Political Balance

ChrisJC

Well-known member
[gmod]Split from Covid-19 thread: https://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=27369.0[/gmod]


I think you ought to stop reading The Guardian. It is clearly warping your sense of reality.

Chris.
 

AR

Well-known member
My opinions on covid have been formed from a wide variety of sources, including family members in the health service, and I'm very much in agreement with what's been said in that review. So what's "clearly" warping my sense of reality?
 

ChrisJC

Well-known member
I am referring to Phil's frequency of quoting from The Guardian. He ought to quote from The Daily Mail as well for a bit of balance.

Chris.
 

AR

Well-known member
ChrisJC said:
I am referring to Phil's frequency of quoting from The Guardian. He ought to quote from The Daily Mail as well for a bit of balance.

Chris.

The Daily Mail and balance in the same sentence. Oh, the irony...
 

RobinGriffiths

Well-known member
ChrisJC said:
I am referring to Phil's frequency of quoting from The Guardian. He ought to quote from The Daily Mail as well for a bit of balance.

Chris.

I notice that the Daily Mail have at last dropped their 'all grown up' strapline when referrring to a female child star that has 'come of age'. So maybe, even the Daily Mail has gone 'woke' ? Or maybe Rothermere realised that the writing was on the wall.
 

RobinGriffiths

Well-known member
OTOH, tonight's online edition does have a series of photos of someone called Lottie Moss (no, me neither) which would not appear on the BBC until after 9pm, so maybe they've not gone 'woke'. 
 

pwhole

Well-known member
The only reason I quote The Guardian so often is because they don't operate behind a paywall, and so everyone can read the article. It doesn't mean I agree with everything they write, and frankly some of their guff really annoys me, but at least they let non-subscribers read the damn thing. I declare that I do contribute financially occasionally as I appreciate their publishing model (and they have a soul), but I can't afford much. If I could afford The Times as well I would, but they want ?26 a month just for online access.

As for the Daily Mail as balance, are you really serious? Twenty pages of right-wing bollocks, followed by twenty pages on how your new wife can make her new hair match the new wardrobe (again), then twenty pages on financial investments, garden furniture and care home reviews followed by twenty pages of stultifying sport. Every day. And they definitely don't have a soul.

Plenty of tits on the website though, and they're free! As Dave Nice once said: "Good, clean, family fun. Alright?" ;)

Lottie showed off her every inch of her incredible figure in the plunging sheer red bra and matching thong bottoms as she posed on the bonnet of a vintage car.

The fashion star brandished a fake firearm in the titillating images as she flipped to reveal the lingerie's thong bottoms.


**IMPORTANT UPDATE!!** 

The star appeared keen to disprove any suggestion that her career has hit 'rock bottom' by giving fans a guided tour of the huge home she shares with Sahara Ray. 

Whoever he is. Does he install patio heating? I gots to know...
 

RobinGriffiths

Well-known member
Sorry to sideline the important Lottie news, but just coming in: 'Drinking WINE five or more times a week can slash your risk of needing eye cataract surgery by up to 23%, study finds'. I won't paste a click bait link, take it as read.
 

ChrisJC

Well-known member
AR said:
ChrisJC said:
I am referring to Phil's frequency of quoting from The Guardian. He ought to quote from The Daily Mail as well for a bit of balance.

Chris.

The Daily Mail and balance in the same sentence. Oh, the irony...

You miss my point. The Daily Mail is not balanced. Neither is The Guardian. They are equal and opposite. But by counterpointing the two, you will get balance.

Chris.
 

ChrisJC

Well-known member
pwhole said:
Twenty pages of right-wing bollocks, followed by twenty pages on how your new wife can make her new hair match the new wardrobe (again), then twenty pages on financial investments, garden furniture and care home reviews followed by twenty pages of stultifying sport. Every day. And they definitely don't have a soul.

Of course it's right wing bollocks. To balance the 20 pages of left wing bollocks in The Guardian. If you only ever read one publication, you are definitely going to form a one-sided world view.

The Daily Mail know themselves that the 'sidebar of shame' is just eye candy to draw in the punters - it is why it remains both free and wildly popular. It supports the first class journalism from the likes of David Rose.

I also think The Daily Mail knows it is not to be taken seriously, unlike The Guardian which considers itself the Source Of All Truth.

Chris,

 

Fulk

Well-known member
Sorry to sideline the important Lottie news, but just coming in: 'Drinking WINE five or more times a week can slash your risk of needing eye cataract surgery by up to 23%, study finds'.

Aww, gee, I only drink wine 4 days a week; is  that why I needed two cataract operations?
 

mikem

Well-known member
Did they combine that with a special offer?

(Lottie is the much younger sister of Kate Moss - she's young enough to comfortably be her daughter)
 

PeteHall

Moderator
ChrisJC said:
I also think The Daily Mail knows it is not to be taken seriously, unlike The Guardian which considers itself the Source Of All Truth.

Very true. I started reading the Daily Mail on a tea break at work as some of the other lads in the office do; I soon realised that they don't read it for an impartial world-view, but for a good laugh! While there is some serious news and some decent journalism (at times), a lot of it is pretty shoddy, but it's really entertaining. As Chris says, it doesn't take itself too seriously and you can have a good laugh. The comments section can be priceless  :LOL:

Also, FYI. If you use the Mail Online mobile App, the "sidebar of shame" is in a different tab, where you don't see it unless you were to deliberately choose to.  (y)


Personally, I'm very sceptical of any news source that claims to be impartial; there is no such thing. The only way to form an impartial view is to read from a wide variety of different sources, including opinions you disagree with and eventually, you will arrive at something close to truth. But that's obviously harder work than just accepting the opinion of one particular publication...

Other than that, if you want quality journalism, you usually have to pay for it.
 

mrodoc

Well-known member
Clearly CJc has never really read the Guardian. I have been reading since I was schoolboy. He mightb e interested to know that Tory politicians frequently submit opinion articles - hardly left bollocks. I don't agree with everything I read but at least it is preparared to publish controversial articles. It's the only paper I read where it publishes letters declaring the readers are openly critical of the editorial stance to the point of refusing to subscribe further. It has no axe to grind being run by an independent trust.
 

tony from suffolk

Well-known member
Leaving aside political bias, how can you possibly suggest The Mail & The Guardian are comparable in any way? If you're attempting to make journalistic comparisons, maybe The Telegraph at least doesn't insult your intelligence in the way The Mail does.

I certainly don't suck up The Guardian's opinion on everything they publish, but at least it makes an attempt to give a balanced view. Having read their take on the latest news, it's an education to glance at the way The Mail handles the same story.
 

crickleymal

New member
If I buy a newspaper it tends to be the i. Occasionally the Guardian and the Metro (because it's free in many places). Mostly I read news via the Google news link on the Google home page where you do get a variety of sources. I used to read the Guardian but I got fed up with the champagne socialism, eg. all the lifestyle bits are for people with a disposable income well over 50k.
 
Top