Firm Apologises For Daily Mail Ad.
Discussion
Pizza Hut's 'apology' was a lot more watered down than Paperchase's. Paperchase stated they had learned and wouldn't do it again. PH just said 'yeah, sorry if you were offended'. Very different.
Still annoyed with them for bowing down to the hate group that is trying to curtail free speech.
Still annoyed with them for bowing down to the hate group that is trying to curtail free speech.
Do the people who work for StopFundingHate refuse to shop at Lidl, Morrisons, Aldi, Toolstation, William Hill, Co-Op to name a few? All of these have adverts in The Sun.
Or, as I maybe suspect, do these people just not shop at them anyway? I think I could quite easily "boycott" all of these places, but I never go in them anyway usually. Sometimes the Co-Op but it isn't the most convenient choice for me. We don't have Morrisons, Lidl or Aldi in town, I don't think we have a Toolstation either, but I have no need to go for them.
Or, as I maybe suspect, do these people just not shop at them anyway? I think I could quite easily "boycott" all of these places, but I never go in them anyway usually. Sometimes the Co-Op but it isn't the most convenient choice for me. We don't have Morrisons, Lidl or Aldi in town, I don't think we have a Toolstation either, but I have no need to go for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_i...
The Sun, crushing it in numbers.
Evening Standard there, bucking the trend.
The Sun, crushing it in numbers.
Evening Standard there, bucking the trend.
Halb said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_i...
The Sun, crushing it in numbers.
Evening Standard there, bucking the trend.
Don't forget the Evening Standard started to be free in 2009 and so is given away free rather than be soldThe Sun, crushing it in numbers.
Evening Standard there, bucking the trend.
Funkycoldribena said:
Considering pH hates the Mail it gets some good figures.
Didn't think The Star would come above The Guardian either.
it does indeed. Didn't think The Star would come above The Guardian either.
Which is why nobody should be surprised that many of the nations largest companies choose to advertise in it. It doesn't mean they agree with everything written in that newspaper.
Puggit said:
Still annoyed with them for bowing down to the hate group that is trying to curtail free speech.
I can't see the threat to free speech. It is people exercising their right to protest. Whether we agree with their aims or their methods, what they are doing is legal. I'd say it is good for people to get involved. This is effective, from their point of view, use of the internet. It's neither clever nor subtle, nor is it an attack on free speech.A hate group? A bit harsh. A bit of fun group perhaps or a group trying to use what little leverage they have.
If they were banned from such action, then it would be curtailing free speech.
I agree with those that have said that the Guardian is still one of the few remaining newspapers (along with the Times and FT) who actually endeavour to carry out genuine investigative journalism.
We all know that reading the Daily Mail is a like a trip to a psychotic fantasy land crossed with a mental asylum, and this article on editor Paul Dacre is interesting and horrifying in equal measure:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/14/is-p...
We all know that reading the Daily Mail is a like a trip to a psychotic fantasy land crossed with a mental asylum, and this article on editor Paul Dacre is interesting and horrifying in equal measure:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/14/is-p...
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 4th December 17:36
Lord Marylebone said:
I agree with those that have said that the Guardian is still one of the few remaining newspapers (along with the Times and FT) who actually endeavour to carry out genuine investigative journalism.
We all know that reading the Daily Mail is a like a trip to a psychotic fantasy land crossed with a mental asylum, and this article on editor Paul Dacre is interesting and horrifying in equal measure:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/14/is-p...
Yet 1.5m people still buy the rag. I live in Mid Sussex and my town has a WH Smith that has twice as many trays for the DM as any other paper. Scary. People believe it as well. Yet even the slowest must see through the hyperbole. We all know that reading the Daily Mail is a like a trip to a psychotic fantasy land crossed with a mental asylum, and this article on editor Paul Dacre is interesting and horrifying in equal measure:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/14/is-p...
Edited by Lord Marylebone on Monday 4th December 17:36
Mind you, six years ago I moved here and there were four trays for the DM. It soon dropped to three and a few weeks ago there was a similar thread and I checked to be reassured to find it has dropped to two. So some hope for the people of Mid Sussex?
Don't ignore Private Eye, in fact buy it and discover the dark side of Fleet Street (as was). It is also investigative, although in collating rather than generating stories.
I used to work in Fleet Street an talked to many reporters of the dailies. Apart from being a scruffy lot they also had in common a cynicism that was depressing. I don't think I met one who gave the impression of enjoying his (all hims then) work.
All papers are losing readers. Online newspapers are taking the lion's share of readership. The DM has the highest readership, but there's a lot of fluff on it and very little in the way of news in proportion. The Guardian online has a readership of 10m+ pcm and there's more news so one would assume people don't go onto that to discover what the Kardashians are wearing.
BBC news has 70m unique visitors each week, hence the hatred of the Mudoch's and the MacTaggart lectures by Mudoch's little me suggesting that it should be closed. If an MP wants his papers' support for their campaign they have to promised to do down the BBC, both the news and the programmes, as he wants to make even more money. That's why there's been a concentrated propaganda whispering campaign against the BBC by various MPs and politicians. Blair, Cameron and, to a significantly lower level, May have all been or are anti BBC. That's why Gove, Johnson and all the others who put their own personal ambitions higher than the health of the country go to see him so often, why Cameron had Xmas dinner with the evil red-haired one and Blair went all friendly with the family - too friendly some say.
Papers do seem to be on the way out. It's a shame, but I can see why. Most seem to be merely reinforcement of whatever.
Colonial said:
Organise one. Any company that supports them gets boycotted.
It's an entirely market based organisation and I don't see how you can be pro the free market and opposed to the existence of the organisation.
It’s the same as saying that I can be pro free-speech yet against people who make children cry by telling them that they are adopted.It's an entirely market based organisation and I don't see how you can be pro the free market and opposed to the existence of the organisation.
Derek Smith said:
I can't see the threat to free speech. It is people exercising their right to protest. Whether we agree with their aims or their methods, what they are doing is legal. I'd say it is good for people to get involved. This is effective, from their point of view, use of the internet. It's neither clever nor subtle, nor is it an attack on free speech.
A hate group? A bit harsh. A bit of fun group perhaps or a group trying to use what little leverage they have.
If they were banned from such action, then it would be curtailing free speech.
No, it's not an attack on free speech. A hate group? A bit harsh. A bit of fun group perhaps or a group trying to use what little leverage they have.
If they were banned from such action, then it would be curtailing free speech.
But neither is is a call for tolerance, as they claim.
It's a censorious, targetted campaign by a small but effective number of individuals who are harnessing the zeitgeist among the left to be seen as virtuous (either in a personal or corporate sense) in order to mobilise online 'activists' (active mouse fingers at least) to harass businesses to do what they want.
These are aspiring political censors, not a group 'having a bit of fun'. In fact I imagine they're about as joyless as it's possible to be. In the same vein as Mary Whitehouse.
They say that they promote 'tolerance'. - By practicing intolerance of the very papers the general public read in any significant numbers anymore.
They define 'hate' as everything they disagree with. They assume that the papers somehow shape opinion of all the bovine people they don't like - horrible little uneducated common people, the Leave voters, the 'racists' (ie. anyone who doesn't welcome mass immigration open-armed) and the wrong-thinkers.
If you want to promote tolerance, you first have to tolerate the views of people you disagree with but that's all a bit, well, unpleasant.
Difficult too, when you don't actually know any of them.
And who'd want to get to know that sort of person?
I suspect it's all a bit scary for them.
No, attacking the papers they read is a whole lot easier and provides instant gratification plus the self-satisfaction of 'likes' in the echo-chamber of social media.
Mark Benson said:
No, it's not an attack on free speech.
But neither is is a call for tolerance, as they claim.
It's a censorious, targetted campaign by a small but effective number of individuals who are harnessing the zeitgeist among the left to be seen as virtuous (either in a personal or corporate sense) in order to mobilise online 'activists' (active mouse fingers at least) to harass businesses to do what they want.
These are aspiring political censors, not a group 'having a bit of fun'. In fact I imagine they're about as joyless as it's possible to be. In the same vein as Mary Whitehouse.
They say that they promote 'tolerance'. - By practicing intolerance of the very papers the general public read in any significant numbers anymore.
They define 'hate' as everything they disagree with. They assume that the papers somehow shape opinion of all the bovine people they don't like - horrible little uneducated common people, the Leave voters, the 'racists' (ie. anyone who doesn't welcome mass immigration open-armed) and the wrong-thinkers.
If you want to promote tolerance, you first have to tolerate the views of people you disagree with but that's all a bit, well, unpleasant.
Difficult too, when you don't actually know any of them.
And who'd want to get to know that sort of person?
I suspect it's all a bit scary for them.
No, attacking the papers they read is a whole lot easier and provides instant gratification plus the self-satisfaction of 'likes' in the echo-chamber of social media.
Sums it upBut neither is is a call for tolerance, as they claim.
It's a censorious, targetted campaign by a small but effective number of individuals who are harnessing the zeitgeist among the left to be seen as virtuous (either in a personal or corporate sense) in order to mobilise online 'activists' (active mouse fingers at least) to harass businesses to do what they want.
These are aspiring political censors, not a group 'having a bit of fun'. In fact I imagine they're about as joyless as it's possible to be. In the same vein as Mary Whitehouse.
They say that they promote 'tolerance'. - By practicing intolerance of the very papers the general public read in any significant numbers anymore.
They define 'hate' as everything they disagree with. They assume that the papers somehow shape opinion of all the bovine people they don't like - horrible little uneducated common people, the Leave voters, the 'racists' (ie. anyone who doesn't welcome mass immigration open-armed) and the wrong-thinkers.
If you want to promote tolerance, you first have to tolerate the views of people you disagree with but that's all a bit, well, unpleasant.
Difficult too, when you don't actually know any of them.
And who'd want to get to know that sort of person?
I suspect it's all a bit scary for them.
No, attacking the papers they read is a whole lot easier and provides instant gratification plus the self-satisfaction of 'likes' in the echo-chamber of social media.
Mark Benson said:
Derek Smith said:
I can't see the threat to free speech. It is people exercising their right to protest. Whether we agree with their aims or their methods, what they are doing is legal. I'd say it is good for people to get involved. This is effective, from their point of view, use of the internet. It's neither clever nor subtle, nor is it an attack on free speech.
A hate group? A bit harsh. A bit of fun group perhaps or a group trying to use what little leverage they have.
If they were banned from such action, then it would be curtailing free speech.
No, it's not an attack on free speech. A hate group? A bit harsh. A bit of fun group perhaps or a group trying to use what little leverage they have.
If they were banned from such action, then it would be curtailing free speech.
But neither is is a call for tolerance, as they claim.
It's a censorious, targetted campaign by a small but effective number of individuals who are harnessing the zeitgeist among the left to be seen as virtuous (either in a personal or corporate sense) in order to mobilise online 'activists' (active mouse fingers at least) to harass businesses to do what they want.
These are aspiring political censors, not a group 'having a bit of fun'. In fact I imagine they're about as joyless as it's possible to be. In the same vein as Mary Whitehouse.
They say that they promote 'tolerance'. - By practicing intolerance of the very papers the general public read in any significant numbers anymore.
They define 'hate' as everything they disagree with. They assume that the papers somehow shape opinion of all the bovine people they don't like - horrible little uneducated common people, the Leave voters, the 'racists' (ie. anyone who doesn't welcome mass immigration open-armed) and the wrong-thinkers.
If you want to promote tolerance, you first have to tolerate the views of people you disagree with but that's all a bit, well, unpleasant.
Difficult too, when you don't actually know any of them.
And who'd want to get to know that sort of person?
I suspect it's all a bit scary for them.
No, attacking the papers they read is a whole lot easier and provides instant gratification plus the self-satisfaction of 'likes' in the echo-chamber of social media.
Mark Benson said:
No, it's not an attack on free speech.
But neither is is a call for tolerance, as they claim.
It's a censorious, targetted campaign by a small but effective number of individuals who are harnessing the zeitgeist among the left to be seen as virtuous (either in a personal or corporate sense) in order to mobilise online 'activists' (active mouse fingers at least) to harass businesses to do what they want.
These are aspiring political censors, not a group 'having a bit of fun'. In fact I imagine they're about as joyless as it's possible to be. In the same vein as Mary Whitehouse.
They say that they promote 'tolerance'. - By practicing intolerance of the very papers the general public read in any significant numbers anymore.
They define 'hate' as everything they disagree with. They assume that the papers somehow shape opinion of all the bovine people they don't like - horrible little uneducated common people, the Leave voters, the 'racists' (ie. anyone who doesn't welcome mass immigration open-armed) and the wrong-thinkers.
If you want to promote tolerance, you first have to tolerate the views of people you disagree with but that's all a bit, well, unpleasant.
Difficult too, when you don't actually know any of them.
And who'd want to get to know that sort of person?
I suspect it's all a bit scary for them.
No, attacking the papers they read is a whole lot easier and provides instant gratification plus the self-satisfaction of 'likes' in the echo-chamber of social media.
There's a lot of unsupported attribution, one might also say intolerance of a group, merely because you don't agree with their stance.But neither is is a call for tolerance, as they claim.
It's a censorious, targetted campaign by a small but effective number of individuals who are harnessing the zeitgeist among the left to be seen as virtuous (either in a personal or corporate sense) in order to mobilise online 'activists' (active mouse fingers at least) to harass businesses to do what they want.
These are aspiring political censors, not a group 'having a bit of fun'. In fact I imagine they're about as joyless as it's possible to be. In the same vein as Mary Whitehouse.
They say that they promote 'tolerance'. - By practicing intolerance of the very papers the general public read in any significant numbers anymore.
They define 'hate' as everything they disagree with. They assume that the papers somehow shape opinion of all the bovine people they don't like - horrible little uneducated common people, the Leave voters, the 'racists' (ie. anyone who doesn't welcome mass immigration open-armed) and the wrong-thinkers.
If you want to promote tolerance, you first have to tolerate the views of people you disagree with but that's all a bit, well, unpleasant.
Difficult too, when you don't actually know any of them.
And who'd want to get to know that sort of person?
I suspect it's all a bit scary for them.
No, attacking the papers they read is a whole lot easier and provides instant gratification plus the self-satisfaction of 'likes' in the echo-chamber of social media.
Hate? I don't think so. I find Murdoch's papers distasteful but I do nothing about it. At least these are, in one small way, acting rather than just moaning. Given the influence of lobbyists, those without equivalent financial clout at least have some ability to put their pov forward.
The internet has provided a voice for everyone. That the advertisers have retracted the adverts shows that the MO is sound.
Their actions are as moral as that of lobbyists; self interest. It will continue and develop.
Mark Benson said:
Derek Smith said:
I can't see the threat to free speech. It is people exercising their right to protest. Whether we agree with their aims or their methods, what they are doing is legal. I'd say it is good for people to get involved. This is effective, from their point of view, use of the internet. It's neither clever nor subtle, nor is it an attack on free speech.
A hate group? A bit harsh. A bit of fun group perhaps or a group trying to use what little leverage they have.
If they were banned from such action, then it would be curtailing free speech.
No, it's not an attack on free speech. A hate group? A bit harsh. A bit of fun group perhaps or a group trying to use what little leverage they have.
If they were banned from such action, then it would be curtailing free speech.
But neither is is a call for tolerance, as they claim.
It's a censorious, targetted campaign by a small but effective number of individuals who are harnessing the zeitgeist among the left to be seen as virtuous (either in a personal or corporate sense) in order to mobilise online 'activists' (active mouse fingers at least) to harass businesses to do what they want.
These are aspiring political censors, not a group 'having a bit of fun'. In fact I imagine they're about as joyless as it's possible to be. In the same vein as Mary Whitehouse.
They say that they promote 'tolerance'. - By practicing intolerance of the very papers the general public read in any significant numbers anymore.
