|
Some discussion between mods on this - it seems to irritate some readers - there's no intention at all to prohibit the links - they can be informative. Would it help the Mail haters if we asked posters to mark topics linked to stories in the Mail with a "DM" in the subject line so that those that don't want to don't need to open the threads..?
|
|
Only if a tiny url is used, if the correct link name is used its clear it links to the daily mail.
|
|
For what it's worth, I believe that those who have such an issue with the Daily Mail should get over themselves and deal with it...
|
I have no problem with the Daily Mail being used as a source if it came up in proportion with the other sources out there. Iffy has given his plausible (to him) reasons for constantly quoting the DM so much... but I thought it was because he worked for them??
The only issue really is that the DM articles are often slanted or misleading in order to stir up trouble and this seem to be demonstrated by the way the DM linked threads go. I usually look at an alternative informative source before posting a response.
But overall I really don't want to see the DM being picked out for a thread title *warning*... or you'd have to do it every time Pat starts one on pre-pack or class :-)
|
I agree, look at the info. and if bothered by the DM look it up somewhere else.
I don't think the DM is a problem in itself.
|
"slanted or misleading" = "doesn't match my point of view"
|
I dont think anyone is genuinely irritated by links to the Daily Mail, rather I think it is some jovial sterotyping that is going on.
Nevertheless full links are better than TinyURLs etc because the viewer can see where they are being sent before they click on the link.
Last edited by: Cheddar on Thu 17 Feb 11 at 09:47
|
As the main 'offender', for the sake of forum harmony, I have recently been posting the full link.
Pleased to see the laid back and informed nature of the replies so far.
While I'm all in favour of c4p running smoothly and will continue to post the full link if I remember, complaints of links to any national newspaper cannot seriously be entertained.
|
|
They can if they irritate people iffy - as said it's not a problem for us.
|
...They can if they irritate people iffy...
You are at the top of a very slippery slope there.
It irritates me - a little - that some others use the name Daily Wail.
Am I appealing for it to be banned?
Of course not.
Although I recall a poster in the other place always referred to Ford as 'Frod'.
That irritated somebody in high places, because I think 'Frod' was added to the swear filter.
|
>> ...They can if they irritate people iffy...
>>
>> You are at the top of a very slippery slope there.
Agreed. I can't personally understand why people be irritated by being directed to the Daily Mail but, if they are, I certainly don't think we want to start bringing in rules to accommodate that.
Flagging some links as NSFW, for example, is perfectly reasonable to expect, but not "This is Daily Mail"
There is also the possibility of posting the "preview" link that tinyurl generates instead, if people wish.
|
>>Although I recall a poster in the other place always referred to Ford as 'Frod'.
Many years ago when I worked in Saudi Arabia, Ford cars amongst others were on the blacklist ( except for those in high places). It was always said that the letters FORD were swopped around to read FROD to avoid any obvious problems.
Perhaps they were a survivor from working in the gulf.:-)
|
>> That irritated somebody in high places, because I think 'Frod' was added to the swear
>> filter.
Yes, H******** and s****** dealers were asterisked.
(they still are! hal frauds and st ealer )
Last edited by: John H on Thu 17 Feb 11 at 10:37
|
>>
>>
>> It irritates me - a little - that some others use the name Daily Wail.
>>
>>
>>
>>
Me too. Like H********* and SWMBO. But they are not major "issues" as we have now instead of problems.
But "carp" has a nice sound, especially as in "carphounds", which we don't seem to get many of here on the greener side.
And of course W H Smug was brilliant, but dated now.
|
From the emails I've had I think a lot of people have been 'irritated' over the last week or so, about a number of things.
None of them were about the Daily Mail links.
AND...nothing has been done about those.
Pat
|
|
Wow! People complain about your psots by e-mail? How deranged!
|
>>>"slanted or misleading" = "doesn't match my point of view"
Not at all. The DM often seems to lift stories from local papers.... and if you go back to the quite straight reporting of the original paper you can see the DM re-write to add a spin that will cause middle England to rise up... as shown by the comments and up/down thumbs from the public posts.
My teen daughters often use it to look at the fashion/celeb stuff. I've seen an article with beach pic in the morning of some female celeb saying... XXXXX struggles to lose pounds piled on over christmas. Later in the day they re-write the article below another picture from the same day with the comment... XXXXX shows toned bikini body on holiday beach.
Anyway as I said I don't want to see DM marked with a warning on here and I prefer to see the full link.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Thu 17 Feb 11 at 09:57
|
I prefer not to click on to the Daily Wail website, but with my reasonable head on I don't think that we need to flag tiny url links to it.
I can pretty much tell where the URL is going to go from the identity of the person who has posted it.
|
...The DM often seems to lift stories from local papers...
All the nationals do the same, but to be fair to the Mail, they will sometimes credit the local paper.
This applies particularly to stories from the regions, where the nationals have next-to-no staff presence.
