107 replies to this topic

[StormCrow]

Here's an article on Yahoo about this.

http://uk.news.yahoo...ry-6323e80.html

[llcoolphil]

dr_billy, on Oct 18 2009, 12:58 PM, said:

I'm confused, in what respect is it "best"? As lifestyle advice for the prejudiced?

maninkilt, on Oct 18 2009, 01:19 PM, said:

If the mail said that the sun was going to rise in the morning I would buy a torch, they print populist propaganda that has no more than a coincidental relationship to facts.

My opinion and you have yours but do you have any indepentant evidece to back this up? Awards? International journalism praise?

There is no such thing as a neutral newspaper. Consequently, whichever newspaper you read, they all have content deplored by many people somehere. What do we mean by populist propoganda? Populist views ie views that are popular? Im not sure what the criticism is there - unless you're suggesting a newspaper has an educational role to fulfill, which is patently nonsense. A coincidental relationship with facts? Care to show me a newspaper that can't have the same criticism levelled at it? Awards? Sure The Daily Mail has won awards. What do they count for? Robbie Williams has won an award as Best male Artist. International journalism praise? And the value of that is what? How many international publications do you read on a daily basis to make a judgement on what is and isn't a good foreign newspaper? No, I don't have independent evidence - just a lifetime spent with print journalists from my father to friends working in the industry now. Whether you like it or not, agree or not, The Mail is a respected newspaper in the industry.

Judging what is and isn't a good newspaper isn't about judging its opinion columns, it's about judging how the newspaper is put together, what subjects it covers etc. Anyone care to point me towards a better tabloid newspaper in Britain? And tell me why it's better.

[maninkilt]

llcoolphil, on Oct 18 2009, 04:33 PM, said:

There is no such thing as a neutral newspaper. Consequently, whichever newspaper you read, they all have content deplored by many people somehere. What do we mean by populist propoganda? Populist views ie views that are popular? Im not sure what the criticism is there - unless you're suggesting a newspaper has an educational role to fulfill, which is patently nonsense. A coincidental relationship with facts? Care to show me a newspaper that can't have the same criticism levelled at it? Awards? Sure The Daily Mail has won awards. What do they count for? Robbie Williams has won an award as Best male Artist. International journalism praise? And the value of that is what? How many international publications do you read on a daily basis to make a judgement on what is and isn't a good foreign newspaper? No, I don't have independent evidence - just a lifetime spent with print journalists from my father to friends working in the industry now. Whether you like it or not, agree or not, The Mail is a respected newspaper in the industry.

Judging what is and isn't a good newspaper isn't about judging its opinion columns, it's about judging how the newspaper is put together, what subjects it covers etc. Anyone care to point me towards a better tabloid newspaper in Britain? And tell me why it's better.

So what you are saying is that you are involved with the industry, not independant and the phrase I used was populist propaganda, take any phrase to pieces and it is rare that the point of the phrase will come out.
If it is a respected paper (again do you have evidece or just your opinion?) this discaceful article should remove that respect.

[llcoolphil]

maninkilt, on Oct 18 2009, 05:12 PM, said:

So what you are saying is that you are involved with the industry, not independant and the phrase I used was populist propaganda, take any phrase to pieces and it is rare that the point of the phrase will come out.
If it is a respected paper (again do you have evidece or just your opinion?) this discaceful article should remove that respect.

OK.

How does having a father who worked in the industry and friends who work in it now mean I am involved in the industry? Ive got an uncle who is a doctor, does that make me involved in that industry too? Friends who are teachers - etc etc etc.

I have never claimed that what I say is independent - I actually said that the daily mail is a respected newspaper in the industry   . My evidence is talking to people in the industry. But if you want some evidence of awards - what about What The Papers Say?

Feature writer of the year
Quentin Letts, Daily Mail

Reporter of the year
Stephen Wright, Daily Mail

http://www.guardian....sandpublishing1


What about

Weekend Newspaper of the Year
The AdFast Premier Award

Winner
The Mail on Sunday

http://www.newspaper....uk/default.htm

I can link you some more if you like. But as I pointed out - do you believe The Mail a good newspaper now that Ive showed you? No you don't. Because you were totally convinced that the mail couldn't possibly have won an award.

If populist propoganda doesn't mean printing popular views, care to offer an alternative explanation?

You think the mail should lose its respect because of that article?   Have a word. Do you want me to link you an article from every single daily that means it should have no respect? In terms of losing respect in terms of journalism, Id actually suggest the other. The Mail has printed an article that apparently flies in the face of popular opinion, has given a voice to someone with abhorrent views. I'll tell you now, that ain't losing respect amongst journalists. In terms of marketing, it's been brilliant - shareholders ain't losing respect over that either.

What you are actually saying is 'I disagree entirely with the viewpoint printed and, therefore, it should not have been printed. If it had printed something I agreed with, I wouldn't be saying this. Therefore, my opinion is more important than someone else's - and only opinion I agree with should be printed'.



Now, Im waiting for you to tell me a better tabloid newspaper and why you think it better. Any thoughts?

[irons]

The Daily/Sunday Mail is the most hinious mag ever. They tried to get films like The Exorcist and Texas Chainsaw banned for no real reason. Mary Whitehouse was bad enough, but that lot take the pisss.

[Billy09]

llcoolphil, on Oct 18 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

There is no such thing as a neutral newspaper. Consequently, whichever newspaper you read, they all have content deplored by many people somehere. What do we mean by populist propoganda? Populist views ie views that are popular? Im not sure what the criticism is there - unless you're suggesting a newspaper has an educational role to fulfill, which is patently nonsense. A coincidental relationship with facts? Care to show me a newspaper that can't have the same criticism levelled at it? Awards? Sure The Daily Mail has won awards. What do they count for? Robbie Williams has won an award as Best male Artist. International journalism praise? And the value of that is what? How many international publications do you read on a daily basis to make a judgement on what is and isn't a good foreign newspaper? No, I don't have independent evidence - just a lifetime spent with print journalists from my father to friends working in the industry now. Whether you like it or not, agree or not, The Mail is a respected newspaper in the industry.

Judging what is and isn't a good newspaper isn't about judging its opinion columns, it's about judging how the newspaper is put together, what subjects it covers etc. Anyone care to point me towards a better tabloid newspaper in Britain? And tell me why it's better.

It's about much more than what's covered, market share, and awards.

I buy my paper hoping to read as unbiased as possible, so that I can form my own opinion based on the (always slightly biased) information I read.

Any paper that clearly seeks to pander to populist opinion will not be able to tell me anything useful, and is worthless to me.

As I said earlier this piece is clearly written by an idiot whose opinions don't matter at all, and I think it would be far better to get upset by people lying who are actually in positions of power.

I read in indy ny the way, is that a tabloid these days nowthat it's smaller?

[maninkilt]

dr_billy, on Oct 18 2009, 08:43 PM, said:

It's about much more than what's covered, market share, and awards.

I buy my paper hoping to read as unbiased as possible, so that I can form my own opinion based on the (always slightly biased) information I read.

Any paper that clearly seeks to pander to populist opinion will not be able to tell me anything useful, and is worthless to me.

As I said earlier this piece is clearly written by an idiot whose opinions don't matter at all, and I think it would be far better to get upset by people lying who are actually in positions of power.

I read in indy ny the way, is that a tabloid these days nowthat it's smaller?

Funny that, I read the independant too, I disagree with a lot of the pieces in it and fully understand that it is not unbiased but overall reasonable.
The point really being that I do not believe that a vile piece like this could have appeared in the indy.
Tabloid size now, Fits my hands better!

[glasto'newbie']

llcoolphil, on Oct 18 2009, 04:33 PM, said:

Anyone care to point me towards a better tabloid newspaper in Britain? And tell me why it's better.

Daily Sport has breasts.

[llcoolphil]

dr_billy, on Oct 18 2009, 08:43 PM, said:

It's about much more than what's covered, market share, and awards.

I buy my paper hoping to read as unbiased as possible, so that I can form my own opinion based on the (always slightly biased) information I read.

So what do you think ity is about The Independent that makes it as unbiased as possible?  Can you direct me to any piece in The Independent that doesn't aim to maintain the status quo in any area at all? I'll wager anything you like that you can't - because The Independent is entirely dependent on its advertisers.

And if a newspaper is about more than what is in it, what its readership thinks about it and what other people think about it, I think you're creditting newspapers with significantly more than you should.

Quote

Any paper that clearly seeks to pander to populist opinion will not be able to tell me anything useful, and is worthless to me.

Every national newspaper in the UK panders to populist opinion. Show me a newspaper that suggested leaving banks to collapse for example. None of them did because they all pander to populist opinion that capitalism is the only way to order the world.

But alternatively, what do you find that isn't populist opinion that is useful to you - in any newspaper. As a medic, which newspapers would you say covered health issues well and which were absolutely appalling? I can't think of a single one that I would trust to give me an objective view - because their coverage is determined by advertisers - who very much don't want an objective view.

Quote

I read in indy ny the way, is that a tabloid these days nowthat it's smaller?

No, it's not a tabloid

maninkilt, on Oct 18 2009, 08:54 PM, said:

Funny that, I read the independant too, I disagree with a lot of the pieces in it and fully understand that it is not unbiased but overall reasonable.
The point really being that I do not believe that a vile piece like this could have appeared in the indy.
Tabloid size now, Fits my hands better!

No, that piece wouldn't have appeared in The Independent - but you're not comparing like with like. I would suggest any column written by Dominc Lawson is anything but reasonable - it's just reiterating standard establishment, pubic school reactionary bollox (and I dont use 'public school' lightly - the industry at a national level is  controlled by ex public school boys).

No newspaper is any less populist than another. It may express that populism differently and, indeed, may choose which areas of populism it covers. But The Mail printing a column that has an offensive view on homosexuality because it pleases its readers is no different than The Independent printing stories that don't outrightly criticise the system that brought about the credit crisis because it wants to please its advertisers. If you're only reading one newspaper, you're only getting that newspaper's view.

Edited by llcoolphil, 18 October 2009 - 09:35 PM.

[Billy09]

Every newspaper has a demographic it targets. The Indy doesn't seem to have an agenda to the same degree as the Daily Mail. There are loads of editorials in the Independent that don't support the status quo. Some articles I agree with (Mark Steel's political views are way left of mainstream incidently), some I find interesting but disagree with, but they are presented in a way that raises debate rather than preaches hate.

I have never seen anything along the subject lines of "gays/immigrants/the PC brigade are destroying the country!" in the Independent.

The BBC regularly receives criticism for "bias" by various groups, despite having noting to do with advertising. Recently this has been from commercial news services at times. I don't see much of an agenda with the BBC, and trust them much more than Sky for example.

I am well used to sifting wheat from chaff when it comes to evidence, and clearly considering commercial interests comes in to that. Headlines and editorials appealing to hate and paranoia are a dead giveaway though.

[Billy09]

Regarding health stories I'd be very sceptical of most mainstream journalist's abilities to critically appraise evidence. I'd be especially wary of a newspaper that sold itself by "You're all gonna die!" type headlines, especially if a scapegoat was readily presented in the form of Government/GPs/social services for example.

I've acknowledged that all papers are biased, but some are clearly much more biased than others.

[Billy09]

llcoolphil, on Oct 18 2009, 09:34 PM, said:

No, it's not a tabloid

The Mail printing a column that has an offensive view on homosexuality because it pleases its readers is no different than The Independent printing stories that don't outrightly criticise the system that brought about the credit crisis because it wants to please its advertisers. If you're only reading one newspaper, you're only getting that newspaper's view.

I was under the impression that the size of the paper determined if it was a tabloid or not, but accept this definition is flexible.

Its completely different. One is appealing to bigotry to sell papers, and the other is taking a viewpoint. There have been articles (again I'll use Mark Steel as an example) of criticism of the banks in the credit crunch in the Indy.

Living in Swansea I often can't get the Indy, and read other papers. It is true they differ enourmously. I also access information from various sources online. I could criticise aspects of the Guardian/Telegraph/Times, but would generally trust any of them more than the Daily Mail.

[marktea]

fur_q, on Oct 18 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

This from tabloid watch just hilights the utter hypocrisy of the mail and is well worth a read

Thanks, a great link and spot on. But of course the Mail will do nothing because you can sense that deep down they really do feel that all this fuss is just another example of 'political correctness gone mad'. They just don't get it at all.

Edited by marktea, 19 October 2009 - 07:41 AM.

[llcoolphil]

dr_billy, on Oct 18 2009, 11:25 PM, said:

The BBC regularly receives criticism for "bias" by various groups, despite having noting to do with advertising. Recently this has been from commercial news services at times. I don't see much of an agenda with the BBC, and trust them much more than Sky for example.

As an indication of lack of objectivity, consider the two main charity events it is involved with - Comic Relief and Children In need. Both these events posit Africa as in need of charity and our help. At what point in either of these campaigns have you ever seen it pointed out that Africa's troubles are significantly down to the west supporting and arming corrupt regimes, the west fleecing them of natural resources etc etc etc? Never - because we start with the 'fact' that Africa needs charity. If you start with a different 'fact', you get a completely different story.

dr_billy, on Oct 18 2009, 11:33 PM, said:

Regarding health stories I'd be very sceptical of most mainstream journalist's abilities to critically appraise evidence. I'd be especially wary of a newspaper that sold itself by "You're all gonna die!" type headlines, especially if a scapegoat was readily presented in the form of Government/GPs/social services for example.

I've acknowledged that all papers are biased, but some are clearly much more biased than others.

So in your field of expertise, you wouldn't trust a mainstream journalist to critically appraise evidence (and rightly so). Now do you think that is specific to your area of expertise? Because it would be some coincidence that there is only one area that we wouldn't trust a journalist to critically appraise evidence. Or do you think it might be that if I spoke to experts in a number of different fields, they might express the same view as you about their area of expertise? Just because a newspaper's lack of objectivity is less apparent, it doesn't mean it's any less objective.

[llcoolphil]

dr_billy, on Oct 19 2009, 12:00 AM, said:

I was under the impression that the size of the paper determined if it was a tabloid or not, but accept this definition is flexible.

In a strict sense yes - but that dates from when there was clear delineation between the content of a tabloid and the content of a broadsheet. Now that The Indy and The Times produce tabloid size editions, we cant use that as such a straightforward category - it makes infinite more sense to compare both with The Guardian than it does with The Sun

[llcoolphil]

dr_billy, on Oct 18 2009, 11:25 PM, said:

There are loads of editorials in the Independent that don't support the status quo.

If you get chance, next time you read one link it to me and I'll bet I can show you that it does support the status quo.

[Billy09]

llcoolphil, on Oct 19 2009, 07:53 AM, said:

As an indication of lack of objectivity, consider the two main charity events it is involved with - Comic Relief and Children In need. Both these events posit Africa as in need of charity and our help. At what point in either of these campaigns have you ever seen it pointed out that Africa's troubles are significantly down to the west supporting and arming corrupt regimes, the west fleecing them of natural resources etc etc etc? Never - because we start with the 'fact' that Africa needs charity. If you start with a different 'fact', you get a completely different story.



So in your field of expertise, you wouldn't trust a mainstream journalist to critically appraise evidence (and rightly so). Now do you think that is specific to your area of expertise? Because it would be some coincidence that there is only one area that we wouldn't trust a journalist to critically appraise evidence. Or do you think it might be that if I spoke to experts in a number of different fields, they might express the same view as you about their area of expertise? Just because a newspaper's lack of objectivity is less apparent, it doesn't mean it's any less objective.

You make the best of what you've got. As I said I don't believe one story and not another, but would give varying weight according to perceived bias and agenda, it's not an exact science. That said I'd always give more trust to an article written from a viewpoint other than hate, or appealing to fear and ignorance.

[Billy09]

llcoolphil, on Oct 19 2009, 08:01 AM, said:

If you get chance, next time you read one link it to me and I'll bet I can show you that it does support the status quo.

When I learn how to do a link!

Mark Steel's website is fantastic, I was reading an article there the other day about windfall taxes on energy firms, certainly not supporting the status quo.

[llcoolphil]

dr_billy, on Oct 19 2009, 09:56 AM, said:

When I learn how to do a link!

Mark Steel's website is fantastic, I was reading an article there the other day about windfall taxes on energy firms, certainly not supporting the status quo.

You reckon? If we place a windfall tax on energy firms, who do you think will pay the bill ultimately? We currently have a regulator that has failed to take action on energy prices, despite the cost of oil falling dramatically ( I don't have the exact figure to hand but it's about half) since prices rose by 42% last year. If costs to energy companies rise (and let's face it, they are if for no other reason than oil is going to be more expensive to extract), costs to the consumer rise. So whilst we might have an energy company paying more in diorect taxation, we have the consumer paying it back to them through increased costs. Even the regulator is warning of huge price increases to the end user because of the need for £200 billion worth of investment

http://www.independe...em-1800095.html

Now if the regulator insists we have a need for that level of investment, that money needs to be found from somewhere. If we tax the profits of energy generators, every penny we tax is a penny less towards the £200 billion - and a penny more the consumer has to pay.

Sounds pretty much like maintaining the status quo to me - the poorest end up paying a bigger proportion of their income in tax (in this case indirectly because they're paying the tax of the generator).

[42-shades]

I blame the immigrants, coming over here rapein' all our women and taking all our jobs. In fact, they have probably taken all the production jobs at the printers where tha Mail is printed so it IS their fault.

Edited by 42-shades, 19 October 2009 - 10:03 AM.