Daily Mail, for anything. ;)

answer=42
16th Sep 2005, 13:04
actually, I've been googling Northcliffe and "Daily Hate" and I can't come up with any solid references.

If I've repeated (inaccurately) an urban myth, I apologise. However, the tenor of my post still stands.

Send Clowns
16th Sep 2005, 13:13
But no apology for your dishonest tactics?

Matt Skrossa
16th Sep 2005, 14:03
I haven't got the time to pen how I feel about the Daily Mail (It's not complimentary), but I have often thought what the archetypal headline might be, bearing in mind most readers are small minded members of the bring back hanging/Thatcher/National Service etc brigade. So how about:

'Asylum Seeker Ate My Pension'

or

'Gays Cause Mortgage Payments to Soar'.

Please feel free to add other headlines which the DM would be proud of.

Send Clowns
16th Sep 2005, 14:29
Interesting the amount of small-minded, vitriolic prejudice being fired at Mail readers for them being supposedly small-minded and prejudiced. The pure nastiness that can come out of supposedly liberal people of centre or left-wing political persuasion is always interesting. They truly hate to be disagreed with, cannot comprehend how anyone reasonable could disagree, but then pour scorn on those who do disagree, saying it is the latter who hate to be disagreed with.

As I said before, hypocrisy anyone?

Curious Pax
16th Sep 2005, 14:38
Sense of humour anyone?

For Matt:
"EU to force Britain to House Gay Asylum Seekers - house price fall forecast" - I should get 4 points for that!

or, before every election in living memory:
"Star to leave Britain if Labour win" (insert name of minor celeb barely anyone has heard of!)

forgot to add - returning to the original post, leaders of all shades have always tried to associate themselves with sporting success. Anyone remember this one? Thatcher and England team (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/graphics/gallery/football/emlyn/emlyn2.jpg)

Although they sometimes come unstuck - if I remember correctly Harold Wilson called the 1970 election to try and get a few \'feel good\'votes from the assumed England glory, but it bakfired when they got knocked out unexpectedly!

SET 18
16th Sep 2005, 15:19
Send Clowns, I also find it most irritating that one can never find a socialist to argue with nowadays: they all have learned that the most effective (as they see it) way to counter an argument is to belittle the adversary. No matter if he is valid or not, just try and ignore his points and present him as some sort of raving lunatic that no-one else could possibly agree with.

Under NO circumstances should you try and present your own argument for analysis. All Daily Mail readers are racist, xenophobic, small-minded etc etc (I think you'll find all of those words used in this thread) God forbid they might actually agree with some of the paper's editorials.

Binoculars
16th Sep 2005, 15:32
Bloody beauty! We've finally found somebody so in tune with Send Clowns' ideologies they can wander off hand in hand down through the orchard and bemoan the creeping tide of socialism despite all worldwide evidence to the contrary.

Enjoy yourselves, boys.

answer=42
16th Sep 2005, 15:37
SET

I do not think that you will find a harsher critic than myself on this thread of the Mail. I think also that you will not find from me on this thread a word of criticism of the Mail's readers. So kindly do not put words into my mouth.



There is no decent mid-market national newspaper in England. Some of the regional newspapers perform this function, as do the Scottish newspapers north of the border. 'Today' was the closest thing to being OK. Imagine that, me praising a Murdoch paper! The skies will fall in!

In France, not many people read the nationals, Le Monde, Libération, Figaro, etc. There is no national equivalent of the Mail. The mid-market equivalents are the regionals, which have much better international coverage than their English equivalents.

In Belgium, because of the relatively small market and the linguistic divide, even a national 'paper of record', eg Le Soir, is considerably more mass market than say 'The Times/Guardian'. More comparable to the Mail/Express.

In the USA, of course, newspapers mostly sell in their home urban area. There isn't a stratification by 'quality'. Of course, there is also 'US News', which is very much middle market. Perhaps this is what the UK needs.

BahrainLad
16th Sep 2005, 15:43
"The perfect Daily Mail article will leave the reader hating something."

Astrodome
16th Sep 2005, 17:53
The pure nastiness that can come out of supposedly liberal people of centre or left-wing political persuasion is always interesting. They truly hate to be disagreed with, cannot comprehend how anyone reasonable could disagree, but then pour scorn on those who do disagree, saying it is the latter who hate to be disagreed with. Pretty much standard operational strategy for the Left.

Any study of Left/Communist ideaology illustrates how anyone holding even a minor difference of opinion is marginalised, their character impugned, and subsequently accused of falsehoods.

Similar strategies have been, and can continue to be, seen in the Bliarista regime.

Interesting just how anti-Liberal/Socialist the Left are when in hot pursuit. Quite frightening but then their pure uncontrollable hatred and rage can be explained by any psychologist in clinical terms.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
16th Sep 2005, 18:11
As a Guardian reader you are such an easy target, but I will let it rest there.

Wise move, Nick. When you're in a hole, stop digging.....;)

SSD

Unwell_Raptor
16th Sep 2005, 20:05
The mods can deal with things as they please- but surely the current thread title is a deal more unseemly than the original?

By the way, SC:- As is your wont you have managed to miss the original point. I criticised the Daily Mail, not its readers. The latter self-select into Club Idiot or Club Ranter, but it is the cynical masters of the newspaper who draw my ire, playing as they do on the credulity of the pretentious an the uneducated to elicit rage at - well, does it matter whom or what? Rage is an end in itself.

Foss
16th Sep 2005, 20:08
Bino - lol

Look boys and girls, stop whining, you've all got computers, shell out and get PA, AP and Reuters wires. Log onto the BBC and CNN. Cut out the middle man.

I like the Mail, must be a racist.
What I hate is the walky talky headlines they use, for today's (16th) 10/11.
Deep breath...
'Asnortofcokeandaglassofwineforbreakfast.
Dabblingwithheroinandcrack.Now,asKate
Mossiscaughtoncamerainadrugsbinge.
her£4mayearfashiondealsareinjeapordy'

THE TRUTH ABOUT COCAINE KATE

Then it's a 'spokesman says' and 'sources close to', 'another source said', then it turns out it's Mirror story anyway.

Send Clowns
16th Sep 2005, 22:37
U_R

You will notice I did not attack you by name at any point. None of my previous posts refered to yours.

-----

I happen to think that your original complaint against the Mail for saying that while they disagree with the lawlessness the protestors have a point is completely ridiculous. It is perfectly possible to agree with motives while disagreeing with methods. I cannot, in fact, quite believe that an intelligent adult can fail to understand the distinction. This does bemuse me somewhat.

I also think that Toneeeeee's invitation to the Cricketers is disingenuous. I think this only because he has never claimed any affection for cricket, always used his supposed support for football for political purposes and always been mesmerised by the cult of celebrity, so sucking up to sudden success fits in with his history. He therefore suffers the results of his previous behaviour, and sympathy have I none however unwarranted the Mail's criticism.

You complain about the Mail's knee-jerk anti-Blairism, which has some truth. I would compare it to your knee-jerk pro-Blairism, anti-Conservatism and pro-letter-of-the-law stance, and suggest that you are guilty of some fairly clear hypocrisy.

----

The above is the criticism I would have made of your posts, but happened not to as I didn't want to get bogged down into the sort of argument you typically engage in. Do not assume that all criticism I make is aimed at you.

answer = 42

So, no response? Do you really have no argument? Why post empty polemic you are apparently unable (or unwilling) to defend? Are we to trust anything you say as being your true, considered opinion from now on, or are you just posting random attacks and insults in the hope a scatter-gun approach might put off people who disagree with your prejudices (I hesitate to describe your posts here as opinions, that woul imply you had formed some logical basis)?

Binos

Why do you post vacuous and pointless statements? If you have nothing to add to the debate except childish remarks, why not just leave it to the grown ups?

Unwell_Raptor
16th Sep 2005, 23:13
SC:


"I also think that (Blair's) invitation to the Cricketers is disingenuous. I think this only because he has never claimed any affection for cricket, always used his supposed support for football for political purposes "

You don't get it do you? The Prime Minister is our elected leader, and it is one of his duties to honour national success, in cricket or anything else. I have never heard that the Queen spends Saturday watching the footie results, but she still has receptions for winning teams and goes to the occasional Cup Final (or did before she became a little elderly).

You refer to my (in your words), "pro-Blairism, anti-Conservatism and pro-letter-of-the-law stance" and I am proud to accept your accolade. You are the only person outside of Militant, the IRA and Al-Quaeda who has ever regarded my support for the letter of the law as a criticism, rather than a matter of proud principle.

