Its the People not the Politicians

[pastafarian]

Another "Brief look" - well here's a comprehensive look, the following is all on today's front page: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

ISIS:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ces-leave-200-enemy-dead-just-four-weeks.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-defending-beleaguered-town-against-ISIS.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ria-two-UK-citizens-killed-fighting-ISIS.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-girl-stuff-says-terrorist-ex-husband.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lamists-execute-28-non-Muslims-Kenya-bus.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sidential-Homes-distance-jihadists-Syria.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Salford-taxi-driver-killed-jihadi-John.html

NHS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cialist-hospital-said-case-wasn-t-urgent.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...4-hour-111-helpline-UK-technical-problem.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-year-campaign-MoS-exposed-deaths-delays.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2843420/GP-cancer-scan-restrictions-exposed.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sial-Not-Resuscitate-order-stroke-victim.html

in fairness you were referring to todays newspaper(hardcopy)

i never read the mail online unless someone has posted a link to a story.

are all those links from today then?

 

[W.C.]

Did you read any of my reply to you where I copied and pasted Guardian reader comments about that white van man driver? I'm assuming either you missed it completely or you chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit with your world view. Don't worry, you're in good company (other Guardian readers, our resident sixth form Trotskyite: Mustafa).

not that I agree with the OP but, that 'White Van Driver' could have said, for example, I'm not happy with the front of my house appearing all over the news, a bit rude, an apology might be nice but could you now respect my privacy and leave me alone.

Or he could he have agreed to have sun logos slapped all over his van and gone along with the whole media circus.

He chose the latter. So, I think it's fair game to pull him up on putting England flags up for a World Cup that finished 5 months ago and call him lazy. Plus, his parking is shambolic.

 

[Buzzer]

not that I agree with the OP but, that 'White Van Driver' could have said, for example, I'm not happy with the front of my house appearing all over the news, a bit rude, an apology might be nice but could you now respect my privacy and leave me alone.

Or he could he have agreed to have sun logos slapped all over his van and gone along with the whole media circus.

He chose the latter. So, I think it's fair game to pull him up on putting England flags up for a World Cup that finished 5 months ago and call him lazy. Plus, his parking is shambolic.

Thornberry put him into that position as up until the day before he was a private citizen just going about his normal life without being sneered at in social media, along comes a paper that offers £100k+ for having his photo on the paper - I think he's entitled to take the dosh.

And you miss the point completely. Read the comments from Guardian readers who have never met him but making judgements on what he looks like and a few flags he hangs outside his house. Do you think those are enlightened views from eclectic liberals?

For all the posturing by Sahel and Mustafa about the Daily Mail - the bad comments about NHS and ISIS etc etc come from the newspaper and not the readers. I think it's telling and a lot worse that the bigotry in the Guardian comes from the readers and it's page after page from the same people that think it's bad to make snap judgements about someone because of a burqa but happy to crucify a bloke in print for the way he looks. Double standards, total hypocrisy.

 

[Hastings gull]

Pretty much - most of DM's readership is online these days. Scarily it's one of the most visited websites in the world.

I don't mind demonstrating the anti-NHS, pro-war, anti-welfare propaganda every day for the next few days if you want - I'll certainly do it for you tomorrow. It's such a predictable rag, but it seems that you like many of its readers have become desensitised to it all.[/QUOTE.


The sweeping statements and the quite unbelievable arrogance just go on and on and on . .

 

[pastafarian]

Pretty much - most of DM's readership is online these days. Scarily it's one of the most visited websites in the world.

I don't mind demonstrating the anti-NHS, pro-war, anti-welfare propaganda every day for the next few days if you want - I'll certainly do it for you tomorrow. It's such a predictable rag, but it seems that you like many of its readers have become desensitised to it all.

will you just use stories from that particular day or include stories from other days as well like you have just done?
as i said i dont read the online version,so i am hardly desensitised to it,i was initially responding to your claims about todays hardcopy.

you are correct though globally it is indeed the biggest English language newspaper site in the world,i guess they know what they are doing.
a quick check reveals its UK readership figures for hardcopy and online are very similar,about 1.5m daily for hardcopy and 2m unique UK visitors online

it seems very popular,but carry on with your assumptions that you are somehow superior

 

[Soulman]

Thornberry put him into that position as up until the day before he was a private citizen just going about his normal life without being sneered at in social media, along comes a paper that offers £100k+ for having his photo on the paper - I think he's entitled to take the dosh.

And you miss the point completely. Read the comments from Guardian readers who have never met him but making judgements on what he looks like and a few flags he hangs outside his house. Do you think those are enlightened views from eclectic liberals?

For all the posturing by Sahel and Mustafa about the Daily Mail - the bad comments about NHS and ISIS etc etc come from the newspaper and not the readers. I think it's telling and a lot worse that the bigotry in the Guardian comes from the readers and it's page after page from the same people that think it's bad to make snap judgements about someone because of a burqa but happy to crucify a bloke in print for the way he looks. Double standards, total hypocrisy.

Up yours Thornberry.....an English mans home is his castle and all that.

Residents hang the St George's flag on Broadway Tower in Worcestershire, as part of the celebrations marking the start of asparagus season.

