Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Daily Mail watch - part 448


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
115 replies to this topic

#61 Trojan

Trojan
  • Coach
  • 15,319 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 01:31 PM

Yet amazingly, you do know about it.

I know about the forged signature because it was proved in court. But it is forty years ago and details are a little hazy. What's not hazy is the atmosphere of poison that emerges from the Mail.

"This is a very wealthy country, money is no object" D. Cameron February 2014


#62 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,630 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 04:42 PM

Lets face it, The left of centre papers are hardly going to expose this sort of thing...and of they did , they have so few readers that no one would see it anyway.

 

http://www.dailymail...lkirk-seat.html

 

I also see Shadow's point. Indeed, I do exactly that myself. I read something in The Guardian and then take the opposite stance.

 

 

Of course, the slag heap scandal was indeed that but the Mail and Express were silence by writs  but eventually  that was not enough for the whole sordid story to come out : Wilson, Marcia Williams, Tony Field, Ronald Milhench, Arnold Goodman, 

 

 

http://books.google....g heaps&f=false

 

http://www.independe...ady-479040.html

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...000/2539513.stm

 

Wislon's tame lawyer: http://en.wikipedia....,_Baron_Goodman


Edited by JohnM, 03 November 2013 - 04:54 PM.


#63 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,630 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 04:58 PM

Wasn't it the Mail who urged people to vote for Moseley in the thirties, and also supported Hitler? It was certainly the Mail that published the notorious (and now known to be faked) Zinoviev letter. There was the Ince in Makerfield slag heaps scandal which IIRC involved a fake letter either from or to Wilson, which of course was timed to be run at the same time at the second 1974 election. The Mail really is a terrible paper.

 

 

Are you absolutely sure that was anything to do with The Mail?  



#64 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,282 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 05:04 PM

I know about the forged signature because it was proved in court. But it is forty years ago and details are a little hazy. What's not hazy is the atmosphere of poison that emerges from the Mail.

We know about the atmosphere of poison q.v. that's what the thread us about

What is questionable and in my view objectionable is the idea that those who read it are tainted by it and guilty therefore by association

 

Presumably a Google search will bring up what was bound to have been a high profile cause celebre: this might help you to back up your statement on the other hand the media might have suppressed it, since as you say that is what they do


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#65 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,282 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 05:13 PM

Lets face it, The left of centre papers are hardly going to expose this sort of thing...and of they did , they have so few readers that no one would see it anyway.

 

http://www.dailymail...lkirk-seat.html

 

I also see Shadow's point. Indeed, I do exactly that myself. I read something in The Guardian and then take the opposite stance.

 

 

I do neither

I make my own mind up

What attracts me to a newspaper is the quality and variety of the writing, the crossword, the arts reviews particularly books

 

The mail and the express have a small minded mean spirited xenophobic hysteria about them which I view with extreme distaste. I can't think of an insightful, witty or craftsman like writer employed by them

So if I wish to read the right wing press then it's the Times and Sunday Times and occasionally the telegraph 


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#66 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 09:07 PM

I have used the daily mail as a quick indication of my stance on issues, generally if they are in favour I'm opposed.
I remember being genuinely undecided on the PR issue, being able to see solid arguments on both sides. On the day I checked the Mail's editorial stance and voted against it.


And democracy dies a slow death. Here's a clue. You are supposed to make up your own mind based on the different arguments. I voted in favour but it had naff all to do with any editorials either pro or against. I made my own mind up.

#67 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,630 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 09:11 PM

i'm not sure he is really being serious. I'm sure he  considers all angles, reads all opinions, then makes his mind up on all available evidence, before deciding that The Mail is wrong.



#68 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,307 posts

Posted 03 November 2013 - 09:24 PM

i'm not sure he is really being serious. I'm sure he  considers all angles, reads all opinions, then makes his mind up on all available evidence, before deciding that The Mail is wrong.


I hope so.

If the Mail was against arsenic being added to the water supply, you would hope that Shadow wasn't in favour just because he hates the Mail.

#69 Shadow

Shadow
  • Coach
  • 8,122 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 06:47 AM

I hope so.

If the Mail was against arsenic being added to the water supply, you would hope that Shadow wasn't in favour just because he hates the Mail.

you'd hope so but.........


God Rides a Harley but the Devil rides a Ducati!

#70 Bearman

Bearman
  • Coach
  • 2,563 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 07:46 AM

There are an awful lot of experts on here about the Mail. Perhaps they are closet readers?
Come on out chaps.
Ron Banks
Bears and Barrow

#71 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,282 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 08:03 AM

There are an awful lot of experts on here about the Mail. Perhaps they are closet readers?
Come on out chaps.

I check it out from time to time because I'm interested in newspapers

the nature of the Mail's journalism and the quality of it is well known to the point of being nototious

Mail journalists and former journalists and their attitudes are well known to the point of being infamous-my favourite is/was mad mel, and the template for Private Eye's Polly Filla Allison Pearson


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#72 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,630 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 08:55 AM

The on-line version of the Mail is in my opinion a screaming, hysterical rabble-rousing Little Englander ...that appeals to many millions. Equally, the people are not necessarily stupid morons. The paper is, in my view on the rare occasions when I have seen it, somewhat more detailed and less histrionic.

 

However, from time to time they get their teeth into something, such as the Stephen Lawrence case or like this one: http://www.dailymail...ging-storm.html

 

Equally, I don't like the Sunday Times for a number of reasons, though who can doubt the good they did with their Thalidomide campaign.

 

The secret, in my view is, as L'Ange says, to take in info from all sources and form you own views on issues.

 

But please don't deprive me of my enjoyment.



#73 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 17,076 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 09:55 AM

Every mainstream newspaper has its proper journalists who really do fantastic work.  For example, I haven't missed The Times at all since it went behind the paywall but I strongly applauded them for their relentless pursuit of the story around the miners' compensation scandal, a fairly difficult story to get to the bottom of mainly involving people who aren't target Times readers in areas outside of their core catchment zones.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#74 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,394 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 10:02 AM

Every mainstream newspaper has its proper journalists who really do fantastic work.  For example, I haven't missed The Times at all since it went behind the paywall but I strongly applauded them for their relentless pursuit of the story around the miners' compensation scandal, a fairly difficult story to get to the bottom of mainly involving people who aren't target Times readers in areas outside of their core catchment zones.

 

They've also done a fair amount of good work about the family courts and cycle safety.

 

However, they also are relentlessly downbeat about rugby league.

 

Swings, roundabouts ...


Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#75 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,630 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 10:18 AM

Swing video: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Iuv__-nyO1M

 

Roundabout  video: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=HKMKfHAChZU



#76 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,282 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 10:37 AM

The on-line version of the Mail is in my opinion a screaming, hysterical rabble-rousing Little Englander ...that appeals to many millions. Equally, the people are not necessarily stupid morons. The paper is, in my view on the rare occasions when I have seen it, somewhat more detailed and less histrionic.

 

However, from time to time they get their teeth into something, such as the Stephen Lawrence case or like this one: http://www.dailymail...ging-storm.html

 

Equally, I don't like the Sunday Times for a number of reasons, though who can doubt the good they did with their Thalidomide campaign.

 

The secret, in my view is, as L'Ange says, to take in info from all sources and form you own views on issues.

 

But please don't deprive me of my enjoyment.

it isn't so much opinions and opinion formimg, but the quality of the writing.

I enjoy good feature articles and regular columnists, whether I agree with them or not or like them or not.

For instance I enjoy Jeremy Clarkson and AA Gill even though I find them unlikeable and disagree with them.

I dont enjoy Yasmin Ali Brown even though I empathise with her on many stances, same with Polly Toynbee. I enjoy Mathew Norman and Mark Steel, but not Paul Routledge.

I can't think of sa single Mail or Express writer worth bothering with.

I buy the Spectator regularly: and there's some good writing in it litttle of which I agree with thaat often: although I find Rod Liddle's laboured anti pc rantings dreary.


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#77 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,687 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 01:25 PM

What's Carol Vorderman going to be wearing tomorrow? I don't think I can wait till the Mail comes out; the suspense is killing me. I'll pass the time by seeing what new stuff today's Express has dug up on Lady Diana.

;) :biggrin:


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#78 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,630 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 01:43 PM

What's Carol Vorderman going to be wearing tomorrow? I don't think I can wait till the Mail comes out; the suspense is killing me. I'll pass the time by seeing what new stuff today's Express has dug up on Lady Diana.

;) :biggrin:

What's Carol Vorderman going to be wearing tomorrow?

 

 

I am reliably informed that you'll need to continue looking at the Femail Today section of the on-line edition of The Mail to find out. 

 

 

You might prefer this section of The Guardian



#79 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,687 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 02:08 PM


 

You might prefer this section of The Guardian

 

 

Already registered, John.

 

'Fatgit of Bradford'

 

:biggrin:


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#80 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 20,630 posts

Posted 04 November 2013 - 04:09 PM

Thanks. I'll warn my mum.  :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

 

 

oh, and just found this


Edited by JohnM, 04 November 2013 - 04:11 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users