The Daily Mail...

[Leighgull]

All papers are reporting the events in Iraq - but only in the Daily Mail will they have a headline like this "The bodies keep piling up: From Kenya to Iraq shocking new images show how a wave of Islamist carnage has signalled a new era of barbaric terror across the world" - This isn't reporting news, it's blatant scaremongering, they have an obvious agenda to make people fear and hate Muslims. It's genuinely quite scary that it's the best selling paper in the country.

We don't need the Mail to stoke up anti Muslim sentiment. Those fellas chopping off people's heads and shooting defenceless prisoners in the head are doing a good enough job on their own.

I would fear and hate that lot (not all Muslims, just extremists) for a damned good reason.

 

[pastafarian]

This is what The Daily Mail does - it exists to provoke rage, fear and hatred onto its readers with shocking blown up images and SENSATIONALISED headlines.

Naturally it's getting a bit overexcited at the moment with the goings on in Iraq, it's having a field day with those kind of photos hoping that anyone that sees them will hate Muslims as much as they do.

Whatever you do please do not visit liveleak,and certainly dont read the comments that accompany exploding Jihadi videos.......i fear you may implode

 

[looney]

...and its non-readers. I don't read the DM but I do love how it gets certain people so worked up. It's excellent marketing.




All those images shown on the Daily Mail website were shown on Al-Jazeera. In fact Al-Jazeera makes a big thing of not shying away from showing its readers the horrors that occur on a daily basis and it's broadcast some pretty gruesome stuff before, much worse than those on the DM website. Why is it okay for a news channel that you like, to show those images but not a newspaper that you hate?

Oh come on. You must realise now its just noise from gaurdian reading shills to stupid to let go of a failed agenda. The DM's circulation has not plummeted since this whining began. Most just ignore it, then or the DM.

 

[8ace]

I could see how people might have nightmares after seeing these images.
If they were ten years old.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

Did you think it was a scummy newspaper before or after you "stumbled" across it

OK I'll have a wild stab in the dark, you logged onto the daily mail website ??

I was reading the sport, then I clicked the homepage. I perhaps should have said "God knows why I was on their site, I don't like most of what I read on there and should have known better"...

I could see how people might have nightmares after seeing these images.
If they were ten years old.

And what would stop a ten year old from accessing said images? Look I'm not going to go screaming for a policeman or anything. My overall point is that in my experience, the Mail is one of the worst media outlets for click baiting headlines and the like. Putting pretty horrible images like this up without a warning on their homepage with "Warning: Graphic Content" AFTER you'll have seen them, is pretty crappy.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

For reasons unknown I found myself on the homepage of the Mail and was greeted by two photos of mass murder, FOLLOWED BY a caption warning of graphic content. Too late I've already bloody seen it.

I've seen lots online about these horrible events in Kenya and Iraq, but purposefully avoided clicking links to any images. I don't want to see dead bodies being stacked up or people being shot in the head.

I've never seen a paper run images like this without warning. Is it normal? Should I be surprised? Or did I get what I deserve for going to this scummy paper's site in the first place?

Gothenburg, where the latest news is some goat escaped into the next field.
Those pictures should scare you mate coz the fellas that carried out that massacre will be eventually be after you and your neighbours in your cozy little town.

 

[Soulman]

For reasons unknown I found myself on the homepage of the Mail and was greeted by two photos of mass murder, FOLLOWED BY a caption warning of graphic content. Too late I've already bloody seen it.

I've seen lots online about these horrible events in Kenya and Iraq, but purposefully avoided clicking links to any images. I don't want to see dead bodies being stacked up or people being shot in the head.

I've never seen a paper run images like this without warning. Is it normal? Should I be surprised? Or did I get what I deserve for going to this scummy paper's site in the first place?

Surely after over 6000 posts on NSC you would have already made your mind up/seen/read about the different newspapers and their content. Seems you were so "surprised" by the content, you managed to have a good gawp.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

I don't think the Mail should really be taken seriously on global issues. I do enjoy a nice human interest story mixed with right wing politics when done by the Mail though, such as this gem from a while back:

"Drama Teacher who organised Thatcher death parties remains unrepentant as it's revealed she had NHS breast implants"

A shambles of a headline in itself but with their poor use of the English language they have implied Thatcher had NHS breast implants.

Too be fair Maggie did have a lovely pair of tits.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

This is what The Daily Mail does - it exists to provoke rage, fear and hatred onto its readers with shocking blown up images and SENSATIONALISED headlines.

Naturally it's getting a bit overexcited at the moment with the goings on in Iraq, it's having a field day with those kind of photos hoping that anyone that sees them will hate Muslims as much as they do.

FORGIVE me Mustafa, (try not to be over exited) but what you appear to say is: do not show SENSATIONALISED pictures of what extremest muslims consider acceptable behaviour that seventy years ago got NAZIS hung.

I would point out I think any religion who expects people to pray five times a day is medieval ----just my view

I manage to get by with never praying

Whoops, I did pray that OSCAR would get a kick up his arse but look what happened with that.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I don't think the Mail should really be taken seriously on global issues. I do enjoy a nice human interest story mixed with right wing politics when done by the Mail though, such as this gem from a while back:

"Drama Teacher who organised Thatcher death parties remains unrepentant as it's revealed she had NHS breast implants"

A shambles of a headline in itself but with their poor use of the English language they have implied Thatcher had NHS breast implants.

Well, you never know...

 

[fat old seagull]

Well the Mail is okay I suppose, but I much prefer Andrex!

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

Well the Mail is okay I suppose, but I much prefer Andrex!

Who do you trust to give you the information about what is really going on in our country.

HONEST QUESTION

 

[Seagull on the wing]

For reasons unknown I found myself on the homepage of the Mail and was greeted by two photos of mass murder, FOLLOWED BY a caption warning of graphic content. Too late I've already bloody seen it.

I've seen lots online about these horrible events in Kenya and Iraq, but purposefully avoided clicking links to any images. I don't want to see dead bodies being stacked up or people being shot in the head.

I've never seen a paper run images like this without warning. Is it normal? Should I be surprised? Or did I get what I deserve for going to this scummy paper's site in the first place?

It's surprising the amount of people who moan about the DM yet go on to read it,(after all,it is in the top two best selling daily papers)
I think the headline on the front page might have given you a clue with...'SLAUGHTER THAT SHAMES BLAIR.
The page you are on about...page 8 and 9..says...'SAVAGERY BEYOND BELIEF',there are five pictures there...got a clue what they are about now ?
If you have a blind hatred of the paper...why read it? Instead of for reasons unknown... I found myself on the home page of the DM...was you asleep or in a sub concious state when you clicked the web site...or are you afraid of being out of the trendy left.
The DM does get things wrong,but so do all papers.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Just to prove you are having a rant against the Mail..(so cool and trendy) here is the Daily Mirrors take on the story..even they have graphic pictures of the slaughter...http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/britain-sends-military-assistance-iraq-3706966..they have more pics than the Daily Mail.

 

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

Who do you trust to give you the information about what is really going on in our country.

HONEST QUESTION

Any form of Social media that has not been censored or has any bias. We may not like certain images being made public but many of these pictures are real and say more than any politician or dictator and they depict more of the truth, like it or not. Propoganda still exsists.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

It's surprising the amount of people who moan about the DM yet go on to read it,(after all,it is in the top two best selling daily papers)
I think the headline on the front page might have given you a clue with...'SLAUGHTER THAT SHAMES BLAIR.
The page you are on about...page 8 and 9..says...'SAVAGERY BEYOND BELIEF',there are five pictures there...got a clue what they are about now ?
If you have a blind hatred of the paper...why read it? Instead of for reasons unknown... I found myself on the home page of the DM...was you asleep or in a sub concious state when you clicked the web site...or are you afraid of being out of the trendy left.
The DM does get things wrong,but so do all papers.

I didn't see the print version. It was on the front page of the site. I don't have a blind hatred, that's why I choose to read certain articles every now and then, mainly the sport, but occasionally others. Overall I don't like what I read. I don't like the way that IN A LOT of their articles they push what I think is a nasty agenda.

Ignoring my "scummy paper" comment for a minute, if ANY media had run those images without a warning I'd have been equally annoyed. I think it's a bit OTT.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

Any form of Social media that has not been censored or has any bias. We may not like certain images being made public but many of these pictures are real and say more than any politician or dictator and they depict more of the truth, like it or not. Propoganda still exsists.

At the age of nearly 58 I believe what I see with my own eyes.
Most of our politicians should be warned their fate would be similar unless they get their snouts out of the trough.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

Surely after over 6000 posts on NSC you would have already made your mind up/seen/read about the different newspapers and their content. Seems you were so "surprised" by the content, you managed to have a good gawp.

The problem I have is that it was a) on the homepage and b) there were no warnings. I didn't click on an article, I didn't have a good gawp, I clicked the daily mail logo and saw some pretty heavy images without asking to. I'm not pissing my knickers, I just asked if it was normal. I don't think it is.

 

[fat old seagull]

Who do you trust to give you the information about what is really going on in our country.

HONEST QUESTION

HONEST REPLY... I've given up trusting anyone other than family and close friends with anything. You're smart enough to realise politically we know next to nothing about anything that matters now.
I've given up believing anything from the media. You might as well read the DANDY, it's more honest.... at least you know it's not meant to be true.

 

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

The problem I have is that it was a) on the homepage and b) there were no warnings. I didn't click on an article, I didn't have a good gawp, I clicked the daily mail logo and saw some pretty heavy images without asking to. I'm not pissing my knickers, I just asked if it was normal. I don't think it is.

You're correct. Pissing your knickers is not normal.