Daily Mail

Mockney said:
The Mail and the Guardian are not even remotely equatable. Re:basically the last 3 pages. You have to be very bent to the right to think that and grasping for a left leaning standard bearer.

I'm center left and would never equate the Telegraph or the Times with the Mail or Express just because they're right leaning.

The Mirror might have been it's leftie equivalent some time ago. But isn't now. A Socialist Party of Great Britain leaflet is probably as close as you'll get.
Click to expand...
FlawlessThaw said:
I don't think the Guardian and Toynbee are anywhere near as bad as The Mail and Moir. With the former sure there is bias but there is clearly facts, in the same way you see bias and facts with the Telegraph. The Mail is clearly a lot more reactionary and sensationalist determined to twist to the truth to scare their demographic...like Fox News

I never really understand the criticism the Guardian and BBC get from the right. Sure there is bias but there is bias in most news these days. It's the ones who are clearly trying to twist what is happening that is creating the problem aka The Mail.
Click to expand...

I wasn't drawing a direct comparison in style or the precise nature of deeds but rather the trust element here. You can take on faith a broadsheet with claims to better ideals or one of the rags if you will.

The Mail will go and create a story where there is barely any, undoubtedly wrong. I'm not a regular reader myself however my impression is that they'll view a refugee or persecuted person in the same way as an economic migrant or convicted criminal. The lack of nuance is damaging to that debate, also wrong. In the end we'd have the Mail/Express being crass and the Mirror/Guardian being dismissive, but there was still a story in there somewhere only it was handled so stupidly be an irresponsible media.

The Guardian likes to places en emphasis on human rights and and democratic principles, yet i highly doubt i could trust their judgement and objectivity on the EU for example due to the paper having a double standard and quite forgetting those first two ideals. A hypocrisy that gets in the way of responsible coverage.

Or take the environment, the Telegraph is better than most on green policies domestically speaking although you wouldn't stay with them for matters of climate change.

In short, if you go for a one size fits all approach to news then you'll be defeated every time, wherever on Fleet Street suits you on the surface. There's a host of culprits.
 
Mockney said:
The tabloid press reaction to Leah Betts had a huge impact (and still does) on the way the public, and the government views ecstasy.
Click to expand...

Is that the one whereby there's that photo of her absolutely fecked up after having taken a load of pills and 9 litres of water?

We were absolutely bombarded with that in PSE in school.

Edit: Christ, I was exaggerating, but she did actually drink 7 litres of water after ecstasy in turns out. Silly. I have to keep reminding myself to drink on that stuff.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
In short, if you go for a one size fits all approach to news then you'll be defeated every time, wherever on Fleet Street suits you on the surface. There's a host of culprits.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree here which is why I read both the Guardian and the Telegraph because despite their biases they both have their strengths. The Mail on the other hand isn't really a place you go for "news". It isn't even a broadsheet anymore. The problem for me is some people see it as one and then you have idiots who compare it to the Guardian when they're not comparable.
 
Colin129 said:
Still the same then?

I remember reading some articles in The Guardian years & years ago & it was so politically biased to the left I vowed never to read it again.
Click to expand...

I see it as a glorified university newspaper, since it only appears to be students who read it seriously.

Buy a copy again one day - it's a good laugh.
 
The Guardian is no worse than the Telegraph. I read both, the former is better for world news while the latter provides a better domestic perspective.


The Guardian will never appeal to the right in fairness. But it is not as bad as the sea of right wing newspaper readers make it out to be.

I used to just read the Times before they started charging though.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
In short, if you go for a one size fits all approach to news then you'll be defeated every time, wherever on Fleet Street suits you on the surface. There's a host of culprits.
Click to expand...

Of course. But that isn't the point. We can all accept that every paper has their own slant, that isn't what we're debating because that'd be a pretty pointless debate. What we're saying (or what I think we're saying, we've gotten a bit sidetracked) is that papers like the Mail are so far and away ahead of the Guardiagraphs in their bias, insularism and selective reporting of news, not to mention sales, that they deserve a far greater deal of scrutiny and criticism.

