Daily Mail

Mockney said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lie is a strong word.

I reckon The Mail chooses its stories very carefully, and then tries to take them to mean something greater(eg, immigrant on benefits has 4 TVs ergo all immigrants do).

The Guardian, however, will just pretend nothing like that has ever happened and won't report any story about benefits misuse.

Who is lying more?
 
alastair said:
Lie is a strong word.

I reckon The Mail chooses its stories very carefully, and then tries to take them to mean something greater(eg, immigrant on benefits has 4 TVs ergo all immigrants do).
Click to expand...

Things like Media Watch, Tabloid Watch, even flipping Private Eye keep tabs on papers lying and The Mail are one of the most serial offenders by a large distance. We've just had a huge fecking inquiry into the standards of reporting in the UK at which the Mail & it's practices were brought up several times, which it responded to with a slew of hit pieces.

That was when it was bothering to report it at all of course. Because for most of it's duration it just pretended like it never happened. But it doesn't do that obviously. Only The Guardian..

..will just pretend nothing like that has ever happened and won't report any story about benefits misuse.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/benefits

Silva said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well considering unique online views outnumber paper sales by over 400% it's more factually accurate to say the Guardian is the countries 2nd most popular newspaper source and a greater reflection of society than the Telegraph.
 
I'm not sure if online views count for much either, given that they're global and I'm sure there will be a lot of crossover between people buying the newspaper and looking at the website.
 
Mockney said:
The figures I quoted on the last page were from the UK only. Worldwide the Guardian can claim to be the 3rd most popular paper, with 30 million hits, compared to it's 5.1 hits from inside the UK.
Click to expand...

The Graun's content is free online though. How many pen and ink hacks have been given the push from there and have been replaced by digital content monkeys? Bet those hits would decline sharply if they started charging like Murdoch does for The Times.
 
alastair said:
Lie is a strong word.

I reckon The Mail chooses its stories very carefully, and then tries to take them to mean something greater(eg, immigrant on benefits has 4 TVs ergo all immigrants do).

The Guardian, however, will just pretend nothing like that has ever happened and won't report any story about benefits misuse.

Who is lying more?
Click to expand...

Why is a story about benefits misuse of importance? What's the point in reporting that sort of thing? For The Mail it's to bolster their agenda of blaming poor people for the UK's problems and slashing public assistance. Presumably the editorial staff at The Guardian understand that yes, benefit fraud goes on, but that it isn't the cause of any major economic problems and therefore unworthy of coverage.
 
Grinner said:
Why is a story about benefits misuse of importance? What's the point in reporting that sort of thing? For The Mail it's to bolster their agenda of blaming poor people for the UK's problems and slashing public assistance. Presumably the editorial staff at The Guardian understand that yes, benefit fraud goes on, but that it isn't the cause of any major economic problems and therefore unworthy of coverage.
Click to expand...

And they've said as much many times. If you visit the CIF pages on the Guardian, any story connected with benefits attracts right-wing trolls whose sole purpose in life seems to be winding up Guardian readers.
 
Thanks for that Mockney. I do have an idea that all those newspapers were similarly ridiculous, but was unaware of the small differences.

Also wasn't aware that the difference between tabloid and broadsheet was more than just the size of the pages. So the tabloids differentiated into sensationalist stuff and the broadsheet are more "normal" newspapers?

The Guardian is the only one I occasionally visit when I want to read on some news from the UK in particular, I had an idea it was decent compared to the rest of the stuff.
 
alastair said:
The Guardian, however, will just pretend nothing like that has ever happened and won't report any story about benefits misuse.
Click to expand...

I find it quite ironic that you accuse The Guardian of this tactic and yet in this thread, when confronted by Mockney about your claim that The Guardian's sales figures suggest it's view don't reflect the views of society at large, you responded by ignoring the comment (you quoted the post and literally deleted this segment) and instead blindly and/or deliberately provocatively stated that "no-one reads it".

Whenever I read your posts I can never totally shake the suspicion that you're deliberately parodying the right.
 
