Posted on 12/14/2008 7:47:40 AM PST by Stoat
so you say most turn out to be bollocks.
so which ones then cocker?
As you say most I’m sure then you have a ton of links to different stories, right?
Usually I find them to be true, maybe one or two is wrong but yes they are true for the most part.
Of course these stories are often ignored by the likes of the BBC and the guardian which is worshipped by champagne elitist socialists.
come on mucker you know the type, 17 to 27 year old, college or x college types who think they know all about life. They play their video games quite a lot and think they’re pretty hard because they might have done some bollocks of martial arts while ignoring that one simple head or punch but could flatten them .
They discuss their latest Adidas trainers and look at other blokes clothing all the time while on the bus or train or near me on the tram.
Yea round my way we see it all the time on the tram what with the out of city students harping on to one another.
[Semi-seriously, did you learn debate in a sand box or a kennel?]
Before we go on, a little history of the Daily Mail:
It was founded in 1896 by Lord Northcliffe. Unlike the other mainstream newspapers of the day, which had respectability in mind in their journalistic endeavors, The Daily Mail was founded on what Northcliffe called the ‘One Murder a Day’ formula, which he also called the ‘Daily Hate’. From the very outset, it’s principle aim was not to inform, but to engage with the basest emotions of its readers, and to cater to the lowest common denominator. Since then of course, other papers have ruthlessly out-done the Daily Mail in this category, but I digress.
Fast forward to the 1930s, and Lord Rothermere, Grandfather of the current proprieter, took this ‘Daily Hate’ concept just a little bit too far when he started supporting the Nazis, and only stopped this editorial line in 1939. Not because Hitler was a racist, murdering lunatic you understand, but because it was by that point pretty obvious that Britain was heading for war with Germany, and such an obvious lack of patriotism would never have done.
Into the modern day, and the Daily Mail is still busy doing things like defaming the Polish community with its malevolent and lazy journalism:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/aug/04/dailymail.pressandpublishing
Libelling an innocent men such as Robert Murat and Colin Stagg:
http://www.septicisle.info/2006/06/mail-watch-hounding-of-colin-stagg.html
And most pricelessly, confusing the plot of a computer game with a plot by Al’Quaeda to blow up London:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/30/video_game_terrorist_doomsday/
And those are just a small sample. Although for people who can see the Daily Mail’s hyporcrisy don’t take its crappy journalism seriously it is comedy gold. See: http://www.bigdaddymerk.co.uk/mailwatchnew/
And Private Eye’s ‘Street of Shame’ column in any given issue.
A plain-spoken visionary the likes of which we are sadly lacking today. Thank you for posting his quote.
That would indeed be an amusing thing to do, although I wonder....BH0 knows full well that he is (quite rightly) seen as probably the weakest Commander In Chief in American history, and his ego simply won't be able to tolerate that....he may want to have a troop visit soon so as to try to position himself (in his own mind and that of the Left) as a "strong leader who takes charge". The MSM will crow and faint over what a 'dynamic, forthright and uncompromising leader' he is regardless of the fifty thousand YouTube and LiveLeak videos that 'mysteriously' pop up showing him as being completely incompetent and knowing nothing around the troops or matters pertaining to the military.
It will indeed be an interesting spectacle, and it would be amusing if it didn't reflect on America's military and place the world in a terribly dire situation.
Hey, they must like you! :-) I've submitted NUMEROUS comments to Daily Mail articles over the years, all quite polite and relevant of course, but they've never posted anything from me.....maybe they don't like stoats? :-(
There was article that Gordie Brown was critzing the Queen for her ladies in waiting going to Wal Mart of UK because curtain were falling apart they got good deal on curtain LOL!
OH LORDY LOL! I remember that article
OMG was that during Brown's tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequer? He should have been delighted that they were being so thrifty.
One thing that the Left media will NEVER do is admit it when they are wrong....even when it becomes overwhelmingly obvious to the White-guilt plagued 0bama voters that they were duped and voted for the wrong man for the wrong reasons, they will continually spin things to place Barry in the best possible light, just as they twisted anything and everything possible to portray President Bush negatively.
They've found their Savior and they've got his back 'til the end.
That was a great FR thread and you made lots of great contributions to it, as usual :-)
Churchill dropped from England's history syllabus ( pandering to a P.C. agenda)
Of course, the same elimination/degrading of our history's heroes has been taking place in our textbooks for the past 30 years.
Indeed....being a 'dead white male' is reason enough for the Diversity Nazis to cull someone from the historical record, regardless of the essential role they played in world events. An 'oppressed person of color and a sexual minority' will of course have so much more of a rightful place in the texts........
Some examples:
voted AGAINST ID cards
” ‘very strongly FOR the Iraq War
” very strongly AGAINST the hunting ban
” AGAINST equal gay rights
Oh, and “Occasionally rebels against their party in Parliament”
Sounds like a man whom I would want to vote for in the USA :-) We (as well as our British friends) need many more like him.
Sounds like granddaddy would be proud?
I'm sure he would be, and rightfully so :-)
Eric Joyce was in the Black Watch.
Sorry, I'm a bit confused...I'm not seeing either of these names in the article. More info please ?
My favorite version so far:
It is still a brave photo op to take, and credit to the man for taking the time out (even if there was an ulterior motive) to speak to troops in the firing line. Grudging respect for this.
Agreed, and I'm a bit surprised that his supposedly media-savvy aides would allow the event to be spoiled by this rather obvious gaffe....you don't rhetorically attach yourself to a great historical figure and expect it to stick....you let historians and the public do that of their own accord. To do anything else is rightly perceived as cheap, tawdry, superficial showmanship and grandstanding bluster. A bad move that marred an event that could of (and should have) been better used to help the troops there come to terms with the loss of their fellow soldiers.
A few months from now we will undoubtedly hear that she was :-)
Ben Wallace is the MP for Lancaster and Wyre and served in the Scots Guards.
Eric Joyce is MP for Falkirk and served in the Black Watch.
Oh, I see that you were responding to part of the reader post from "SB, Helensburgh Scotland" then. Thanks for your clarification. :-) That's one great things about FR, inaccuracies can be quickly set right.
do you really think I give a rats arse about how the paper started?
ALL media are biased and skew the news what you have to do is read as many as you can and find the truth.
I find those champagne socialists who watch the BBC and Read the guardian think that what they read is gospel and what others read is not.
There in itself is ignorance and stupidity.
They think because they do not read it in their little left wing loon life then it cannot be true if they hear of it self elsewhere.
As for your few articles you googled about most of the paper printing B/S , well you know you’re wrong and you know that most of what they print is the truth but the left wing loon and champagne socialists plus left wing elitists don’t want the public to know about such news as it goes against their agenda.
Their view is don’t let the public find out about what is really going on and now we have certain media like FOX, mail etc printing it and letting the public know about how messed up the left is with their agenda then they go on the offensive by demeaning anyone who reads or watches such media...
Sad part is though the tactic by the left isn’t working no more, the name calling and demeaning is old and boring now and more and more people are seeing though the lefts fascist agenda
out of curiousity where you from cocker and what school do you go to?
There is a difference between bias and outright prostitution of any sense of journalistic integrity which is what the Mail and all the other tabloids do. The Mail goes beyond presenting the news with a particular viewpoint, it goes straight for whipping up the readership into a frenzy of righteous indignation. Think about how you probably view a tabloid like the Mirror, that’s how I feel about all of them, including the Express and the Mail.
I left school many years ago. As for were I’m from, I can tell by you’re pseudonym that you probably wouldn’t like it if you did know. That’s all I have to say....
It has been mildly amusing to watch your aggressive defence (spelling deliberate, BTW) of your own intellectual snobbery in this thread. It has now worn thin and become tiresome, however.
Any objective criticism of the "journalistic integrity" of various media outlets would have to acknowledge that organs such as the Guardian or the BBC are no less guilty of "outright prostitution" than those such as the Daily Mail.
The fact that they present their biases in an emotionless tone and with an affected air of sophisticated objectivity in no way means that their reporting is accurate or that they're telling the truth. It simply means that they're higher-priced courtesans rather than two-dollar street whores...
They all share the same profession, however, and anyone who relies solely on them, either singly or collectively, for their information and understanding of what's really going on in the world is going to get screwed...
In that sense, Stoat's approach is the better: read them all, and then compare, evaluate and investigate further. You, however, choose to make a summary judgment based on your own biases and breezily dismiss whole categories of information sources while insulting those who do patronize them. That approach leads to a stunted, self-referential view of reality.
Of course, you're free to choose whatever approach you wish - just have the decency to avoid inflicting your patronizing snobbery on others.
why wouldn’t I like it, what do you come form one of those nice yuppie mostly semi detached detached housing areas?
As for the rest ,then that is your opinion but to try and demean someone for what they read amongst other media outlets is pure snobbery and smacks of left wing agenda crap
Nope. But, since when did living in a semi make you a yuppie? My grandmother was a nurse and my grandad was a fireman and they lived in a semi. My Aunt used to live in a semi on the Kirkholt estate in Rochdale, which if you are from the Manchester area, will know is hardly a ‘yuppie’ area.
If I was a snob, I’d be judging someone by their background (or alleged background, not unlike what you’re doing now as it happens), or something that was outside their control.
If you have made a conscious choice to read a crappy ‘newspaper’ like the Daily Mail and treat it as a serious news source, frankly, you deserve to be judged accordingly...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.