OnePlus 5 review
Yet another post with such commenta as"Admittedly it is the Daily Mail".Also past posts such as "i wouldn't believe anything that rag printed".
I don't know of any newspaper,whether it be the Guardian or the daily star that hasn't been sued for lible at one time or another.
They all take stories and pictures from freelance journalists who if they have no story get no pay.As such all are inclined to fabricate or streetch the truth to make their story(if any) more worth attractive to the highest bidder.
Even their own journalists are all under pressure to produce and so tend to sensationalise and fabricate.
If i have time on my hands for a good sit down and read i will read the Times.Sometimes i will read through the mail and if at work with the odd few minutes here and there i will quite happily read the sun( i love it's sport/football section).
So lets stop this pretentious,snobbery and trying to infer that we only read the observer etc because we are above everyone else.
I would imagine it's a very cut throat world even between in house journalists.
As i said,every paper has been libeled or threatened with it at some time or other.
If i am talking stuff and nonsence(which i tend to do at times)you could always explain the error of my ways.
I'm not sure it's snobbery but I do think comments like the ones you mention seem to come from two things.
The first is most, if not all papers, have editorial bias. The Mail is noted for it's right wing bias and the standard of reporting sometimes appears to be compromised (ie on balanced accuracy) by reporting "a good story". When ever I read extracts from the Mail it always surprises me how slanted it appears to be. In the interests of balance there are of course papers with a left wing bias, but I note seldom if ever mentioned on this site.
The second is I think the way posters here (some anyway) choose to link a story from the Mail and do so in an unquestioning manner, almost as if they fully accept every word without a thought. I think what it tends to show is the preconceived views of the poster to a political view.
It happens here all the time as the latest gleeful thread is posted linked to the Mail. On the whole the political flavour of posters on this site is distinctly right wing and reads to me ( perhaps wrongly) as "it must be right because the Mail says so."
and trying to infer that we only read the observer etc because we are above everyone else."
Who's been doing that then?
There's nothing remotely pretentious in recognising that The Daily Mail is an out and out Tory supporting paper, or that the Daily Mirror is a Labour paper - those are well known facts, and as far as I know the papers themselves make no claims to be other than what they are - politically biased. Other daily papers also have their bias, and it has always been thus.
As for only reading the Observer - what a ludicrous conclusion to draw from the comments you refer to.
Both of you have made good points.
I accept most papers have a political bias and therefore some comments along the lines i mentioned are justified(in the right context).
But there are those who dismiss certain papers,whatever the story just because( as i put) they have their nose in the air.
Anyhow,i do accept that the comments are sometimes justified and will look for the bias angle first in future.
I would say that all newspapers have a bias in one direction or another.
For the Mail I would say it's about as far right as you can get, and the Daily Worker would be the same distance to the left.
The Telegraph is near to the Mail, but the quality of journalism is far superior.
I feel that the Guardian & Observer are generally left wing, but occasionally side with the Lib Dems.
The News International papers are different in that they always side with the Government, or the party most likely to win an upcoming election. Expect a swing to the right in the Sun & Times next year. News International only ever have their best interests at heart
I am not inferring that everyone who reads the observer have their nose in the air.I read it from time to time myself.
I refer to the amount of times someone quotes a newspaper source and the inevitable reply comes back poo pooing the paper/source straight away just because they don't read that paper, without any constructive comment whatsoever.
Often a subject that is human interest etc and nothing political at all.
The funny thing is that the Times and Observer have often carried the same article.
To make myself clear.
1. If you don't agree with an article/link,say why.
2. Don't just say"I wouldn't believe that paper even if" just because you don't like that paper.
3, Thats it,plain and simple.
Appoligies to any Guardian/Times readers who may have misunderstood the gist of my rant.
Theres a simple answer of course....
There's clearly snobbery regarding mail readers, I've seen it on past posts on Speaker's Corner and certainly in "Real Life". It doesn't seem to be considered a "proper" news paper. I must admit, at times I am infuriated by the bias and the sensationalist aspects of it but it is a very easy paper to read and one I have become used to reading. There's a broad spectrum of people reading all papers for different reasons and to label someone on the basis of a newspaper they read speaks volumes about the person doing so in my humble opinion.
Perhaps this might clarify the situation:
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.