Firm Apologises For Daily Mail Ad.
Discussion
OFF TOPIC!
There used to be one in every Borders bookshop.
They have 223 outlets, so still a fairly sizeable concern.
dandarez said:
Paperchase...I confess to never having heard of them.
Paperchase has far too few outlets to warrant a front page ad on any national, let alone the Wail.
Have you really never heard of them or their products?Paperchase has far too few outlets to warrant a front page ad on any national, let alone the Wail.
There used to be one in every Borders bookshop.
They have 223 outlets, so still a fairly sizeable concern.
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.
The paradise papers are a terrible example of the guardians investigative journalism! Publishing the private stolen financial details of totally legal, legitimate and normal transactions like the Dutchy of Lancasters investment is gutter journalism. Their coverage of some of the celebrities in the Panama Papers was barely any better despite the wealth of serious dirt they genuinely uncovered there..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.
Eta... "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..."
Completely agree. The Telegraph started disappearing down the click bait/celeb hole a few years ago and now even has the nerve to try and charge for it!
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 22 November 13:32
Yipper said:
The Wail is really no different to the Guardian and alike.
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.
Sums it up for me. Briefly tried the old adage of if you can only afford one newspaper buy the one you least agree with and fck me if the guardian isn't just sensationalist left wing nonsense. Polly Toynbee ffs! If the fail is for the terminally angry then the guardian is for the terminally offended, the snowflake generation, momentumists, those who'd love to fellate Corbyn whilst he sits in the vestibule of an empty train waxing lyrical about how he wants to save the nhs and stick it to the fking bankers. See, the hate works both ways and even namby pamby limp wristed lefties peddle hate, just with more of a self righteous slant. And breathe...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.
Toyoda said:
Sums it up for me. Briefly tried the old adage of if you can only afford one newspaper buy the one you least agree with and fck me if the guardian isn't just sensationalist left wing nonsense. Polly Toynbee ffs! If the fail is for the terminally angry then the guardian is for the terminally offended, the snowflake generation, momentumists, those who'd love to fellate Corbyn whilst he sits in the vestibule of an empty train waxing lyrical about how he wants to save the nhs and stick it to the fking bankers. See, the hate works both ways and even namby pamby limp wristed lefties peddle hate, just with more of a self righteous slant. And breathe...
Just to offer a bit of insight - The Guardian is by no means a 'Corbynist Pravda'. It's criticised, mocked and disliked by most on the actual political left as a paper by and for middle-class metropolitian liberals who write endless sob-stories about the country's problems and ills of capitalism but then reject any actual left-wing policies that might alleviate them, because they usually target exactly the sort of people that write for and read The Guardian. It's a paper that has always railed against the status quo until the opportunity to change the status quo comes along, and then all its columnists start hand-wringing about the need for "grown-up politics" and "a reconciliatory tone" and "radical centrism" and even some good-old Just World "no such thing as a free lunch." It's quite happy to support and promote social reforms (gender equality, LGBT, multiculturalism etc.) because that doesn't actually threaten the economic status quo. But The Guardian has, and will, always stop short of actually supporting socialism. It does offer some actually lefties a platform (Owen Jones etc.) but it very rarely actually backs their views. The Guardian and 'Momentumists' are no friends. Just dig out any of the thousands of words printed in The Guardian after either of Corbyn's leadership victories - columns and columns decrying the death of the Labour party, how the UK will never take to his policies, how they don't like his revolutionary rhetoric, how he's talking about the wrong issues, how everyone who supports him is either very young or very stupid and they just don't know about the 'real world'. It went on and on and on. Only when he turned out to have actual support in the country did they endorse Labour in 2017, with the echo of gritted teeth. And many of their columnists weren't happy about it.
It should be no suprise - The Guardian was founded by Manchester mill owners to support their own brand of Liberal capitalism and it's always been a paper for the comfortably well-off. In its early days it decried the Factory Acts as unneccesary govermnment intrusion and in 1946 it (in)famously railed against the formation of the NHS as the first step on the road to communism.
