LOL Mail lies

Tefal said:
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" ?
Click to expand...

lol you really believe that she's just making it up and the daily mail is true ?

They post drivel like this every day. Look at todays "Femail"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...d-sole-aim-landing-rich-husband--got-one.html

Utter garbage, the lot of it.

My reading of daily news consists of reading the bbc news website and ocassionally sky news. I can't be bothered with the papers because half of its junk, and the other half is mostly biased. At least sky news and bbc news try to be impartial (admitedly not all the time, but its more than the papers ever do)
 
Forde said:
Is there any paper or news channel that doesn't spout lies, anyway?
Click to expand...

depends

The BBC is a publicly funded news source, so has a duty to be impartial.

They at least try to. Whereas papers like the daily mail make no effort whatsoever and are quite content to make everything up.

When the BBC do come acrossed as biased, they are generally picked up on it pretty quick.
 
The BBC is a publicly funded news source, so has a duty to be impartial.
Click to expand...

No it's not, it's partially public funded it makes huge amounts of money being a commercial service outside of the uk.
 
Well yeah

The BBC is a publicly funded news source, so has a duty to be impartial.
Click to expand...

That to me strongly implies that you think because it's publically funded it will be impartial because it has no market to target.

Which is wrong.


because if you just meant partially publicly funded then do you think the same of itv/channel 4 and all the other uk channels which receive a percentage of the license fee and so are partially publicly funded.
 
What scares me about this story is that the article in question is essentially a puff piece. Even for a light-hearted article, the Daily Mail feels the need to lie and to make threats rather than issue an apology.

I really wish that the Daily Mail was behind a pay-wall.
 
Well it's her word against the newspapers. While I don't think she is 100% lying I am not really certain that all she claims is true, eitherway no one can prove one way or another.

Also, I found it very amusing that she keeps harping about the 'principle' throughout the whole article only to take the money at the end. She was 'that' close to obliterating Daily Mail in court (and why didn't she claim for her legal costs to bec covered by the DM?) but she chose to avoid the hassle (what? she's been through 2 years already fighting for the 'principle' of it, why stop now?) and get the money - obviously realising that even if she was vindicated she would be financially worse off, so there goes your principle out of the window.

Can't blame her for taking the money but all this moral high ground? pah-leeeease...
 
kgi said:
[...] Also, I found it very amusing that she keeps harping about the 'principle' throughout the whole article only to take the money at the end [...] - obviously realising that even if she was vindicated she would be financially worse off, so there goes your principle out of the window [...]
Click to expand...
To suggest that principle and a practical desire to recoup lost earnings are mutually exclusive seems a touch naive to me.

There's very little in that blog post to suggest that her eyes lit up with the power of a million cha-ching!s.
 
Last edited:
simisker said:
To suggest that principle and a practical desire to recoup lost earnings are mutually exclusive seems a touch naive to me.

There's very little in that blog post to suggest that her eyes lit up with the power of a million cha-ching!s.
Click to expand...

Well, she keeps blagging about how she only wanted an apology, she actually mentions that many times. Then when she was given the opportunity for that she changed course and took the money.

I'm not suggesting money/principle are mutually exclusive but she could definitely spare the white-knight mongering throughout 75% of her post and then take a £££ u-turn. I don't blame her or criticise her for taking the money, that was the smart thing to do, but please spare me the 'I only wanted an apology' mantra. It'd be fine if the case was still ongoing but since she ended up taking the monetary compensation she could have toned her style a bit down when she was describing what happened.

The only thing I do blame her is why she didn't go for blood when she was offered to settle, she should have asked a couple 100k's or try to extort as much as possible. Now she ended up without an apology and with a measly sum. So, she got a small car out of the deal but she is still looked down by her community. So who really won? She didn't the way I see it.
 
The BBC still inflames 'news' stories to high Heaven though. I remember watching a report on Avian 'Flu (or Swine 'Flu - can't recall which) where the two presenters were asking a medical expert questions. The doctor (who had impressive credentials that I've long forgotten) was insisting that there was nothing to worry about, and that despite the fact that there have been a few cases reported in Britain the only people truly at risk were those who were extremely vulnerable (in which case they were no more at risk from Avian 'Flu than other ailments). The presenters ignored his calm, informative asessment and barraged him with melodramatic nonesense, saying things like: "So, you're saying that many people in this country are at serious risk?" "So, we can expect to see the death toll rise sometime in the next few days?"

Since then I stopped watching BBC news. Once you see how inflamatory the news is you notice it more and more.
 
Last edited:
Forde said:
The BBC still inflames 'news' stories to high Heaven though. I remember watching a report on Avian 'Flu (or Swine 'Flu - can't recall which) where the two presenters were asking a medical expert questions. The doctor was insisting that there was nothing to worry about and that despite the fact that there have been a few cases reported in Britain the only people truly at risk were those who were extremely vulnerable (in whcih case they were no more at risk to Avian 'Flu than other ailments). The presenters ignored his calm, informative asessment and said things like: "So, you're saying that many people are at risk?" "So, we can expect to see the death toll rise sometime in the next few days?"

Since then I stopped watching BBC news. I've noticed it more and more, too.
Click to expand...

If you think that's bad, don't watch Sky News.
 
The funny thing is, people in the states and Canada are aware at just how much english tabloids BS, daily star, the sun and daily mail all have a reputation for making up their stories on celebrities and most stuff.

It's funny how their own readers here aren't aware of that thou
 
As someone else has already pointed out, what was the point of going through that lengthy 2 year battle, only to recoup the money she spent over those 2 years?
She made no financial gain, didn't get an apology, didn't progress her business in that time - so basically just wasted 2 years of her life only to regain the money she spent. I sympathise, but her end gain (which she chose) says she should have put up with her idiotic decision to give the daily fail an interview in the first place.
 
Forde said:
Since then I stopped watching BBC news. Once you see how inflamatory the news is you notice it more and more.
Click to expand...

I would say it's extremely hard to find any news piece that hasn't in some way been inflamed to make it more "interesting" these days. By any of the separate news companies. It's all driven by the fact that the only good news is bad news. Bad news sells. They hype everything up to draw people in and get an "Oh my god I didn't know that!!" reaction.

I feel the same way about the coverage of the flu. And of the snow. It's most irritating when you can hear the news in the background and the only words that stand out are the ones that are repeated over and over and over, such as "Death" and "Catastrophic".

What I tend to do is read about the same story from a number of sources, such as bbc news and telegraph or whatever, and then bring the level of "OMGWTF we're all gonna die!!!111" down a few notches to fathom the actual story.
 
This is nothing, anyone ever watch Fox News LOL

I dont bother with any UK newspapers anymore, they are all out for there own glory, anything that will bring them the money in, every other week you hear about one of them being sued for publishing lies, they dont care.

The USA is ran by the Media, most americans believe everything a news channel tells them, if Fox tells you to hate something you hate it, if they say love it you love it,

The UK is slowly turning into that aswell, the Media gets away with far to much here, and no one seems to want to stop them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom