[News] The Sun what an absolutely gutter press paper it really is!

[um bongo molongo]

The irony is Stokes’ response is far more powerful, eloquent and better written than anything that rag produces. I can’t believe anyone is defending it. I feel so sorry for his mother who had someone turn up on her doorstep 31 years later and rake it all up, and for his kids who will now have this as part of their lives and their relationship with their Grandma. I would describe myself as someone who is hard to offend and often speak out against twitter driven faux outrage but this is just disgraceful. And the Guardian editorial on Cameron was equally disgraceful and that was written by the editor! Perhaps it’s no surprise - journalism is a dying industry and so is perhaps only attracting the odious and dimwitted these days, who need to take ever more desperate measures to keep themselves in a job.

 

[Lenny Rider]

Totally agree with that.

The Mail is the most hypocritical paper out there. The Sun is a rag which appeals to the lowest common denominator. The Mail is exactly the same but professes to be a higher quality product.

The comments section of the Daily Mail is without doubt the most toxic place on earth.

 

[Stat Brother]

I see from today's front page they are now going after Nessie.

When will this madness end.

 

[Machiavelli]

For an astute analysis of the focus of this thread, probably even NSC itself, and how we now deal with information, truth and perspective more broadly, this is well worth 15 or 20 minutes of your time:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/19/why-cant-we-agree-on-whats-true-anymore

 

[borat]

Totally agree with that.

The Mail is the most hypocritical paper out there. The Sun is a rag which appeals to the lowest common denominator. The Mail is exactly the same but professes to be a higher quality product.

Replace ''The Mail'' with ''The Telegraph'' and it works even better. I can't see how anyone regardless of political affiliation can see The Mail as a ''quality product''.

 

[portlock seagull]

You’re absolutely right that people only read things which suit a pre-existing bias. This is absolutely crazy and is responsible for a lot of the polarization of views we see today. Also agree that you need to find multiple sources in a genuinely open minded way before you make your mind up on an issue.

I very much disagree with you about The BBC and The Guardian only writing and saying things which suit their paymasters.

The BBC is non profit making and has an international reputation for being meticulously impartial (though clearly if you’re on the left, you’ll think it’s right and vice versa) and obviously has the capacity and wilingness to criticise itself like no other organisation.

The Guardian is owned by a trust (which re-invests any profits into journalism), not by some loaded mogul. Yes it has a clear political leaning, but the information is sourced and referenced in a much more open way than in any of the tabloids we’re talking about . Though fair enough, the recent Cameron comment was an appalling thing to say.

Ever worked for a NPO? Trust? I have, senior position and one with a huge global presence. It shattered my perspectives of. Was anything but what you claim them to be and they waste shocking, literally shocking amounts of members money achieving nothing. The exec boards are full of wordsmiths, above a glass ceiling without any desire to change things beyond tokenism. They’re largely self-serving, voting to award themselves even more generous packages and inviting friends to become non exec supervisors. Their accountability is laughable really and commercially I wouldn’t trust them to negotiate a paper round. I couldn’t stand it, as one ex colleague said to me ‘You don’t fit in here, you want to change things for the better and that’s not what this place is about’. It was such the epitome of status quo I’m surprised I never bumped into Rick Parfitt. Of course, not all will be like that but based on my experience many probably are.

 

[blue-shifted]

Ever worked for a NPO? Trust? I have, senior position and one with a huge global presence. It shattered my perspectives of. Was anything but what you claim them to be and they waste shocking, literally shocking amounts of members money achieving nothing. The exec boards are full of wordsmiths, above a glass ceiling without any desire to change things beyond tokenism. They’re largely self-serving, voting to award themselves even more generous packages and inviting friends to become non exec supervisors. Their accountability is laughable really and commercially I wouldn’t trust them to negotiate a paper round. I couldn’t stand it, as one ex colleague said to me ‘You don’t fit in here, you want to change things for the better and that’s not what this place is about’. It was such the epitome of status quo I’m surprised I never bumped into Rick Parfitt. Of course, not all will be like that but based on my experience many probably are.

I've never worked for a NPO or trust, no. But i'm satisfied, that my conscience would be clearer if I ever worked for the Murdoch empire.

Oh, and I don't think I claimed anything about this particular NPO, other than I, and most sensible people don't think it's aims motives or ways of working are remotely comparable to those in charge of the Mail, sun etc

 

[portlock seagull]

I've never worked for a NPO or trust, no. But i'm satisfied, that my conscience would be clearer if I ever worked for the Murdoch empire.

Oh, and I don't think I claimed anything about this particular NPO, other than I, and most sensible people don't think it's aims motives or ways of working are remotely comparable to those in charge of the Mail, sun etc

Perhaps. But all that glitters isn’t gold and all that. Some very partial bodies out there purporting to be without bias. Including auntie and Manchester’s finest.

 

[Weststander]

The comments section of the Daily Mail is without doubt the most toxic place on earth.

With The Argus comments, before they’re censored, quite vile at times.