 

[Mr Putdown]

Jón Gnarr is a comedian and was mayor from 2010-2014.

Gotcha, I thought you were referring to the mayor of Reyjavick City, Dagur Bergþóruson Eggertsson.

 

[sahel]

Did you read any of my reply to you where I copied and pasted Guardian reader comments about that white van man driver? I'm assuming either you missed it completely or you chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit with your world view. Don't worry, you're in good company (other Guardian readers, our resident sixth form Trotskyite: Mustafa).

Yes I read the comments but I don't understand your point. We have been discussing the papers not the readers. Just because there a few Guardian readers who you or I might not like is beside the point. I am friendly with people who read the Mail - I just think the information they get is biased and trivial and often nasty.

 

[W.C.]

Thornberry put him into that position as up until the day before he was a private citizen just going about his normal life without being sneered at in social media, along comes a paper that offers £100k+ for having his photo on the paper - I think he's entitled to take the dosh.

And you miss the point completely. Read the comments from Guardian readers who have never met him but making judgements on what he looks like and a few flags he hangs outside his house. Do you think those are enlightened views from eclectic liberals?

For all the posturing by Sahel and Mustafa about the Daily Mail - the bad comments about NHS and ISIS etc etc come from the newspaper and not the readers. I think it's telling and a lot worse that the bigotry in the Guardian comes from the readers and it's page after page from the same people that think it's bad to make snap judgements about someone because of a burqa but happy to crucify a bloke in print for the way he looks. Double standards, total hypocrisy.

I agree entirely that he was put in a position he shouldn't have been in. I also think he's entitled to make a bit out of it. But reading his comments and seeing his van with all the logos on it, my honest reaction was, what a ****. When the story came out, my sympathy was with him.

Sorry, I didn't read the comments. I always avoid as far as possible any kind of internet comment section, be it youtube or the guardian. I find if I do read them I lose all hope for the human race I was probably going a bit OT after a few shandies last night.

 

[Hastings gull]

Yes I read the comments but I don't understand your point. We have been discussing the papers not the readers. Just because there a few Guardian readers who you or I might not like is beside the point. I am friendly with people who read the Mail - I just think the information they get is biased and trivial and often nasty.

Is this not a classic case of someone who begins with sweeping statements, then realises what has been said and tries to wangle their way out of it. Your opening statement was quite clear -"The voters need to get their act together otherwise we are heading for real trouble" . You gave lots of one-sided examples of how the average punter has misunderstood this and that, due to biased information given in the DM, and that the Guardian was so superior. You cannot now separate the paper from the reader and retain credibility. The fact that ( you say) you like some DM readers is really irrelevant, and, be honest, the statement is only designed to lend a bit of credence to your theory.

 

[sahel]

Is this not a classic case of someone who begins with sweeping statements, then realises what has been said and tries to wangle their way out of it. Your opening statement was quite clear -"The voters need to get their act together otherwise we are heading for real trouble" . You gave lots of one-sided examples of how the average punter has misunderstood this and that, due to biased information given in the DM, and that the Guardian was so superior. You cannot now separate the paper from the reader and retain credibility. The fact that ( you say) you like some DM readers is really irrelevant, and, be honest, the statement is only designed to lend a bit of credence to your theory.

I'm not trying to wangle out of anything trust me. I stand by my opening remarks. The Guardian is far superior to the Mail and my view is that if you get your information from the Mail you are far more likely to be misinformed and far more likely to be wrong on issues. In a lot of peoples' minds the image of the England flag and white vans is tied up with football hooliganism and bad behaviour including racism. That may be unfair just as any stereotyping is unfair but even Guardian readers can get it wrong sometimes and even some Guardian readers can be downright unpleasant. That really is not the point

 

[Buzzer]

I'm not trying to wangle out of anything trust me. I stand by my opening remarks. The Guardian is far superior to the Mail and my view is that if you get your information from the Mail you are far more likely to be misinformed and far more likely to be wrong on issues. In a lot of peoples' minds the image of the England flag and white vans is tied up with football hooliganism and bad behaviour including racism. That may be unfair just as any stereotyping is unfair but even Guardian readers can get it wrong sometimes and even some Guardian readers can be downright unpleasant. That really is not the point

It's precisely the point. Page after page of Guardian reader comments using the same logic as you: white van man + England flags = football hooliganism/bad behaviour/racism. Why is that? Because the newspaper they all subscribe to reinforces this stereotype they have. And there's no question of 'may be unfair' - it's as bigoted as anything you'll find in the DM or Sun.

The Guardian is deliberately biased towards a certain mindset and tailors what news and how it reports that towards the views of those people. It's why you buy it. It's why public sector advertising is such a huge revenue stream for the paper. It's not a neutral paper, the big trick it plays is making the likes of you feel morally and intellectually superior to people who read different newspapers. You're not, you really aren't.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

It's precisely the point. Page after page of Guardian reader comments using the same logic as you: white van man + England flags = football hooliganism/bad behaviour/racism. .

Are you sure you are just not seeing what you want to see. I read some of those comments section and there seemed to be quite a wide range of opinion.

