Firm Apologises For Daily Mail Ad.
Discussion
dandarez said:
Jeezus!
That has to be the most agenda-led s
te group I have seen in my lifetime.
Almost makes the Wail seem innocuous.
How about a STOP stopfundinghate ?
Organise one. Any company that supports them gets boycotted.That has to be the most agenda-led s
te group I have seen in my lifetime.Almost makes the Wail seem innocuous.
How about a STOP stopfundinghate ?
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.
The Daily Mail is a filthy rag that only serves one purpose, and that is to push the demented agenda of Paul Dacre.
It maintains a circulation by seeking to stoke outrage amongst its readers, and is very good at it. Once they've had a taste of outrage over immigrants, coloured people, the unemployed, the poor, muslims, and other such targets, they enjoy getting so angry that they keep going back for more.
They don't actually bother with any investigative journalism any more as far as I can see, just merely peddle hate and outrage.
It's actually frightening how many people of my parents generation actually still read it (my parents are in their mid 60's).
Once those people stop buying it, I don't think it'll last much longer thankfully.
It maintains a circulation by seeking to stoke outrage amongst its readers, and is very good at it. Once they've had a taste of outrage over immigrants, coloured people, the unemployed, the poor, muslims, and other such targets, they enjoy getting so angry that they keep going back for more.
They don't actually bother with any investigative journalism any more as far as I can see, just merely peddle hate and outrage.
It's actually frightening how many people of my parents generation actually still read it (my parents are in their mid 60's).
Once those people stop buying it, I don't think it'll last much longer thankfully.
Lord Marylebone said:
The Daily Mail is a filthy rag that only serves one purpose, and that is to push the demented agenda of Paul Dacre.
It maintains a circulation by seeking to stoke outrage amongst its readers, and is very good at it. Once they've had a taste of outrage over immigrants, coloured people, the unemployed, the poor, muslims, and other such targets, they enjoy getting so angry that they keep going back for more.
They don't actually bother with any investigative journalism any more as far as I can see, just merely peddle hate and outrage.
It's actually frightening how many people of my parents generation actually still read it (my parents are in their mid 60's).
Once those people stop buying it, I don't think it'll last much longer thankfully.
The Wail is really no different to the Guardian and alike.It maintains a circulation by seeking to stoke outrage amongst its readers, and is very good at it. Once they've had a taste of outrage over immigrants, coloured people, the unemployed, the poor, muslims, and other such targets, they enjoy getting so angry that they keep going back for more.
They don't actually bother with any investigative journalism any more as far as I can see, just merely peddle hate and outrage.
It's actually frightening how many people of my parents generation actually still read it (my parents are in their mid 60's).
Once those people stop buying it, I don't think it'll last much longer thankfully.
The Mail baits leftwing maniacs.
The Guardian baits rightwing maniacs.
Whether it is Project Immigrant in the Wail, or Project Fear in the Grauniad, they are both doing basically the same thing. Stirring the pot, to sell papers or clicks.
Colonial said:
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.
Bullst. If it was market based it would involve having an actual impact on sales and people would make a decision based on that.What you actually have is a very noisy protest group who shout and scream and the weaker-willed targets fold for an easy life, not because they've actually suffered from a boycott by customers (maybe because the shouty ones are usually non-customers).
When they've been told to f
k off with their campaign the targets suffered no actual consequences.It would be interesting to know who is actually backing Stop Funding Hate and paying the bills - they aren't exactly keen to clarify this for some reason.
Lord Marylebone said:
The Daily Mail is a filthy rag that only serves one purpose, and that is to push the demented agenda of Paul Dacre.
This.Should I be walking down the road one day, and happen to see the Daily Mail building on fire on the other side of the road, and there was Dacre, standing at an upper-storey window, shouting and screaming at the crowd that was gathered there below, for he was sore afraid...... the only possible circumstance that I can conceive of that would motivate me to cross the road and urinate on the flames would be if my kidneys had somehow started to excrete 100 octane aviation fuel rather than urea.
Jonesy23 said:
Bullst. If it was market based it would involve having an actual impact on sales and people would make a decision based on that.
What you actually have is a very noisy protest group who shout and scream and the weaker-willed targets fold for an easy life, not because they've actually suffered from a boycott by customers (maybe because the shouty ones are usually non-customers).
When they've been told to fk off with their campaign the targets suffered no actual consequences.
It would be interesting to know who is actually backing Stop Funding Hate and paying the bills - they aren't exactly keen to clarify this for some reason.
They are targetting companies that advertise in it via the market. Not through legislation or any form of control.t. If it was market based it would involve having an actual impact on sales and people would make a decision based on that.What you actually have is a very noisy protest group who shout and scream and the weaker-willed targets fold for an easy life, not because they've actually suffered from a boycott by customers (maybe because the shouty ones are usually non-customers).
When they've been told to f
k off with their campaign the targets suffered no actual consequences.It would be interesting to know who is actually backing Stop Funding Hate and paying the bills - they aren't exactly keen to clarify this for some reason.
It's the complete opposite of communism.
It's boring and tedious but it's entirely market based. The right in Americs are just as stupid with their weird smash a coffee maker campaign.
If you wqnt to challenge it, by the product. Let the market decide. Don't try and outlaw something just because you disagree with it.
Lord Marylebone said:
The Daily Mail is a filthy rag that only serves one purpose, and that is to push the demented agenda of Paul Dacre.
It maintains a circulation by seeking to stoke outrage amongst its readers, and is very good at it. Once they've had a taste of outrage over immigrants, coloured people, the unemployed, the poor, muslims, and other such targets, they enjoy getting so angry that they keep going back for more.
They don't actually bother with any investigative journalism any more as far as I can see, just merely peddle hate and outrage.
It's actually frightening how many people of my parents generation actually still read it (my parents are in their mid 60's).
Once those people stop buying it, I don't think it'll last much longer thankfully.
I have good and bad news for youIt maintains a circulation by seeking to stoke outrage amongst its readers, and is very good at it. Once they've had a taste of outrage over immigrants, coloured people, the unemployed, the poor, muslims, and other such targets, they enjoy getting so angry that they keep going back for more.
They don't actually bother with any investigative journalism any more as far as I can see, just merely peddle hate and outrage.
It's actually frightening how many people of my parents generation actually still read it (my parents are in their mid 60's).
Once those people stop buying it, I don't think it'll last much longer thankfully.
My parents in their late 70's read the Mail have done for as long as I can remember and they would never consider any other paper (well till they get to the braile stage!!)
My Partner gets most of her news feed from the mail on line she's only just turned 50
I've tried believe me I have tried!!!!
eharding said:
Lord Marylebone said:
The Daily Mail is a filthy rag that only serves one purpose, and that is to push the demented agenda of Paul Dacre.
This.Should I be walking down the road one day, and happen to see the Daily Mail building on fire on the other side of the road, and there was Dacre, standing at an upper-storey window, shouting and screaming at the crowd that was gathered there below, for he was sore afraid...... the only possible circumstance that I can conceive of that would motivate me to cross the road and urinate on the flames would be if my kidneys had somehow started to excrete 100 octane aviation fuel rather than urea.
Excellent pair of posts!
Though I struggle to imagine a scenario where I wouldn’t gladly piss on Dacre. I’d just make sure not to put the flames out...
Lord Marylebone said:
?..
It's actually frightening how many people of my parents generation actually still read it (my parents are in their mid 60's).
Once those people stop buying it, I don't think it'll last much longer thankfully.
You're wrong about the demographic. A third of the readership are under 35. 150m page hits a day. It's a click bait machine and sadly going nowhere. Outrage and celeb bilge sells. Their constant faux outrage is almost self parody but what really makes me throw up in my mouth is the obsequious fawning over z list celebrities, their 'beau', their 'broods' and their 'pert derrières'. It's actually frightening how many people of my parents generation actually still read it (my parents are in their mid 60's).
Once those people stop buying it, I don't think it'll last much longer thankfully.
Did no one else think the paper chase apology was sarcastic?
B'stard Child said:
I have good and bad news for you
My parents in their late 70's read the Mail have done for as long as I can remember and they would never consider any other paper (well till they get to the braile stage!!)
My Partner gets most of her news feed from the mail on line she's only just turned 50
I've tried believe me I have tried!!!!
How are their hate-o-meters and who do they secretly envy the most?My parents in their late 70's read the Mail have done for as long as I can remember and they would never consider any other paper (well till they get to the braile stage!!)
My Partner gets most of her news feed from the mail on line she's only just turned 50
I've tried believe me I have tried!!!!
Yipper said:
Lord Marylebone said:
The Daily Mail is a filthy rag that only serves one purpose, and that is to push the demented agenda of Paul Dacre.
It maintains a circulation by seeking to stoke outrage amongst its readers, and is very good at it. Once they've had a taste of outrage over immigrants, coloured people, the unemployed, the poor, muslims, and other such targets, they enjoy getting so angry that they keep going back for more.
They don't actually bother with any investigative journalism any more as far as I can see, just merely peddle hate and outrage.
It's actually frightening how many people of my parents generation actually still read it (my parents are in their mid 60's).
Once those people stop buying it, I don't think it'll last much longer thankfully.
The Wail is really no different to the Guardian and alike.It maintains a circulation by seeking to stoke outrage amongst its readers, and is very good at it. Once they've had a taste of outrage over immigrants, coloured people, the unemployed, the poor, muslims, and other such targets, they enjoy getting so angry that they keep going back for more.
They don't actually bother with any investigative journalism any more as far as I can see, just merely peddle hate and outrage.
It's actually frightening how many people of my parents generation actually still read it (my parents are in their mid 60's).