Rowem said:
I find it quite ironic that you accuse The Guardian of this tactic and yet in this thread, when confronted by Mockney about your claim that The Guardian's sales figures suggest's it's view don't reflect the views of society at large, you responded by ignoring the comment (you quoted the post and literally deleted this segment) and instead blindly and/or deliberately provocatively stated that "no-one reads it".

Whenever I read your posts I can never totally shake the suspicion that you're deliberately parodying the right.
Click to expand...

I didn't consciously delete anything. I'm not that pathetic.

All I've been trying to say is that The Guardian is incredibly biased towards the left and is just as bad as any other newspaper is story avoidance/invention.

The Caf is just ridiculously left-wing at times. This forum probably accounts for about half of all the Guardian readers in this country.
 
alastair said:
I didn't consciously delete anything. I'm not that pathetic.

All I've been trying to say is that The Guardian is incredibly biased towards the left and is just as bad as any other newspaper is story avoidance/invention.

The Caf is just ridiculously left-wing at times. This forum probably accounts for about half of all the Guardian readers in this country.
Click to expand...
:lol: It's really not worth arguing with you.
 
Al, the hard right of the DM is not equal to the leftyness of TG. The left that you speak of is far closer to the mainstream than the right that we are talking about.
 
He hasn't even been reading the fecking thread properly, or has at least been ignoring most of it. We know the Guardian is left leaning - in the same way that the Telegraph is right leaning. But to equate the mail to the Guardian is just plain moronic.
 
alastair said:
I didn't consciously delete anything. I'm not that pathetic.

All I've been trying to say is that The Guardian is incredibly biased towards the left and is just as bad as any other newspaper is story avoidance/invention.

The Caf is just ridiculously left-wing at times. This forum probably accounts for about half of all the Guardian readers in this country.
Click to expand...

Right, so once again you ignore the point about the Guardian's considerable online viewing and decide to make a snipe about the Guardian's sales figures. Well done. In a discussion about bias and avoidance you're doing yourself no favours here.

People are far more willing to see bias in their opponents than they are in themselves unfortunately. All newspapers do it but the tabloids are considerably worse than the actual newspapers, whether right or left wing.

Anyway, The Mail is pretty much a magazine. I imagine the % of people who buy it for it's politics or worthwhile journalism is extremely low. It's the kind of paper that people skim through on their lunch break in order to get a fill of juicy headlines and some celebrity gossip.
 
How can it be hard right of the "mainstream" when it's more in tune with what most of society thinks? Shouldn't what society thinks be the mainstream?
 
I might change my debating with Al from actually replying to him to just laughing at everything he says. So far in this thread he's shows no interest to actually engage in debate about bias and instead has acted to change the topic as much as he can in order to vilify people as opposed to answer for the mail, a newspaper he reads and clearly agrees with, and the subject of this thread.
 
alastair said:
I don't think the Mail is "hard right."

It's probably hard right of mainstream. I mean, it's hardly fascism.
Click to expand...

I'd analyse it something like this:

...................................................................................Centre
.......................................................................................↓
Pravda--------Morning Star------Mirror----Guardian---NYT---Times-----Telegraph--Joseph Goebbels-----Daily Mail---------Sunderland
 
Silva said:
I might change my debating with Al from actually replying to him to just laughing at everything he says. So far in this thread he's shows no interest to actually engage in debate about bias and instead has acted to change the topic as much as he can in order to vilify people as opposed to answer for the mail, a newspaper he reads and clearly agrees with, and the subject of this thread.
Click to expand...

Is this the forum equivalent of talking behind someone's back?
 
alastair said:
Is this the forum equivalent of talking behind someone's back?
Click to expand...
If you can't read, perhaps.

feck. Nearly got me there. Are you actually going to answer any of the serious points then? Perhaps telling us on what planet the daily mail, a newspaper to the right of the current right wing government, isn't "hard right".
 
Silva said:
If you can't read, perhaps.

feck. Nearly got me there. Are you actually going to answer any of the serious points then? Perhaps telling us on what planet the daily mail, a newspaper to the right of the current right wing government, isn't "hard right".
Click to expand...

It just isn't hard right.

Of course it is biased to the right, but it's really not 'hard right.' The BNP is hard right. What would you call the BNP?
 
Moriarty said:
The Graun's content is free online though. How many pen and ink hacks have been given the push from there and have been replaced by digital content monkeys? Bet those hits would decline sharply if they started charging like Murdoch does for The Times.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree The Times would be up there if it wasn't for it's paywall. I used to read TimesOnline a bit. However the Mail & Telegraph are both free content (as are all the other British papers) and The Graun's still comfortably punching it's weight between the two. And when you consider The Mail's hit rate comes as much from Heat like celebrity tat and pictures of cellulite, I'd say it's a fair shout to call it the country's most popular outlet for news after the BBC.

Grinner said:
Why is a story about benefits misuse of importance? What's the point in reporting that sort of thing? For The Mail it's to bolster their agenda of blaming poor people for the UK's problems and slashing public assistance. Presumably the editorial staff at The Guardian understand that yes, benefit fraud goes on, but that it isn't the cause of any major economic problems and therefore unworthy of coverage.
Click to expand...

Well exactly. Quite why it should concern itself with Jeremy Kyle/Take A Break like personal interest stories about specific families as much as the tabs do, I've no idea.

Arruda said:
Also wasn't aware that the difference between tabloid and broadsheet was more than just the size of the pages. So the tabloids differentiated into sensationalist stuff and the broadsheet are more "normal" newspapers?
Click to expand...

Technically the difference is still the size. Semantically at least, but it's come to embody their different styles more. People don't tend to refer to The Times or The Independent as a tabloid.
 
Me & Mike wrote a pilot based on the Mail (or a sort of Sun/Mail/Express hybrid) and read it in great detail for months and my mum even used to WORK for it (in the beauty section when she was young, and eventually quit) so we had it delivered to our house when I was a kid. I bet you any money I've read it far more than you'd read The Guardian Al. It's a very silly paper. The Express is worse though.

Try telling Hilary Mantel that The Mail & The Express don't lie more than the Guardian. From what I remember The Guardian was the only paper that wrote a long editorial explaining what she actually meant whilst the Royalist rags went to town so much they got the Prime Minister to condemn her for a story they'd invented.

Tbf it's not the BNP. But it's certainly far closer to them than The Guardian is to any radical "hard" left causes. Like, erm, Communism?
 
Alastair is right that the Mail's not 'hard right'. To me, hard right is somewhere round about fascist.

The Mail's not fascist. It's somewhat xenophobic, and generally Little Englander in its outlook - it speaks to southern English, middle-class, property-owning, suburban or rural, and therefore mostly white, concerns. It's pro-military, pro-royal and - when Labour's in power - anti-big-government.

Of course, any practically-minded fascist needs those people, and if a fascist party ever came to power I have absolutely no doubt that the Mail would quickly fall in line. But here in reality it's just a right-wing rag with a housing market obsession.
 
Mockney said:
Tbf it's not the BNP. But it's certainly far closer to them than The Guardian is to any radical "hard" left causes. Like, erm, Communism?
Click to expand...

Dunno if you ever frequent CIF on the Guardian site, but to the trolls on there, it's somewhere to the left of Isvestia. The online Graun seems to attract
a large crossover readership, especially since they launched their US site. That brings with it the more radical elements from Freerepublic and the Tea Party "don't tread on me" types, to whom anyone reading the Guardian must be a limp-wristed, gun-hating faggot. Those people make the BNP look like liberals.

My sister used to be on the newsdesk at the Guardian back in the 80s when she left college. Bright lass, she didn't even have to slog away in the provincials. They used to actually pay young reporters in those days too. She says it was one of the only jobs she's had in media where she wasn't constantly hit on or groped. Good old Graud. Right-on even during the Thatcher years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.