They define 'hate' as everything they disagree with. They assume that the papers somehow shape opinion of all the bovine people they don't like - horrible little uneducated common people, the Leave voters, the 'racists' (ie. anyone who doesn't welcome mass immigration open-armed) and the wrong-thinkers.
If you want to promote tolerance, you first have to tolerate the views of people you disagree with but that's all a bit, well, unpleasant.
Difficult too, when you don't actually know any of them.
And who'd want to get to know that sort of person?
I suspect it's all a bit scary for them.
No, attacking the papers they read is a whole lot easier and provides instant gratification plus the self-satisfaction of 'likes' in the echo-chamber of social media.
/thread
XM5ER said:
Mark Benson said:
Derek Smith said:
I can't see the threat to free speech. It is people exercising their right to protest. Whether we agree with their aims or their methods, what they are doing is legal. I'd say it is good for people to get involved. This is effective, from their point of view, use of the internet. It's neither clever nor subtle, nor is it an attack on free speech.
A hate group? A bit harsh. A bit of fun group perhaps or a group trying to use what little leverage they have.
If they were banned from such action, then it would be curtailing free speech.
No, it's not an attack on free speech. A hate group? A bit harsh. A bit of fun group perhaps or a group trying to use what little leverage they have.
If they were banned from such action, then it would be curtailing free speech.
But neither is is a call for tolerance, as they claim.
It's a censorious, targetted campaign by a small but effective number of individuals who are harnessing the zeitgeist among the left to be seen as virtuous (either in a personal or corporate sense) in order to mobilise online 'activists' (active mouse fingers at least) to harass businesses to do what they want.
These are aspiring political censors, not a group 'having a bit of fun'. In fact I imagine they're about as joyless as it's possible to be. In the same vein as Mary Whitehouse.
They say that they promote 'tolerance'. - By practicing intolerance of the very papers the general public read in any significant numbers anymore.
They define 'hate' as everything they disagree with. They assume that the papers somehow shape opinion of all the bovine people they don't like - horrible little uneducated common people, the Leave voters, the 'racists' (ie. anyone who doesn't welcome mass immigration open-armed) and the wrong-thinkers.
If you want to promote tolerance, you first have to tolerate the views of people you disagree with but that's all a bit, well, unpleasant.
Difficult too, when you don't actually know any of them.
And who'd want to get to know that sort of person?
I suspect it's all a bit scary for them.
No, attacking the papers they read is a whole lot easier and provides instant gratification plus the self-satisfaction of 'likes' in the echo-chamber of social media.
/thread
Mark Benson said:
No, attacking the papers they read is a whole lot easier and provides instant gratification plus the self-satisfaction of 'likes' in the echo-chamber of social media.
To be honest, I have no problem at all with a group viciously attacking a publication such as the Daily Mail.I genuinely believe that publications like the Daily Mail are inherently dangerous to society, to a small extent, but none the less quite dangerous because they simply peddle hate, and much of it so twisted that it bears no relation to the truth, or is simply made up.
They aren't interested in reporting or investigating actual 'news' anymore, but simply generating sales and circulation by giving a taste of anger and fear to the population, who then keep coming back for more as it reinforces their already dubious views.
The Daily Mail was even removed from Wikipedia's list of 'credible news sources' that are allowed to be quoted or linked to within articles. Wikipedia said that some articles published in the Daily Mail were simply 'flat-out fabrication' and completely untrue.
Many of their front page articles in the last few years have frankly been beyond disgraceful, and only serve to stir up hate.
If publications such as the Daily Mail wish to exist, then that's fine, but they should absolutely not be called 'newspapers' and should be clearly labelled as "Warning: Contains fictional articles or extremely twisted truth" and be placed for sale amongst the comic books.
There are some great pieces out there written by actual investigative journalists that talk you through the various headlines of the Daily Mail, and why they twisted or lied the way they did and for what purpose it was intended, and when you actually get your head around it all, it becomes frighteningly clear.
Tl;DR: The Daily Mail is fabricated hate speech, yet terrifyingly it poses as a newspaper and is consumed as such by millions of people. Therefore attacking it is fine by me as society would be a less hateful place without it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff