egafd.com

[quote]However, leaving your post aside for a moment, what troubles me, is the age old, orchestrated "Hatred" of the Daily Mail.[/quote]

I think it all started with, "Hurrah for the blackshirts!"

[quote]I'd hated the Mail, but never actually read it, I hated the Mail because I had been told to hate it, by "right on" Lefties, of which I was one myself.[/quote]

You hated a paper you'd never read because someone else told you to? Easily led, then. I wouldn't go joining any forums with a staunch right-wing agenda, Jim. They'll have you on here defending the Daily Mail and calling people 'champaign socialists' or 'bleeding heart liberals' in no time!

In all seriousness, Jim, you'll be surprised to know that I agree with a lot of you points on the Daily Mail. On occasions they have highlighted things other media outlets have swept under the carpet for political reasons. My problem with the Guardian, for instance, differs from that of the Daily Mail. With the DM it's what they say that gets my back up; with the Guardian it's what they don't say.

As I alluded to in my previous post, any serious person should feel themselves obliged to take in the alternative view and process it. How else are we to know our views are the right one's if there are no alternatives to challenge them?

And, of course, all papers have some sort of agenda and bias. One good thing about the UK press is they don't hide it so we all know where we stand. I'd much rather have this than a press that feigns total objectivity.

Unfortunately the Daily Mail has all too frequently made me retch. A paper that has not progressed morally, and still has the same outlook on life it did since before my birth. It appeals to the conservative, slightly bigoted white couple in their mid 50s who are critical of everyone and everything who aren't like themselves. The paper that claimed it was horrified how the BBC showed the female form naked before the watershed (despite no genitalia or nipple on show) in the recent Sherlock series, and completely shocked that people should have to walk passed condoms and marital aids in Boots before they get to the shampoo and deodorants and in both cases they said these things didn't protect our children.....yet, they find it completely OK to show colour, detailed pictures of the beaten and bloodied corpse of Gaddafi and many other gruesome shots even though any child can legally buy the paper. And that's only two of this week's headlines that have had me exasperated at the hypocrisy.

No. When it comes to the media they all have an agenda and so pragmatism has to prevail. You go for the lesser evil, and the Daily Mail is a long way off getting to that lofty height.

Hey

Maybe they published the photo so that people know who to approach and ask why the fuck she had a house full of small children yet no working smoke alarms?

Just a thought of course

BB

I get it now David. Adolf was ok until he started to read the Mail.
I'm glad we've got that cleared up.

Hey



Still got so much sympathy for the grieving Mother? I think a photo of her should be on every 9v battery packet. Bit like them infected lungs on fag boxes.

Why the fuck are so many people prepared to risk using their kids as kindling for the sake of a few quid? Don't think I have any children but I keep on top of my smoke alarms for the sake of ME an my Goldfish. Like to think that if I had a few bins running around I would make a bit of an effort.

I'm sure that it is the Mail's fault. Or maybe the Tories for cutting benefits. Giving people on a low income the choice between throwing a boozy birthday party of buying a few batterys from poundland. Fucking Mail wankers. Editors? Bunch of cunts!! Bet their smoke alarms work. Cunts. Being all self righteous,caring about the welfare of people in their houses. Fuck it makes me so angry

God I fucking hate the Mail. Lets keep dedicating threads to how right wing and shit they are why continuing to ignore that wankers like this women happily put their childrens lives in danger every day buy spending money on fags and drink rather than the things that could have saved these kids lives.

Feel free to come back on this one mumfister,or what ever your fucking name is.

Actually I have just had a MASSIVE change of heart with to regards capital punishment in this country.

Would pay money to see this daft bitch hanged. Maybe that could be a Mail campaign at some point.

100% agree

I hear this all too often

"I'm against that film/book/politician etc"etc havent seen/read or researched up on any facts but i've been told about them

These types really are pretentious sheep


The dailymail might be many things but it reminds me

Negative sensational headlines sell papers...whats in them matters not
All media good and bad twist the truth to suit their views

If you didnt read the dailymail online you'd miss worthwhile things like this

Fifty years after Steptoe And Son clip-clopped on to our screens, how the tragi-comic rag 'n' bone men became the finest sitcom of all time

By Christopher Stevens

Jim....what with the Jews returning to Zion etc etc and now this rambling
part defence of the Mail, part advice to read whatever one wants but
not be influenced by the "cunts" (whoever they are) etc etc I think you
need the valium badly...or maybe too much Thai sun has hit the old pate
of late.....
Newspapers, since the days of the earliest broadsheets, all spread via
the written word an "opinion" or "opinions" on current topics. Thats part
of what they do. News in other words has always had a bias.
People tend to read a paper that supports their own opinions and
prejudices in relation to the world. Pure news reporting without a bias is
rare, especially social and governmental matters but a bias can and does
extend in varying degrees right across the subjects-spectrum.
So if you are saying read whatever you want that reinforces your own
feelings and prejudices then I agree with you....as to these "cunts" you
are on about no one is trying to dupe you. Any one who thinks
newspapers are meant to be honest, fair and impartial is a naive fool.