Daily Mail
- Thread starter p_ps_sock
- Start date
I've never quite understood how The Times has succeeded with that. Are people so wedded to the idea of news that fits their agenda that they'll pay for it in a world of instant online news reporting? Why? They're basically just paying for Hugo Rifkind editorials.
On a similar subject. Why do newsagents still have porn mags? Who's buying them? The internet can access instant video pornography. Who is still going into shops and akwardly buying these things?
On another similar subject. Who buys the Daily Sport?.....Apart from teenage boys too scared to buy and actual porn mag... in the 90s.
How is that still a thing?
Well, seeing as benefits scroungers are the cause of all society's ills, I'm blaming them for buying The Times, The Sport, and Filthy Asian Grannies Monthly.
Re: the 1992 murder of Suzanne Capper:
They've clearly never watched Midsommer Murders.
Nor Murder, She Wrote (if they're lucky).
It's not just porn mags, I sometimes wonder why people bother buying newspapers at all, given everything is free on the internet before you even wake up.
You can read newspapers on the train or bus, or if you want to have a pint on your own.
The same activity with a porn mag instantly makes you a suspect in everyone elses inner mental police drama.
The same activity with a porn mag instantly makes you a suspect in everyone elses inner mental police drama.
And now that bloody awful novelist AN Wilson leaps onto the bandwagon:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2303071/Michael-Philpott-perfect-parable-age.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2303071/Michael-Philpott-perfect-parable-age.html
I loved that episode of Buffy The Vampire Slayer where Evil was born out of the welfare dependency.
Obviously the only sensible & altruistic option is to end all benefits, thus protecting decent, hardworking drones from all possible future tragedies.
Ayn Rand was right all along.
Praise be to Objectivism....And bad writing.
Praise be to Objectivism....And bad writing.
You can also read a book on trains and buses, and generally speaking, if you pick out a decent book it won't be full of shit. I'm not sure I can say that of most (if not all) newspapers.
Wilson is the only author I can think of who managed to feck up a 'tribute' to The Turn of the Screw, with his incredibly crap A Jealous Ghost. Some achievement.
Yes
Far more disturbing than the Mail using dead kids as part of their relentless war on the welfare state, which is practically a tradition, is the fact that now they'll attempt to destroy your life if you so much as challenge a government minister they like on a radio call in.
My folks get The Telegraph and it actually has its very own celebrity section. Amusingly they only feature what they consider to be tasteful and largely British celebs, people like Benedict Cumberbatch and Kiera Knightly. It also gives massive exposure to the worlds most famous celebrity family - The Windsors. They must lead with a picture of the Royals on the front page at least once a week.
The Telegraph doesn't even remotely deserve the reputation of a serious newspaper. When I first got a Kindle I took up each of the two week newspaper trials in turn, and every single fecking day I read the thing the Telegraph was dominated by stories about bin collections, Joanna Yates and the royals.
Whatever it once was, now it's simply a vaguely more middle-brow Daily Mail wannabe.
Whatever it once was, now it's simply a vaguely more middle-brow Daily Mail wannabe.
Don't forget the Telegraph puts a lot of focus on cricket as well (which isn't a wholly bad thing in my eyes).
Agree with this but one thing I can't stand is when Tories use the Guardian as a counterweight to the Daily Mail. That's just ridiculous. Within the country I don't think there would be any big money backing a left wing countweight to the Mail.
Agree with this but one thing I can't stand is when Tories use the Guardian as a counterweight to the Daily Mail. That's just ridiculous. Within the country I don't think there would be any big money backing a left wing countweight to the Mail.
Obviously on the Caf, The Guardian gets a pretty positive write up. As far as I'm concerned, and indeed a lot of the British public given its terrible circulation, it's a bizarrely left-wing newspaper that concentrates on defending any kind of state expenditure even when it's proven to be a complete waste of money. It has some of the most pretentious, self-serving, condescending writers out there and most people avoid it like the plague. More worryingly, it is now handed out free around universities with the express purpose of indoctrinating politically undecided students. It says a lot that it has to resort to that.
Regarding this story, I don't think the Mail have it right really.
Essentially, there are many ways in which this man is the product of the benefit system. He thinks that he is under no obligation to ever find a job, he has children in order to boost his benefit intake, and he feels offended that anyone could think any the less of him for it. This is a direct result of a complete lack of effort from previous governments to actually do something about the fiddling that goes on in the welfare state.
What the Mail seem to have missed is that this doesn't necessarily turn you into a murderer. Even though there are people in this country who have children in order to give themselves a better life, it's a bit of a leap to risk their lives by burning your own house down to get moved to a bigger house. That was essentially his evil; having such little care in his kids that he'd put them in great danger just to improve his own life.
For me, he is a product of many different things. He has an astonishing sense of entitlement that more and more people these days have. "I don't have this, the government must give it to me." This stems from a life on benefits, playing the system, knowing that the more children he has, the wealthier he'll get.
He's also a product of a failure in education. His plan was one of the stupidest I've ever seen. The guy is just completely thick.
But that doesn't legislate for all of it; he is just an evil bastard who I hope never sees the outside again.
Regarding this story, I don't think the Mail have it right really.
Essentially, there are many ways in which this man is the product of the benefit system. He thinks that he is under no obligation to ever find a job, he has children in order to boost his benefit intake, and he feels offended that anyone could think any the less of him for it. This is a direct result of a complete lack of effort from previous governments to actually do something about the fiddling that goes on in the welfare state.
What the Mail seem to have missed is that this doesn't necessarily turn you into a murderer. Even though there are people in this country who have children in order to give themselves a better life, it's a bit of a leap to risk their lives by burning your own house down to get moved to a bigger house. That was essentially his evil; having such little care in his kids that he'd put them in great danger just to improve his own life.
For me, he is a product of many different things. He has an astonishing sense of entitlement that more and more people these days have. "I don't have this, the government must give it to me." This stems from a life on benefits, playing the system, knowing that the more children he has, the wealthier he'll get.
He's also a product of a failure in education. His plan was one of the stupidest I've ever seen. The guy is just completely thick.
But that doesn't legislate for all of it; he is just an evil bastard who I hope never sees the outside again.
The first paragraph & the last bit after the semi-colon.
Scrap the rest.
Scrap the rest.
I'll see how much I'm vilified for it and then I'll delete as appropriate.
I got vilified in my office for saying more or less what you've said there.
He didn't become a murderer because he's on benefits, clearly he has other psychological issues. However, the fact he has this attitude (like many others on state benefits) that the Government and society in general owes him a lifestyle is part of the problem. Playing the system, getting more money for doing very little and living off the UK taxpayer has fostered a sense of greed and a belief that he's owed this lifestyle, he deserves this lifestyle. Ultimately it was that greed and belief he was some kind of local "celebrity" that lead him to commit the most disgusting and despicable crime I've ever heard of.
"Most people" avoid the Guardian while "most people" read the Mail. That's probably the problem.
Rusbridger clearly doesn't. I'll miss the Observer if it goes. I always enjoy Everyman on a Sunday morning.
Despicable headline.
Disgraceful headline, what kind of bubble do these Mail readers live in. S
I see al's using argumentum ad populum again.
There does come a point where you look at The Guardian's readership and you have to say that they probably don't reflect the views of society at large. I don't see how this is really debatable.
And stop talking in Latin you elitist bastard.
And stop talking in Latin you elitist bastard.
The daily mail on the other hand is wholly representative of society* at large..
*Unless you're non-white, or foreign, or a woman or not straight, or don't actually hate people less fortunate than yourself.
*Unless you're non-white, or foreign, or a woman or not straight, or don't actually hate people less fortunate than yourself.
The debate is how that has any bearing on how good a newspaper it is.
It could also be on whether newspaper sales are a good reflection of society at large. Especially since online visits paint a very different picture to physical paper sales.
Would you rather I spoke in Chinese proverbs instead?
Fair play on the proverb.Just because no-one reads it doesn't necessarily mean it's a terrible newspaper, no, but it probably gives an indication.
Sometimes a good article is to be found in there. They do a lot of investigative reporting, a lot of which is good. The problem is that the credibility of such pieces is undermined by the left-wing propaganda that is pushed in the rest of the paper by the likes of Toynbee who just make stuff up and blame it on the hypothetical right.
Which the Telegraph, The Times, The Mail & The Express definitely DONT do? Because Toby "Tory" Young, Hugo "Lies To Tell Lefties" Rifkind, Jan Moir, Richard Littlejohn et al are bastions of objective truth compared to the evil Poly Toynbee?
Again, you're using your political bent to asses what is and isn't bias. You should be cleverer than that.
Should be.
Again, you're using your political bent to asses what is and isn't bias. You should be cleverer than that.
Should be.
The x-facor has a better viewership than almost everything on television, therefore it's better. #AlsLogic
Of course the papers you've mentioned do that.
I'm merely criticising The Guardian here because I feel they do it the most and the Caf basically doesn't admit to it, but all newspapers do it to some extent.
You think The Guardian lies to suit it's agenda more than The Mail & The Express?
You don't think that al. Nobody thinks that.
You don't think that al. Nobody thinks that.
I don't think you see my point here.
The Mail is representative of society's views at large Mockey, duhr.
I think I do. Because more people buy one newspaper is doesn't count for shit, the vast majority of the country doesn't read the mail. Much like they don't read any newspaper at all.