British public wrong about nearly everything...

[anonymous-user]

This sounds like a Daily Mash headline. In fact, it's the Indy. Conclusions not altogether surprising, alas.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bri...

Cue PH outrage about always being right because it says so in the Mail; or Nigel says it, or whatever.

[anonymous-user]

The media running a story about people believing horsest printed in the media.

Beautiful.

[anonymous-user]

Normality restored:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/?Itemid=81&id=41...

[anonymous-user]

Getragdogleg said:

Breadvan72 said:

Cue PH outrage about always being right because it says so in the Mail; or Nigel says it, or whatever.

That is a weak attack on what you perceive PH to be like. If this place winds you up so much you know you don't have to visit and join in. Go and waste time elsewhere if you don't like it, or is it that you like the feeling of superiority that "going against the grain" gives you ?

Perhaps time for a nice cup of tea?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVygqjyS4CA

[anonymous-user]

brenflys777 said:

Except lawyers.

Ask the British Public about lawyers and you'll get an absolutely bang on assessment

Seems legit.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 5th February 08:31

[anonymous-user]

Here's something on benefit fraud to get getrag's rag. Have you noticed that if you tell someone who believes that the sky is falling that the sky isn't falling that he/she tends to get a bit grumpy?



http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-qa-b...

[anonymous-user]

The World is divided into two types of people. Those who divide the World into two types of people, and those who do not.

[anonymous-user]

[anonymous-user]

dandarez said:

Not by me. Like all societies today, they'll have been infiltrated by some other connection.

...

Do tell! Who is infiltrating the Royal Statto Soc? Bilderbergs? Lefties? People wot is RUBIHS at sumz?

[anonymous-user]

But are they worth it?

[anonymous-user]

Hey, it could be worse:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/one-in-f...

[anonymous-user]

Up all night to get lucky.

[anonymous-user]

don4l said:

As a Daily Mail reader...

Quoted for posterity. It is perversely refreshing to see someone own up to this. Do you read it for a bet, for the bikini shots, or because it represents your world view? If the latter, I wonder what it must be like to live in a world of ignorance, fear, and hate.

I don't have a favourite newspaper, and don't read any of them on a daily basis or trust any of them completely, but if I really had to pick one paper I would say that despite the depredations of the Digger the Times is still OK ish, a bit.

[anonymous-user]

Thanks for performing this valuable service for your Community. That's what I call taking one for the Team.

[anonymous-user]

paranoid airbag said:

don4l said:

I'm really quite surprised that people have such faith in The Independent.

As a Daily Mail reader, I distrust anything that is printed in either The Independent or The Guardian. So, I was not surprised to see that the article contained some outright lies.

For example, the article claims that Foreign Aid is only 1.1% of Government spending. This is a gross understatement. The actual figure is nearly double that as a percentage of central government spending. If you include Local Government spending, then it is still out by more than 50%.

Funnily enough, if I type "stories made up by [paper]" or "lies in [paper]" - through an anonymous search engine and a proxy - the only one that returns relevant results is "the daily mail".

So I'm going to have to say: post a reliable source for that fact or I'm entirely justified in concluding that you're incapable of being objective.

That's odd. I typed in exactly that and the only thing that came up was this:

Most British people consider the Times of London to be the most respectable “broadsheet” newspaper (as opposed to “tabloid” newspapers) in the UK, despite the fact that the Times, along with most British “broadsheet” newspapers, is now published in the tabloid size to make it easier for people to read it in crowded London subways. Last week, the Sunday Times published an article with the headline “Blonde women born to be warrior princesses.” The article reported that “Researchers claim that blondes are more likely to display a “warlike” streak because they attract more attention than other women and are used to getting their own way – the so-called “princess effect.”” The Times article quotes the evolutionary psychologist at the University of California – Santa Barbara, Aaron Sell, and his findings are purportedly published in his article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, written with the two Deans of Modern Evolutionary Psychology, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby.

As it turns out, however, none of this is true, as Sell explains in his angry letter to the Times. He and his coauthors do not mention blondes at all in their paper and they don’t even have hair color in their data. The supplementary analyses that Sell performed after the publication of the paper, as a personal favor to the Times reporter, show the exact opposite of what the Times article claims. After he presumably listened to Sell explain all of this on the phone, the Times reporter nonetheless made up the whole thing, and attributed it to Sell.

[anonymous-user]

Top science search, dude! I am beginning to get the impression that you may actually be serious in your claim to read the Daily Mail, and that you may even believe what you read there. Good spoofing if I am wrong, and feel free to launch a parrot of whatever plumage you prefer, but if you are serious, and regard the Daily Mail as a reliable source of information about the world and/or as an expression of your world view, I can only say a big wow.

[anonymous-user]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and the fact that you can sometimes find an accurate report about something in the Mail does not detract from the criticism of the paper as a retailer of falsehoods and an encourager of fear and prejudice. Look at its history of anti-Semitism, its support for the Nazis, its key role re the Zinoviev letter, and the current record of scare stories about heath issues, migration, the economy, crime, you name it, all this accompanied by moral prurience side by side with photos of shelebs falling out of their tops.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 20th February 09:57

[anonymous-user]

don4l said:

Breadvan72 said:

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and the fact that you can sometimes find an accurate report about something in the Mail does not detract from the criticism of the paper as a retailer of falsehoods and an encourager of fear and prejudice. Look at its history of anti-Semitism, its upport for the Nazis, its key role re the Zinoviev letter, and the current record of scare stories about heath issues, migration, the economy, crime, you name it, all this accompanied by moral prurience side by side with photos of shelebs falling out of their tops.

I love the way you can ignore the falsehoods in last week's Independent while berating The Mail for 70 year old articles and simultaneously demonstrating Godwin's Law.

Brilliant stuff!

I don't excuse falsehoods in any newspaper. The Mail builds its entire business on the propagation of falsehoods and the encouragement of fear. Its history is relevant because it has been consistent since its foundation in adopting a mendacious approach to reporting and in disseminating fear and suspicion. The psychology of its readers is interesting. Do they want to be frightened and so read the Mail, or do they learn to be frightened by reading it? Perhaps a bit of both.

[anonymous-user]

Well you may not be frit, but I live a sheltered life and find all those boobies and tats pretty terrifying! I try to steel myself by spending most of the day looking at them.

[anonymous-user]

carinaman said:

And there I was checking out the crumbling steel leading edge of the bonnet on your RR.

You shamelessly lifted that bonnet to expose all. Hypocrite!

Fair cop. BTW, I bid farewell to the old red Rangey of rustiness yesterday. I have replaced it with something even more ridiculous. Anyway, that's twice we have mentioned cars now, so we'd better hush up in case we get into trouble.