Jacob Rees-Mogg Redux

RDM said:
I am not saying that it does validate the Mail, but it does win awards, it does do some investigative journalism. Yes, the majority of it is right wing trash, but if we are talking about not being able to see through your own bias then you also need to acknowledge all of the stuff the Mail does and not just the objectionable stuff. Otherwise you are just projecting your own bias and ignoring facts.
Click to expand...

So we have to sift through all the turd to try and find a bit of silver.

Why would anyone bother, given their track records of out right lies and propaganda. The only people who read it are the people who want to agree with all their guff.
 
LabR@t said:
someone less sanctimonious would understand that things posted on internet forums are often in jest.
Click to expand...
So if was all in jest, did you carry on reading? Did you get to the part where the news sources you don’t like were found to be more trustworthy?
 
Vonhelmet said:
So if was all in jest, did you carry on reading? Did you get to the part where the news sources you don’t like were found to be more trustworthy?
Click to expand...

Again, to try and bring balance rather than actually defend the Mail, it is an opinion poll, which doesn't necessarily mean that the papers are more trustworthy, just that people feel that they are.
 
RDM said:
As much as I hate to defend the Daily and Sunday Mail, they have won a fair few awards. Just have a look at the Press Awards for example, they have won Newspaper of the Year more times than any other paper.
Click to expand...

What are the criteria for winning Newspaper of the Year? Clearly journalistic integrity is not one of them.
 
RDM said:
Again, to try and bring balance rather than actually defend the Mail, it is an opinion poll, which doesn't necessarily mean that the papers are more trustworthy, just that people feel that they are.
Click to expand...
True, I didn’t word that last bit very well. Although I’m sure I have seen more serious research out there into how reliable various news sources are, and the mail wasn’t really up there.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Everything is serious in the Rees-mogg thread he's a serious politician don't you know not a figure of fun to be mocked as the condescending spoilt brat that he is.
Click to expand...
Plus if you do mock him then his supporters will hunt you down and find where you live and work and make you regret the day you dared to mock the great one
 
It won newspaper of the year in the same year it got banned from Wikipedia as a citeable source due to their long history of horrendously innacurate reporting. Lol

With regard to guardian, it too is biased and has ridiculous articles but compare front page of the guardian website to the daily mails... one is written for simpletons with clikbait headlines and trashy show biz stories everywhere, the other is not and is clearly written for a more educated audience.

Whether you like it or not the daily mail is written and presented as if it’s core audience is poorly educated simpletons... they know their demographic is traditionally pretty thick. They even posted an article a few years back mocking their own readers intelligence compared to people with left wing views.
 
Last edited:
RDM said:
Yes they have a strong editorial bias, yes a lot of their stories are trash and ill informed, but they do have some good journalists working for them and they do some serious journalism. Is it possible you are letting your own bias against the paper get in the way?
Click to expand...

Possibly. The only time I read them is when people link to them. The stories that get linked are the ones that tend towards being click-bait nonsense.
 
RDM said:
Again, to try and bring balance rather than actually defend the Mail, it is an opinion poll, which doesn't necessarily mean that the papers are more trustworthy, just that people feel that they are.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind the reason I posted that link in the first place was because LabR@t posted an opinion poll about how right or left wing a paper is. The same argument you’re making there can be used for the left/right lean as well.

Realistically they are all junk because public opinion isn’t a great way of judging political leaning, bias and impartiality. Then again, there aren’t many better ways either.

The point wasn’t to verify veracity of the claim made by opinion polls however, rather to use similarly collected data to disprove a point he had made, while stemming any resulting complaint by using data collected in the same way to data he had embraced himself.
 
Last edited:
Vonhelmet said:
True, I didn’t word that last bit very well. Although I’m sure I have seen more serious research out there into how reliable various news sources are, and the mail wasn’t really up there.
Click to expand...
I hate to defend the Mail, but to say "I’m sure I have seen more serious research out there into how reliable various news sources are, and the mail wasn’t really up there." is ridiculous. Was it perhaps something you read written by someone on a forum that said something similar?
 
Em3bbs said:
I hate to defend the Mail, but to say "I’m sure I have seen more serious research out there into how reliable various news sources are, and the mail wasn’t really up there." is ridiculous. Was it perhaps something you read written by someone on a forum that said something similar?
Click to expand...
Oh, right, it’s ridiculous. I’m saying I believe I recall seeing something and that’s ridiculous. I’m hardly staking my life on it. I think it was to do with retractions or corrections to stories or something, and the mail was way up there in terms of having to row back on its ludicrous claims. It may have been another angry voice on Facebook, I forget.

Here you go: http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/the-daily-mail-is-by-far-most-dishonest.html?m=1

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
 
Vonhelmet said:
Oh, right, it’s ridiculous. I’m saying I believe I recall seeing something and that’s ridiculous. I’m hardly staking my life on it. I think it was to do with retractions or corrections to stories or something, and the mail was way up there in terms of having to row back on its ludicrous claims. It may have been another angry voice on Facebook, I forget.

Here you go: http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/the-daily-mail-is-by-far-most-dishonest.html?m=1

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Click to expand...
No need to get so defensive/snippy? Well done on providing a source.
 
Speaking to a pro-Brexit relative last night I was surprised to find out he dislikes Mogg despite having an almost identical political outlook, to the point where he would refuse to vote for him if he was Tory leader, when asked why this is I got the reply "I agree with everything he says, but I can't put my faith in the judgement and reasoning of a man who deliberately walks into a barbers every couple of weeks and asks for an Adolf".

Well, I suppose haircuts are as good a reason to base your support on as bus slogans...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom