Nothing to do with Glasto, however, I believe very important

[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]

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.

[marktea]

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

Edited October 19, 2009 by marktea

[llcoolphil]

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.

[llcoolphil]

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.

[llcoolphil]

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

[Billy09]

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.

[Billy09]

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.

[llcoolphil]

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.

[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 October 19, 2009 by 42-shades

[Billy09]

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.independent.co.uk/news/business...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).

[llcoolphil]

You may be right, but that's not the point. Mark Steel was arguing that the government were wrong to be influenced by big business, and therefore was presenting an opinion contrary to the status quo, that's what you asked for.

[Billy09]

No he wasn't - he was offering an opinion that would simply maintain the status quo, albeit indirectly.

This is kind of my point - I don't think we have gone a long way from my original point. To declare a slight interest, my dissertation title was 'Radical Political Discourse in the British Print Media'. Effectively, there isn't any. But a Critical Discourse Analysis of a significant number of articles from a number of different publications reveals an amount of stuff dressed up as radical that isn't. The Daily Mail is no different from any other mainstream british newspaper. All print to an agenda that maintains the status quo. The Mail might be a bit more in your face about it, but they aren't any different.

Take out the 'drive sales' bit. Do you think this government's anti-terror legislation has been driven by reasoned argument or by encouraging fear based on ignorance and prejudice? I'll look up the number of arrests made under anti-terror legislation and compare it with the number of charges made under anti-terror legislation when I get chance - you may be surpised. Do you think the police's handling of the G20 demonstrations was motivated by an understanding of how the demonstration would be or by encouraging fear based on ignorance and prejudice? Encouraging fear is the exact way the police seek increased power and resources. Do you think the disproportionate number of young black males that are stopped and searched is based on anything other than fear and prejudice? What about the fact that you are 58% more likely to be unemployed if you are a Bangladeshi male than a white male (I'll give you the source when I find it) - I reckon much of that comes about through fear and prejudice.

This idea that one newspaper is significantly more objective than another is to completely misunderstand the nature of the media.

[Billy09]

Blimey, 21000 people have now complained about this to the PCC, more complaints than they've had in the last 5 years! (as reported by the Guardian).

[marktea]

Fear sells and fear makes people easier to control, and what you say about terror legislation I would agree with, but if this somehow makes a newspaper or government "better" then I think the situation is very sad indeed.

You seem to argue that all newspapers are equally bad, but also that the Daily Mail is "one of the best". I cannot agree with this. You find so many people uninformed simply through not reading anything about current affairs at all. On the other hand if you want to learn you have to gather your knowledge from somewhere, so need to calculate roughly how reliable a source is. We will all be misinformed to a certain extent by doing this, but you can minimise it by taking with a pinch of salt coverage of news clearly presented as having an agenda.

And yeah, looking at your dissertation title I'd say you clearly have an interest! I'm not sure we're discussing radical political discourse here though, more why a homophobic/islamophobic/anti-immigration agenda might offend some people, and result in less reliable news.

As I've said, in terms of free speech I'm perfectly happy for this idiot to tell her lies, they are transparent, but it does make me question the rest of the content of the paper.

[rob.a]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-...hen-Gately.html

so, what do people make of this?

[Insomaniac]

Blimey, 21000 people have now complained about this to the PCC, more complaints than they've had in the last 5 years! (as reported by the Guardian).

[Ponyegg]

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.

[BuriedBones]

I am surprised that anyone is surprised!

This is the Daily Mail we are talking about right?

Of course the article is trash, and the sentiment is morbid and sensationalist to say the least, but it shouldn't be high on anybody's agenda.

This week the BBC have made a cross-corporation decision that the BNP deserve / warrant a legitimate platform on our TV. To me this is definitely worth getting upset about. Racist filth dressed up as patriotism should not be tolerated.

This is a shocking use / abuse of our licence fee. I urge you and your conscience to complain to the BBC through the following URL...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

and if you feel like it, suggest you also call the BNP directly to question them on their "policies". I have done it several times. They generally get confused and tetchy before hanging up.

[llcoolphil]

However I can only talk from my own personal experiences working at a national newspaper for the past 10 years and I'd have to disagree that newspaper coverage is 'determined' by advertisers. I work for a paper that's been in the news recently for highlighting MPs expenses and I can categorically state that advertisers do not hold sway over editorial content or impartiality. Yes ad agencies have spending clout, but they do not dictate (in this paper at least and certainly across other mainstream papers that I know) what we can and can't print in the paper. Any agency who even tried to do so would be roundly told exactly where to get off.

Edited October 19, 2009 by llcoolphil

[llcoolphil]

Blimey, 21000 people have now complained about this to the PCC, more complaints than they've had in the last 5 years! (as reported by the Guardian).

[llcoolphil]

you can minimise it by taking with a pinch of salt coverage of news clearly presented as having an agenda.

[llcoolphil]

Fear sells and fear makes people easier to control, and what you say about terror legislation I would agree with, but if this somehow makes a newspaper or government "better" then I think the situation is very sad indeed.

[ivan]

This week the BBC have made a cross-corporation decision that the BNP deserve / warrant a legitimate platform on our TV. To me this is definitely worth getting upset about. Racist filth dressed up as patriotism should not be tolerated.

This is a shocking use / abuse of our licence fee. I urge you and your conscience to complain to the BBC through the following URL...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

and if you feel like it, suggest you also call the BNP directly to question them on their "policies". I have done it several times. They generally get confused and tetchy before hanging up.

[Josie's Cat]

I think the BNP being on QT is a good thing, I don't think it should be censored by people who disagree with what's being said so they say 'it's not allowed to be broadcast'

I don't think the BNP is a good thing, - but they have 2 MEP's, and will probably gain more support in the coming election - what needs to be discussed is WHY there is a climate where people feel they have to vote for the BNP - current policies/politicians have let this happen, and it needs discourse.

You can't pretend that the BNP isn't there, that the issues they gain votes over aren't there.

It's too simple just to say "they're racists let's ban them" - they ARE racist, but they raise issues that many people feel strongly about, and banning them or muzzling them is not a healthy response.