Lou Reed, Peter Hitchens and the ridiculous Daily Mail.

[Seagull on the wing]

What about the Mail's campaign against the killers of Stephen Lawrence ? They were way ahead of the pack there. How come nobody's mentioned that ?

They don't mention that my friend...that would be crimminal to suggest that the Mail beat the other papers and it kind of destroys their view that the Mail is racist...they have selective viewing and only quote what slides in with their outlook of Left.

 

[Bill Cassidy's tie up]

Go Seagull game set and match

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Bit late to this discussion, but a good example of Daily Mail 'journalism' today with Richard Littlejohn and Jack Monroe (no, me neither).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...EJOHN-Ah-Pesto-Meet-poverty-poster-girls.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...littlejohn-wrong-about-jack-monroe-daily-mail

It's patently obvious that he hadn't done the faintest bit of research about her, yet the sub-editor (assuming he has one) hasn't bothered to correct anything either. I also find it interesting because it cuts across the Jamie Olivier/Will Self thread, specifically about the 'class' associated with different types of food.

Yes read her reply online,she is replying from the newspaper that employs her....And her first line...I'm not single,I'm getting married in the spring...er...so your not married...if you're not married that makes you single...it is no good saying you're engaged is it,you are only married when you tie the knot.
I'm not saying the Guardian has'nt had it's share of scoops, (phone hacking) it has,it is a centre left paper,more Liberal but with a very low circulation of under 250,000...if it was that good it would sell more than that,The Financial Times and Independant fare no better.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Yes. It does doesn't it. They are all over the internet. Littlejohn is not paid to be provocative he is paid to spew racist, sexist, misogynistic nonsense to the squealing delight of hand wringing, permanently outraged, little Englanders. Like you and SGOTW.

Couldn't resist it could you Nibble,back with the mudslinging...Wow! Little Englanders. If being a 'Little Englander puts my country first,if it means that OUR old and sick come before Illegal immigrants, then I'm guilty as charged...I suppose you support the Health tourist,the illegal immigrants who arrive to sponge off our benefits. No problem with genuine immigrants who work and put something back into the system...what's your next move? The racist card,sorry you fail there as well,I've had many foreign students stay here for peppercorn rent,Black,Chinese,Phillipino,Indian,I even used to take them to College.
Those 'Mail' headlines you stated,someone asked you where you got them from and your reply...they're all over the internet...great thinking Batman,you could find anything on the net to fit what you state, (Daily Mock) I would be far more impressed if you actually posted those headlines from the Mails Archives c'mon,please show us...probalby all silent again.
Now I ask you,do you support the vote rigging in Scotland by Unite union,the Terror Leavage squad...typical union practice in the 70s...old habits die hard I suppose...they used to swear and abuse those who didn't agree with them...all you can do is come on here and slate somebody with insults but then do not give any evidence as why.
Yes you did write why you do not like the mail...eventually without being abusive but then use a load of left proganda to state your case.

 

[sten_super]

Yes read her reply online,she is replying from the newspaper that employs her....And her first line...I'm not single,I'm getting married in the spring...er...so your not married...if you're not married that makes you single...it is no good saying you're engaged is it,you are only married when you tie the knot.
I'm not saying the Guardian has'nt had it's share of scoops, (phone hacking) it has,it is a centre left paper,more Liberal but with a very low circulation of under 250,000...if it was that good it would sell more than that,The Financial Times and Independant fare no better.

I entirely take your point about the guardian. I read it online because it if free, and I think most of the left wing stuff is hilarious.

However, I think you are off the mark with your circulation comment. It all depends on the market. The FT is far and away the most "independent" newspaper from financially justified commentary, but it's market is not the same as the mail. Similarly the mail and the Sun have the widest appeal but that doesn't make them the best newspaper, just the most popular.

My point was more that some journalists (possibly/hopefully not all) are allowed to get away with poorly researched nonsense in the mail because it sells copy, and I'm not sure the same is true at some of the other papers that we mention. I certainly think the others can't justify it financially (due to their lesser circulations) like the mail can.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

I entirely take your point about the guardian. I read it online because it if free, and I think most of the left wing stuff is hilarious.

However, I think you are off the mark with your circulation comment. It all depends on the market. The FT is far and away the most "independent" newspaper from financially justified commentary, but it's market is not the same as the mail. Similarly the mail and the Sun have the widest appeal but that doesn't make them the best newspaper, just the most popular.

My point was more that some journalists (possibly/hopefully not all) are allowed to get away with poorly researched nonsense in the mail because it sells copy, and I'm not sure the same is true at some of the other papers that we mention. I certainly think the others can't justify it financially (due to their lesser circulations) like the mail can.

Agree about the FT, it is aimed at the financial market therefore is not a newspaper that reports so much about world news,the reason I mentioned that paper...if I did not put that in and just stated that the Guardian was the second lowest circulation to the Independant somebody would come and post that the FT was lower trying to prove that my research was wrong... thanks for feedback though.

 

[spring hall convert]

What about the Mail's campaign against the killers of Stephen Lawrence ? They were way ahead of the pack there. How come nobody's mentioned that ?

Ok, they've done one good thing in nearly 150 years. Anything else? You do realise how long ago Stephen Lawrence was killed as well don't you? This is like when you rib Chelsea fans for never bringing any players through and they answer "What about John Terry?"

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Ok, they've done one good thing in nearly 150 years. Anything else? You do realise how long ago Stephen Lawrence was killed as well don't you? This is like when you rib Chelsea fans for never bringing any players through and they answer "What about John Terry?"

Really,does time make difference?...how do you know that is the only good thing they've done in a 150 years, (don't think you're that old )have you trawled through all their archives,if you have, you must be a wiz on research and computers...or, did you as I suspect,just clutch that figure out of the air to make a point?
On the basis of your statement you could say that WW1 and WW2 were a long time ago and did'nt matter.
Most papers have one major scoop,even the Guardian with the phone hacking,I'm sure if I had time I could go through the archives to find something that every paper has done well or bad at one time. Lom73 used the Stephen Lawrence case as an example.

 

[spring hall convert]

The 150 years was a quick punt at the age of the paper. It's actually 117 years old. The Lawrence case is used to defend the Mail in the same way that Sarah's law was used to defend the News of The World. It then seems to go quiet.

There are some examples of excellent investigative journalism in recent years, MP Expenses (Telegraph), Phone Hacking (Guardian), FIFA Corruption (The Times/ Telegraph), NSA Leaks (Guardian) Pakistan cricketers spot fixing (News of The World), Undercover Police Affairs (Guardian), death of Ian Tomllinson (Guardian), Rochdale Grooming (The Times) probably being the highest profile. Read a copy of Private Eye and you'll find 5-10 genuine, non sensationalised scoops in every issue. The Mail, in the main sells righteous indignation once someone else has broken the story.

Admittedly a Mail on Sunday journalist does feature in this list of the top 10 investigative journalists in the country here; http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/press...s-brave-and-unstoppable-nick-davies-tops-list but there is always an exception to every rule

 

[spring hall convert]

Couldn't resist it could you Nibble,back with the mudslinging...Wow! Little Englanders. If being a 'Little Englander puts my country first,if it means that OUR old and sick come before Illegal immigrants, then I'm guilty as charged...I suppose you support the Health tourist,the illegal immigrants who arrive to sponge off our benefits. No problem with genuine immigrants who work and put something back into the system...what's your next move? The racist card,sorry you fail there as well,I've had many foreign students stay here for peppercorn rent,Black,Chinese,Phillipino,Indian,I even used to take them to College.
Those 'Mail' headlines you stated,someone asked you where you got them from and your reply...they're all over the internet...great thinking Batman,you could find anything on the net to fit what you state, (Daily Mock) I would be far more impressed if you actually posted those headlines from the Mails Archives c'mon,please show us...probalby all silent again.
Now I ask you,do you support the vote rigging in Scotland by Unite union,the Terror Leavage squad...typical union practice in the 70s...old habits die hard I suppose...they used to swear and abuse those who didn't agree with them...all you can do is come on here and slate somebody with insults but then do not give any evidence as why.
Yes you did write why you do not like the mail...eventually without being abusive but then use a load of left proganda to state your case.

Wow, that first paragraph is definitely the work of a Mail reader. Illegal immigrant. Check. Scrounger. Check. Genuine immigrant. Check. The "I've got a black mate" card. Check. Is it a parody? Your language here is exactly the same divisive, "politics of fear" stuff the DM loves.

Also, when are you going to get it into your head that this isn't a left/right debate? I understand why someone who lived the nightmare of pre Thatcher mid to late 70's Britain became would not want to see us go there again. Both Nibble & others have continually told you in other threads that they read other papers, including the right wing Telegraph. These "lefties" don't dislike the Mail because it is right wing, they dislike it because it is a hateful newspaper.

I'm going to ask you this question again. What do you think The Mail stands for? I know a hell of a lot about what it hates but what does it like?

 

[Seagull on the wing]

The 150 years was a quick punt at the age of the paper. It's actually 117 years old. The Lawrence case is used to defend the Mail in the same way that Sarah's law was used to defend the News of The World. It then seems to go quiet.

There are some examples of excellent investigative journalism in recent years, MP Expenses (Telegraph), Phone Hacking (Guardian), FIFA Corruption (The Times/ Telegraph), NSA Leaks (Guardian) Pakistan cricketers spot fixing (News of The World), Undercover Police Affairs (Guardian), death of Ian Tomllinson (Guardian), Rochdale Grooming (The Times) probably being the highest profile. Read a copy of Private Eye and you'll find 5-10 genuine, non sensationalised scoops in every issue. The Mail, in the main sells righteous indignation once someone else has broken the story.

Admittedly a Mail on Sunday journalist does feature in this list of the top 10 investigative journalists in the country here; http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/press...s-brave-and-unstoppable-nick-davies-tops-list but there is always an exception to every rule

Didn't know that magazine was published,however thanks for the link,give Nick Davies his due he seems a capable journalist and has the grace to apologise to the News of the World.well done.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Wow, that first paragraph is definitely the work of a Mail reader. Illegal immigrant. Check. Scrounger. Check. Genuine immigrant. Check. The "I've got a black mate" card. Check. Is it a parody? Your language here is exactly the same divisive, "politics of fear" stuff the DM loves.

Also, when are you going to get it into your head that this isn't a left/right debate? I understand why someone who lived the nightmare of pre Thatcher mid to late 70's Britain became would not want to see us go there again. Both Nibble & others have continually told you in other threads that they read other papers, including the right wing Telegraph. These "lefties" don't dislike the Mail because it is right wing, they dislike it because it is a hateful newspaper.

I'm going to ask you this question again. What do you think The Mail stands for? I know a hell of a lot about what it hates but what does it like?

(Re your post 87 ...As I suspected you just picked a figure out of your mind..oh! let's say 150 years,that sounds good.
OK, I mentioned Illegal Immigrants...are you honestly saying we do not have them here or am I supposed to be like the left and say...no there's none here and if you mention it your a racist...or do I face facts that they are here ?
Are there not benefit scroungers,watch the benefit programme Wednesday 9pm.
I put in the as you call it black mate card because in time, the race issue would've been thrown at me.
Who is putting out politics of fear,the left do that for themselves with their politics of envy. Think you'll find out it is a left /right debate.
Proof of hate please re Mail...you're not clutching 'facts' from hearsay again are you?
And I will reply again...I've written a large post on why I buy the Mail, it is so easy to say Oh! I read lots of newspapers to get a balanced view...name your paper,has it a political bias? If it agrees with your outlook it's alright, then isn't it great Journalism.
I have asked Nibble to come up with FACTS about those Daily Mail headlines...as usual it has suddenly gone quiet...his profile does not say his age therefore experience of life and politics.Easy to hide behind the keyboard and throw out barbs of hate at something without backing it up with facts.
He has not put his choice of paper.
You and others call the Daily Mail the Daily Hate....when you and others come on here and call the Mail full of Lies, (Sue them,Lord Roschild tried)Hate,look at yourselves, the hate is coming from you (hateful newspaper).
What does the paper like...Freedom of expression will do for starters...Littlejohn is given a free reign to write his column..left wing activist are given a page to write,left wing broadcasters,teachers are all given a voice.
I don't particularly like the Daily Mirror,but I would'nt open a new thread about it and throw abuse at it,I just don't buy it,usually glance at it's headlines when I buy the Mail.

 

[Nibble]

Couldn't resist it could you Nibble,back with the mudslinging...Wow! Little Englanders. If being a 'Little Englander puts my country first,if it means that OUR old and sick come before Illegal immigrants, then I'm guilty as charged...I suppose you support the Health tourist,the illegal immigrants who arrive to sponge off our benefits. No problem with genuine immigrants who work and put something back into the system...what's your next move? The racist card,sorry you fail there as well,I've had many foreign students stay here for peppercorn rent,Black,Chinese,Phillipino,Indian,I even used to take them to College.
Those 'Mail' headlines you stated,someone asked you where you got them from and your reply...they're all over the internet...great thinking Batman,you could find anything on the net to fit what you state, (Daily Mock) I would be far more impressed if you actually posted those headlines from the Mails Archives c'mon,please show us...probalby all silent again.
Now I ask you,do you support the vote rigging in Scotland by Unite union,the Terror Leavage squad...typical union practice in the 70s...old habits die hard I suppose...they used to swear and abuse those who didn't agree with them...all you can do is come on here and slate somebody with insults but then do not give any evidence as why.
Yes you did write why you do not like the mail...eventually without being abusive but then use a load of left proganda to state your case.

I doubt you would understand any reply I gave.

 

[Nibble]

Edited

 

[Nibble]

Edited

 

[Seagull on the wing]

I doubt you would understand any reply I gave.

It is impossible to understand if you DON'T give a reply...as usual,no facts just a cop out. I'm waiting for you to answer the questions...age,work experience ? think that would be easy to understand...paper of choice? not hard is it?
Do we have illegal immigrants or not...
Do you support the vote rigging and leaverage squads in Scotland...
Where is the proof of those headlines you quoted...

 

[Nibble]

It is impossible to understand if you DON'T give a reply...as usual,no facts just a cop out. I'm waiting for you to answer the questions...age,work experience ? think that would be easy to understand...paper of choice? not hard is it?
Do we have illegal immigrants or not...
Do you support the vote rigging and leaverage squads in Scotland...
Where is the proof of those headlines you quoted...

Pity you don't demand such strict criteria from that "newspaper" you love so much.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Pity you don't demand such strict criteria from that "newspaper" you love so much.

Pity you couldn't answer those questions then....Take it that you can't think of an answer or get any proof....I don't demand anything from the Mail...if they wrote articles I did'nt like I would'nt buy the paper.

 

[Nibble]

Pity you couldn't answer those questions then....Take it that you can't think of an answer or get any proof....I don't demand anything from the Mail...if they wrote articles I did'nt like I would'nt buy the paper.

So you're denying Richard Littlejohn said these things? There's just no point debating with you chap, you demand all these answers from others and cannot even meet the same criteria. Why do you like the mail? Because I do and it's read by loads of people and it's got an apologies page. Oh, sorry I didn't realise you'd gone to so much trouble to hone your argument.

You read the mail. I think you've set your stall out. What else can one add?

 

[Seagull on the wing]

So you're denying Richard Littlejohn said these things? There's just no point debating with you chap, you demand all these answers from others and cannot even meet the same criteria. Why do you like the mail? Because I do and it's read by loads of people and it's got an apologies page. Oh, sorry I didn't realise you'd gone to so much trouble to hone your argument.

You read the mail. I think you've set your stall out. What else can one add?

Well you could answer the questions I asked you instead of hiding away with no proof to back you up,I think I have written far more on this subject and answered more question than you have,I have met every question asked whereas you and SHC have not answered ONE question put to you....still do not know how old you are,your work experience.Where you got those headlines from...