The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.
The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.
The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.
Correct - it's worse because of the veneer of respectability imposed by its History.
The Guardian is a quality broadsheet newspaper with a strong left of centre bias. To liken it to the cheapo rabid tack of the Mail, Express, Sun etc is just more of this False Equivalence bollox that many on the right seem to go in for.
The Guardian is absolutely no better than the Mail. The Mail is often quicker on breaking stories.
Both pander shamelessly to their readers' prejudices, and will trot out lies without breaking a sweat
I'll just repeat since you've now proved it beyond a reasonable doubt - to liken the Guardian to the cheapo tack of the Mail is yet more of this False Equivalence bollox that many on the right seem to go in for.
The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.
The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.
The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.
Correct - it's worse because of the veneer of respectability imposed by its History.
The Guardian is a quality broadsheet newspaper with a strong left of centre bias. To liken it to the cheapo rabid tack of the Mail, Express, Sun etc is just more of this False Equivalence bollox that many on the right seem to go in for.
if the Guardian could do the old fashioned thing and clearly distinguish between matters of fact, matters of interpretation, matters of opinion and matters of bias, and keep news reporting to ferreting out facts, not following the crowd, and not printing press releases, while allowing free rein to opinion, interpretation and bias in the editorial/opinion pieces it would set a good trend.
The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.
The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.
The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.
Correct - it's worse because of the veneer of respectability imposed by its History.
The Guardian is a quality broadsheet newspaper with a strong left of centre bias. To liken it to the cheapo rabid tack of the Mail, Express, Sun etc is just more of this False Equivalence bollox that many on the right seem to go in for.
if the Guardian could do the old fashioned thing and clearly distinguish between matters of fact, matters of interpretation, matters of opinion and matters of bias, and keep news reporting to ferreting out facts, not following the crowd, and not printing press releases, while allowing free rein to opinion, interpretation and bias in the editorial/opinion pieces it would set a good trend.
Guardian has always been very tendentious but it’s got worse since the new editor, IMHO.
The Daily Mail really is a nasty rag. Causally injecting the husband's salary into the article to stir up that little bit of extra outrage. I don't know how other people's marriages work, but I am not sure my job has much to do with the political/campaigning activity of my spouse. I suspect the Daily Mail has quite old fashioned views about what a wife should do.
Don't you just hate the Dail Mail website? Articles routinely have headlines partly in capitals, designed to stir up panic fear and loathing. It's like the Daily Mail is shouting at its readers.
It's very picture heavy (often a good thing, I like plenty of pictures but they have to be associated directly with the story) and only the first few paragraphs are usually relevant with the rest of the story a long bit of background reading or events that happened ages ago.
Definitely clever business thinking to keep people scrolling, but top investigative journalism it is not.
It's barely any kind of journalism at all, merely click bait. The shrillest headines are often not stood up at all by the subsequent story. The Express is very similar, although mainly concerned with Brexit.
The i, the Mirror and the Grauniad are all similar except the topics vary.
The "G" is biased left but on quality it shouldn't be likened to rags like the Mail and the Express.
Correct - it's worse because of the veneer of respectability imposed by its History.
The Guardian is a quality broadsheet newspaper with a strong left of centre bias. To liken it to the cheapo rabid tack of the Mail, Express, Sun etc is just more of this False Equivalence bollox that many on the right seem to go in for.
if the Guardian could do the old fashioned thing and clearly distinguish between matters of fact, matters of interpretation, matters of opinion and matters of bias, and keep news reporting to ferreting out facts, not following the crowd, and not printing press releases, while allowing free rein to opinion, interpretation and bias in the editorial/opinion pieces it would set a good trend.
Fine. I'm not saying it's the King James. But it shouldn't be equated with (eg) the Mail or the Sun as some sort of tit for tat, right vs left bickering point. This is false equivalence and habitual false equivalence leads to warped standards and devalued debate. Eg, Trump fascist coup = Dem wokery, same degree of bad, all of that type of nonsense. False equivalence is toxic and should ideally be called out each & every time but one doesn't have the bandwidth.
Comments
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1448315927582412812?s=20
He’s like a weird centrist? left wing? version of Ambrose Evans Pritchard from the Telegraph.