Taking the north as an example, each of the nationals has one reporter (working from home) to cover Yorkshire, County Durham, Cleveland, Tyne and Wear, Northumberland, and very often Cumbria.
If a big story breaks, extra bodies are despatched from London.
Some of the nationals used to have offices in Birmingham and/or Manchester, but these have nearly all closed.
|
>>...The DM often seems to lift stories from local papers...>>
This is a fallacy. Local newspaper journalists, if they get a good story for their paper, will boost their income by also sending it to or tipping off national newspapers.
No national newspaper can cover/know of every potentially good story and that's why there are freelance journalists and local journalists supplying them with potential stories.
|
>> For what it's worth, I believe that those who have such an issue with the
>> Daily Mail should get over themselves and deal with it...
>>
What a meaningless statement. Thanks for sharing the favourite wisdom of teenage girls.
People are allowed to have issues with things they object to, and stand up for what they believe in. It's not a crime.
|
wife bought the daily mail to read on the train back from london the other day
i refused to read it, there wasnt even a photograph of larry the cat in it for goodness sake yet for 50 p more the times had him in full colour
|
...wife bought the daily mail...
The Mail will be pleased about that, they've invested a great deal to appeal to educated women.
Pleased you were able to find what you wanted in The Times.
Consumer sovreignty rules.
|
Is Daily Mail considered worse than Sun or Daily Mirror??
|
Why not insist on any link to the Mail be accompanied by a link to the Guardian, preferably to an article by Polly Toynbee?
|
The Mail inserts much more editorial comment and outraged middle england opinion into factual stories than the Sun or Mirror. Its very sneaky.
The Sun adds sensationalistic phrases into news, and then editorialises it elsewhere, perfectly valid that. The Mirror just misses out the lurid phrases but editorialises separately.
They both are pretty careful about what news they publish tho.
I read the Times. Its a Murdoch rag, (it always says this when reporting news about Murdoch group stories - which earns some respect) but is pretty well balanced with a right wing slant, well written with a good broad spread of news, gossip, sport, general interest, business. And its a handy size to manage at the breakfast table or local coffee shop. It soaks up bacon roll fingerprints well.
|
>> Is Daily Mail considered worse than Sun or Daily Mirror??
Or even the Daily Express - I see Princess Diana has died. ;>)
|
|
I really can't understand what all the fuss is about. Links to the DM, DT, DS; does it really matter a hoot?
|
>> What a meaningless statement. Thanks for sharing the favourite wisdom of teenage girls.
>>
>> People are allowed to have issues with things they object to, and stand up for
>> what they believe in. It's not a crime.
Pardon me for having issues with people who make mountains out of molehills, and for standing up for what I believe in.
|
...Pardon me for having issues with people who make mountains out of molehills, and for standing up for what I believe in...
Quite right, and if some teenage girls want to share their wisdom with me, they are welcome to pop round any time.
|
|
Invite them round for a meal perhaps - Matured curry on the menu?
|
>>> if some teenage girls want to share their wisdom with me, they are welcome to pop round any time.
We're worn out with teatimes awash with teen girls opinion. Sooner they leave home....
|
|
How about all links are made clear where they are going? I dont much want to read the Red Ed Diaries by accident either :-)
|
...Matured curry on the menu?...
They could always throw up into a few back copies of the Daily Mail.
|
I've bought The Sun a few times on a Saturday recently because it's got a decent week's TV guide and it's cheap, and it can be quite entertaining. I tried to avoid looking at page 3, but my eyes slipped, and in fact they've made it quite funny - see this, and read what Amii (25, from Birmingham) has to say:
www.page3.com/ (just about SFW)
|
I think you may end up in the daily mail.
Daily Mail 17th Feb 2011
Europe has tied the hands of central government, by allowing perverts to roam the filth peddling internet and lure the flower of Britain's female youth into the control of gangs lurking the streets of leafy North Yorkshire. Only today girls from the garden of England were lured into danger by the offer of disgusting foreign food unfit for human consumption. The Daily Mail demands, on behalf of us all, that action is taken.,
|
>>> Only today girls from the garden of England were lured into danger by the offer of disgusting foreign food unfit for human consumption.
You see that's typical. The Yorkshire Post simply and accurately reported local secondary schools were trialling *curry wednesday* in their canteens.
|
I think this is quite amusing because up here in Jock Land, I think you would need to look far and wide for any Mail, Mirror, Telegraph, Times etc readers.
Up here we have Daily Record and The "Scottish" Sun. Glasgow has its Glasgow Herald and Edinburgh "The Scotsman" for the more intellectual readers.
So I have no idea what is good, bad or indifferent in respect of the Mail. If you start off by reading any paper and take every story with a pinch of salt and know there will be another side to the story and then there will also be the truth, then I think thats a good starter for ten.
Wonder if you can post links to the Daily Sport, does that still exist? Is the "Today" still the only full-colour tabloid out there....... :)
|
As someone who does read the Mail on occasion, even I sometimes wonder what the point of a story is - I read one about Charlie Sheen recently when he was first seen out of rehab - the basis of the story seemed to be that he hadnt combed his hair.
I just find that funny though, it doesnt get my back up.
I tried reading the Sun once, but I couldnt find a news story in it.
|
|
you could try not reading any newspapers at all. it does wonders for you blood pressure
|
I'm not a newspaper reader as a rule as the world is too big and scary for me, but my old mother takes the Daily Mail, gawd bless her.
Last weekend I was visiting so opened the paper at random to find this story, which I felt didn't make my day any lighter.
It didn't make me feel I wanted to start a subscription anyway.
No need to click it, the link tells you everything.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356137/A-VERY-modern-wedding-Sex-swap-ex-fireman-weds-fourth-time-lesbian-Jamaican-30-years-younger.html
|
I had to! I couldn't resist!
All the outraged comments are best.
|
|
I would do, but I've had my bath for this year already.
|
I'm one of those who finds the Mail's mixing of reporting with editorial irritating and occasionally disturbing. Today's story about a review process for those on the sex offenders register is a case in point. Yet I find it an itch I have to scratch and I'm quite likley to pick up a copy abandoned on the train for later reading. I'd prefer to know I was being sent to it's august pages but I can usually guess where Iffy's posts point:-)
As a wider point thogh should it be apparent where all links from threads go? Usually it's clear from the url but it if using bitly or similar it would be courteous to put the source in brackets after the link. A well as clarity it might sane someone from inadvertently triggering their employer's net nanny software - our old one didn't like anything that might however loosley be 'social networking'.
Perhaps an update to the T&C's??
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 17 Feb 11 at 12:53
|
|
Good idea B ! I agree with your first para as well - can't resist reading one but wouldn't be seen dead buying it !
|
>> I think this is quite amusing because up here in Jock Land, I think you
>> would need to look far and wide for any Mail, Mirror, Telegraph, Times etc readers.
>>
>> Up here we have Daily Record and The "Scottish" Sun. Glasgow has its Glasgow Herald
>> and Edinburgh "The Scotsman" for the more intellectual readers.
>>
Don't you have the internet in Jock Land? Or does your country's web filter block English newspapers?
|
Oh yes, we have the net, where do you think I read the Scottish papers?
And why would I want to read English papers that will have no coverage of Scottish local news , sport etc?
|
|
there is a Scottish edition of the DM which my aged mother enjoys. It seems to be in most newsagents up there and Paisley is not the poshest part of the area.
|
>> Oh yes, we have the net, where do you think I read the Scottish papers?
>>
>> And why would I want to read English papers that will have no coverage of
>> Scottish local news , sport etc?
AH yes, Scottish sport, very short section, specially when it comes to international and European.
|
Badwolf:
Then try to do in an unpatronising manner.
One man's molehill is another man's mountain.
"Get a life" is seldom an appropriate response in grown up circles.
Last edited by: Alanović on Thu 17 Feb 11 at 12:41
|
The days of there being 'nothing to read' in The Sun are long gone.
Its word count on some stories can be as high as the Mail or the Telegraph.
But The Sun has always been brilliant at condensing all the information into a relatively short story.
Any fool can describe an event in 1,000 words, the real art is doing it in 250.
And as Focus says further up, the captions on the Page Three girls show imagination and a grasp of the feature's daftness.
No one laughs louder at The Sun than those who produce it.
|
The Sun doesn't pretend to be a newspaper (any more). The Mail does. That's what makes it so dangerous and The Sun so innocuous.
If I'm looking for a paper and they haven't got "i", The Independent, The Times, The Guardian or The Telegraph (in that order), then I'll buy Private Eye or Viz.
|
...The Sun doesn't pretend to be a newspaper (any more)...
There are news stories in The Sun, but since I presume you refuse to buy it, how will you know?
Lots of football coverage as well, although that may not be considered 'news' in the context of this discussion.
If you are sufficiently interested, I suggest you buy two or three copies and see what you make of it then.
|
|
I've often picked it up in barbers' shops. I don't have to buy it to know what it's like. Its comedy value is not to my taste, like I said I prefer Viz if I need a laugh.
|
I take the Sat Telegraph for weekend reading and read the BBC news online in the day... plus the Daily Mail of course when Iffy *makes me*.
I buy The Sun once or twice a week when I have no time to read a paper and agree they do get to the detail of a story without the added waffle of the Mail/Express.
You also can keep up with Kerry Katona's latest... whatever.
|
>> You also can keep up with Kerry Katona's latest... whatever.
Ice dancing! Come on Fenlander, don't you know anything? :)
|
|
Well I thought it was My ice dancing, weight loss, cocaine riddled, alcohol fuelled divorce hell.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Thu 17 Feb 11 at 14:01
|
...Its comedy value is not to my taste, like I said I prefer Viz if I need a laugh...
Plenty of serious stories in The Sun.
You might not like their treatment - bash the paedos, support our boys etc - but they are there.
There's even a city page, or there was until one of them got locked up for insider dealing. :)
Last edited by: Iffy on Thu 17 Feb 11 at 13:37
|
>> You might not like their treatment - bash the paedos, support our boys etc -
>> but they are there.
So now I support paedos and disapprove of the armed forces because I don't buy The Sun.
If only you knew.
|
...If only you knew...
Stop taking everything so literally.
All I meant, given your preferred newspapers, is The Sun's treatment of stories might not be to your liking.
|
|
I used to read Viz in work until I was er...advised. Nice piece in the Eye this week about a writer for the Mail writing his "eye witness accounts" of the protests in Tunisia from the comfort of his home in France - allegedly trawling the net to research his stories. Not exclusive to the Mail of course.
|
>> The Sun doesn't pretend to be a newspaper (any more). The Mail does. That's what
>> makes it so dangerous and The Sun so innocuous.
>>
>> If I'm looking for a paper and they haven't got "i", The Independent,
Ah, yes, the Independent... or not-so independent as its better known... At least the others admit to their bias, something the independent just can't bring themselves to do... even when, rather amusingly I thought, they were actually brought to book by their own readers during the election campaign... We have the misfortune to have it as our freeby on the train, it replaced the Times... Our passengers are still complaining how bad it is...
|
Who is to say that the derided "Middle England" point of view is wrong?
Middle class values (defined not necessarily by their social class, but by their solid values) are the backbone of this country and the source of much of its former pre-eminence in the world.
Modern liberal/left "values" have destroyed much of what the UK once stood for and represented on the world stage.
Personally, I look at the Mail every day, but on-line only.
I sneer at the non-stories about "celebs" whom we are supposed to recognise, often by their forenames only, but find myself in full agreement mode with some of their stories, slanted or not.
Of course I am, by nature and belief a Conservative- but find it hard to remember when we last had a proper Conservative government.
|
...Who is to say that the derided "Middle England" point of view is wrong?...
Certainly not me.
The Daily Mail and The Sun are Britain's two best selling papers, so there is still hope.
|
Third generation Guardian reader so it's probably no surprise the mail grates. Steve Bell's carttons are one the G's great strengths. Today's take on the government's forestry U-turn
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cartoon/2011/feb/17/david-cameron-forests
|
>>Third generation Guardian reader so it's probably no surprise the mail grates>>
Which is why I detest the BBC News coverage, especially the rolling news version. Balanced it ain't.
|
This is the same BBC whose office corridors were littered with empty champagne bottles after a New Labour election victory.
The BBC is institutionally left/statist/internationalist/political-correctist (new word?), whose editorial and news gathering staff are Guardianistas to a man/woman - the sits. vac. pages of the Grauniad is where they got their jobs, after all!
|
|
And there was I thinking that the best public broadcasting system in the world might have been one of the reasons that you decided to return. How was Spanish TV and radio?
|
>> The BBC is institutionally left/statist/internationalist/political-correctist (new word?), whose editorial and news gathering staff are Guardianistas
>> to a man/woman - the sits. vac. pages of the Grauniad is where they got
>> their jobs, after all!
As both Tory and Labour accuse the BBC of Bias, then they are treading just the right line for me thank you.
I doubt there is a more unbiased and balanced news organisation anywhere in the world.
|
>> The BBC is institutionally left/statist/internationalist/political-correctist (new word?), whose editorial and news gathering staff are Guardianistas
>> to a man/woman - the sits. vac. pages of the Grauniad is where they got
>> their jobs, after all!
I don't want to get involved in BBC's bias but the Guardian point deserves a reply.
The Guardian's media coverage on Monday (and it's Wednesday Society supplement for the Public Sector) have become essential reading. Not for their left slant but because other papers were not covering those fields in the same depth. On the back of that the paper was able to corner a significant portion of the recruitment market.
|
>> Badwolf:
>>
>> Then try to do in an unpatronising manner.
>>
>> One man's molehill is another man's mountain.
>>
>> "Get a life" is seldom an appropriate response in grown up circles.
*So* sorry for not posting in a way you approve of. I shall take more care in future.
|
|
I tend to agree with BW, many people seem to get wound up over trivial things these days, and I agree that getting wound up over a link to a newspaper is a bit OTT! One of those occasions where "get a life" is actually appropriate, I feel...
|
>> One of those occasions where "get a life" is actually appropriate, I feel...
Which is what I end up thinking when I read through the Readers' Comments in the Mail.
|
|
Ah well - happy to leave things as they are, Brompt has the best suggestion - leave links unshrunk as far as possible and if they are shrunk make reference to where they link to - then people can make their own choices - nawt goes in the swearfilter. Even the Times survives (HJ related reference)
|
>> Ah well - happy to leave things as they are, Brompt has the best suggestion
>> - leave links unshrunk as far as possible ...>>
That was my suggestion much earlier in the thread "Nevertheless full links are better than TinyURLs etc because the viewer can see where they are being sent before they click on the link." and that is all is required IMO.
|
>> Which is what I end up thinking when I read through the Readers' Comments in
>> the Mail.
>>
Same in any paper, B... read the Mirror recently? Now that can get really depressing! ;-)
|
>> Same in any paper, B... read the Mirror recently? Now that can get really depressing! ;-)
I hadn't read the Mirror for a while actually, so thanks for the memory jogger. Struggled getting my bearings on the front page though as they seem to have employed the same Web Designer as Ling's Cars. Is there any news there or just celebrity stuff?
|
Does nobody ever take a balanced, wider view of things anymore?
Does it always have to be one or the other?
And if your going to argue about it, why not stop the throwing of stones and actually debate the philosophy of where Left and Right wing tendancies come from rather than making snide remarks at eachother about newspaper links?
Its so disappointing when obvious intellect is sidelined for the sake of a quick jibe.
|
The BBC does follow a Guardian-led agenda - literally.
Former BBC newsreader Peter Sissons tells how news 'executives' would toss him a copy of the paper and say 'it's all in there' if he asked for background on a story.
He also tells how the Daily Mail, or any reference to it, goes down like a lead balloon in any BBC newsroom.
That type of bias - and I would say the same if the Mail/Guardian position was reversed - has no place in a supposedly impartial publicly funded broadcaster.
|
I think that is all cobblers and I dont believe it. Sissons has an axe to grind.
BBC is news the most impartial in the world.
|
...I think that is all cobblers and I dont believe it...
Well, we have two sources of information here, a man who has worked in news gathering all his life, for many different organisations, including the one of which we speaks.
And we have a man who has, as far as I'm aware, never worked in news gathering.
Mmm, I wonder who might know more about this subject?
I agree BBC news is more impartial than most, but that is not to say it's not biased.
|
|
Hilarious, anecdotal garbage even the Mail would be ashamed to publish, Iffy. Then again, maybe they wouldn't. They carried on publishing Melanie Phillips's guff about MMR for long enough, after all.
|
...Hilarious, anecdotal garbage even the Mail would be ashamed to publish...
And here we have someone else who knows nothing about the subject, but makes lots of bold statements.
Sissons gave the quotes on the record.
So it is not 'anecdotal garbage'.
|
It's an anecdote, Iffy. It's not a sworn statement under oath.
Neither you nor I have any evidence whatsoever that it's the truth. Unless you were there. If you have hard evidence, let's have it. Until then, it's an anecdote.
|
Perhaps the feeling that the BBC is biased to the left is like the perception that Fiats all rust to nothing - a little out of date?
www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23873043-bbc-chief-mark-thompson-admits-left-wing-bias.do
However, the Guardian doesn't agree. Actually to be fair, it's Roger Bolton doesn't agree, as reported in the Guardian.
www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/22/bbc-mark-thompson-roger-bolton
Last edited by: Crankcase on Fri 18 Feb 11 at 11:16
|
If you use the TinyURL link properly, you can use a preview version to put people's minds at rest. For instance:
preview.tinyurl.com/5td8st8 (right click and open in new tab or window).
Last edited by: Stuartli on Fri 18 Feb 11 at 11:16
|
...Until then, it's an anecdote...
It's on the record interviews, and Sissons said a fair bit more besides.
Now, you can call him a liar if you wish, but you have to accept he is claiming his statements are true.
And we can only go on best evidence, which is his.
If you wrote 1,000 words about your working life, and I said its cobblers, who will everyone believe?
You, of course.
|
So you're happy to accept on man's opinions and experiences as the truth about an entire organisation.
That sounds like you're looking for something to support a view you already had.
Maybe it's true what Sissons says, maybe it isn't. I dunno, I wasn't there. What I'm trying to argue is that it doesn't present any final, factual proof of the institutional, deliberate bias which the BBC is being accused of here.
It appears to me that occasionally the BBC does put a slant on stories, but it goes in both directions as evidenced by the squealing of both left and right wing political parties. So, fair enough. That shows me it's generally well balanced, without having to take bitter tell-tales of a single former employee as the only factor.
|
I doubt Sissons is bitter, he's had a very good career in news and will still be doing stuff in the future, if he wants to.
People who work in news organisations take personal pride in the organisation's output and the way it does things.
He may have spoken out for the best of motives.
It was interesting the director general coughed the job, or at least conceded Sissons has a point.
If all he has done is caused some people in the BBC to think about how they do things, he will have done us all a service.
No one is suggesting the BBC is like Pravda, just that the pendulum has swung a little too far one way, and could do with a nudge in the other direction.
|
|
I'm sorry, The whole thing is laughable, the idea that someone thinks good news comes from the Daily Mail, and complains that the BBC is biased is just completely irreconcilable.
|
And along comes yet another media expert.
|
Careful. You'll make us accuse you of using ad hominem attacks soon.
:-)
|
Probably more of a media expert than you iffy, certainly read a wider spread of views....
:P
|
...Probably more of a media expert than you iffy, certainly read a wider spread of views...
Yet another bold statement you cannot substantiate.
Something you do on here time and time again.
|
Oh yes, sorry, needs to be in the mail before you think its true.
|
|
To weigh the value of Peter Sissons comments, it might help if one knew what his particular views were. If he were to favour a right-wing world view (recognising that L/R is a gross simplification) then he might view anything the Beeb did with suspicion. Possibly why he writes for the DM....
|
>> Possibly why he writes for the DM....
>>
Oh. What a surprise.
|
...it might help if one knew what his particular views were...
That is fair comment, but as a professional journalist he should be able to take a step back and separate the two strands.
"That story is biased in a direction with which I agree."
"That story is biased in a direction with which I do not agree."
Sissons is speaking out against bias in general.
He very likely disagrees with the direction of the bias, but that don't make it not so.
|
>>Possibly why he writes for the DM....>>
To the best of my knowledge, Sissons doesn't write for the Mail - it published extracts from his memoirs.
Perhaps some actual reading of the articles concerned might prove to encourage more accurate/enlightening comments?
See:
preview.tinyurl.com/67u3ooq
preview.tinyurl.com/6l8f44m
|
Here's more fuel for the fire (Daily Mail):-
tinyurl.com/4z9f55x
|
|
Met Dimblebum once outside an Aberdeen hotel while having a fag. he asked for a light for his cigar and we chatted while he waited for his crew to pick him up (they were Travelodge, we weren't! Thoroughly nice and ordinary bloke, seeme genuinely interested in why I was there as in telling me what he was up to.
|
If ever I wanted an example of all that I find objectionable and hypocritical in the Mail I’d struggle to beat today’s issue.
The hard copy on this morning’s newsstands had a screaming headline about Victims of a ‘Facebook Sex Gang’ covering recent events in Torbay. More measured accounts suggest that police are investigating the role of social networking sites but that many other factors and ‘grooming’ tools, particularly drugs and the frailties of vulnerable girls just out of care homes are also involved. The Facebook mention was, IMHO, only there to press the buttons of the Mail’s ‘outraged middle class’ market.
By this afternoon the paper had located the arrested suspect’s own Facebook page and published numerous pictures from it. OK, all faces except those of the suspect were pixellated, but if my daughter had been on them then her friends and I would have been able to identify her immediately. I cannot believe for a minute that all those young women have been traced and that they or their guardians have consented to publication.
You can wise up your kids to the risks of unsuitable facebook friends. What can you do about a newspaper abusing them in this way? Are folks really, in terms of their rights to privacy, consenting to publication on a national daily's website by putting pictures on their Facebook album?
A few weeks ago the Mail pulled the same trick on the pages of Sian Massey (the assistant ref in the Andy Gray farrago). One pic showed her standing close to a female ‘acquaintance’. I was not alone in seeing a snide subliminal message about the Mail's take on Miss Massey’s sexuality.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 18 Feb 11 at 20:31
|
>> You can wise up your kids to the risks of unsuitable facebook friends. What can
>> you do about a newspaper abusing them in this way? Are folks really, in terms
>> of their rights to privacy, consenting to publication on a national daily's website by putting
>> pictures on their Facebook album?
>>
www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=46659
just replace "twitter" with "facebook" when reading the two rulings here.
www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=NjkzNQ==
www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=NjkzNA==
Last edited by: John H on Fri 18 Feb 11 at 20:43
|
Bromp,
A few observations:
...The Facebook mention was, IMHO, only there to press the buttons of the Mail’s ‘outraged middle class’ market...
Facebook adds to it, but the outrage is possible widespread kiddy fiddling. I think the story would have been the front page lead, Facebook or not.
The tellys led on it last night, before the Facebook link was known.
...By this afternoon the paper had located the arrested suspect’s own Facebook page and published numerous pictures from it. OK, all faces except those of the suspect were pixellated...
The suspect had already published his photo by putting it on Facebook. The friends' pics were also previously published in the same way, although the Mail pixellated them. The publication genie is already out of the bottle.
This is one of the reasons I urge people to be careful about putting stuff on Facebook.
...I was not alone in seeing a snide subliminal message about the Mail's take on Miss Massey’s sexuality...
Tosh, you are looking for conspiracies where, as usual, there are none.
Everyone was desperate for pics of Ms Massey and would use any they could get hold of.
If there was a pic of her stroking a pet cat would you say the Mail was trying to suggest she was into bestiality?
|
>> The suspect had already published his photo by putting it on Facebook. The friends' pics
>> were also previously published in the same way, although the Mail pixellated them. The publication
>> genie is already out of the bottle.
>>
>> This is one of the reasons I urge people to be careful about putting stuff
>> on Facebook.
OK let's assume a 16yo putting his own pics on Facebook for his mates fully understands they might end up furthering the agenda of a national newspaper.
But what about the others in the picture. They just happened to be there when Jonny was using his camera phone.
Looking back further there may be pictures of you in your teens waiting for someone to scan then and upload to Facebook. Did you consent in 1980 to those pictures appearing in the Mail in 30years later?
|
...OK let's assume a 16yo putting his own pics on Facebook for his mates fully understands they might end up furthering the agenda of a national newspaper...
This is still an open question in newspapers/media, hence the recent PCC decisions linked by John H.
The faces of the mates are pixellated, so they are anonymous - I have no idea who they are, nor do 99.99 per cent of viewers to the site.
That some people who know the suspect will know, or be able to guess, who the pixellated ones are is not really the point.
It's rather like saying: "I know who they are, because I know who they are."
Another question is: could the faces of the pixellated ones be published anyway?
Strictly, the answer is no, because a newspaper now needs the permission of a child's parent to publish a picture of the child.
We are heading towards the school sports day argument here.
Some schools now ask parents to give blanket permission at the start of term, otherwise they couldn't put a pic of the under-12s footie team in the school magazine.
|
Iffy,
There's a massive difference between a 16yo's piccies shared with 'mates' on facebook and an indiscreet named adult civil servant moaning about her job. And the PC is hardly an independent tribunal.
To me or you and everybody but 0.00001% of the population they're just young women. But the fact that their cousins, uncles friends and teachers could recognise the pixellated images is EXACTLY the point.
School sports day is an allied argument 'cos that could end up on f/b as well. Otherwise it's nowt to do with the current debate.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Sat 19 Feb 11 at 00:06
|
Bromp,
I'm not saying the PCC is independent or even correct, I was simply saying it's an open question.
...But the fact that their cousins, uncles friends and teachers could recognise the pixellated images is EXACTLY the point...
I'm afraid it isn't in the sense that one has been decided.
Court is my thing as you know, and legal anonymity crops up all the time in cases of rape, child abuse, blackmail and others.
Let's take rape as an example, the victim of rape is legally anonymous, the defendant is not.
It is accepted there is a public interest in reporting the case, including naming the defendant.
Inevitably, some people who know the defendant will know who he is accused of raping.
Friends and relations of the victim will also know about the rape.
A correctly written report will name the defendant, but not identify the victim - to anybody without detailed prior knowledge of the case.
The key point is someone without detailed prior knowledge, a casual reader.
Having said that, there have been one or two recent near misses which suggest the interpretation might be changing in favour of secrecy.
But this post is long enough already.
Suffice to say, it's the law we are talking about, so nothing is set in stone.
|
|
Bromptonaut O/T I know, but are awaiting delivery of a new bike, perchance?
|
>> Bromptonaut O/T I know, but are awaiting delivery of a new bike, perchance?
Que??
Not me. Two Bromps, an urban MTB and the old Galaxy are enough. Anymore & I'd have to let one of those go.
|
>> Here's more fuel for the fire (Daily Mail):-
>> tinyurl.com/4z9f55x
Isn't Littlejohn a sort of Clarkson figure who is employed to write opinionated columns, rather than a 'serious' journalist?
|
...Isn't Littlejohn a sort of Clarkson figure who is employed to write opinionated columns, rather than a 'serious' journalist?...
Yes, although the column will take some research.
It's still fair to say he's a commentator rather than what the public would think of a reporter.
|
He's nowhere near as classy as Clarkson. Clarkson has irony. Littlejohn is a genuine buffoon.
Mind you, I often wonder what David Dimbleby's rug must have cost.
|
... Clarkson has irony. Littlejohn is a genuine buffoon...
I see it the other way around, but it's all a matter of opinion.
Both men have a sizeable following as reflected by their sizeable salaries.
|
|
Both men have sizeable bellies and egos.
|
|
..and, of course, you dont't.....:-)
|
|
I listened to Dimbleby talk about himself on DIDs on the radio. Sounded full of himself. My personal view is he should go and make way for new blood......maybe they're trying to tell him something.
|
He is living in his fathers shadow and think he has the right because of that,
He is not his father.
|
|
Damnit you're right again.
|
>> Sounded full of himself.
If you're hoping to remain in control of a panel of politicians and 'public figures' it probably helps to have a certain amount of self belief :)
(I'm not a regular viewer BTW - I think it clashes with 'Peter Andre - The Next Chapter' or something.)
|
I'm a pain to my teenage girls over facebook and for a week or so it has been a blocked website through our router until we negotiate a reduction in the amount of *friends* they have and the nature of photos they upload.
Each has around 300 supposed friends and I point out that means with others looking over the shoulder of each account holder there may be 1000+ people who could be looking into their lives.
The police, press and other dodgy characters make massive use of facebook and something's got to give... well it has in this house.
|
...over facebook and for a week or so it has been a blocked website...
I'm not well up on using Facebook, but one of the problems seems to be it's very hard to remove pics once uploaded, or wipe and remove an account.
Facebook recently updated its user security options, so I don't know if any of the above has been addressed.
|
AC had it described right, a Tar Baby.
Its gets its sticky prints everywhere.
|
Had time to look further at the Sissons thing.
A search for the term 'sissons bbc bias' produces links to a couple of articles in the DM and responses to them.
The pieces come from Sissons biography. He seems to have chosen to launch it inthe Mail, I assume he was paid for it.
Unsurprisingly the Mail leads on the bits that suit its agenda. There are a lot of assertions of bias but little hard evidence in support. It's also pretty clear that he's hacked off with being micro managed by people whove climbed the greasy pole without too much experience in the field. As well as being a distinguished first anchor for C4 News Sissons, IIRC, was a foreigh reporter who did time in dangerous places including Biafra.
So we have a man at the end of his career, perhaps of naturally conservative leanings writing a biog and majoring on extracts to be published in a rigt wing paper.
It might just be evidence of a sort but I think, unaugmented, defending counsel in one of Iffy's courts would pull it to bits.
Jury unconvinced.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 19 Feb 11 at 12:52
|
...It might just be evidence of a sort but I think, unaugmented, defending counsel in one of Iffy's courts would pull it to bits...
Fair summary, Sissons' claims have at least the ring of truth about them.
The director-general sort of half-admitted it when he said bias was rife in the Thatcher years, but is better now.
That also has the ring of truth.
I think everyone in the BBC accepts Sissons has a point.
(Tone's just kicked off with Dreamer by Supertramp - top stuff).
|
Or in tabloid speak
Right-wing rag pay top dollar for grumpy Has-Been to slag off BBC.
|
...Right-wing rag pay top dollar for grumpy Has-Been to slag off BBC...
Not really.
Sissons raised genuine concerns which ought to be looked at.
Neither is he grumpy, as far as I know, nor a has-been in the sense you mean it.
The Mail is right wing, but the term rag is also incorrect.
Say what you like about the content, but the production of the newspaper in terms of layout, quality of headlines, writing, etc, is top class.
They put tens of thousands of words together in a few hours every day, and you will struggle to find more than a handful of spelling mistakes/typos in each issue.
Compare that with the semi-literate majority of contributors to internet forums who so delight in slagging off the paper.
|
>> Sissons raised genuine concerns which ought to be looked at.
He Hasn't and they don't
>> They put tens of thousands of words together in a few hours every day, and
>> you will struggle to find more than a handful of spelling mistakes/typos in each issue.
>>
>> Compare that with the semi-literate majority of contributors to internet forums who so delight in
>> slagging off the paper.
What a truly pompous and intellectually ignorant statement.
|
Both statements are true.
Unless you'd like to point to dozens of mistakes in the Mail every day, or tell me how you've worked in journalism all your life and 20 years for the BBC, so are qualified to know about that as well.
No, far easier to make yet more bold statements you cannot substantiate.
|
|
I really don't think you realise what you write at times. Not prepared to discuss the matter of the Mail with you any further. Its as edifying as discussing leadership techniques with Gordon Brown.
|
I agree that it does what it does very well indeed.
But it's still a poisonous rag in my book.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 19 Feb 11 at 13:33
|
...I agree that it does what it does very well indeed...
That's the only point I was seeking to make.
|
Never mind all the lightweight stuff.... the Mail reveals William has chosen the wrong sister and should have gone for the *Bond body* of Pippa. Good grief.
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1358438/Pippa-Middleton-Kates-Maid-Honour-Did-Prince-William-pick-right-sister.html
|
"They put tens of thousands of words together in a few hours every day, and you will struggle to find more than a handful of spelling mistakes/typos in each issue."
The Standard do it for three issues a day.
I did a lot of ad work for the Mail and the Standard back in the 90s. I don't think I've ever met a more rowdy bunch of coked-up shagaholic boozers than some of those guys. They made Charlie Sheen look like a lightweight, which always makes me chuckle when the Mail reports with horror, the antics of some of our wilder celebrities. We used to drink in El Tel's club under the Barker Building.
Northcliffe House is a very impressive building if you ever get the chance to go in. Whatever you think of it's editorial, it's the paper to work for if you want to be 'looked after'.
|
The Mail has more than one edition each day (night to be accurate)....:-)
Ad work has little to do with the editorial department, whilst "..back in the 90s.." is up to 20 years ago and not necessarily relevant.
Journalists have always worked hard and played hard - it's never been any different.
|
|
Just watched Channel 4 News for the first time in years - excellent standard of reporting. May make it a regular thing.
|
>> Just watched Channel 4 News for the first time in years - excellent standard of
>> reporting. May make it a regular thing.
>>
Isn't it supplied by Sky news? I think ITV news is.
|
|
ITN - According to Wki 20% owned by Daily Mail !
|
>>Isn't it supplied by Sky news? I think ITV news is.>>
ITV News is supplied by ITN (Independent Television News)...:-))
Channel4 news comes from ITN as well, although coverage across C4's other digital channels was cut or dropped a while back. Channel 5's news comes from Sky, but may not in the near future as C5 bosses want to end the five-year contract early.
Commercial radio stations have flitted between ITN and Sky for quite some years now.
|
I knew that someone would put me right. :-))
It must have been C5 news that I saw the Sky credit on.
|
Links to the Daily Mail. - Zero