The Guardian is deliberately biased towards a certain mindset and tailors what news and how it reports that towards the views of those people.

I am not sure that the paper looks at its readership and then tailors its reporting to that audience. More that it stays loyal to its liberal traditions and lets readers choose whether they want to read it. If papers all followed the views of most readers they would all eventually take the same political stance.

I read the paper and don't feel morally superior.

 

[Hastings gull]

I'm not trying to wangle out of anything trust me. I stand by my opening remarks. The Guardian is far superior to the Mail and my view is that if you get your information from the Mail you are far more likely to be misinformed and far more likely to be wrong on issues. In a lot of peoples' minds the image of the England flag and white vans is tied up with football hooliganism and bad behaviour including racism. That may be unfair just as any stereotyping is unfair but even Guardian readers can get it wrong sometimes and even some Guardian readers can be downright unpleasant. That really is not the point

As you well know, my point was in regard to your inconsistency. You say that we were discussing the papers not the readers, and I gave you a quote of what you said, which made it quite clear that you were targeting the readers. Let me give you another - "The Guardian is an intelligent paper for people who think" . Incidentally, I am sure that most folk who read the Guardian probably do "think" as you put it, but that is equally true of readers of other papers, such as the DM. Why should it not be? If you had approached the whole issue with rather more humility and speculated on the effect that biased papers of all shades had on people's views, and to what extent we can sift out fact from fiction, inviting consequent comment, then I would have had for more sympathy. But instead, you chose to say that one set of readers "think" and another set is more likely to be misinformed, (because they obviously cannot think) without ever offering a shred of evidence to justify such a sweeping statement. It is no good now trying to split hairs and say "I am only talking about the papers," when you most certainly were talking about both.

 

[Buzzer]

I am not sure that the paper looks at its readership and then tailors its reporting to that audience. More that it stays loyal to its liberal traditions and lets readers choose whether they want to read it. If papers all followed the views of most readers they would all eventually take the same political stance.

The Guardian is a business and as with all businesses it stays in business by giving its customers what they want. You call it 'liberal traditions' but it's just a political bias, you can wrap their world view in whatever cosy words you want but at the end of the day, that's what it is. It's certainly not neutral and thus will never give the full picture on every story and when it comes to politics on any story.

I read the paper and don't feel morally superior

You may not but the OP clearly does.

 

[Hastings gull]

I am not sure that the paper looks at its readership and then tailors its reporting to that audience. More that it stays loyal to its liberal traditions and lets readers choose whether they want to read it. If papers all followed the views of most readers they would all eventually take the same political stance.

Thanks for this.
I am not sure I understand this -could be me, I fully accept. A paper will stay close to its traditions, of course, but the editor knows that the those who choose to buy that paper will have views that the paper espouses. I can't see the logic of your last sentence -would for the sake of argument, the Guardian and the Mail take the same political stance, if they followed the views of their readers? Their readers' views would in all likelihood be very different.
Good that you do not feel morally superior, by the way, and nor should anyone about whatever they read, but tell that to the OP....

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

The Guardian is a business and as with all businesses it stays in business by giving its customers what they want. You call it 'liberal traditions' but it's just a political bias, you can wrap their world view in whatever cosy words you want but at the end of the day, that's what it is. It's certainly not neutral and thus will never give the full picture on every story and when it comes to politics on any story.

Those are not cosy words. That is the tradition from which the Guardian has arisen. No need to make the words "cosy".

And the idea that any news organisation can give "the full picture on every story" is fanciful.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Thanks for this.
I am not sure I understand this -could be me, I fully accept. A paper will stay close to its traditions, of course, but the editor knows that the those who choose to buy that paper will have views that the paper espouses. I can't see the logic of your last sentence -would for the sake of argument, the Guardian and the Mail take the same political stance, if they followed the views of their readers? Their readers' views would in all likelihood be very different.
Good that you do not feel morally superior, by the way, and nor should anyone about whatever they read, but tell that to the OP....

And you can eff off.

 

[Buzzer]

Those are not cosy words. That is the tradition from which the Guardian has arisen. No need to make the words "cosy".

And the idea that any news organisation can give "the full picture on every story" is fanciful.

Fair enough, but I think people like the OP are under the misunderstanding that broadsheets such as the Guardian give the unadulterated truth free and by and large free from bias where that's patently not true.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Thanks for this.
I am not sure I understand this -could be me, I fully accept. A paper will stay close to its traditions, of course, but the editor knows that the those who choose to buy that paper will have views that the paper espouses. I can't see the logic of your last sentence -would for the sake of argument, the Guardian and the Mail take the same political stance, if they followed the views of their readers? Their readers' views would in all likelihood be very different.
Good that you do not feel morally superior, by the way, and nor should anyone about whatever they read, but tell that to the OP....

That was a joke by the way.

Yes. I am not entirely sure about the highlighted part. It just seems that if papers chased the largest audience - they will end up basically the same. Like the major parties after the middle ground in politics. They all end up looking the same, different traditions - but basically the same policies.

Had the Guardian followed its readership on the largest issue of the last 15 years it would have been against the Iraq war for example.