Burnt Fishtrousers
16th Sep 2005, 23:15
The Daily Mail ....soft strong and very absorbant

Send Clowns
16th Sep 2005, 23:24
U_R

No, it is you that don't get it. It is not Blair's duty to host random celebrities, to lie about his long-term passion for football and to treat a cricket team as if they are more important than Parliament. How id he fit them in to his flying visit to the UK, when he has a real job to do and often misses debates when parliament sits? Neither is it his duty to honour national success, that is the Queen's duty if anyone's, as you so rightly point out.

It is Blair's duty to run the country. He fails to do that.

Blind support for the letter of the law is as absurd as blind support for a political party. Laws can be just as foolish as political parties, after all at the moment political prejudices determine our laws. You proclaim proudly your hypocrisy, and fail even to attempt justification of criticism of others for having your own failings. You cannot have favour in the law as principle by the way, as it is subject to change without reference to you, therefore your "principle" is actually borrowed morality from your politcal masters. Principle is an internal code, refering only to what you , yourself, believe to be right.

Unwell_Raptor
16th Sep 2005, 23:44
Oh dear.

Even if I were to try to make some sense of that incoherent rant, I wonder how I and the many other pruners with judicial responsibilities of one sort or another are to judge cases in court if we accept your pliable and confused idea as to what constitutes the law.

PS:

I ran your sentence :"You proclaim proudly your hypocrisy, and fail even to attempt justification of criticism of others for having your own failings." past a couple of friends, each of whom is a graduate in the English language, and the best that either could manage by way of interpretation was "He is very cross, and probably drunk."

Sounds good to me.

SET 18
17th Sep 2005, 06:32
Binos, do you secretly agree with me or is your subsequent post (to mine) really what you mean?

Either way you support my argument well...Thanks.

Binoculars
17th Sep 2005, 08:24
Set18, Such is the wonderful nature of Pprune that you are free to take whatever view you like of what anybody else says. So though I have no idea what you are talking about, I'm happy that we are apparently in accord. :hmm:

eal401
17th Sep 2005, 11:43
5 pages slagging off the Mail.

You people seriously need a life! Keep it up and house prices will suffer!

Wedge
17th Sep 2005, 14:27
Only five pages? Not nearly enough.

It raises a smile the the PPRuNe 'liberals', of whom I am proud to call myself one, are viewed as 'Socialists', or 'left-wing' by the neo-cons.

While it's all a matter of context, there are certainly no Socialists here. On the other website I frequent I do have political debates with real Socialists, and of course to them I'm a fascist for being a Blairite. So for any of those whining on about how the 'left' always try to avoid the issue by belittling their opponent, you're welcome to come along anytime for a real right v left debate.

Anyway, the Daily Mail - always best to quote the brilliant Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie for a pithy observation:

Laurie dressed as the blue-rinse Tory wife:

"Oh no I'm very much a Daily Mail person. Well......I prefer it to a newspaper really." :E

Astrodome
17th Sep 2005, 15:04
Defintion of a fascist from a Google website : A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism Sounds very much like "New" Labour


Definition of a Neo-Con again from a Google website:
Neoconservatism is a controversial term whose meaning is widely disputed. Generally neoconservatives supported...more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives; civil equality for blacks and other minorities; and sympathy with a non-traditionalist agenda, being more inclined than other conservatives toward an interventionist foreign policy and a unilateralism that is sometimes at odds with traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law.
Neoconservatives are conservatives who are "new" (neo) to the conservative movement in some way. Usually, this comes as a result from the migration from the left of the political spectrum to the right, over the course of many years Sounds very much like Bliar and party?

The original neoconservatives, though not yet using this term, were generally liberals or socialists....... Multiple strands contributed to their ideas prior to becoming neoconservatives, including the Depression-era ideas of trade unionists and Trotskyists Sound familiar ?
According to Irving Kristol, former managing editor of Commentary and now a Senior Fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and the Publisher of the hawkish magazine The National Interest, a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality." Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative wrote that neoconservatism "originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ("Scoop") Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals." Lind further argues that "The organization as well as the ideology of the neoconservative movement has left-liberal origins". He draws a line from the center-left anti-Communist Congress for Cultural Freedom to the Committee on the Present Danger to the Project for the New American Century and adds that "European social democratic models inspired the quintessential neocon institution, the National Endowment for Democracy." In particular, Lind argues that the neoconservatives are influenced by the thought of Trotskyists such as James Burnham and Max Shachtman, who argued that "the United States and similar societies are dominated by a decadent, postbourgeois 'new class'". He sees the neoconservative concept of "global democratic revolution" as deriving from the Trotskyist Fourth International's "vision of permanent revolution". He also points to what he sees as the Marxist origin of "the economic determinist idea that liberal democracy is an epiphenomenon of capitalism", which he describes as "Marxism with entrepreneurs substituted for proletarians as the heroic subjects of history." As compared with traditional conservatism and libertarianism, which sometimes exhibites an isolationist strain, neoconservatism is characterized by an increased emphasis on defense capability, a willingness to challenge regimes deemed hostile "New" Labour ?
The traditional American conservative Claes Ryn has developed the critique that neoconservatives are actually what he calls a variety of neo-Jacobins. True conservatives deny the existence of a universal political and economic philosophy and model that is suitable for all societies and cultures, and believe that a society's institutions should be adjusted to suit its culture. Neo-Jacobins in contrast My God ! "New" Labour again ?

Finally.
Critics of the term argue that the word is overused and lacks coherent definition. For instance, they note that many so-called neoconservatives vehemently disagree with one another on major issues. They also point out that the meaning has changed over time. Whereas the term was originally used for former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but aggressively opposed the Soviet Union, now the term is primarily used to describe those who support an aggressive worldwide foreign policy. The term is also used to describe those who are accused of adopting a "unilateral" foreign policy rather than relying on United Nations consensus and actions.
Many of the men and women to whom the neoconservative label is applied reject it as artificial and too abstract. The fact that its use has rapidly risen since the 2003 Iraq War is cited by conservatives as proof that the term is largely irrelevant in the long term. David Horowitz, a purported leading neo-con thinker offered this critique in a recent interview with an Italian newspaper:-
Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today neo-conservatism identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.

Unwell_Raptor
17th Sep 2005, 15:27
Yes, fine, that's what some other people think.

What do - you - think then?

In your own words, if that isn't too much to ask.

Astrodome
17th Sep 2005, 15:42
Well it does rather tend to suggest that your average DM reader is neither a fascist nor a neo-con?

After all according to a number of people on here the average DM reader is to the right of Conan The Barbarian, and makes Attilla The Hun look Socialist by comparison?

That said it must follow that they cannot be neo-cons?

Is that enough original thought for you? Can I go back to reading the non-original posts of the others now?

:ok:

Binoculars
17th Sep 2005, 16:00
Today neo-conservatism identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.

Tell me, Astrodome, what do you think of motherhood in general?

That said it must follow that they cannot be neo-cons?
It must? Perhaps it arguably could if your quoted definition had any credibility, but the best you can do is "from a Google website"! Well, excuuuuse me!

Is this your definition of original thought?

X-QUORK
17th Sep 2005, 23:45
I reckon the average Daily Mail reader, whilst quite a nice person, probably isn't too bright. The only other explanation for otherwise good people reading such a pile of sh!te is that it provides them with the kind of tabloid crap that they need but middle class stigma rules them out of buying The Sun.

16 blades
18th Sep 2005, 04:52
I reckon the average Daily Mail reader, whilst quite a nice person, probably isn't too bright.

I guess you've never read it, then.

middle class stigma rules them out of buying The Sun.

Please explain how the 'Middle Class' get to be, or remain, middle class by not being 'too bright'. Congratulations, a complete contradiction in 2 sentences.

Monarchy loving white middle-England Tory

Wedge, please explain to me what is wrong with being:
1. In favour of the Monarchy
2. White
3. Middle Class
4. A Tory

...or is it that you are just a republican, racist, class-hating, Labour activist?

The fact that the Mail has so many of the pinkos up in arms at least says something about it's effectiveness as a news media - it's just very good at exposing lefty bullsh1t and obfuscation, and printing things the Left just don't want you to know. If it wasn't any good at this, it wouldn't cause the pinkos any consternation whatsoever.

Nice to see the left remaining true to type, by demonising, belittling and marginalising anything and anyone that isn't 'on message'. Odd to see those who claim to be 'liberals' doing exactly the same...

I've yet to see anything substantial (that isn't minor-issue nit picking) from the Mail-haters that shows their views to be anything other than a rant against those who do not wish to fall in line with their illogical world view.

The Daily Mail is the UK's second best-selling newspaper, pipped only marginally by the sun. Over the last 5 or so years, it has steadily increased it's circulation. It is also the most popular newspaper in every Officers' Mess I've lived or stayed in.

I guess you think Commisioned Officers in HM Forces aren't too bright, then........

16B

Gordon Fraser
18th Sep 2005, 11:22
16 Blades - Glad to see that at least one other person reads the second most popular daily in Britain. Today, its sister paper " The Sunday Mail " is guaranteed to raise some more pink leftwing ire.

Astrodome
18th Sep 2005, 11:52
Dear me !

All that vitriol and hate.

Surely it must be tiring?

And out of interest, you read the Daily Mail down there is deepest Australia?

Do tell ?

16 Blades Quite right but then where would we get our fun watching the Lefties foaming at the mouth and pouring out their hatred and scorn ?

Makes it all worthwhile at times !

Something has obviously touched a raw nerve with them. Maybe it is the praise heaped upon the Daily Mail by one of their own senior Cabinet Ministers ?

Just think whilst they are busy on here they are not annoying any other normal people.

Wedge
18th Sep 2005, 12:38
It is also the most popular newspaper in every Officers' Mess I've lived or stayed in.

Kind of says it all really. The fact that it is the most popular 'newspaper' in an institution which swears allegiance to Her Maj, and is trying very hard to shake off the image of institutional racism, and the country's colonial past, does not surprise me. In fact it demonstrates the point I was making: and answers your questions for you. But I will elucidate. You asked me what is 'wrong' with the following - note that I didn't say there was anything wrong with them but you've inferred that from somewhere:

1. In favour of the Monarchy - I said 'monarchy loving' - which is quite different. I find the obsequious tone of their articles on Royalty nauseating to the point of inducing vomit, that's all. Personally I am on the fence on the monarchy issue but would probably stop short of abolishing the inbred German alcoholics altogether.

2. White - Nothing, I'm white

3. Middle Class - Nothing, I'm middle class

4. A Tory - Nothing, just I'm not one.

I'm not quite sure how the Mail's popularity in some way goes to prove the 'quality' of it's reporting and editorial - it seems to be a boast of the DM readers that they are second only to The Sun readers in number. Again res ipsa loquitor - There is an appetite for tittle-tattle, biased editorial and Monarchy arse-kissing, and the Mail readers just consider themselves above the Red-Top gutter press. Their paper is still in the gutter, at least The Sun doesn't try to hide behind a veneer of respectability.

Just think whilst they are busy on here they are not annoying any other normal people.

Best Daily Mail reader comment of the day goes to Astrodome :E Thanks for the laugh.:ok:

Binoculars
18th Sep 2005, 13:57
Astrodome, in case you hadn't noticed, I didn't mention the Daily Mail. I most certainly would not read it if I lived in England, nor would I read the Mirror or the Sun, but but it has more to do with the sickening insult to the intelligence of their tabloid style than with their politics. For anybody to quote circulation figures as support is equally insulting. Why didn't you or 16Blades mention the News of the World as even further evidence?

No, I simply pointed out that your post was nothing but hot air, quoting vague and frankly ludicrous non-sources and attempting to invest them with some sort of legitimacy because you found them on Google. If you call that hate and vitriol, perhaps you should find a new forum. I can do a LOT better than that.

:rolleyes:

BenThere
18th Sep 2005, 17:14
Call them whatever you want, Neo-con, Righty-Hatie, Republican, Christian-Democrat, Libertarian, their view is ascending throughout the world. That view supports capitalism, democracy, free-trade, world order, and limits on government.

Call their opposite whatever you want, Liberal, Labor, Socialist, Leftie, Moonbat, their view is on the defensive, and they are losing power everywhere but in Western Europe, where the contest is inexorably getting closer. And now they appear to be losing power even in Germany, though they held Norway for the time being. New Zealand, long a walkover for Labor, held its majority by one seat. The voters of Japan issued a resounding victory for Koizumi and his program of dismantling state enterprise.

I can’t totally fault the left for its tactics of demonizing and ridiculing the right, because their logical arguments fall on the deaf ears of those who have lived through their implementation previously and know they don’t work. Yet the more reliance they place on these strategies, the more accelerated their demise. The right spent decades ‘in the wilderness’ in America, dwindling to less than a third of the electorate before it recognized the flaws in its makeup, which were racism, xenophobia, mean-spiritedness, elitism – and eliminated them, staking their new claim for legitimacy on Reaganism, the power of capitalism, self-reliance, freedom, and limits on government’s proper role in individual lives. Those worthy ideals launched them to power and forced the left in America into the defensive crouch from which today it fights for its survival.

Concurrently, the public information institutions controlled by the left, academe, network television and news, leading established newspapers and newsmagazines, are under attack by the Academic Bill of Rights now gaining mass constituency, internet and blog journalism, and AM talk radio (the home of news radio in the US). Virtually all of the creative and visionary solutions to the problems of the world are coming from the right, and it is the right which is stimulated by events to point out the validity of its approach with the best writers and interpreters of the mien. The strong convictions expressed today are from Victor Davis Hanson, Mark Steyn, and Krauthammer, not Sidney Blumenthal, Michael Moore, and Paul Krugman.

Have you observed even on Pprune, that the depth of expression and energy to give effort to one’s writing is almost always on the right side of the spectrum, and usually answered with ridicule or an attempt to discredit from the left-leaning writers. There are exceptions, of course, and certainly thoughtful writing from Binos, Dave Martin, Caslance and many others on the left, but isn’t the premise essentially obvious?

We are all socialists to a degree. If a community hires one policeman, or opened one library, it has set foot on the socialist continuum. That collectivist organization is necessary to some degree is not at issue. The issue is to what degree. I say it should be no more than 25% of the product of the community, a point above which government starts to become the ruler, rather than the servant, of the people. A country where the government take is more than 50% is not, in my opinion, a free country, but a collection of dependents.

tony draper
18th Sep 2005, 17:25
The ability to read is not a prerequisit for those that take the Sun or the Mirror.
:rolleyes:

Wedge
18th Sep 2005, 17:29
That's a very well thought out and argued post Ben - slightly takes us away from the Daily Mail bashing theme of the thread.

As I said earlier, it is all a matter of degrees, I am a 'left-winger' here but in the wider scheme I am far from on the left - a progressive Social Democrat would be the way I'd describe my political ideology, I'm certainly not a Socialist.

Which brings me on to :

because their logical arguments fall on the deaf ears of those who have lived through their implementation previously and know they don’t work.

This assertion is too broad based and not nearly specific enough in my view. Which 'logical arguments' are you referring to, and whose? If you mean straight Marxism/Old style Socialism, augmentation of government and re-distributative tax policy, I would agree with you that those policies 'don't work' in the real world. I don't know of anyone on this website who purports to hold such a viewpoint: I do know of many on other websites who do. Like you, ideologically I would never tax at more than 49%, although I would increase the top level beyond the 40% which it currently stands at for very high earners (eg those earning over £150K p/a).

One only has to look at the destruction wreaked by Hurricane Katrina on the predominantly poor, Afro-Carribbean population of New Orleans for evidence that the Reaganite/Neo-Conservative system doesn't work either in the real world, which is why I am where I am in the geo-political landscape.

You are correct that the political landscape is moving to the right, for better or worse, which makes the complaints of some on this thread that their viewpoints are being stifled by 'the left' all the more bizarre. The Daily Mail is merely a symptom of the problem of the political immaturity, and unwillingness to move towards greater equity, of the majority of the British electorate.

Onan the Clumsy
18th Sep 2005, 17:40
Call them whatever you want, Neo-con, Righty-Hatie...That would be rightie/hatie © 2004 Caslance :ok:

West Coast
18th Sep 2005, 17:52
Being a luvvie I'm sure Cas wouldn't mind it being used minus his express consent. Now a good right wing, gun toting, God Fearing Capitalist like myself would like remuneration if I had a copyright or patent on it.

Those damn neocon Capitalists are ruining it.

Send Clowns
18th Sep 2005, 19:48
U_R

If you bother to actually read my post it makes no comment on "...what constitutes the law...". Therefore how do you assess my idea to be pliable or confused? Or were you just making that up?

