Should the Daily Mail be closed down.

looney · Sep 29, 2017

bashlsdir said:
I work very early in the mornings, when I look through NSC in the daytime I notice most of the posts are coming from the Remainers. Do any of them actually work? Seems to me they have nothing else to do apart from search Google for negative Brexit stories.

I have noticed stuff like that. Monday to Fiday if a story is posted AM then all the responses are either drivel or bating till about 6.30pm when more erudite posts appear.

Its like Leftwards poll biases, whos going to be hanging around to answer a phone by pollsters? People who work hard dont have time or/and are not available as continuously.

looney · Sep 29, 2017

Braggfan said:
It says a lot about the paper that wikipedia banned it as source for being unreliable with facts. All you need to no about the daily mail can be summed up in two words "Nazi Sympathisers", and that is a "fact".

Wikipedia being staffed by leftists may have something to do with that.

Braggfan · Sep 29, 2017

looney said:
Wikipedia being staffed by leftists may have something to do with that.

Or that the daily mail regulalry print lies and stories that are factually untrue.

maltaseagull · Sep 29, 2017

Ernest said:
Anyone who BUYS the Daily Mail should be imprisoned and hopefully when Comrade Corbyn is in power they will BE

Surely he will nationalise it?
He seems to be doing that to everything else.

Aldi and Wetherspoons watch out!!

Tooting Gull · Sep 29, 2017

Pavilionaire said:
This is a democracy with free speech. The best outcome is that the Daily Mail change its editorial policy and start reporting sensibly, but that won't happen.

A lot of people like something to moan about and the DM is excellent at satisfying their readers innate lust for bigoted sh1te.

The DM in itself is not the problem, it's the way in which it sets the agenda and their views are discussed in the media, i.e. phone-in shows, Sky News Paper Reviews. In this way their harsh views are treated as credible and plausible, and are therefore 'normalised'. The same can be said of the Daily Express.

This is the problem, exactly. It never fails to amaze me that the BBC in particular have a knee-jerk reaction to stuff the Daily Mail runs, in a way that they just don't for any other newspaper. I have seen this first hand many times. This alone gives the Mail some bizarre sense of its own power. And the ironic thing is that the Mail will never appreciate it, because they have a virulent anti-BBC agenda and won't change, so the BBC may as well not bother and maintain some integrity.

Bob! · Sep 29, 2017

looney said:
I have noticed stuff like that. Monday to Fiday if a story is posted AM then all the responses are either drivel or bating till about 6.30pm when more erudite posts appear.

Its like Leftwards poll biases, whos going to be hanging around to answer a phone by pollsters? People who work hard dont have time or/and are not available as continuously.

Retired folk who vote Tory and voted Brexit?

Lincoln Imp · Sep 29, 2017

pastafarian said:
34% of Mail readers voted to Remain,
That figure doesnt really fit in with the one size fits all sweeping generalisation rhetoric though..............best ignore it.

Yes, that's a higher figure than I expected. What percentage voted Leave?

Lincoln Imp · Sep 29, 2017

looney said:
I have noticed stuff like that. Monday to Fiday if a story is posted AM then all the responses are either drivel or bating till about 6.30pm when more erudite posts appear.

Its like Leftwards poll biases, whos going to be hanging around to answer a phone by pollsters? People who work hard dont have time or/and are not available as continuously.

As before, surely the fact that a disproportionate number of Leave voters are retired means that this thesis doesn't work?

(Must go now. Having an early elevensies. The joys of self-employment, eh?)

Two Professors · Sep 29, 2017

Publius Ovidius said:
View attachment 89807

Says it all really

I'll see your fascists,and raise it with commie support for nazis!

Mackenzie · Sep 29, 2017

No way. What would the yogurt knitters have to complain about!

Two Professors · Sep 29, 2017

LlcoolJ said:
They like titillating pictures of underage girls?

More likely to buy this

Greg Bobkin · Sep 29, 2017

Should the thread title have a question mark at the end?

pastafarian · Sep 29, 2017

Lincoln Imp said:
Yes, that's a higher figure than I expected. What percentage voted Leave?

Is your calculator broken chap? :lolol:

Sun (70% L-30% R)
Express (70% L-30% R)
Mail (66% L-34% R)
Star (65% L-35% R)
Telegraph (55% L- 45% R)
Mirror (44% L- 56% R)
Times (30% L- 70% R)
Ft (22% L- 78% R)
Indy (15% L- 85% R)
Guardian (9% L- 91% R)

Those who voted only, don’t knows excluded

http://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/NatCen_Brexplanations-report-FINAL-WEB2.pdf

BigGully · Sep 29, 2017

DavidinSouthampton said:
Heart says yes, but head says no.

The worst thing about the Daily Mail is that seemingly sensible people take some of the rubbish it prints seriously.

I think it is, though, a very good argument for Press Regulation, or perhaps rather policing - being hit hard when it is proved to have printed something which is utter garbage, rather than putting an apology at the bottom of page 37. There was a comparatively recent case where they printed a story about health tourism, stating how many millions per year foreign nationals coming here for medical treatment cost.. The whole thing was inflammatory but totally untrue. The true figure was about £7.50 per year - slight exaggeration, but it was next to negligible.

I doubt you would challenge health tourism anyway, so no matter how it is reported you will think it inflammatory irrespective of its merits and then totally dismiss any genuine effect on the reported issue as negligible or not even existing at all, as you have here whilst the likely figure is £280 million annual cost of deliberate health tourism and nearly £2 billion costs from overseas visitors which contradicts most of your post anyway, yet you still think this is something that is untrue and your heart would if it could ban the Daily Mail, all a bit weird.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38060432

looney · Sep 29, 2017

Lincoln Imp said:
As before, surely the fact that a disproportionate number of Leave voters are retired means that this thesis doesn't work?

(Must go now. Having an early elevensies. The joys of self-employment, eh?)

We are looking at a systematic error ranging from 3 to 6%. And when asked facors referencing which cohort they belong to its a lot easier to say your profession than "I am unemployed" Shy dosser theory?

Lincoln Imp · Sep 30, 2017

pastafarian said:
Is your calculator broken chap?

Sun (70% L-30% R)
Express (70% L-30% R)
Mail (66% L-34% R)
Star (65% L-35% R)
Telegraph (55% L- 45% R)
Mirror (44% L- 56% R)
Times (30% L- 70% R)
Ft (22% L- 78% R)
Indy (15% L- 85% R)
Guardian (9% L- 91% R)

Those who voted only, don’t knows excluded

http://whatukthinks.org/eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/NatCen_Brexplanations-report-FINAL-WEB2.pdf

As I suspected, 34 per cent of Mail readers didn't vote Remain. Only 34 percent of those that voted. You didn't say that.

DavidinSouthampton · Sep 30, 2017

BigGully said:
I doubt you would challenge health tourism anyway, so no matter how it is reported you will think it inflammatory irrespective of its merits and then totally dismiss any genuine effect on the reported issue as negligible or not even existing at all, as you have here whilst the likely figure is £280 million annual cost of deliberate health tourism and nearly £2 billion costs from overseas visitors which contradicts most of your post anyway, yet you still think this is something that is untrue and your heart would if it could ban the Daily Mail, all a bit weird.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38060432

Why do you doubt I would challenge health tourism. If people who are not "entitled" to treatment by dint of their status receive treatment, they should pay. The Mail, though, reports such things in an aggressive and nasty way.

Perhaps a better example of the Mail's nastiness is the reporting of the recent case of a small Christian girl being fostered by a Muslim family, where they grossly overstated the whole thing, stating that the girl was threatened and bullied by the fosterers and actually printing a photograph which hhad been doctored. The original photo was of a muslim mother with (I presume) her daughter in a park in Dubai. In the original photo the woman was bare-headed. Before the Mail printed it they added a full-face veil. Why would they do that?

I would not ban the Daily Mail. I just think that any newspaper which plays fast and loose with the facts and does things deliberately to stir up at best ill-feeling or at worst hate should be clobbered by the law or by a strong press regulation presence.

If you are like my daughter's father-in-law, who is well in to his 80s and acknowledged as having a personality disorder, but who thinks that people don't like the Daily Mail because it prints "the truth", then words fail me.

ManOfSussex · Sep 30, 2017

It's always public school types who get threatened by threads like these, but they are the insecure losers. Close public schools down first, then we have a start in this country.

ofco8 · Sep 30, 2017

Larry said:
what do you think.

Idiot!!!

vegster · Oct 1, 2017

DavidinSouthampton said:
Why do you doubt I would challenge health tourism. If people who are not "entitled" to treatment by dint of their status receive treatment, they should pay. The Mail, though, reports such things in an aggressive and nasty way.

Perhaps a better example of the Mail's nastiness is the reporting of the recent case of a small Christian girl being fostered by a Muslim family, where they grossly overstated the whole thing, stating that the girl was threatened and bullied by the fosterers and actually printing a photograph which hhad been doctored. The original photo was of a muslim mother with (I presume) her daughter in a park in Dubai. In the original photo the woman was bare-headed. Before the Mail printed it they added a full-face veil. Why would they do that?

I would not ban the Daily Mail. I just think that any newspaper which plays fast and loose with the facts and does things deliberately to stir up at best ill-feeling or at worst hate should be clobbered by the law or by a strong press regulation presence.

If you are like my daughter's father-in-law, who is well in to his 80s and acknowledged as having a personality disorder, but who thinks that people don't like the Daily Mail because it prints "the truth", then words fail me.

Pretty much this. Although it spouts some incredibly nasty stuff we have to remember we do live in a democracy with a right to free speech, it's just a pity the Mail abuses the privilege so regularly without sanctions it seems.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Should the Daily Mail be closed down.

Banned

Banned

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded

Well-known member

Well-known member

Coffee Buyer

Well-known member

Well-known member

Two Mad Professors

Old Brightonian

Two Mad Professors

Silver Seagull

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

We wunt be druv

Well-known member

Sanity Clause

Share this page