quote:

Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:

dont get me started on the f*in bishops

as the actress said...

boom tsch

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brothers Big Scam:

dont get me started on the f*in bishops

as the actress said...

boom tsch

quote:

Originally posted by Liverpoollass:

quote:

Originally posted by Garage Joe:

quote:

Originally posted by Liverpoollass:
China do you want to change the title of your thread to the Daily Mail Bashing Thread

The Daily Mail has never been tardy in dishing it out. People in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones and all that.

The Daily Mail isn't here to defend itself is it? Not that it needs defending, imo. Just makes me laugh because I can set my clock that as soon as there is any discussion on newspapers, then out come the DM haters

Well said Lassie, I wondered how long this thread would take to deteriorate into the "Daily Mail Ate My Hamster" type thread. I was going to post a comment earlier but then I thought

I would actually love to read a paper that delivers the news in a fair and balanced way and does not have a political agenda

quote:

Originally posted by squiggle:


Well said Lassie, I wondered how long this thread would take to deteriorate into the "Daily Mail Ate My Hamster" type thread. I was going to post a comment earlier but then I thought

Hiya

All too predictable and I always fall for it

here's a rather old explanation of what's what...seemed appropriate to post it in this thread

The Times is read by the people who run the country

The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country

The Guardian is read by the people who think they ought to run the country

The Independent is read by people who don't know who runs the country but are sure they're doing it wrong

The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country

The Daily Express is read by the people who think the country ought to be run as it used to be run

The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it still is run as it used to be run

the Morning Star is read by people who think this country ought to be run by another country

The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country

And the Sun's/Star's readers don't care who runs the country provided she has big tits.

quote:

Originally posted by DanceSettee:
here's a rather old explanation of what's what...seemed appropriate to post it in this thread

The Times is read by the people who run the country

The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country

The Guardian is read by the people who think they ought to run the country

The Independent is read by people who don't know who runs the country but are sure they're doing it wrong

The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country

The Daily Express is read by the people who think the country ought to be run as it used to be run

The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it still is run as it used to be run

the Morning Star is read by people who think this country ought to be run by another country

The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country

And the Sun's/Star's readers don't care who runs the country provided she has big tits.

brilliant!

at last ive got an answer

quote:

Originally posted by DanceSettee:
here's a rather old explanation of what's what...seemed appropriate to post it in this thread

The Times is read by the people who run the country

The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country

The Guardian is read by the people who think they ought to run the country

The Independent is read by people who don't know who runs the country but are sure they're doing it wrong

The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country

The Daily Express is read by the people who think the country ought to be run as it used to be run

The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it still is run as it used to be run

the Morning Star is read by people who think this country ought to be run by another country

The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country

And the Sun's/Star's readers don't care who runs the country provided she has big tits.

I was just going to post that myself.

Also, shocking fact that I learned when I studied politics at college is that red tops are written for people with a reading age of 11. The Daily Heil & Daily Express are written for people with a reading age of 15. The Broadsheets are written for people with a reading age of 21.

quote:

Originally posted by china:
and if blizzie pops in - i know what the daily sport is all about

Popping out?

quote:

Originally posted by Demantoid:
I wouldn't wipe my backside with the the Daily Mail. Everything wrong in this country is the fault of single mothers, asylum seekers or whatever other minority they feel like picking on this week.
Plus, they and their sister paper the London Evening Standard supported Oswald Mosley's fascists during WW2 and urged Britain to do a deal with Hitler.

Nothin on earth could persuade me to buy that rag, any more than a Liverpool fan could be persuaded to buy the Sun.

For a bit of objectivity, I prefer the Independent. For comic silliness, it's the Mirror.

I agree with every single word you've typed - right down to your preferences and reasons for choosing those papers! What a sound person you are!

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:
I read something at the weekend to the effect that the MPs fee scandal has breathed a new lease of life into many local papers, each of which now has a juicy local farrago to really delve into.

Nigel Farrago?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by squiggle:



I read the daily mail and I find it on the whole a well balanced newspaper. It certainly doesn't give a biased view.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that comment.

quote:

Originally posted by Queen of the High Teas:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by squiggle:



I read the daily mail and I find it on the whole a well balanced newspaper. It certainly doesn't give a biased view.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that comment.

I agree squiggle

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:
Bearded mung bean-munching sandal wearing peacenik liberals.

Like that Garage Joe one

And me. Joe's probably a Polly Toynbee Guardian reader though.

quote:

Originally posted by Liverpoollass:

quote:

Originally posted by Queen of the High Teas:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by squiggle:



I read the daily mail and I find it on the whole a well balanced newspaper. It certainly doesn't give a biased view.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that comment.

I agree squiggle

I despair. Are you seriously saying that you don't believe it has a bias? Everything that is written has a bias. Everything. The Grauniad has a left wing bias, the Independent has a liberal bias, the Daily Heil has a right wing bias. That's an undisputed fact that even the publications themselves acknowledge. Whatever your political leanings, you should at least understand their influences. I know where my political affiliations lie and I understand that my opinion is shaped and formed by the things I have read, seen and heard. I know your political leanings LL are at the polar opposite of mine, but I sincerely hope that you are kidding about not understanding the role your choice of reading matter has in the inculcation of your values and opinions. Honestly, this is not me having a pop at right wing politics, it just worries me that people don't understand the influence of the printed media in forimg opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by RZB:
[Daily Mail]
yet they tug the foreskins of the Royal Family who have it handed on a plate.

A limited edition, commemorative plate probably. Possibly with illustrations from Beatrix Potter.

quote:

Originally posted by squiggle:
I read the daily mail and I find it on the whole a well balanced newspaper. It certainly doesn't give a biaised view.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by RZB:
[Daily Mail]
yet they tug the foreskins of the Royal Family who have it handed on a plate.

A limited edition, commemorative plate probably. Possibly with illustrations from Beatrix Potter.

4 monthly instalments of just £24.95 and this beautiful plate is yours to keep....complete with tugged foreskin....

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by squiggle:
I read the daily mail and I find it on the whole a well balanced newspaper. It certainly doesn't give a biaised view.

What took you so long?

quote:

Originally posted by Liverpoollass:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by squiggle:
I read the daily mail and I find it on the whole a well balanced newspaper. It certainly doesn't give a biaised view.

What took you so long?

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by squiggle:
I read the daily mail and I find it on the whole a well balanced newspaper. It certainly doesn't give a biaised view.

quote:

Originally posted by Queen of the High Teas:

I was just going to post that myself.

Also, shocking fact that I learned when I studied politics at college is that red tops are written for people with a reading age of 11. The Daily Heil & Daily Express are written for people with a reading age of 15. The Broadsheets are written for people with a reading age of 21.

That's interesting, but not surprising really when you think about it.

I like the Times. Very good for business news. Of the serious papers, I think it's got the best writing style.

quote:

Originally posted by Liverpoollass:

quote:

Originally posted by Queen of the High Teas:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by squiggle:



I read the daily mail and I find it on the whole a well balanced newspaper. It certainly doesn't give a biased view.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that comment.

I agree squiggle

The thing that amazes me Lassie (and for anyone else reading this thread, I am not going to go into any arguments) is that people put up comments as if they have read extensively every other newspaper going, on a long-term trial, and after exhaustive research have decided on their deliberations but what they most really mean is that they prefer another newspaper which THEY have decided is unbiaised. So for the record its my opinion and I am as entitled to it as the next guy.

quote:

Originally posted by squiggle:
doesn't give a biased view.

The thing that amazes me Lassie (and for anyone else reading this thread, I am not going to go into any arguments) is that people put up comments as if they have read extensively every other newspaper going, on a long-term trial, and after exhaustive research have decided on their deliberations but what they most really mean is that they prefer another newspaper which THEY have decided is unbiaised. So for the record its my opinion and I am as entitled to it as the next guy.

I am used to all this squiggle

It just makes me laugh that because you read a certain newspaper, people make certain assumptions and judge you. I don't like the Guardian but you don't see me insulting it or it's readers. So, how come the same consideration isn't afforded to those that read the DM?

I think I may know

I can honestly say I have never judged anyone on the paper they read. Life confuses me enough without worrying about that. Our views are formed by more than the newspaper we buy...

quote:

Originally posted by MrsB:
I can honestly say I have never judged anyone on the paper they read. Life confuses me enough without worrying about that. Our views are formed by more than the newspaper we buy...

The way I see it, who cares what paper anyone reads? This place would be rather boring if we all have the same views/opinions and leanings. Viva la difference

quote:

Originally posted by Liverpoollass:

quote:

Originally posted by MrsB:
I can honestly say I have never judged anyone on the paper they read. Life confuses me enough without worrying about that. Our views are formed by more than the newspaper we buy...

The way I see it, who cares what paper anyone reads? This place would be rather boring if we all have the same views/opinions and leanings. Viva la difference

Exactly

quote:

Originally posted by squiggle:

quote:

Originally posted by Liverpoollass:

quote:

Originally posted by Queen of the High Teas:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by squiggle:



I read the daily mail and I find it on the whole a well balanced newspaper. It certainly doesn't give a biased view.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that comment.

I agree squiggle

The thing that amazes me Lassie (and for anyone else reading this thread, I am not going to go into any arguments) is that people put up comments as if they have read extensively every other newspaper going, on a long-term trial, and after exhaustive research have decided on their deliberations but what they most really mean is that they prefer another newspaper which THEY have decided is unbiaised. So for the record its my opinion and I am as entitled to it as the next guy.

You are absolutely entitled to read anything you like and to hold any poiltical viewpoint that you like. BUT to say that your choice of newspaper doesn't have a bias is plain wrong. It's a statement of fact that they ALL do. It doesn't matter what way they lean, they all have a bias, even the Independent which claims to be just that, has a liberal bias. Like I said earlier, this isn't me having a pop at Daily Mail readers or right wing politics, ANYONE who thinks that they are reading an unbiased newspaper, whatever their politics, is fundamentally wrong. My politics is liberal left but that doesn't stop me from occassionally reading the Times, because I understand that it gives me a different perspective as it has a different bias to the Guardian which I normally read.

quote:

Originally posted by Liverpoollass:

quote:

Originally posted by squiggle:
doesn't give a biased view.

The thing that amazes me Lassie (and for anyone else reading this thread, I am not going to go into any arguments) is that people put up comments as if they have read extensively every other newspaper going, on a long-term trial, and after exhaustive research have decided on their deliberations but what they most really mean is that they prefer another newspaper which THEY have decided is unbiaised. So for the record its my opinion and I am as entitled to it as the next guy.

I am used to all this squiggle

It just makes me laugh that because you read a certain newspaper, people make certain assumptions and judge you. I don't like the Guardian but you don't see me insulting it or it's readers. So, how come the same consideration isn't afforded to those that read the DM?

I think I may know

Oh yes that is a fair point Lassie. I was thinking something similar earlier on when Rachel's name was mentioned. I was a supporter of Rachel on last year's show and was pleased that she won. Now many people have won that I wasn't thrilled about, did I make a fuss and go on about them? No. But mention Rachel and out comes the poisonous remarks, it says something doesn't it?

Eyes down for a full house tomorrow, should be fun.

quote:

Originally posted by squiggle:
The thing that amazes me Lassie (and for anyone else reading this thread, I am not going to go into any arguments) is that people put up comments as if they have read extensively every other newspaper going, on a long-term trial, and after exhaustive research have decided on their deliberations but what they most really mean is that they prefer another newspaper which THEY have decided is unbiaised. So for the record its my opinion and I am as entitled to it as the next guy.

I read (mostly online) the Times, the Guardian, sometimes the Independent, and occasionally the Mail/Express depending on the story. They're all biased, not just on their angles but on which news stories they select and the order and position of those stories. I read more than one newspaper deliberately to even out the bias, especially if I'm following a particular story. I'm a bit of a news junkie really.

Some of it is personal too. I prefer particular writing styles and formats. I like the Times and dislike the Independent over writing style. But it's also the content. Take the same story in the Sun and the Times. The Sun skims the story because its format lends itself to just a few paragraphs and its readers tend to want short stories. The Times usually analyses the story over lots more paragraphs and puts it into context because that's what its readers tend to want.

Here's the thing though: take a pen and underline the actual facts in the Sun and the Times. The Sun barely has any at all. It's just promoting an opinion and trying to create certain feelings in its readers. The Mail tends to promote opinions with selective facts and highly emotive words, like swamping and outrage.

As for having opinions and being entitled to them, of course we're all entitled to our opinions in the UK. We're not entitled to respect for them though. And we all have some junk as opinions. Being able to argue for a particular opinion is the important thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Liverpoollass:

The way I see it, who cares what paper anyone reads? This place would be rather boring if we all have the same views/opinions and leanings. Viva la difference

well said.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by Bigdaddyostrich:
Bearded mung bean-munching sandal wearing peacenik liberals.

Like that Garage Joe one

And me. Joe's probably a Polly Toynbee Guardian reader though.

I've been in my hometown but I thought that me ears were burning though but.
I don't like mung beans, but I do like Polly Toynbee, she even used her Blackberry to reply to Mrs Joe once.
Can supercalifragilistic give road reports please. If I had known the highway at the bottom of her hill was going to be like that I would have taken a different route