Of course you are not going to understand what I write if you don't bother to read it; it makes complete sense, read in conjunction with the aguments you made (unlike your post, which refers to my having addressed a post I never made any mention of). I think other people would doubt your ability to carry out your judicial duties i you can't understand what I said!

Your friends clearly deserve their degrees no more than you deserve your position. It is quite clear that I believe that what you post is hypocritical. You proclaimed your hypocrisy (unthinking support for one political viewpoint and for laws enacted by politicians, many of which are politcally devisive, while criticising the Mail editorial team for unthinking support of different political viewpoint) proudly, by your own admission. You say other people have failings you seem to have, as described above. You don't try to justify that assertion. It was quite a straight-forward sentence. It was also much more concise than this paragraph.

I suspect that your insults of my mde of expression are just a desperate smokescreen to hide the fact that you have no response. I do not believe for a moment that you are actually unable to understand what I originally said. You claim to have a responsible job that requires intelligence, and I have never doubted you.

Astrodome
18th Sep 2005, 19:51
I am only bothering to answer your last post as I am bored and need to bring a little levity to the evening.

In an earlier era I did give some people on here the credit for being able to take an opposing view, but then to look at the particular points of an arguement (the debate that is), and maybe accept a modification of their viewpoint.

I have myself been known to debate a view and then moderate my own views in the light of the debate.

I always try to bring factual evidence in support of my arguements. In many cases not being the intellectual 'heavyweight with an all encompassing knowledge that those such as you obviously have, like many others who seek facts, I defer to the use of the Internet. Obviously in your eyes this is something worthy of scorn? Why let facts and knowledge spoil a good old hatefest?

Amazingly I was led to understand that that was the whole point of the internet, a method of gaining and transferring knowledge.

I have long since given up any pretence of believing that those of a Left wing view point are prepared to listen, debate or modify their viewpoint.

In fact quite the opposite. The Left behave in a particular fashion. It generally runs along the lines of "I am right (should I say correct as the R word tends to infuriate?), you are wrong. It does not matter one iota what fact you bring to the debate, you will always be wrong. In holding an opposing viewpoint to myself you are therefore a Right Wing bigot, a capitalist, a fascist, a neo-con, with no social conscience".

Any of this sound familiar ?

To some of your points now

your post was nothing but hot air, quoting vague and frankly ludicrous non-sources and attempting to invest them with some sort of legitimacy because you found them on Google. You scorn my use of Google, that is your privilege and you are free to do so. On that basis I presume you will not be using an internet derived data in support of any future arguements? What is after all sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander? Or maybe not ?

As to "non-sources" clearly your rant has left you somewhat tired and emotional. The sources are quite easily found and you may be surpised at their position within the intellectual and Political establishment.

"Legitimacy" - I have proven to my satisfaction that Neo-Cons started out life on the LEFT of the political spectrum. Maybe a little soul searching is called for by some?

I most certainly would not read it if I lived in England, nor would I read the Mirror or the Sun, but but it has more to do with the sickening insult to the intelligence of their tabloid style than with their politics Interesting words from someone who openly admits to making an observation on newspapers they have not read? I will pass on the legitimacy of that.

For anybody to quote circulation figures as support is equally insulting. I didn't, others did. I believe the purpose of that was to demonstrate that a substantial majority of people feel sufficiently inclined to buy the Daily Mail, ergo they must agree with its position. I believe that somebody mentioned the increasing sales figures of that publication. That surely says something?, even to you ? or are all those people just plain wrong and you are correct?...OOopps I forgot ! You haven't read it have you? so an unfair question !

Why didn't you or 16Blades mention the News of the World as even further evidence? Evidence of what? That publication is part of the Murdoch empire, which appears to have quite a considerable interest in supporting Bliar. Interestingly enough I find I am being handed complimentary copies of The Times everytime I travel, particualrly on what are laughingly known as "Virgin Trains". Sad how such a once impartial paper has descended.

If you call that hate and vitriol, perhaps you should find a new forum. I can do a LOT better than that. I am quite sure you can.

Wedge I don't agree with your prepositions however I will say that in your last post you at least demonstrated the ability to marshall the basis of a preposition to the debate.

I thank you for finding amusement in my post, maybe all is not lost on some of my readers?

Your assertion that I am a Daily Mail reader suggests a political blindfold, which I have to tell you is wrong. There are one or two Labour politicians whom I admire, and I count one of whom I think highly as being Gwyneth Dunwoody. I have spoken with the lady several times and have much admiration for her and her abilities. Interestingly it was the Bliar and his cotery in the LABOUR party who attempted to have her removed as Chairwoman of the Transport Select Committee. I seem to recall much opposition to this from the CONSERVATIVE opposition.

Send Clowns
18th Sep 2005, 20:34
By the way, U_R, I have just noticed that you have ceased to make any attempt to justify your original post, after persuading me to comment upon it. Does that mean you accept that you were making ridiculous complaints?

I am not talking here about the qualities of the Mail in general, before you make some case against that, but in the specific articles to which you referred. Your defence so far of the criticism of them is very weak. Could this be part of the knee-jerk anti-conservatism from which I suggested you suffer: anything the Mail says must be deserving of contempt?

Onan the Clumsy
18th Sep 2005, 22:22
Are you all really spending time discussing ... The Daily Mail ?

:ugh:

BenThere
18th Sep 2005, 22:52
There are no ROEs forbidding thread creep. It's natural, no preservatives, and facilitates the primordial instincts of our minds to wander.

If the Daily Mail does not deliver the goods for its readers, fewer and fewer will buy it, advertisers will pay less and less, and justice will ultimately be done. This is an on-going process. Ask former employees of Life magazine and the Saturday Evening Post. It's happening today to even the mighty New York Times and Newsweek, among many others, in the States today.

No one is forced to read it. If it is no more than a constant rant on Tony Blair, it will soon become tiresome to even those who detest him. One day, he'll go away, and then where will the Daily Mail be? It's not a one-sided battle, either, as Mr. Blair seems to be more than holding his own.

Unwell_Raptor
18th Sep 2005, 22:57
SC - There were kids like you in the playground at my primary school, you know. Obnoxious, but persistent.

"Does that mean you accept that you were making ridiculous complaints?"

Nah.

Silly question gets straight answer.

16 blades
18th Sep 2005, 23:15
and is trying very hard to shake off the image of institutional racism

Thank you Wedge.....you have just proven, far more conclusively than I ever could, one of my points - that the Left always respond to criticism of their policies and fundamental premises with an attempted slur, because they largely have nothing of substance to say.

Please provide evidence, with quoted examples, of anybody substantiating an accusation that the UK armed forces are or have been 'institutionally racist'. I think you may be confusing us with the Metropolitan Police - perhaps you need to read a better-written newspaper?

You asked me what is 'wrong' with the following - note that I didn't say there was anything wrong with them but you've inferred that from somewhere:

1. In favour of the Monarchy - I said 'monarchy loving' - which is quite different. I find the obsequious tone of their articles on Royalty nauseating to the point of inducing vomit, that's all. Personally I am on the fence on the monarchy issue but would probably stop short of abolishing the inbred German alcoholics altogether.

2. White - Nothing, I'm white

3. Middle Class - Nothing, I'm middle class

4. A Tory - Nothing, just I'm not one.
Perhaps I 'inferred' your meaning from the tone of your post, which was, after all, a vitriolic slur. Let me remind you of what you wrote:
It is easy to belittle newspapers you don't like, yes.

The Daily Mail falls far short of being a newspaper.

Monarchy loving white middle-England Tory newsletter is a better description.
If that is not belittling white middle-class Tory Monarchists, I don't know what is. But then again, this seems to be the favourite sport of the pinkos - attacking and belittling those who have the independence and intellect to see through their bullsh!t - in other words, their biggest threat.

16B

eal401
19th Sep 2005, 07:13
I reckon the average Daily Mail reader, whilst quite a nice person, probably isn't too bright
Sounds like just the sort of sweeping generalisation you'd read in the Daily Mail, hahahaha.....oh.......

Binoculars
19th Sep 2005, 13:04
I have myself been known to debate a view and then moderate my own views in the light of the debate.

Pray, Astrodome, show me just one example. Please?

You make the fatal mistake of assuming that because I find your arguments poorly expressed I am that dreaded embodiment of your deepest fears, a lefty. Shock horror!

This personal disagreement is achieving little in terms of the thread, but I'm quite happy to take it up with you in private and show you a lot of examples which will make you question your glib assumption. You may even find tht I am in broad agreement with some of what you say. I've had conservatives call me a socialist and vice versa on this forum.

The old "oh dear, this is becoming so tewwibly boring old bean" line does you no favours.

BenThere
19th Sep 2005, 13:24
Maybe Astrodome is like me, moderating his views, but ever further to the right as key elements of the left continue to place the subversion of the Bush administration alone at the top of their priorities.

I've become convinced that the last things the left wants to see, as long as Bush is president, are:

1. Successful democracies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon
2. The rapid rebuilding of New Orleans
3. N. Korea implementing nuclear disarmament
4. A continually growing US economy
5. Leaders who aligned with Bush re-elected while those aligned with the opposition are thrown out by their electorates.
6. Lower tax rates working
7. Deep Red state Texas absorbing 200-300,000 Blue Louisiana refugee voters making Louisiana a solid Red state endangering the futures of its Democratic Governor, Senator, and Mayor of NO.
8. Peace in Israel/Palestine

Binoculars
19th Sep 2005, 13:51
BenThere, perhaps what you say boils down to the flowon effect from the personal slanging matches that seem to be part and parcel of political arguments.

I personally would love to see 1,2,3,4 and 8. 5 and 7 are of no personal concern relating as they do to domestic politics.

As regards 6, I have waited for a long time to be convinced of the fact that lower tax rates can ever produce the "trickle down effect", which I consider a myth. Like socialism, it assumes the best in human nature and freedom from corruption, and is as unrealistic as socialism in that regard.

I recognise that America has a much longer tradition of philanthropy than Australia, as I see it because the American welfare system fails so many people that private and tax deductible donations are the only way a social revolution can be stopped.

But I can also say that from my point of view, when private enterprise has been offered taxation concessions in Australia over the last twenty years, rather than use those concessions to employ more people, put on apprentices, fulfil a social obligation, the reaction has been "we needed these cuts just to get us back to where we used to be". They have taken the money and run off with it.

I have often held forth on this forum about the concept of accepting personal responsibility. It is a tenet close to my heart in all sorts of ways, not just economically. Middle class welfare ripoffs are one of my pet hates; those people are beyond contempt in my view. That view makes me, in turn, beyond contempt from the point of view of my far left sister. We can barely acknowledge each other's views.

So it annoys me when smarmy right wingers whose views on every subject in the world I could predict with 90% certainty call me a pinko, or whatever the insult du jour is.

It is also why I relish the prospect of talking to people like BenThere, Con-pilot, Huck, Nani, Flying Lawyer, etc, though in most cases it won't come to pass. I'd also like to raise a jar with Wino despite his ludicrous "chump change" assertion.

In short, I enjoy talking to people who acknowledge that grey is a colour in itself. People with smug self-certainty on either side of politics bore me shitless.


(err, what was the question again?) :confused: :confused:

Paterbrat
19th Sep 2005, 15:25
What does seem to be undisputable is the ability of the Daily Mail to raise the blood pressure and uncork the bile from those anti-US anti-Royal left wing followers of PC and leftist junk who all despite their profound distaste for it always somehow seem to know it's content.
The fact that it unerringly targets the weakness corruption and general ineptness of the present left wing government, who have been degrading the family values, standards of education and general Britishness of the UK for it's socialist view of a bright new 'multicultural' world, only serves to drive those followers into a foaming rage.
It is the proverbial red rag to the bullheaded hard left whose greatest desire is to have everyone down to a level of grey mediocraty

Binoculars
19th Sep 2005, 15:30
Paterbrat, dare I suggest that after that post it is in fact you who are "driven into a foaming rage"?

Is grey (as opposed to black and white) an indicator of mediocrity per se?

Send Clowns
19th Sep 2005, 16:40
U_R

Reduced to the level of pathetic, baseless insults? Is that not surely a further sign that you have lost the argument? Of course you are going to find someone obnoxious if they catch you without any argument to put forward in a debate, but surely that is your issue not mine. I knew kids at school, usually not very bright and without the size to use force, who were reduced in frustration in disagreements to childish name calling, because they had no other way of expressing themselves.

I challenge you again - why can someone not agree with a complaint yet deplore the methods of expressing that complaint? In addition you have given very weak justification for your opinion that Blair is beyond criticism in taking the reflected glory of the England cricket team. Where is your answer to the points I and others have made?

Your posts empty of meaningful comment suggests you have no answer, in which you must accept either that you were wrong in the first place or that your opinion is based simply on prejudice against the Mail. Unless you have further arguments one or the other must, by simple logic, be the case.

You say that my question was silly, when it was really rather an obvious and apt question. It is, in fact, vital to the sense of the thread, to see if you still believe the statements you made in the initial post, despite not answering when they are shown to be to all appearances quite ill-thought-out.

It seeems to be rather a general case that you are reduced to ridicule as your only debating tactic, not only remarkably childish but also completely dishonest.

Binoculars
19th Sep 2005, 16:50
Jesus, I tried to read that post three times and fell asleep every time.

BenThere
19th Sep 2005, 16:55
There is plenty of foaming rage to go around isn't there? Much of it is from the right, but the masters of the art are the MoveOn, Daily Kos, Michael Moore heathens on the left. On my best day I wouldn't attempt to engage their wrath.

As for trickle down economics versus The Great Society you need only look at US economic performance from 1964 to the present.

I maintain that the impact of an administration does not begin to take effect until two years after inaugeration and remains in effect until two years after the opposition takes office. That impact is further tempered by the makeup of Congress.

LBJ took power upon Kennedy's death. The Great Society was born, along with the age of inflation, higher tax rates, and chronic high unemployment. Not until the Reagan tax cuts of the early eighties did inflation recede to less than 3% and unemployment to less than 5%. The Great Society did not alleviate poverty, improve education or reduce unemployment. It was a total failure, and many of its detrimental effects plague us today, brought to the world's attention in New Orleans.

Send Clowns
19th Sep 2005, 16:59
Well, Binos, some people only post soundbites, others post structured arguments when required.

Some people understand that soundbites are completely pointless rhetoric unless they can be justified with structured arguments. Others don't realise that, which is why they can support Tony Blair and friends, the masters of soundbites on which they refuse to expand and to which they refuse to be held accountable.

WE Branch Fanatic
19th Sep 2005, 20:22
I once wrote a letter to the Daily Mail, which they published, but changed it arond it bit, perhaps as my original criticised them.

It was about the premature retirement of the Sea Harrier (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152. ) and the loss of organic air defence for RN/UK task groups - as discussed (at length) on the above link.

Yes, I criticised them as well as the rotten Government we have....

Unwell_Raptor
19th Sep 2005, 20:41
My original post read (in its entirety apart from one familiar quotation) :-

"I have just had a look at the Mail website and read the leader which pours bile on Tony Blair for having the effrontery to welcome the England cricketers to no. 10.

What, I wonder would the Mail have said if he had not done so?

In another piece the paper talks about the fuel protests and, in a prime example of weasel words, says that it can never condone illegality ---- but ---- you have to understand the protesters' point.

Yuck."

I am not going to insult anyone's intelligence by expanding what that means. It's perfectly simple and in plain English - but how on earth could anyone infer all the wild stuff in posts above about my so-called views and so-called assertions from that straightforward criticism of a newspaper's editorial bias?

Paterbrat
20th Sep 2005, 11:20
Binos, how very droll.

"Paterbrat, dare I suggest that after that post it is in fact you who are "driven into a foaming rage"?
Is grey (as opposed to black and white) an indicator of mediocrity per se?"

If my humble post in it's few lines was indicative of 'foaming rage' then how emotive have been some of your submissions. Words simply fail me and I quail at the impssibility of the task you set before me.

Grey is indeed a commonly understood indicator of mediocrity, I am surprised that you did not realise this, you had always given at least some indications of intelligence before now.

The length of the post has always seemd to me to be some indicator of it's interest/ baiting value and this thread begun by U_R is of course no exception. I have always been fascinated by the response of the self appointed guardians of our morality who seem to 'know' how crap the contents of this particular news vendors publication are.

Your boredom and narcolepsy by other submissions aside, your assiduous persistance together with that of the other heroic and stalwart companions in the fight for truth, light, reconcilliation to the 'only way forward' in the onerous but worthy task of converting us all on this thread to the content of said newspaper, is highly commendable. Do keep up the good work. No doubt readers will in due time be converted by your dilligent and careful pointing out of the utter worthlesslness of the paper, and converted to the way of grace enjoyed by those who shun and abhor the said disgrace

The one question I would pose to those protectors of all that is good and proper (and of course PC) in this 'Brave New World' of ours is this, what are the readership figures of this particular publication as compared to other purveyors of the 'truth' and then ask a one word question of themselves. Why?

Binoculars
20th Sep 2005, 11:59
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Goodness, have you had a long lunch, Paterbrat? Let's leave aside your personal insults and address a couple of your points.

Grey is an example of mediocrity? As you wish, my good man; it is not one of my favourite colours, but it accurately describes something between black and white, and metaphorically that is what we are talking here. I expressed a view that subjects are rarely black or white. If you wish to disagree with that, fine.

I am utterly fascinated by your second last paragraph. Even by your somewhat verbose standards, it stands as a classic which I will attempt to decipher over the next couple of days.

Meanwhile, the brief answer to the question posed in your last paragraph was given by P.T.Barnum well before my time; "Nobody ever went bankrupt underestimating public taste".

I'll repeat it here because somebody else apparently didn't understand when I mentioned it before: if circulation were the indicator of quality journalism , I believe the News of the World is the greatest news journal in the world.

I'll also repeat something else I have said before ; whether it's the Daily Mail or the Daily Mirror or the Sun doesn't interest me. Their political slants are irrelevant. It's tabloid journalism in general that sickens me.

Paterbrat
20th Sep 2005, 12:12
Oooooooh Binos, what a quick riposte. You must have been lurking in this terrible thread.

"Even my your somewhat verbose standards" ?????

Yes indeed both of us do tend to pomposity, I believe it is the lust for self entertainmanent that does it.

Attempt to decipher over the next few days? My my, a confession of your speed of comprehension, dearie me, ah well old age does take it's toll on all of us.

News of the Screws is indeed is a highly sought after publication which only goes to show how many of the public are more interested in simple lust sex and gossip than serious matters?? rather than politics and the governance of the country. A sad commentry of the majority who in the democratic priciple govern what goes on in this fair country of ours:\

Agreement we appear to have, tabloid journalism sucks, trouble is what takes it's place?

Binoculars
20th Sep 2005, 12:16
Not surprising to me that once again we are not far from agreement, PB. I just couldn't fathom why you felt it necessary to equate circulation with quality when it appears now that even you don't believe it? Not a cheap point scoring exercise, was it?

I'm happy reading a selection of broadsheets, you can please yourself. We all tend to read whatever makes us feel comfortable in the final analysis.

Paterbrat
20th Sep 2005, 12:20
Have always done so myself since my education to that fact in HM forces who required daily reading of a range of viewpoints upon which one then hoped to find a spread from which one extracted a possible conclusion of what might have happened.

I know it was a bit of a long sentance but you get the drift I am sure.

P.S. poke it with a pointed object it reacts.

Binoculars
20th Sep 2005, 12:23
a veritable aphorism compared to the paragraph previously mentioned... :8

Paterbrat
20th Sep 2005, 12:26
My dear fellow any briefer and we won't be speaking.:rolleyes:

BenThere
20th Sep 2005, 12:44
daily reading of a range of viewpoints upon which one then hoped to find a spread

You touched on an important point, Paterbrat. You have to read a range of publications, surf the net, and watch broadcast news from a variety of sources to get the depth of any complex event. And once you have chosen your side, Sun-Tzu would have advised you to continue to peruse the outlets from the opposite slant as a form of knowing the enemy.

As for shades of grey, a smart guy once said (how's that for eschewing Google) that the one or two percent of extremists have driven history. The greats who made our world, such as Jesus, Hitler, Jefferson, Mohammed, Lenin, Ghandi - couldn't they all be characterized as such?

But for the more mundane of us who have missed our chance to change the world, but pay our taxes and vote, it is left to us to try to know the facts and make our informed choices as to where we choose to stand on the issues.

I like to think of myself as a weight on the pendulum. As it swings too far left, I hang on the right. This is where I think we are today. If the right wing really assumed total control, and started trying to ban sex and make me go to church, you would find my weight hanging on the left. Such is moderation.

Binos and I have complimented each other on our mutual agreement that, though we disagree often, we value the discourse we share as gentlemen. And we respect each other. I can always count on folks like Lima or Alpha Junk to pipe in with a shorthand "Mission Accomplished" or "No WMD", which adequately expresses both the basis and depth of his thoughts, but I treasure a well-written paragraph of original thought, which is why I spend so much time on Jetblast.

To summarize this windy, pompous post of mine, the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Guardian, and every other media news and comment source have their place. It is up to us to know and understand what they are saying in order that we figure out for ourselves what to say.

Cheers,

Send Clowns
20th Sep 2005, 13:23
Unwell_Raptor

It is also plain English when I asked why the Mail could not agree with someone's aims while disapproving of their methods.

I have also pointed out that Blair meeting cricketers in his brief stay in the country was both unnecessary and a continuation of Blair's use of and obsession with the famous and the cult of celebrity. Had it been an isolated incident then the Mail would have been rather unfair, and I would probably agree with you. As it is I would not necessarily agree with them, but I would also say they are making a reasonable point, one I thank you for bringing to our attention. Certainly as a newspaper with no requirement of impartiality I would say that criticism of the Mail over that issue is rather ridiculous.

You have not answered either point with anything but insults and arrogant affront that I should dare question your opinion, nor have you accepted that your complaint of that might be wrong.

Can you defend your opinion with any argument that is more meaningful than it is indignant?

--

As a side issue, if you are going to criticise the Mail, how about other newspapers? Or do you just criticise those whose viewpoint does not match your own? How about the Mirror taking an article by Tim Collins that carefully argues that we should stay in Iraq, and putting it under a headline claiming he says we should pull out? Plain lies about their own article by a well-respected commander, much more of a concern is it not?

Astrodome
20th Sep 2005, 18:01
if you are going to criticise the Mail, how about other newspapers? Or do you just criticise those whose viewpoint does not match your own? How about the Mirror Oh dear old chap !
They could never possibly do that, after all it is a Bliarite rag, a Left wing paper and thus is obviously a shining light in moderation and accuracy?

Why one must always trust that a Left wing paper will always, by virtue of that fact, occupy the moral high ground. And a Left wng paper would never lie or mislead would it now ? Surely not ? Of course not !

That is of course putting minor and forgivable errors such as printing fake pictures of torture in Iraq, or even swindling pensions ?Edited to correct spelling mistake

Unwell_Raptor
20th Sep 2005, 18:43
Oh, SC, source of so much innocent merriment among we who stand branded as lefty intellectuals!

I have been watching the BBC4 reruns of the superb Pride and Prejudice (mmm - Jennifer Ehle!) and I recall the words of Mr. Bennett, which , suitably amended, apply to you, dear Mr. Clowns (or may I call you Send?) :-

"That will do extremely well. You have delighted us long enough. Let the other young chaps have time to exhibit their talents."

Send Clowns
20th Sep 2005, 21:17
Ah, so you can't back up your original post with any coherent argument. You use pointless bluster to hide the fact - more dishonesty in debating technique, typical of the left - but that much is obvious to anyone with any intelligence. Why did you not just accept that you were wrong 3 pages ago? Would have saved you much humiliating twisting and turning and refusing to answer direct questions. You clearly now accept that you were wrong.

Wedge
21st Sep 2005, 00:03
Using lazy and inaccurate epithets like 'pinko', 'PC luvvie', 'liberal' in a derogatory sense (when in fact it differentiates them from conservatives, who by definition justify their own political viewpoint by virtue of the fact their privileged position depends on another's under-privileged position). Attempts to divert the debate from the real issues and inconsistencies in their arguments by firing off accusations of dishonesty. Tedious misguided whining about how their opinions are 'stifled' in today's 'PC' climate.

All typical tactics of the 'right'.

16 blades
21st Sep 2005, 00:35
Attempts to divert the debate from the real issues and inconsistencies in their arguments
Which are.......?
their privileged position depends on another's under-privileged position
And your problem with this is......what, exactly?

16B

West Coast
21st Sep 2005, 02:51
"As regards 6, I have waited for a long time to be convinced of the fact that lower tax rates can ever produce the "trickle down effect", which I consider a myth"

I am at the little end. Those tax cuts allowed my company to hire additional workers that we otherwise wouldn't.

Send Clowns
21st Sep 2005, 07:56
Wedge

Who used those terms? Not sure who you are addressing.

How do you defend your broad argument against conservative politics when you clearly have no idea what conservative politics mean? You are using Marx's definition, which is partly inaccurate and partly more than a century out of date. Are you one of those people that thinks that communism is still relevant as a political creed? Interesting that now it is most obviously in communist countries that you can accurately say that people's "... privileged position depends on another's under-privileged position...".

You are making an assumption that a conservative viewpoint is politically incorrect. You are using that assumption to try and stifle debate. Therefore you prove that such suggestions are not misguided, but that your own argument is.

Binos

Lower taxes produce higher tax receipts to quite a low tax level, recent evidence from Europe and the USA suggests to much lower tax levels than previously thought. The trickle-down effect does work whether you believe in it or not (like evolution works despite creationists' disbelief). It is not as direct as those that argue against it assume, but unless those making more money keep it in a matress then it must work. Both of these are examples of lower taxes "working" in the USA, whether you are convinced or not.

Paterbrat
22nd Sep 2005, 18:24
Nub of the matter is the Daily ******Mail as U_R puts it, manages to daily bring up issues which highlight the consistant inconsistancies of the present government's policies. These and the highlights of it's fairly inept and bumbling handling of the country over the term of office. All of which makes infuriating reading for those marching under the waving red banner.

Unwell_Raptor
22nd Sep 2005, 18:32
Er - the asterisks are the mods'. I posted 'effing' and I stand by that, given the criticism that I made in the original post (that nobody has addressed).

Bottom line - the Mail would have attacked TB whichever of the two options he had taken. True or false?

Astrodome
22nd Sep 2005, 18:46
I personally would consider that a number of people on here have attempted to address the point made in your original post. Flying Lawyer for one.

Or maybe your point refers to ? You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British journalist . Do you really need an answer to that ?

Unwell_Raptor
22nd Sep 2005, 19:18
So what's your answer? Yes, or no?

Send Clowns
22nd Sep 2005, 19:46
Tell you what Unwell_Raptor, I can't get an answer out of you any other way, so I'll descend to your level, see if we can have a conversation down in the playground.

I asked first, so you answer first.

Do you (a) have some reasoned argument to defend your original post* or (b) accept that you were wrong to criticise the Mail for one or both of these pieces (not as a general principle, for these specific articles, as you emphasise that is the subject of the thread).

When you tell me (a) or (b), with the argument expressed if the answer is (a), then I will answer your question to the best of my ability.

* and I mean explain why the Mail could not agree with someone's aims while disapproving of their methods, and why they should not criticise Blair for another example of his using celebrity to political advantage on his brief visit to London.

Astrodome
22nd Sep 2005, 19:49
If you want the answer to that then look at a scandal in recent years where "financial" journalists in a certain Left wing newspaper were tipping certain companies whose shares they had purchased.

On the basis of these "tips" the gullible punter purchased said shares with obvious rewards to thoise journalists. I believe that a certain Left wing editor was involved as well.

If you care to read the Private Eye 'Street of Shame' section on a regular (or even irregular) basis you will find plenty of evidence to provide an answer

FirstOfficer
22nd Sep 2005, 20:09
The Guardian is the only newspaper worth reading :ok:

Send Clowns
22nd Sep 2005, 20:38
You mean the one that employs a reporter who is an anti-semitic supporter of terrorists? At least until other people find out, then they attack the people who warn them and for good measure sack the reporter; finally his editor resigns too.

BenThere
22nd Sep 2005, 20:47
The Guardian is the only newspaper worth reading

Obviously you're joking First Officer. You'd be surprised, though, that there are actually more than a few myopic morons out there who really think that's a fact.

Astrodome
22nd Sep 2005, 20:47
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You cannot hope to bribe or twist (thank God!) the British journalist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How about this little matter?

The Media section of the May 27 200 Guardian carried this story by former Daily Mirror editor Roy Greenslade.


Under the heading “Sorry, Arthur”, Greenslade apologises for his role in a media witch-hunt conducted against the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) in the aftermath of the 1984-85 national strike. The articles published in 1990 alleged that NUM president Arthur Scargill had paid off the mortgage on his house with money donated by Libya. The newspaper claimed that at the height of the strike, Scargill had counted out £70,000 from money supposed to go to strikers and their families, to clear his £25,000 home loan from the NUM, along with those of two other officials, the then general secretary Peter Heathfield, and then chief executive Roger Windsor.

Windsor, along with Scargill’s former driver/minder, Jim Parker, subsequently approached the Daily Mirror, securing cash deals of £50,000 for their stories. Greenslade reveals that when he took over as editor from Richard Stott in February 1990, an investigation that had been underway for some months, code-named Operation Cyclops, was nearing completion. At the same time, Central Television’s The Cook Report was conducting a similar inquiry.

With NUM assets still under court sequestration and the closure of most of Britain’s remaining coalmines in the pipeline, the allegations contained in the reports were a transparent attempt to discredit the NUM and justify the attacks on the miners. Firstly, the central leaders of the NUM were accused of corruption and a disregard for the suffering of their members. Secondly, the NUM was linked with Libya at a time when it was being denounced as terrorist state, thus justifying Thatcher’s categorisation of the miners as the “enemy within” and the refusal of either the Labour Party or the Trades Union Congress to mobilise industrial and political support behind the miners.

Greenslade now claims to have, “thought it inappropriate for the left-of-centre Mirror to target a trade union leader” and that “the copy presented to me was both impenetrable and lacking in substance.” “With the NUM's assets under sequestration during the strike, it had been entirely understandable for Scargill and his executive to use subterfuge to protect their funds,” Greenslade says in the Guardian article. His concerns notwithstanding, however, Greenslade went ahead and published the story to coincide with the broadcasting of The Cook Report.

Even after Gavin Lightman QC ruled that the mortgage story was “entirely untrue”, in an inquiry held at the NUM’s prompting, Greenslade chose to remain silent on how the story came to be run and on its dubious veracity. His article in the Guardian comes only after the highest court in France, the Cour de Cassation, ordered Windsor to repay a debt of £29,500 to the NUM. The ruling was the result of a long running case brought by the International Energy and Miner’s Organisation (IEMO), headed by Scargill, seeking to recover the £29,500 Windsor had admitted to having received from union funds. The IEMO had won its case in 1994, when a French court decided that Windsor had signed a mortgage deed. Four years later, two courts of appeal in Bordeaux upheld that judgment. On March 19 this year the Cour de Cassation also ruled against Windsor and he faces a bill for the loan, plus interest, costs and damages, estimated at £250,000.

Stating that the judgment of March 19 went unreported in Britain, “as did an NUM press release more than a month later that celebrated the court’s ruling,” Greenslade says:“Yet this case—and Windsor’s humiliation—deserve the widest possible audience because they are the culmination of a deplorable saga which goes some way to vindicating a wronged man: NUM president Arthur Scargill. Wronged by the press in general, by the Daily Mirror specifically and, since I was the editor, by me.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Intersting stuff eh ?

Unwell_Raptor
22nd Sep 2005, 20:56
May I refer the last few posters to my:-

"the Mail would have attacked TB whichever of the two options he had taken. True or false?"

That was and remains the question with which I started this thread.

For those who are hard of thinking, I shall simplify further.

The Mail attacked the Prime Minister because he welcomed the Ashes-winning cricketers to Downing Street during their triumphal parade.

I believe that if he had not so welcomed them the same newspaper would have attacked him for snubbing the triumphant cricketers.

Anyone disagree? Anyone think that the Mail would have praised TB for his silence?

What has amused me is the visceral response of so many posters who infer from my simple question an entire raft of opinions that I do not, for the most part, hold.

Astrodome
22nd Sep 2005, 21:03
An interesting website ?

Link to Guardian Lies (http://www.guardianlies.com/Contents.html)

UR You are being disingenuous. One cannot "prove" a negative, as you should well know. As many have tried to point out to you, Bliar has a long history of using any opportunity to ingratiate himself with the public at large. No opportunity is too small, no hurdle too high in that endeavour.

There are many many recorded instances of this, even his own Party members, MPs and Cabinet Ministers think similar.

The evidence is there if you care to see it.

Why only this week a former Labour Spin Doctor has revealed much about how Bliar operates. Condemnation of that from you came there none.

There is no reason why the Daily Mail should have praised Bliar for not seeing the cricket team, and to ask anyone to assert that they may have done is arrant nonsense.

You amongst a small minority on here use every opportunity to criticise those who have the affrontery to read the Daily Mail.

Your, and their, arrogance in suggesting that only a small coterie of yourselves have a valid opinion I find sickening. The suggestion that a small number of you hold the moral high ground is quite breathtaking.

There is a stench of arrogant eliteism about that, which if held by others, you would be one of the first to criticise

Unwell_Raptor
22nd Sep 2005, 21:30
"You amongst a small minority on here use every opportunity to criticise those who have the affrontery to read the Daily Mail."

Where? When?

Astrodome
22nd Sep 2005, 21:41
By the way, SC:- As is your wont you have managed to miss the original point. I criticised the Daily Mail, not its readers. The latter self-select into Club Idiot or Club Ranter, but it is the cynical masters of the newspaper who draw my ire, playing as they do on the credulity of the pretentious an the uneducated to elicit rage at - well, does it matter whom or what? Rage is an end in itself.

Unwell_Raptor
22nd Sep 2005, 21:51
Quite.








.

Astrodome
22nd Sep 2005, 22:04
Quite I have to admit to being unsure as to whether or not this constitutes an acceptance of my proof?

I would consider that Club Idiot or Club Ranter and the credulity of the pretentious criticism of Daily Mail readers, wouldn't you ?

Send Clowns
22nd Sep 2005, 22:55
Unwell_Raptor

You still haven't answered the points made against your first post; (a) or (b) U_R, (a) or (b).

Your question is, of course, unanswerable, which is perhaps why it gets no answer. You are asking for speculation about something we cannot possibly know, so people don't want to commit themselves, as that would be ridiculous. The consideration that the Mail might be unfair on the PM has been answered by good arguments that it has not, to which you don't deign to make a reply.

Astrodome

Interesting link about the Guardian. Goes to prove what I have always said about the Conservatives being less corrupt than the media made them out to be. Of course labour are also more corrupt than the media seem to let on, with the exception of the Telegraph and Private Eye.

Mr Chips
22nd Sep 2005, 23:16
Ok, I'll bite.

FALSE

I do NOT believe that the Daily Mail would have criticised the Prime Minister for not greeting the cricketers. Prove me wrong.

If you read the Daily Mail on a regular basis, you would see that they like to pick up on the Prime Minister's tendency to jump on the latest populist band wagon - I believe that the Rugby World Cup team's reception was rather hastily arranged and stepped on Buck House's toes

if you don't like the Daily Mail, don't read it. Simple.

The Sun/Mirror/Guardian/Times etc are so much more unbiased....

Foss
22nd Sep 2005, 23:53
Chips, U-R..
You could run it both ways, quite simply.

Blair jumps on bandwagon as spin doctors manipulate our boys in white in a desperate scramble for publicity
or
Blair ignores England triumph after bothering to come back from freebie holiday, then do another couple of pieces on whether Cherie owes cash for her pearls or how Tone was terrible at cricket at school and in fact only played basketball. (his school cricket coach has already spoken to the media)

Do a Sun type p1 headline..
'England such'n'such a score NOT OUT
Blair such'nsuch days on hols NOT IN'

If the aim is a bit of Blair bashing, it's immaterial if he met the team or not.

Send Clowns
23rd Sep 2005, 00:06
Foss

You're making it up. You could run it both ways, but they didn't. You wrote the headline to try and smear the Mail, thus showing your bias and hypocrisy. Not a valid argument to criticise someone for something you think they would have done under different circumstances. No offense meant, I was exagerating rather a lot, but see why U_R's question is so pointless?

The only sensible question that U_R could ask is whether the story is within the bounds of reasonable journalism (hence so many have answered that), and it clearly is. It is definitely not politically neutral, but then it does not claim to be and there is the core of a story that exposes a definite fault of the PM's, and with nothing untrue or desperately unfair. It is certainly not unacceptable as U_R would have us believe (although he refuses to say why).

Unlike say the Mirror's headline for the article by Tim Collins, which is in fact a lie. Yet U_R reserves his vitriol for the Mail, even when this case is pointed out along with the flaws in his own case that he has no answer for. Interesting is it not, to think that U_R might even be more politically biased than the Daily Mail.

Foss
23rd Sep 2005, 00:16
Send Clowns

What I was trying to demonstrate, which I'm sure everyone is able to do, is that is irrevelant.

The Mail have their agenda, as others do. They ran it as they did because that was what happened. I wasn't trying to smear the Mail, I was trying to smear Blair with a Sun/Mail style headline.

Yes, I agree there's a story there, but there would be a story no matter what Blair did, yes it's been given a twist, but that is what sells the Mail. Wouldn't expect anything else, it's their job. (not smearing).

What Collins headline did the DM get wrong, out of interest?

Send Clowns
23rd Sep 2005, 00:20
I think we are pretty much in agreement :)

The Mirror story (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16147106&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=pull-our-boys-out-of-iraq--says-col--tim-collins-inspirational-former-iraq-war-commander--name_page.html) is a piece by Colonel Collins, in which he effectively supports current government policy and says that civil war can be avoided in Iraq. The headline reads a little differently. Although technically it is not a complete lie, it is such a strong misrepresentation that it is really untrue. Notice also the wording of their quick vote poll.

Flying Lawyer
23rd Sep 2005, 00:23
U_R
"the Mail would have attacked TB whichever of the two options he had taken. True or false?"
False.
"I believe that if he had not so welcomed them the same newspaper would have attacked him for snubbing the triumphant cricketers. Anyone disagree."
Yes. I disagree.
"Anyone think that the Mail would have praised TB for his silence?"
No, I don't think it would; nor can I think of any reason why it or any other newspaper would or should.

Was "Quite" intended to be a concession that Astrodome won that point?
If not, why not?

Would posters be correct or incorrect if they infer that you are a Blair supporter?
And a 'New Labour' supporter?

I agree with the Mail's criticism of Blair for jumping on the bandwagon. I wasn't in the least surprised he did; it's what I've come to expect of him.
You can safely infer that I don't respect Blair. (I don't dislike him; he seems to be a perfectly pleasant chap.)

Foss
23rd Sep 2005, 00:28
Sends. Hmmm...

So we have to get out of Iraq, but in two years which is buried 5 pars from the end. Right.
sorry thread creep. back to to the Mail, gawd bless 'er.

Fos

Foss
23rd Sep 2005, 15:09
and back to the top..

Send Clowns.
Todays Daily Snail
Apologies in the paper over the Little Miss Naughty story.
(Sexualistion of pre teen girls)
Bhs withdrew the line of bras TWO years ago after a similar campaign.

There's biased journalism, then there's crap journalism.



I am completely non biased blah blah blah, and I'm not siding with anyone yadda yadda

Send Clowns
23rd Sep 2005, 15:47
That is pretty poor! Saw that one in the paper at he bank today (they only had the Mail) and thought I recognised it. See U_R, if you were patient there is plenty of genuinely poor journalism around in all the tabloids.

Unwell_Raptor
23rd Sep 2005, 19:04
Oh God! Are you still here?

I'm off to do myself in.

Send Clowns
23rd Sep 2005, 20:13
Errrrm, U_R you might notice that people are either anwering your question (hint, you might have the basic courtesy to answer mine, since you started our discussion by addressing me and I had the courtesy to answer you) or else introducing new but relevant issues.

Juvenile attempts to make us out to be obsessive kind of backfire on to you I am afraid.

Paterbrat
26th Sep 2005, 14:43
U_R a perfectly acceptable solution to the problem, it would however be reassuring to know that your intention is purely a solitary departure and not the type of 'grand exit to the waiting virgins' with attendant bystanders, which is currently all the vogue.:suspect:

Astrodome
26th Sep 2005, 19:23
Listened to an interesting exchange on the BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme during an interview with David Blunkett the current Work and Pensions Minister.

When asked about comments printed in the Daily Mirror Blunkett stated that the comments attributed to him were incorrect and he had 'recorded the whole interview on tape'. The susbtance was that he did not say what he was reported as saying.

He also said he would be making a complaint to the Press Compaints Commission (or whatever it is called these days).

What an amazing comment !

Coming from a member of the most deceitful and duplicious Government ever, that says a lot.

It also suggest a lot about a leading Left Wing newspaper, and especially so in view of the comments made on here.

The views of the Daily Mail haters are awaited.

Unwell_Raptor
26th Sep 2005, 19:28
Virgins?

What's that about virgins?

How do I get some?

Foss
26th Sep 2005, 21:05
U-R, don't do it. Deadline isn't meant to be literal.

Fos

Paterbrat
28th Sep 2005, 17:32
Report to your local hook handed one eyed hirsute cleric and attend his sessions of anticipatory virgin harvesting. Doddle I am told.:D