Six months for nicking a bottle water

W1

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

You can disagree with the stance The Guardian takes on certain matters, but to accuse it of pushing an agenda and comparing it with The Daily Mail is just ridiculous. Its just trolling.

No, it isn't. It's an opinion, but it's not deliberately inflamatory. They are, in my view, just as bad as each other in terms of stance and spin. One is perhaps rather more faux intelligent about it, but just as biased in reality.

You're not getting it. There is no such thing as unbiased media. All you're saying is that the Guardian's left-wing liberal bias doesn't accord with your right-wing conservative bias. You don't see NSB or me dismissing a story purely because it came from the Telegraph (MPs' expenses for example).

No, I'm saying that to praise the Guardian whilst criticising the Mail is laughable as they're as bad as each other, except to the Guardian apologists who think it can do no wrong.

rjsterry

Bikequin wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Bikequin wrote:

I feel quite comfortable in stating that any newspaper that has Polly Toynbee & George Monbiot writing for them is pushing an agenda.

When does a point of view become an Agenda?

Agenda literally means “things to be done” as such I would say that an opinion becomes an agenda when it demands or advocates that action is taken on the back of the opinion. As such I’d say that ALL editorial pieces are pushing an agenda.

FTFY :roll:

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Yes, because lengthy sentences in oubliette style prisons are the best way to eliminate all social ills. :roll:
I'm perfectly at ease with the fact that you don't share the same world view as I do, W1. You can satisfy yourself with the fact that most people share yours though.

I haven't said that though, have I?

Are you trolling?

bails87

W1 wrote:

[
Don't you just smell smug satisfaction coming from the Guardian? It doesn't actually say very much that's particularly clever, but does so in a way that gives the impression that it is.

The ironing is delicious.

A bit like the shouty know-it-all who uses words he doesn't understand.

I wonder how many Mail readers could explain 'cultural marxism'. One of Mad Mel's phrases I think.

At least The Mail has the honesty to put the key bits in capital letters, to make it look realistically stupid.

The print edition very, very rarely does that in a headline, pretty much never in the actual body of the text itself.

Bikequin

@ NSB - I never said it was, but the Guardian by its very nature offers more opinion than most of the tabloids, in fact I imagine its why a lot of people buy the paper.

And for the sake of clarity I would argue that the Daily Mail offers little in the way of opinion and far too much populist rhetoric.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Yes, because lengthy sentences in oubliette style prisons are the best way to eliminate all social ills. :roll:
I'm perfectly at ease with the fact that you don't share the same world view as I do, W1. You can satisfy yourself with the fact that most people share yours though.

I haven't said that though, have I?

Are you trolling?

Is it a misrepresentation of your opinion?

W1

Sewinman wrote:

I used the activity rather than the offence to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the sentence....you already know that though.

Well, apart from the very base level, the activity wasn't the same either.

Don't get your knickers in a twist about it, the riot inciters will win on appeal. Whilst what they did was stupid (i.e. deliberately organising something illegal that has the potential to cause death and distress) it probably isn't "four years" serious.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Yes, because lengthy sentences in oubliette style prisons are the best way to eliminate all social ills. :roll:
I'm perfectly at ease with the fact that you don't share the same world view as I do, W1. You can satisfy yourself with the fact that most people share yours though.

I haven't said that though, have I?

Are you trolling?

Is it a misrepresentation of your opinion?

Yes.

jamesco

W1 wrote:

No, I'm saying that to praise the Guardian whilst criticising the Mail is laughable as they're as bad as each other, except to the Guardian apologists who think it can do no wrong.

That pretty much sums W1's arguments up. I get the feeling that he could argue that black is white all day long, just to enjoy any exasperation caused.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

You can disagree with the stance The Guardian takes on certain matters, but to accuse it of pushing an agenda and comparing it with The Daily Mail is just ridiculous. Its just trolling.

No, it isn't. It's an opinion, but it's not deliberately inflamatory. They are, in my view, just as bad as each other in terms of stance and spin. One is perhaps rather more faux intelligent about it, but just as biased in reality.

You're not getting it. There is no such thing as unbiased media. All you're saying is that the Guardian's left-wing liberal bias doesn't accord with your right-wing conservative bias. You don't see NSB or me dismissing a story purely because it came from the Telegraph (MPs' expenses for example).

No, I'm saying that to praise the Guardian whilst criticising the Mail is laughable as they're as bad as each other, except to the Guardian apologists who think it can do no wrong.

I (and many others) don't criticise the DM (and perhaps the Express) for having a right-wing conservative agenda. There are other publications - The Times, The Telegraph, The Economist - that manage to push that agenda without routinely resorting to not-so-thinly veiled racism, homophobia, or misogyny, baseless health scares and so on (to list a few).

deptfordmarmoset

I can't help thinking that it would have been much easier to have read the study and looked for political bias there. But no, this is the internet.... http://www.voxeu.org/sites/default/file ... DP8513.pdf

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I used the activity rather than the offence to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the sentence....you already know that though.

Well, apart from the very base level, the activity wasn't the same either.

Don't get your knickers in a twist about it, the riot inciters will win on appeal. Whilst what they did was stupid (i.e. deliberately organising something illegal that has the potential to cause death and distress) it probably isn't "four years" serious.

! :shock: Browsing the Guardian for ammunition has quietly and imperceptively turned you into a massive wet pinko.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

I (and many others) don't criticise the DM (and perhaps the Express) for having a right-wing conservative agenda.

Come onRJS, You know as well as I do that it's often used as an insult, or to ridicule someone's position regardless of how realistic an argument that is. Pretty much anything that sugests being anything other than liberal yields yelps of "Daily Mail" mud-slinging.

The Guardian has only cropped up on this thread because Rich Chasey linked to it to support one particular (slanted) view on the riots. I commented at how predictable that was, and how poorly considered an article it is (jn my view). Perhaps what I should have done for balance was link to an equally shoddy Daily Mail article instead, and then the world could have kept in balance.

W1

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I used the activity rather than the offence to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the sentence....you already know that though.

Well, apart from the very base level, the activity wasn't the same either.

Don't get your knickers in a twist about it, the riot inciters will win on appeal. Whilst what they did was stupid (i.e. deliberately organising something illegal that has the potential to cause death and distress) it probably isn't "four years" serious.

! :shock: Browsing the Guardian for ammunition has quietly and imperceptively turned you into a massive wet pinko.

Curve ball for you.

Now you need to say they should all be hanged.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Yes, because lengthy sentences in oubliette style prisons are the best way to eliminate all social ills. :roll:
I'm perfectly at ease with the fact that you don't share the same world view as I do, W1. You can satisfy yourself with the fact that most people share yours though.

I haven't said that though, have I?

Are you trolling?

Is it a misrepresentation of your opinion?

Yes.

Well what is your opinion then? You're quick to criticise, but slow to qualify those same criticisms by actually saying what you think about an issue.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I (and many others) don't criticise the DM (and perhaps the Express) for having a right-wing conservative agenda.

Come onRJS, You know as well as I do that it's often used as an insult, or to ridicule someone's position regardless of how realistic an argument that is. Pretty much anything that sugests being anything other than liberal yields yelps of "Daily Mail" mud-slinging.

Did you misquote him intentionally?

"I (and many others) don't criticise the DM (and perhaps the Express) for having a right-wing conservative agenda. There are other publications - The Times, The Telegraph, The Economist - that manage to push that agenda without routinely resorting to not-so-thinly veiled racism, homophobia, or misogyny, baseless health scares and so on (to list a few)."

Its not the right wing conservative view thats being criticised. I'll read a right wing piece with interest if it isn't reactionary and bigoted. As RJS says its the xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic and anti-intellectual devices the DM uses to push its editorial point of view that are the main criticisms of the paper. Are you defending the Daily Mail here or do you share the "liberal" opinion of it and are simply trashing the Guardian by making the comparison?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Its not the right wing conservative view thats being criticised.

That's my point. Usually, it is. Maybe not by you or RJS (but who said anything different?)

W1 wrote:

....it's often used as an insult, or to ridicule someone's position regardless of how realistic an argument that is. Pretty much anything that sugests being anything other than liberal yields yelps of "Daily Mail" mud-slinging.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Its not the right wing conservative view thats being criticised.

That's my point. Usually, it is. Maybe not by you or RJS (but who said anything different?)

W1 wrote:

....it's often used as an insult, or to ridicule someone's position regardless of how realistic an argument that is. Pretty much anything that sugests being anything other than liberal yields yelps of "Daily Mail" mud-slinging.

You have a nasty habit of quoting out of context or simply ignoring the main points being made in a post you're responding to.

I've honestly yet to see a link to the daily mail to back up a "realistic" argument. Feel free to change that. At any time. Please, go ahead.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Well what is your opinion then? You're quick to criticise, but slow to qualify those same criticisms by actually saying what you think about an issue.

Somewhere between Sewinman and a black-cab driver.

Prison is ineffective in terms of reducing reoffending.

ASBOs and non custodial sentences are equally poor at discouraging criminality.

We haven't managed to get it right yet.

In relation to the offences relating to the riots, I'm not overly concerned given the context and they would appear to be within guidlines in relation to their aggravating features.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Its not the right wing conservative view thats being criticised.

That's my point. Usually, it is. Maybe not by you or RJS (but who said anything different?)

W1 wrote:

....it's often used as an insult, or to ridicule someone's position regardless of how realistic an argument that is. Pretty much anything that sugests being anything other than liberal yields yelps of "Daily Mail" mud-slinging.

You have a nasty habit of quoting out of context or simply ignoring the main points being made in a post you're responding to.

I've honestly yet to see a link to the daily mail to back up a "realistic" argument. Feel free to change that. At any time. Please, go ahead.

And you have a nasty habit of putting words into peoples mouths.

I've not seen such a link either. What I have seen is shouts of "Daily Mail" used to try to ridicule someone's position. Do you disagree?

Why haven't you answered my question about you being a troll?

sketchley

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Its not the right wing conservative view thats being criticised.

That's my point. Usually, it is. Maybe not by you or RJS (but who said anything different?)

W1 wrote:

....it's often used as an insult, or to ridicule someone's position regardless of how realistic an argument that is. Pretty much anything that sugests being anything other than liberal yields yelps of "Daily Mail" mud-slinging.

You have a nasty habit of quoting out of context or simply ignoring the main points being made in a post you're responding to.

I've honestly yet to see a link to the daily mail to back up a "realistic" argument. Feel free to change that. At any time. Please, go ahead.

Problem is DM target audience is angry middle Englander looking for something to rant about so they produce content to support that. The last thing the DM readers need is a well balanced article so you are not going to find it in the archives. A Guardian reader on the other hand 'needs' an article which, on the surface at least, presents both sides of the argument, so you will find plenty of that. Both are valid forms of journalism targeting their audience, both are guaranteed to get the other readers backs up and a point I'm sure you'll take issue with both require a high degree of intelligence on the part of the journalists to pull it off so successfully.

@NSB, no criticism here, but one thing that is interesting is that your politics appear to be vary clearly in tune with Guardian content, why is that? I'm sure you would argue that it happens to represent your views, I'm sure a DM reader would argue the same. Make of that what you will.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

I've not seen such a link either. What I have seen is shouts of "Daily Mail" used to try to ridicule someone's position. Do you disagree?

"Daily Mail" was probably just shorthand for bigoted and/or reactionary. Having said that though, I can't recall an instance of this happening. Perhaps you do?

W1 wrote:

Why haven't you answered my question about you being a troll?

Surely this was a rhetorical question, what with the first rule of troll club and all.

notsoblue

Sketchley wrote:

Problem is DM target audience is angry middle Englander looking for something to rant about so they produce content to support that. The last thing the DM readers need is a well balanced article so you are not going to find it in the archives. A Guardian reader on the other hand 'needs' an article which, on the surface at least, presents both sides of the argument, so you will find plenty of that. Both are valid forms of journalism targeting their audience, both are guaranteed to get the other readers backs up and a point I'm sure you'll take issue with both require a high degree of intelligence on the part of the journalists to pull it off so successfully.

The problem I have with the comparison is that The Daily Mail is staffed by people like Jan Moir who write pieces like this. Even her less overtly offensive articles prompt responses like this. The worst criticisms of The Guardian seem to be that its smug, or that it has a softly softly introspective, navel gazing, liberal view on most issues. I'd even agree that the latter is quite accurate, and concede that this is why I read it.

Sketchley wrote:

@NSB, no criticism here, but one thing that is interesting is that your politics appear to be vary clearly in tune with Guardian content, why is that? I'm sure you would argue that it happens to represent your views, I'm sure a DM reader would argue the same. Make of that what you will.

Totally, people read the paper that they agree with most. I don't claim that it publishes objective truth, because on most issues there is no objective truth.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I (and many others) don't criticise the DM (and perhaps the Express) for having a right-wing conservative agenda.

Come onRJS, You know as well as I do that it's often used as an insult, or to ridicule someone's position regardless of how realistic an argument that is. Pretty much anything that sugests being anything other than liberal yields yelps of "Daily Mail" mud-slinging.

The Guardian has only cropped up on this thread because Rich Chasey linked to it to support one particular (slanted) view on the riots. I commented at how predictable that was, and how poorly considered an article it is (jn my view). Perhaps what I should have done for balance was link to an equally shoddy Daily Mail article instead, and then the world could have kept in balance.

Yes, Daily Mail is used as shorthand, as is muesli-eating sandal-wearing Guardian reader. It's lazy stereotyping, but then people of all political persuasions are lazy.

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

Yes, Daily Mail is used as shorthand, as is muesli-eating sandal-wearing Guardian reader. It's lazy stereotyping, but then people of all political persuasions are lazy.

I agree, but don't you think its a false comparison? The DM is a tabloid, The Guardian is a respected broadsheet. Equating the two in an argument (which is done when the comparison is made) is like equating creationism with the theory of evolution for the purposes of debate. It just drags the debate down and avoids discussing the relevant points.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Having said that though, I can't recall an instance of this happening. Perhaps you do?
.

Someone started a whole thread about it:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... sc&start=0

So maybe I'm not the only one to notice it?

Anyway, if you really want to get cross read anything by Liz Jones.

joelsim

Lock him up is what I say, love the fact that some sentences are perceived as 'tough'. I say 'tough' to the scumbags who committed the crimes. Bang them up for ever.

sketchley

notsoblue wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Yes, Daily Mail is used as shorthand, as is muesli-eating sandal-wearing Guardian reader. It's lazy stereotyping, but then people of all political persuasions are lazy.

I agree, but don't you think its a false comparison? The DM is a tabloid, The Guardian is a respected broadsheet. Equating the two in an argument (which is done when the comparison is made) is like equating creationism with the theory of evolution for the purposes of debate. It just drags the debate down and avoids discussing the relevant points.

A DM reader (I’m not one btw) would argue that the DM is straight talking paper that represent the majority of middle England and the Guardian is left of centre paper with political agenda whose readers are a bunch of smug liberals. They think this because their paper's agenda (sell papers) plays to their demographic and reinforces this.

A Guardian reader opinion of the Guardian as a respected broadsheet is born out of the fact they read it and fit its demographic. They are likely to argue against this as it is part of the demographic of the Guardian reader that they see the paper as respected, well balanced etc. It is therefore important to the agenda of the Guardian (sell papers) that they continue to ensure readers feel this way hence articles appear on the face of things to be exactly that, at least to that demographic.

In other words you would think the Guardian is a respected broadsheet and the DM a rag and a DM reader would think the opposite both opinions being reinforced by the paper of choice to the point of it being a belief. So argument cannot be won.

deptfordmarmoset

Immigration officer comes home to find family of Romanian gypsies squatting in her house, wearing her clothes and drinking her wine (after telling neighbours she'd died)

This is one of today's DM headlines. It says a lot about the Daily Mail. ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Proms.html )

Anyhow, why couldn't these kids simply have gone away on holiday like the government did?

rick_chasey

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/