Once those people stop buying it, I don't think it'll last much longer thankfully.
The Mail baits leftwing maniacs.
The Guardian baits rightwing maniacs.
Whether it is Project Immigrant in the Wail, or Project Fear in the Grauniad, they are both doing basically the same thing. Stirring the pot, to sell papers or clicks.
The DM does not bait. It just rants. Despite being right wing it has no political agenda. It is a mouthpiece for its strange owners and Dacre just pumps out what they want. It is a rag, it's online presence being governed by clickbait.
Out of the two, one tries to be a newspaper.
You might disagree with the Guardian's editorial content. It has a bias. However, the tricks of the DM in inflating, hyperbole, and selective highlighting are, for the large part, muted.
The business plan for the DM, and its online presence, is spectacularly successful. It's not particularly clever as such but they have the front to pull it off. It is admirable for that. The only problem is that other papers, in competing, either have to follow the model or opt for something they know will produce fewer sales.
There are major faults with the Guardian, especially with its choice and support of advertisers, but no one seems to criticise them for that.
However, the Guardian is worth checking daily.
Derek Smith said:
I think the Guardian has a claim to investigative journalism, as indeed do one or two others.
Parts of it might occasionally, but I think the same is true for the Mail. Certainly, much of it, particularly online, is gutter trash. But then there's literally no level the Guardian's comment is free section won't stoop to.
Derek Smith said:
I think the Guardian has a claim to investigative journalism, as indeed do one or two others. They give a different view to most other papers but it is reasoned and whilst they make the occasional factual mistake, as indeed to all the others, they tend to support their editorial comment. When the South German Newspaper shared its find of the Paradise Papers, they chose the Guardian by way of the International Investigative Journalists Group (or a similar name). It's no surprise that they didn't pick the DM.
The DM does not bait. It just rants. Despite being right wing it has no political agenda. It is a mouthpiece for its strange owners and Dacre just pumps out what they want. It is a rag, it's online presence being governed by clickbait.
Out of the two, one tries to be a newspaper.
You might disagree with the Guardian's editorial content. It has a bias. However, the tricks of the DM in inflating, hyperbole, and selective highlighting are, for the large part, muted.
The business plan for the DM, and its online presence, is spectacularly successful. It's not particularly clever as such but they have the front to pull it off. It is admirable for that. The only problem is that other papers, in competing, either have to follow the model or opt for something they know will produce fewer sales.
There are major faults with the Guardian, especially with its choice and support of advertisers, but no one seems to criticise them for that.
However, the Guardian is worth checking daily.
and yet, and yet.... wasn't the DM instrumental in pursuing the whole Stephen Lawrence case? Yes the whole rag is generally barely worth using as toilet paper but as with the Gruan it does, occasionally, do something rightThe DM does not bait. It just rants. Despite being right wing it has no political agenda. It is a mouthpiece for its strange owners and Dacre just pumps out what they want. It is a rag, it's online presence being governed by clickbait.
Out of the two, one tries to be a newspaper.
You might disagree with the Guardian's editorial content. It has a bias. However, the tricks of the DM in inflating, hyperbole, and selective highlighting are, for the large part, muted.
The business plan for the DM, and its online presence, is spectacularly successful. It's not particularly clever as such but they have the front to pull it off. It is admirable for that. The only problem is that other papers, in competing, either have to follow the model or opt for something they know will produce fewer sales.
There are major faults with the Guardian, especially with its choice and support of advertisers, but no one seems to criticise them for that.
However, the Guardian is worth checking daily.
fblm said:
You're wrong about the demographic. A third of the readership are under 35. 150m page hits a day. It's a click bait machine and sadly going nowhere. Outrage and celeb bilge sells. Their constant faux outrage is almost self parody but what really makes me throw up in my mouth is the obsequious fawning over z list celebrities, their 'beau', their 'broods' and their 'pert derrières'.
Certainly, I'm willing to admit that if there's a hotty in a bikini on the right column, I'll click the link.
irocfan said:
and yet, and yet.... wasn't the DM instrumental in pursuing the whole Stephen Lawrence case? Yes the whole rag is generally barely worth using as toilet paper but as with the Gruan it does, occasionally, do something right
Well . . .I've talked to a number of people involved in the SL case, including two officers who were responding crew of a van, and have completed a fair bit of research. The DM, I feel, distorted what went on to the extent that the changes made because of the various enquiries were in some cases counter-productive and certain errors were glossed over.
If the faults are not highlighted then improvement cannot be made and to this extent the DM was far from helpful. It pursued a line from the beginning that did not change despite unfolding evidence. There were those who got away with what I feel is corrupt behaviour and at least one officer was criticised severely for something which not only was not her fault, but, bizarrely, did not go wrong.
I would suggest you do not use their running of this to be a shining example of their investigative abilities, nor their reporting.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff