LOL Mail lies

Fuzz

Fuzz

Fuzz

Soldato
Joined
3 Aug 2003
Posts
15,921
Location
UK
Bit of an RRS feed this one I'm afraid. Sorry

But if you are in any doubt about how national newspapers twist and fabricate the utter drivel they write, you need to read this.

http://nosleeptilbrooklands.blogspot.com/2011/01/true-story-of-daily-mail-lies-guest.html

One of the reasons when reading posts in here and people quote something from the Daily mail you get "LOL mail" soon afterwards.

Surprise surprise really, making **** up to fit their own agenda.
Boils my ****.
 
kwerk said:
Do you really think anyone's going to read all that?
Click to expand...

I did and it was quite interesting.

Then again my attention span is longer than that of the average spoon so I suppose I'm in the minority.
 
Last edited:
I read a lot of it. If true, that's only one story. Out of thousands.

Papers get away with murder.

The press in Scotland is particularly bad.

Turns out Labour were lying all along about Megrahi as the story stands now (massive long drawn issue here), however there is a slight difference in headlines...

WikiLeaks proves Scotland was right on Megrahi release

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comme...otland-was-right-on-megrahi-release-1.1073616

or

The SNP hating Scotsman with;

UK and Scotland gave secret advice over Megrahi release

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/UK-and-Scotland-gave-secret.6707668.jp

When in reality that wasn't the case, and the 'Scotland' claim isn't even confirmed in any way in the article.

It doesn't matter look at some of the comments no one believes them and even the anti SNP crowd are out of suggestion and direction, the Scotsman for example has watched its circulation drop massively. As of 2010 it had a circulation of 45k down from about 100k in the 1980s and you can pick up shares for as little as 11p now.

They are practically writing themself out of business with the pro-labour-regardless-of-everything-including-the-facts journalism. Schizophrenic morons, we'll be better off without them.

Press bias is just one of those things. You have to hope not too many people get caught up in it.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with News corp and phone hacking...
 
Last edited:
Fenris said:
I did and it was quite interesting.

Then again my attention span is longer than that of the average city rat so I suppose I'm in the minority.
Click to expand...

I read it too. I find it unsurprising, but very scary that a national newspaper is so unregulated in what they can print. Personally, I'd be very much in favour of curtailing 'freedom of the press' in libel and deformation cases.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I read it too. I find it unsurprising, but very scary that a national newspaper is so unregulated in what they can print. Personally, I'd be very much in favour of curtailing 'freedom of the press' in libel and deformation cases.
Click to expand...

If what she says is right it's nearly impossible for the average person to do anything about it, meaning the media has next to no motivation to not do it.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I read it too. I find it unsurprising, but very scary that a national newspaper is so unregulated in what they can print. Personally, I'd be very much in favour of curtailing 'freedom of the press' in libel and deformation cases.
Click to expand...

Because they know that a lot of people will be put off by the david v goliath aspect, and especially as its skewed against the individual because of the overpowering effect of capital.

I honestly think editors do it anyway, knowing that the damage from the headline is worth it in the short-medium term over a court action you don't have to publish yourself nor have to give much sheet space too for a possible retraction etc.

A lot of papers after all are party mouth pieces.
 
Very interesting read. Couldn't quite believe how much of it was utterly fabricated by the DM, except obviously I can. Why is TV so heavily regulated and yet the newspapers seem to be able to get away with bias and untruth?
 
Masterdog said:
Very interesting read. Couldn't quite believe how much of it was utterly fabricated by the DM, except obviously I can. Why is TV so heavily regulated and yet the newspapers seem to be able to get away with bias and untruth?
Click to expand...

£££££££££££££ + politics + fear

'freedom of the press'.
 
Scubascorpion said:
Bit of an RRS feed this one I'm afraid. Sorry

But if you are in any doubt about how national newspapers twist and fabricate the utter drivel they write, you need to read this.

http://nosleeptilbrooklands.blogspot.com/2011/01/true-story-of-daily-mail-lies-guest.html

One of the reasons when reading posts in here and people quote something from the Daily mail you get "LOL mail" soon afterwards.

Surprise surprise really, making **** up to fit their own agenda.
Boils my ****.
Click to expand...

Wow power to the woman for standing up to the daily mail, it just serves to highlight how easy it is for them to print utter rubbish, since most who are defamed in the process have neither the funds nor the know-how to hold them accountable.
 
It's stories like this that make me glad I refused the two journalists who emailed me after my posting on this forum and revealing partly what I did for a living, one of whom mentioned she worked for the Daily Mail.
 
I heard a figure a while ago about the number of times the DM has completely made something up. I can't remember what it was so I won't attempt to repeat it but most of the time they simply put a 3 or 4 line apology on about page 60. Cretins.
 
kwerk said:
Do you really think anyone's going to read all that?
Click to expand...

I did but good input there :rolleyes:

I'm not overly surprised as the Mail is an utter rag of a 'news'paper but it's sad that she had to spend so much time on this. At least she wasn't up against Fox News who - and this has been to court and Fox won - are under no legal obligation whatsoever to have any factual content in their news reporting. Just think about that for a second. Apparently,"there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States."

Maybe the Mail has been taking lessons from its American cousin?
 
[FnG]magnolia;18370935 said:
I did but good input there :rolleyes:

I'm not overly surprised as the Mail is an utter rag of a 'news'paper but it's sad that she had to spend so much time on this. At least she wasn't up against Fox News who - and this has been to court and Fox won - are under no legal obligation whatsoever to have any factual content in their news reporting. Just think about that for a second. Apparently,"there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States."

Maybe the Mail has been taking lessons from its American cousin?
Click to expand...

That really was an incredible ruling.

Fascinating blog article and glad I read it through to the end. The amount of purely made up material was astonishing. And the power they posses if you try and take it through the courts isn't so much David vs Goliath more Ant vs kid with a magnifying glass.

I just don't see how it is hard to prove they made it up. Surely the journalist would have a full transcript from the interview. The transcript would show she didn't say the things that were printed. Regardless if it's defamatory or not it shouldn't be allowed. You're saying someone said something they didn't. It shouldn't stand on principle. Would save the hassle of proving if it actually harmed the person and might even lead to, shock, an accurate article.
 
having just skim red sections because of the mind numbing tedium.

Why should we believe this woman?

Or is it a case of "she says something that supports our views so it must be true" ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom