To the people that hate the Daily Mail

Former Member

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
(is this supposed to be "Machiavelli"?) -

i took it to be Makaveli as a tribute to 2pac (a name 2pac assigned to himself after Machiavelli)

Former Member

I see a load of rubbish here, People read whichever paper they like, its personal choice.
I personally only buy my local newspaper. I want the world headlines in the first two pages and then the news which affects me in my area. I want local news and I always read birth/deaths. Its because my local newspaper brings me the information I want to read which is my choice and nobody elses. My Dad always reads the Sun and my Sister The Express.

Now people are judging others here for what they read.....so what am i then because I dont read the tabloids ?

Former Member

I see the Mail and other tabs perform a useful service in keeping the asylum issue in the the public eye. Why shouldn't their readers be told about such matters, they're paying for all the shenanigans in their taxes. Who else would, the po-faced broadsheets or the BBC, not likely? people are getting very tired of being talked down to by the liberal-left media alliance and want some plain-talking. Maybe asylum seekers did eat that donkey!

Former Member

Yeah, and maybe Elvis is alive and working at a McDonalds.

It is because of racist rags like the HateMail and the S*n that many people in this country have a completely misguided and plain wrong vision of the situation. It is because of the lies, the spin, the half truths and the carefully orchestrated ommissions and distortions those 'papers' spread that many people in this country think asylum seekers live the great life off the state and are all spongers who are given a fucking 10 bedroom palace in Surrey on arrival to this country. Or that the NHS "is about to collapse" because of the extra cases they have to deal with as a result of asylum seekers. Or that they are all criminals, rapists and reckless drivers responsible for every wrongdoing ever commited.

Of all the problems affecting this country, the relative negative aspects of letting asylum seekers in wouldn't even make it the top 100. Fucking peanuts, plain and simple. That some people believe the racist press' cries to the contrary is nothing wrong of a tragedy.

Former Member

ladymuck

They don't "keep it in the public eye" though do they? They lie and stir it up and idiots like you believe it.

Did you read that faq on the Refugee Council site?

Former Member

Maybe you should read this as well

http://media.guardian.co.uk/thesun/story/0,12950,1104109,00.html

Specifically

The PCC is currently investigating a complaint by a Somalian over a front-page story which appeared in the Daily Star in August headlined "Asylum seekers eat our donkeys".

A police source was quoted by the Star, alleging that immigrants were responsible for the theft of nine donkeys from Greenwich royal park - and may have killed and eaten the animals.

The article claimed donkey meat is a delicacy in Somalia. However the meat is in fact forbidden by the country's Islamic law.

Former Member

Tabloids make their money by telling *stories* the public wants to hear.. Broadsheets (and im not saying anybody is better or worse for what they read) arent in the business of producing *stories* to entertain or create feeligns of hate in the reader.

Former Member

Actually minx, all press and media contrive stories to suit and agenda. Youre simply far more likely to find it in tabloid press than in Broadsheet due to the differing standards of confirmation reporters to each respective publication are held.

Take the Jessica Lynch hoax that was foisted on us all some while back. Even many broadsheets jumped on that bandwagon for the sensationalism it offered. Some others rightfully dug into the claims and found them utterly contrived, but no mainstream source is above some element of spin.

Former Member

Oh of course, every paper has its political viewpoints, each editor has a point they wish to make, and each editior at the end of the day wants to make a successfull, profit making newspaper and the writers want to swerve the reader towards a shared conclusion with them.

However, broadsheets are much better at being informed. Where as you can read a tabloid and, underneath all the cleberity gossip and pointless stories you can find some elements relating to the news and its hard, with the information given to you to come to an informed conclusion about the truth behind it etc etc.. Broadsheets tend to be much more prepared to enable you to come ot an informed decision based on what is given to you.

Former Member

True, I agree with what youve said. I would merely point out that since all mainstream media is corporately owned one must even scrutinise the validity of reporting on any issue as presented by the broadsheets.

Many journalists are seeking alternative means such as the internet to get stories out in order to avoid much of the editorial censorship that goes on even in publications with an aire of respectability.

You would be staggered by how many broadsheets are owned by Murdoch (not to mention Conrad Black and a handful of others) and cater to his (their) ideological line in the stories they choose to present and how they present them.

Former Member

Originally posted by Clandestine
True, I agree with what youve said. I would merely point out that since all mainstream media is corporately owned one must even scrutinise the validity of reporting on any issue as presented by the broadsheets.

Exactly. Newspapers aren't really in the business of selling news, they are in the business of selling advertising space. Read some Noam Chomsky.

Former Member

i get that clandestine, and i think if i believed and didnt question everything i read in a broadsheet im being just as naive as those who do the same with regards to tabloids. Theres not just two sides to a story, theres millions, millions of true sides, and millions of false sides.

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
Exactly. Newspapers aren't really in the business of selling news, they are in the business of selling advertising space.

Too true I'm afraid. The days of the noble press is well over.

Former Member

As are the days of true investigative journalism.

After all, can't have journalists snooping about like Woodward and Bernstein and possibly informing the public of the backroom goings on between corporate leaders and those we entrust to govern the nation.

Former Member

Or- god forbid- suggesting that the Government has lied to its citizens and taken a country to war under false pretenses...

Former Member

Oh they suggest aplenty, but true investigative journalists would have uncovered proof (or been "silenced" in the attempt) of such magnitude as to be uncontrovertable. Sadly even "independent" enquiries supposedly mandated to do just that are little more than whitewash exercises.

Former Member

Originally posted by Blagsta
Read some Noam Chomsky.

What an amazing authour. I was introduced to him through the band that wrote my sig, and i can't thank them enough for it.