KingEric7 said:
Is that the one whereby there's that photo of her absolutely fecked up after having taken a load of pills and 9 litres of water?

We were absolutely bombarded with that in PSE in school.

Edit: Christ, I was exaggerating, but she did actually drink 7 litres of water after ecstasy in turns out. Silly. I have to keep reminding myself to drink on that stuff.
Click to expand...

She died from water intoxication, but the press went absolutely mental in claiming she died from taking one pill for the first time. It eventually turned out she hadn't, and that she'd taken a few a couple of weeks before too, but by this time it either wasn't reported or wasn't newsworthy. The furore did lasting damage to the reputation of the drug. Not that I'm claiming it should be completely legal, but it's Class A status is a very erroneous reflection of it's danger, and both the Drug Advisory Counsel and the Police have attempted to get it downgraded several times. The Home Office has continually blocked this though, which I'd personally put down in part to the damage done during the Leah Betts "Outrage".

alastair said:
The Guardian is so biased in part that you can't really see it as news though. The Telegraph hasn't got that bad yet.
Click to expand...

The Guardian is better as a place for amusing media editorials and world events than hard hitting domestic news, but it's no worse than the Telegraph in bias. The Telegraph is staunchly supportive of the Conservative Party, whereas the Guardian is merely "left". For every Toynbee I can find you a Toby Young..etc.

Both are partly responsible for the most recent cases of good investigative journalism though, in the expenses and hacking scandals. Unless of course you include dressing up as a rent boy and a sheik and exposing affairs.


FlawlessThaw said:
The Guardian will never appeal to the right in fairness. But it is not as bad as the sea of right wing newspaper readers make it out to be.
Click to expand...

Exactly. No one cares about the Indy so the Guardian stands out in the sea of right wing papers as the only "proper" left leaning one. For that reason it becomes a sort of short hand amalgam to the right wing of all the opposing bias. So whenever someone brings up the bias of the Mail, the Express, the Sun, or the Telegraph, their readers will say "...yeah...yeah...well...The guardian!!"
 
Mockney said:
She died from water intoxication, but the press went absolutely mental in claiming she died from taking one pill for the first time. It eventually turned out she hadn't, and that she'd taken a few a couple of weeks before too, but by this time it either wasn't reported or wasn't newsworthy. The furore did lasting damage to the reputation of the drug. Not that I'm claiming it should be completely legal, but it's Class A status is a very erroneous reflection of it's danger, and both the Drug Advisory Counsel and the Police have attempted to get it downgraded several times. The Home Office has continually blocked this though, which I'd personally put down in part to the damage done during the Leah Betts "Outrage".
Click to expand...

Heh. There's something inherently amusing about tabloids doing damage to an illegal drug's reputation. Next thing the paparazzi will be taking upskirt shots of poor ol' Eckers trying to get out of a taxi.
 
alastair said:
According to this country's education system, I'm in the top 1% so there.
Click to expand...

That's nothing, Al: according to my headmaster, I'm one of the top fifty-ten mathematicians in the whole of the continent of Wales.
 
FlawlessThaw said:
The Guardian is no worse than the Telegraph. I read both, the former is better for world news while the latter provides a better domestic perspective.
Click to expand...

People really need to stop thinking the Telegraph is what it once was. I got a free trial early last year, and was shocked by how poor it was. I'd expected a quality newspaper, albeit with a ridiculously Tory slant, but instead it's pretty much sub-Daily Mail.

Every single fecking day it had stories about Joanna Yates, wheelie bins, the met office and, I swear to fecking Christ, The Archers. I was legitimately disappointed. The Guardian's okay, and its supposed 'left-wing bias' is comically exaggerated by people who wouldn't know what socialism was if it came up and smashed them in the face. Trying to draw parallels between it and the Mail is the most laughable bit golden mean-ing I've heard in awhile. The Mail is almost psychotic in its proto-fascism. The best newspaper, however, is the FT. And I say this as someone who lurks left.

Pogue Mahone said:
A friend of mine has a similar, more extreme version of that anecdote. His grandad read a scare story about ecstacy and immediately decided that his grandson was a sitting duck for this dangerous drug which, and I quote, "makes you feel like the taoiseach"

Later that day, my friend went for a crap while listening to music on his iPod. His grandad knocked on the door a few times then decided that he had probably OD'd and promptly smashed the door down with an axe. Which was a memorable experience for my friend, believe me.
Click to expand...

This would be post of the year purely for the bolded part.
 
Chabon said:
People really need to stop thinking the Telegraph is what it once was. I got a free trial early last year, and was shocked by how poor it was. I'd expected a quality newspaper, albeit with a ridiculously Tory slant, but instead it's pretty much sub-Daily Mail.

Every single fecking day it had stories about Joanna Yates, wheelie bins, the met office and, I swear to fecking Christ, The Archers. I was legitimately disappointed. The Guardian's okay, and its supposed 'left-wing bias' is comically exaggerated who wouldn't know what socialism was if it came up and smashed them in the face. Trying to draw parallels between it and the Mail is the most laughable bit golden mean-ing I've heard in awhile. The Mail is almost psychotic in its proto-fascism. The best newspaper, however, is the FT. And I say this as someone who lurks left.



This would be post of the year purely for the bolded part.
Click to expand...

This is definitely true. The Guardian is on the left of the spectrum but it's centre left if anything, definitely not "the worst of the bunch" as some have called.
 
Also, it's a UK paper, we don't need to excuse it being left wing like they do in America. It is center left, but it's radically left of Daily Mail readers, which is why it gets used in retaliation from them...or indeed, any right wing reader.
 
I was always a Telegraph reader when I was a city gent. The crosswords kept me going all day. I usually had a look at The Sun and The Mirror because there were always copies left on the train. Evening Standard too but it was always a fairly shit read..not woth my time when there were Essex birds to stare at on the tube.
 
What exactly do people mean when they say this paper is 'left wing' anyway? It seems somewhat like how in the US Fox News and MSNBC accuse each other of being right wing and left wing respectively when in reality they are just the PR arms of the dominant parties there.

I don't think the situation is quite as bad here, but it's very similar. On most issues you'll see a parallel between what the Guardian and Telegraph say, with what Labour and the Tories say: Europe, the economy, healthcare, social welfare, electoral systems etc etc. No one can ever accuse them of not reporting the news per se, it's just there is a large amount of subjectivity in the manner they do it.

Which is all well and good if you don't mind that kind of thing, but personally I find it a little bit tedious.
 
Mockney said:
Also, it's a UK paper, we don't need to excuse it being left wing like they do in America. It is center left, but it's radically left of Daily Mail readers, which is why it gets used in retaliation from them...or indeed, any right wing reader.
Click to expand...
The Guardian isn't left, it was always sitting on the fence in the Liberal position. The world has moved right and the Guardian now just looks 'left' by staying put.
 
Must be weird being a journo at the Mail, particularly one who composes those celeb stories on the right side.

Usually the picture is the last thing to go on a journalist's article; those hacks have to write an article about the bloody photo, often describing clothing to fill space.

The first example I looked at on the website now:

It seems that Candice Swanepoel is too hot, even for herself.

The Victoria's Secret supermodel beat the heat in Miami today by splashing herself with some water.

And it wasn't just the scorching Florida sun that was raising temperatures.


Red-hot: Stunning South African supermodel Candice Swanepoel splashed herself with some water as she lounged around on Miami beach in a bikini today

The 23-year-old South African stunner looked red-hot in a mismatched bikini as she splashed around with her longtime boyfriend Hermann Nicoli.

The blonde bikini model was as sizzling as ever in some high-cut light blue briefs and a black bra-style bikini top.

The tiny bottoms accentuated Candice's stunning derriere as she strutted into the crystal clear waters with her hunky man, who looked equally buff in a pair of black swimming trunks.
Click to expand...

Absolutely pathetic
 
Plechazunga said:
There is no way to 'report the news' with no ideological stance. It simply can't be done.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Someone should start a Horrible Histories style news program to make all the ideology palatable. I'd watch that all day.
 
It seems that Candice Swanepoel is too hot, even for herself.

The Victoria's Secret supermodel beat the heat in Miami today by splashing herself with some water.
Click to expand...

