On 9 Mar 2016 at 7:06pm Hyena wrote:
Why the assumption that if you read The Daily Mail or The Sun you are right wing , racist , jingoistic etc, can't you just read a newspaper and not have your political beliefs shaped one way or the other?
On 9 Mar 2016 at 7:25pm Leopard wrote:
I find that those who read only the guardian, one of the most biased rags out there, are the most odious of the lot.
On 9 Mar 2016 at 8:24pm Clifford wrote:
Tell us more Leopard. Where do you meet these odious Guardian readers? It has a tiny circulation so they must be thin on the ground. Are they friends of yours, or what, for you to know them so well?
On 10 Mar 2016 at 6:30am Forgotmypassword wrote:
Hyena, the Mail and Sun aren't newspapers, they're comics. They set out to engage their readers emotionally, not rationally. They tell you what's wrong today, what to be afraid of and who's to blame for it. They feed on scare stories, contrived moral outrage and invasions of privacy. They're a plague on a civilised society.
On 10 Mar 2016 at 6:45am OBE 1 wrote:
Unlike the Indy.....
Oh! what happened to that!
On 10 Mar 2016 at 7:14am Ken Obie wrote:
I liked The Sport.
On 10 Mar 2016 at 7:54am pn wrote:
The Guardians influence spreads well beyond its readership. It is not so much a paper as the central point of the British left wing . Its columnists are rarely absent from our screens and two of them are currently closely associated with Jeremy Corbyn( Milne and Jones ). Jonathan Friedland appears on TV and Radio( The Long View) George Moonbat is involved in the wider left wing and green movement , Polly Toynbee ( ex editor of Social and Current Affairs at the BBC) is who she is and much the same can be said of all its main contributors. At one time your journey form the Guardian the BBC was practically foretold ( this was during the cultural resistance to Thatcher during and especially after her time ) , the New Statesman is closely allied and the Guardian has links with the BC obviously and the Labour Party , especially what we might now cakll its right wong
I have no doubt whatsoever they will be involved in current anti Corbyn plots to get Jarvis elected
On 10 Mar 2016 at 7:58am Convenient wrote:
@forgotmypassword ...Get over yourself !
On 10 Mar 2016 at 8:29am corbynista wrote:
Rubbish. The guardian has been reporting consistently that Corbyn is unelectable and proposing far left policies- the first is a bit odd if it supports him and the second is not true- the policies are mild Keynsian social democracy. It is a mistake to equate a few of its columnists who are Corbyn supporters with the editorial policy and overall stance of a newspaper. Real lefties like me find the handwringing middle class guilt and hypocrisy of the guardian very irritating.
On 10 Mar 2016 at 9:17am notforthelikesofus wrote:
@ corbynista - well said The Guardian and Corbyns policies are not socialist, much like Sanders in the US aren't either. What we have is evidence that politics in this country are so far to the right that when a simple social democrat appears people react as if Lenin has taken over the spare plinth in Traf Sq and is invoking the revolution.
On 10 Mar 2016 at 10:35am Trooper wrote:
Re Newspapers.
Readers of the Guardian think they run the country
Readers of the Daily Mirror think they ought to run the country
Readers of the Times do run the country
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country
The Daily worker is read by people who think some other country should run the country
The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it already is.
The Sun readers do not actually care who runs the country as long as she has Big T**S.
JUST TO BRIGHTEN THE DAY.
On 10 Mar 2016 at 10:56am Bazooka's wrote:
Re Newspapers & Troopers Post
By the same kind of logic as Trooper portrays:
People who skim through ALL those papers mentioned.
Are: Rounded & Well Balanced!
Discounting the Big T**S.
On 10 Mar 2016 at 12:06pm overton wrote:
The Guardian is the one all the clever folk read, that's why it lost £120 million last year!
The Telegraph has gone a bit middle ground recently, more virtue signalling by super girls etc.
It seems to be hard to make money from selling news. The genius of the Daily Mail is they sell their readers.
On 10 Mar 2016 at 9:07pm Forgotmypassword wrote:
Convenient - I got over myself a long time ago. How about you?
On 11 Mar 2016 at 9:14am Clement Attlee wrote:
The Times/The Sun – owned by multinational media corporation headed by American billionaire with right-wing views
Daily Telegraph – owned by multinational media corporation headed by British billionaire brothers (non-doms) with right-wing views
Daily Mail – owned by multinational media corporation headed by British non-dom with right-wing views
Daily Express - owned by multinational media corporation headed by British UKIP supporter
The Guardian – owned by a trust “to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of the Guardian free from commercial or political interference
Where do you prefer to get your news ?
On 11 Mar 2016 at 9:49am Trooper wrote:
@ Clement Attlee. It was posted as a joke not a political rant, The word is humour.
On 11 Mar 2016 at 10:32am Mark wrote:
I got the joke and loved your post Trooper, but I do think that Clement has a point.
On 11 Mar 2016 at 12:35pm Jim Hacker wrote:
The "joke" was nicked from "Yes, Prime Minister", hence the dated reference to the Daily Worker.
On 11 Mar 2016 at 1:22pm Clifford wrote:
Jim Hacker wrote: 'The "joke" was nicked from "Yes, Prime Minister", hence the dated reference to the Daily Worker.'
And just to add to the 'joke', the Daily Worker changed its name to Morning Star in 1966, about a decade before the Hacker series began.
On 11 Mar 2016 at 1:50pm Tingles wrote:
It always amazes me how people claim the BBC and the Guardian are not establishment media. But then Lewes does seem to attract well heeled old trots.
On 11 Mar 2016 at 3:25pm A Person wrote:
Who or what is "The Establishment"? It would seem that the current "establishment" is very well served by the Times and its ilk, with the Daily Mail and Express doing the job of brainwashing the masses.
On 11 Mar 2016 at 4:10pm Hyena wrote:
A Person , You haven't got a very high opinion of the British Public? Maybe only thick people read The Mail and Express?
On 11 Mar 2016 at 4:41pm A Person wrote:
Not really: my low opinion attaches to the newspapers. If you read nothing but those publications then you will emerge with a profoundly distorted and often factually incorrect impression of the world.
On 11 Mar 2016 at 8:49pm A Person wrote:
Just in case...
www dot britishinfluence.org/13-reasons-taking-daily-mail-press-complaints-commission
listverse.com/2015/06/23/10-egregiously-false-stories-in-the-daily-mail/
boingboing.net/2014/01/03/lies-of-the-daily-mail
On 11 Mar 2016 at 9:05pm Hyena wrote:
A Person, the point is that you think a large section of the population are so dense that they can be influenced by what they read in The Daily Mail.
On 11 Mar 2016 at 10:26pm A Person wrote:
If immersion in half-truths and misrepresentation wasn't capable of misleading whole populations of people we wouldn't have put Lord Hawhaw to death as a traitor. It is obvious reading the many rants in this forum that people do swallow the dodgy statistics and scare stories, because they regurgitate them whole here. In this country broadcasting is strictly controlled to be proof against bias and misrepresentation, but the print media are not.
Propaganda is powerful, particularly if it's spreading a message you want to believe in. So you don't have to be dense; just willing or wishing not to challenge your prejudices. If it weren't so, why would you all bang on about Guardian readers all the time? You presumably think they're just as deluded.
On 11 Mar 2016 at 11:54pm Hyena wrote:
Presumably this doesn't apply to you.
On 12 Mar 2016 at 8:58am A Person wrote:
Of course it does. It applies to everyone. My response is to try to check things through other sources - that's most illuminating. Try it sometime.
On 12 Mar 2016 at 11:34am Hyena wrote:
I think you should change your user name to Special Person as your posts indicate that you have rather a high opinion of your self.
On 12 Mar 2016 at 11:52am overton wrote:
I would read the Guardian more if I didn't have to disable Java on my iPad to stop it crashing. My problem I know but it doesn't seem to be a problem with other websites with inbedded videos.
On 12 Mar 2016 at 1:29pm A Person wrote:
Why, Hyena? Because I'm not being rude and refuse to stumble into your obvious traps? Is that really the best you can do?
On 12 Mar 2016 at 3:45pm Clifford wrote:
Tingles wrote: 'But then Lewes does seem to attract well heeled old trots.'
Just for our information, Tingles, can you tell us precisely what a 'trot' is?
On 12 Mar 2016 at 3:57pm Len wrote:
I think it's a Trotsky
On 12 Mar 2016 at 4:01pm Consumption wrote:
I'm wasting away reading this thread.
On 12 Mar 2016 at 5:47pm Hyena wrote:
A Person, believe me no 'traps' you just sound self righteous which i find irksome.
On 12 Mar 2016 at 10:24pm A Person wrote:
Oh, well I'm sorry about that. I try to make rational arguments and offer evidence for my opinions without rancour. I don't patronise by using simple language. I don't think I'm self-righteous, but I am entitled to my opinion, which in this case happens to differ from yours.
On 14 Mar 2016 at 11:40am Observer wrote:
"he policies are mild Keynsian social democracy"
This sort of line of argument is designed to say - if you think Corbyn is too left wing, then you are basically no better than a horrible Tory, and close down the argument.
On domestic economics, though, I'd probably agree with you to an extent. When it comes to foreign policy, though, he's pretty extreme I think compared to most people in this country. God knows what Labour politicians of the 50s and 60s, including Nye Bevin, would have made of him.