Daily mail as a quality source??!!

A._Badger

Taking a break from The Now Show scriptwriting sessions, mewbie?

mewbie_2

A._Badger wrote: »

Taking a break from The Now Show scriptwriting sessions, mewbie?

Nice putdown, respect.

Rochdale_Pioneers

As a leftie I really admire the Wail - it is in many ways the perfect newspaper. Its a tabloid - the onus on being factual simply isn't an issue, so criticism that it talks cobblers misses the point.

What it does is understands its readership. They want to read about whats wrong in the world, the scandalous gossip, the fashion disasters - and because its readers are hypocrites they also want to tut at celebrities and their fashion disasters and the people who promote their kind of lifestyle.

As for politics, its right wing glass smashed never mind half empty reactionary propaganda. And its the best in the market at pushing a political line. Like it or loathe it you have to admire it. And for those of us at the opposite end of the spectrum its commentators are a source of great comedy.

A._Badger

As I said above, RP, you're ignoring the facts. The Mail is nothing like as predictable as you are pretending.

As to the alleged lack of factual accuracy, I suspect that's nonsense, too. People who dislike the Mail's politics just assume it is factually inaccurate. I've yet to see any convincing evidence that it is any less factually inaccurate than, say, the rabidly pro-Labour Mirror or the right-on Independent.

Melanie Phillips and Richard Littlejohn are comment writers, not news reporters, and should be taken no more seriously as representing their employers' abilities to report facts than Polly Toynbee or Johann Hari.

Just saying something doesn't make it so.

mewbie_2

I was going to make a rather cutting and pertinent statement that destroys any support for the Daily Mail, but am fearful of another putdown from the Badger. So I'll just leave it for now.

stevsand

A._Badger wrote: »

And many leading Fabians admired both Hitler and Stalin and enthusiastically promoted promoted eugenics.

Check. Your move.

We are not in a thread discussing leading Fabians are we?

Checkmate.

A._Badger

stevsand wrote: »

We are not in a thread discussing leading Fabians are we?

Checkmate.

I was illuminating the idiocy of an argument.

Attacking the Mail for what was printed in it 70 years ago is nonsense.

I'm really surprised I need to point that out.

stevsand

"The Mail is a trashy, celebrity-driven, sensationalist tabloid but, if anything, its political stance is less predictable than, say, The Guardian's"


If you are unable to predict the THE MAIL" political stance it would point to a slight weakness in your judgement.

A._Badger

Instead of trying to post a sophomoric jibe, why don't you demonstrate a way in which The Guardian has been less politically predictable than The Daily Mail?

I've already given you two examples (Binyan Mohammed and Iraq). So far, you've yet to offer anything more than a tired cliche.

Rochdale_Pioneers

A._Badger wrote: »

Instead of trying to post a sophomoric jibe, why don't you demonstrate a way in which The Guardian has been less politically predictable than The Daily Mail?

I've already given you two examples (Binyan Mohammed and Iraq). So far, you've yet to offer anything more than a tired cliche.

Thats easy. The Guardian presents commentators from across the whole spectrum of political opinion. The Mail does not.