Hugely amusing and ironic that Wikipedia should class a publication that's, so many will feel, as unreliable as itself.
You could class all the daily main stream newspapers in the same category if being pedantic, as they generally all use the same sources for a considerable proportion of their news.
|
|
Believe me, I am no fan of the Daily Mail, but isn't the Guardian merely its leftie equivalent? I wouldn't believe a word I read in either, quite frankly.
|
Pot calling kettle black.
All newspapers are guilty of distorting facts and presenting biased opinions as news.
|
>>Believe me, I am no fan of the Daily Mail, but isn't the Guardian merely its leftie equivalent? I wouldn't believe a word I read in either, quite frankly.
Our daily is the Torygraph but I quite like the gRauniad despite not being aligned with its politics, most articles seem reasonably well researched and edited. I try and avoid anything by Owen Jones. I find him rather annoying. Otherwise not too bad a rag. The size is just perfect for the cat litter tray as well.
|
>> I try and avoid anything by Owen Jones. I find him rather annoying.>>
I was watching the Papers Preview whilst on holiday last year and witnessed the intensely annoying, baby faced Owen Jones storm off the set in a fit of pique; watch how embarrassed Julia Hartley-Brewer becomes in this video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ITdjAb3VcE
Last edited by: Stuartli on Sat 11 Feb 17 at 00:14
|
The problem is plenty of people believe what they read.Hysteria about immigrants or they taking our N.H.S over.The news is 24/7 take it all with a pinch off salt like the weather forecast.
Owen Jones hart is in the right place a bit full of himself but who isn't?
|
>>Owen Jones hart is in the right place a bit full of himself but who isn't? >>
He's so far up his rear end that he's comes across as a petulant and numbing embarrassment to virtually all. No wonder I've not seen him much on Sky News since, other than an occasional brief spot about a current news story.
|
He was (presumably) invited on that programme as an LGBT person to comment on the attack on the gay club in US. Instead JHB, and more particularly the male interviewee/presenter, keep trying to divert the conversation.
Any half sentient presenter, either on her own or with help of her producer/director would have seen his evident distress and moderated their line.
In his shoes I'd have walked too.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 11 Feb 17 at 20:54
|
Have you decided whether it was a male or female presenter yet?
The walk out was, in my opinion, unnecessary - he'd have achieved more by remaining and arguing his case more convincingly. After all he is supposed to be a journalist.
|
>> Have you decided whether it was a male or female presenter yet?
That sort of remark just makes you look 'a bit clever'. Is the bloke seated to JHB's right her co-presenter or another guest? I never watch the programme so I've no idea
>> The walk out was, in my opinion, unnecessary - he'd have achieved more by remaining
>> and arguing his case more convincingly. After all he is supposed to be a journalist.
We all have a tolerance threshold. It was quite clear from Jones's body language that attempts to divert conversation off his point about gay people was pushing him to limit. Rather the sort of conduct folks here were critcal of when used against Domonic Raab.
Jones is an openly gay journalist not a politician punting half truths. It's a pity he walked but studio either failed to deal or allowed it to happen for benefit of 'walkout' headline /publicity.
|
>>That sort of remark just makes you look 'a bit clever'. Is the bloke seated to JHB's right her co-presenter or another guest? I never watch the programme so I've no idea>>
Sorry, but if you watch the video it's perfectly clear and is the standard seating arrangement. The two guests reviewing the papers sit alongside each other (on the right of the screen) and the presenter is facing them on the left i.e JHC and Jones are seen on the right of the screen, apart from individual close up shots). The guests' names and publications are also shown frequently at the bottom of the screen.
It's a live programme, so it's puzzling why you should believe that the production staff would be looking for the "benefit of walkout headline publicity". Jones suddenly got up and stormed off the set quite unexpectedly.
|
|
I watched the clip, never seen the show before. It seemed obvious who the guests were and who the presenter was. The bloke who walked out seemed to have some sort of temper tantrum he looked stupid and childish. He perhaps got confused and thought it was some soap box of his, rather than a paid guest/commentator on sky news.
|
>> Jones is an openly gay journalist not a politician punting half truths>>
Actually he is a left-wing activist who happens to be a journalist. He loses no opportunity in promoting Socialist policies whenever he's on TV.
|
>> I never watch the programme
>>
If you watch any TV news, then this should be top of your list to get to see the news from the point of view of opposing political viewpoints.
>> He was (presumably) invited on that programme as an LGBT person to comment on the attack on the gay club in US
As you don't watch the programme, you can be excused for not being aware that Owen Jones is regular guest on this slot, he is there to provide a left-wing bias against another right-wing biased guest.
As for this particular episode, Owen Jones was taking offence where none was intended, nor was apparent to most rational people.
|
|
He was obviously very agitated and possibly upset as well by the shootings. Perhaps to be fair to him he wasn't really in the right frame of mind to be on tv .
|
"As for this particular episode, Owen Jones was taking offence where none was intended, "
Owen Jones was making a stand on behalf of the permanently offended; he makes a living from it.
|
I look at the Daily Mail online version simply to see an extensive photographic coverage of news of interest to me.
I never click on any of its sidebar of shame articles, as those simply don't itnerest me.
I look at the Guardian to understand the left-wing point of view. I particularly like to read the top comments under articles where they do allow comments below the line, even though I don't agree with their ultra-left slant most of the time.
Research has shown that lefties tend not to be open to perusing opposing points of view, as is evidenced by their propensity to "no-platform" people they don't like. (The hypothetical possibility of Trump addressing Parliament is the latest example).
(Hypocritically, I admit I have resorted to a similar tactic with one particular "NO" person on here by blanking him).
|
>>(Hypocritically, I admit I have resorted to a similar tactic with one particular "NO" person on here by blanking him).
For which I wholeheartedly and sincerely thank you. Really, I genuinely do. Not only is it entirely more pleasant in here for me without the likes of you and Dog whining about what I write, it also means I get to say what I want about you and your cronies without having to argue the point.
Presumably you all realised that I wanted nothing more than to shut you up right from the beginning? Job done.
Have you thought about it? Bigots like Doggie refusing to speak to me? Excellent.
I find it hilarious. You either have to bite on whatever I want to say, or you have to make yourselves look even more foolish by breaking your own word and responding to me.
And then you're so desperate for people to know that you're deliberately ignoring me, that you and Doggie keep bringing the subject up. A genuinely hilarious obsession which often makes me smile.
No downside as far as I can see. Please, carry on sulking, mind you don't trip on your bottom lip.
p.s. you could always try getting someone else to respond on your behalf, as Doggie once asked me to do to Pat when he was too scared to do it himself.
|
>> And then you're so desperate for people to know that you're deliberately ignoring me, that
>> you and Doggie keep bringing the subject up. A genuinely hilarious obsession which often makes
>> me smile.
>> p.s. you could always try getting someone else to respond on your behalf, as Doggie
>> once asked me to do to Pat when he was too scared to do it
>> himself.
Alternatively you can always make yourself look a complete idiot by doing exactly what you accuse others of doing.
Pot and kettle anyone?
Pat
|
I'm confused, doing exactly what I accuse others of?
Umm...
Sulking and ignoring people? Rather the opposite I feel. Nor have I claimed differently.
Perhaps getting someone else to respond for me? Doesn't look like it.
Perhaps it sounded more sensible when you wrote it?
Still the strain of ignoring me was possibly too much for the little people and at least your reply let them breath and respond with their little thumbs. I imagine the stress of not putting a frowny face was killing them. Almost a service then.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 13 Feb 17 at 12:33
|
|
I think that both the ignored and ignorers are both equally obsessed with it. Why i haven't the foggiest, although this is the internet so anything goes.
|
>> you can always make yourself look a complete idiot <<
I'm pretty sure the thumbs were for that.
Your reply has confirmed it.
Pat
|
No FM2R.
My only issue with you and the Doctor is it Lygono's? would be the Fluffy spats.
He hasn't being back. I know the internet is maybe for thick skinned people but words can hurt.
Otherwise your post can be informative just be carefull with some people.Just my opinion for
what is it worth.
I sometimes go on Piston Heads a strange site.Very right wing and opinionated.I better get back to decorating.>:)
|
>> Presumably you all realised that I wanted nothing more than to shut you up right from the beginning? Job done.>>
I DO try not to personalise my remarks, but..................................... here goes...........
These words encapsulate why you (and us, too) would be better off with your remaining in the GOF place, where you can bask in the adulation of your acolytes.
Last edited by: Roger. on Mon 13 Feb 17 at 18:34
|
>>These words encapsulate why you (and us, too) would be better off with your remaining in the GOF place
But presumably also explain why I am here.
|
A new accolade for the Daily Mail - Stuartli