Wish I'd thought of that last week when it was warm.
 
bsc said:
Must be weird being a journo at the Mail, particularly one who composes those celeb stories on the right side.

Usually the picture is the last thing to go on a journalist's article; those hacks have to write an article about the bloody photo, often describing clothing to fill space.

The first example I looked at on the website now:



Absolutely pathetic
Click to expand...

She splashed herself with some water....newsworthy stuff that. feck's sake.
 
In my mind the Guardian often seems to have a left bias because it stands alone, the independent isn't even comparable. There is a schmorgesborg of right leaning newspapers though, which seem to give a lot of self credence to their views. Of course all are different and some should be taken very seriously, whilst others not at all.

The Telegraph is probably my favourite newspaper at the moment, but certainly not for its views on the EU. Recently there attitude could be summarised as "tired I told you so's" as it seems they have given up trying to really argue the point, as they feel like they have already one but no one is listening. All those who need to be converted have.

Personally I'd like to see the Telegraph declare it's (partial) support for UKIP; at the moment its the step too far for them. UKIP is always the after thought, "here is what Cameron is doing wrong, and oh look this is what Nigel Farage has to say:" A large chunk of the Telegraph readership supports them, it is time for them to be thrust into the spotlight. Warts and all.

I can see the analogy between the Guardian and the Daily Mail, both could be aimed at middle class mums. The Guardian would be for the "cool soccer mum" whilst the Daily Mail would be for, well actually I have no idea why someone would read that but they do.

Despite my initial hatred for the Economist, it is slowly making itself the 1st choice
 
Plechazunga said:
There is no way to 'report the news' with no ideological stance. It simply can't be done.
Click to expand...

There isn't a financially viable way. Just presenting facts of what happened doesn't make money. Even presenting the news in such a way will have some bias based on national/cultural perspective, sources, etc. At best it would be possible to present the news from a "British" or Western perspective when it comes to international issues. Domestic news is more complicated because of the insurmountable bullshit of political parties.

There could be an attempt to "balance" out the "news" in terms of analysis, but in some cases, there are not two sides to a story. One major failing of the US media is refusing to acknowledge that there are not always two reasonable perspectives on something. Sometimes(most of the time) one side is being stupid but pointing that out is "bias" when, in fact, it is reality.

The only real current solution to read a number of different publications to get a broader view.
 
rcoobc said:
I can see the analogy between the Guardian and the Daily Mail, both could be aimed at middle class mums. The Guardian would be for the "cool soccer mum" whilst the Daily Mail would be for, well actually I have no idea why someone would read that but they do.
Click to expand...

The Guardian is definitely aimed at students and young creatives. It's highest single demo is young men, whereas the Mail's is old women. They couldn't really be more different if they tried. Which they do.
 
Sir Matt said:
There isn't a financially viable way. Just presenting facts of what happened doesn't make money. Even presenting the news in such a way will have some bias based on national/cultural perspective, sources, etc. At best it would be possible to present the news from a "British" or Western perspective when it comes to international issues. Domestic news is more complicated because of the insurmountable bullshit of political parties.

There could be an attempt to "balance" out the "news" in terms of analysis, but in some cases, there are not two sides to a story. One major failing of the US media is refusing to acknowledge that there are not always two reasonable perspectives on something. Sometimes(most of the time) one side is being stupid but pointing that out is "bias" when, in fact, it is reality.

The only real current solution to read a number of different publications to get a broader view.
Click to expand...

As you say, it always has some ideology based on where you come from (in the geographical sense but in others too, like class).

I agree that the US habit of splitting the difference between the parties is really damaging. The Republicans could advocate nuking Maine, and the MSM would report it as "Gridlock: Republicans, Democrats divided on states rights".

But really, you can't choose words to describe any news event without some ideology creeping in. Without wanting to get too poncey, even the stance of trying to report entirely neutrally and without ideology is itself an ideology. If you say, "Burglar breaks into house, steals diamonds and parrot", you are tacitly confirming that you agree with conventional notions of private property, including living things being regarded as property, and you're asserting the criminality of violating that principle. The fact that most people these days agree on this doesn't make it any less of an ideology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.