Corbyn's support isn't really to be found in the paper press. The Daily Mirror and bits of The Independent are the only ones which actually wholeheartedly back him (not counting the fringes like The Morning Star). It's online and through social movements like Momentum.
2xChevrons said:
Just to offer a bit of insight - The Guardian is by no means a 'Corbynist Pravda'. It's criticised, mocked and disliked by most on the actual political left as a paper by and for middle-class metropolitian liberals who write endless sob-stories about the country's problems and ills of capitalism but then reject any actual left-wing policies that might alleviate them, because they usually target exactly the sort of people that write for and read The Guardian. It's a paper that has always railed against the status quo until the opportunity to change the status quo comes along, and then all its columnists start hand-wringing about the need for "grown-up politics" and "a reconciliatory tone" and "radical centrism" and even some good-old Just World "no such thing as a free lunch." It's quite happy to support and promote social reforms (gender equality, LGBT, multiculturalism etc.) because that doesn't actually threaten the economic status quo. But The Guardian has, and will, always stop short of actually supporting socialism. It does offer some actually lefties a platform (Owen Jones etc.) but it very rarely actually backs their views.
The Guardian and 'Momentumists' are no friends. Just dig out any of the thousands of words printed in The Guardian after either of Corbyn's leadership victories - columns and columns decrying the death of the Labour party, how the UK will never take to his policies, how they don't like his revolutionary rhetoric, how he's talking about the wrong issues, how everyone who supports him is either very young or very stupid and they just don't know about the 'real world'. It went on and on and on. Only when he turned out to have actual support in the country did they endorse Labour in 2017, with the echo of gritted teeth. And many of their columnists weren't happy about it.
It should be no suprise - The Guardian was founded by Manchester mill owners to support their own brand of Liberal capitalism and it's always been a paper for the comfortably well-off. In its early days it decried the Factory Acts as unneccesary govermnment intrusion and in 1946 it (in)famously railed against the formation of the NHS as the first step on the road to communism.
Corbyn's support isn't really to be found in the paper press. The Daily Mirror and bits of The Independent are the only ones which actually wholeheartedly back him (not counting the fringes like The Morning Star). It's online and through social movements like Momentum.
Sums up the Guardian perfectly.The Guardian and 'Momentumists' are no friends. Just dig out any of the thousands of words printed in The Guardian after either of Corbyn's leadership victories - columns and columns decrying the death of the Labour party, how the UK will never take to his policies, how they don't like his revolutionary rhetoric, how he's talking about the wrong issues, how everyone who supports him is either very young or very stupid and they just don't know about the 'real world'. It went on and on and on. Only when he turned out to have actual support in the country did they endorse Labour in 2017, with the echo of gritted teeth. And many of their columnists weren't happy about it.
It should be no suprise - The Guardian was founded by Manchester mill owners to support their own brand of Liberal capitalism and it's always been a paper for the comfortably well-off. In its early days it decried the Factory Acts as unneccesary govermnment intrusion and in 1946 it (in)famously railed against the formation of the NHS as the first step on the road to communism.
Corbyn's support isn't really to be found in the paper press. The Daily Mirror and bits of The Independent are the only ones which actually wholeheartedly back him (not counting the fringes like The Morning Star). It's online and through social movements like Momentum.
Momentum is a social media phenomenon among those with little to lose (the young and the perma-trots who in a previous existence would have been seen marching under Socialist Worker placards), the Guardian is for the kind of people who want to see social change and egalitarianism as long as it's not actually affecting them in any material way. If the articles reflect the readership then they're abunch of people who have very strict but very fluid social rules and they agonise constantly about whether they're breaching any of them.
The Mail is for the kind of people who don't want any change, at all. This is how we do things and 'they' (whoever that are this week) aren't going to change that. They also have rules, but their rules are fixed and easy to follow and anyone who threatens them is a 'traitor' or a 'lefty'.
Neither is a good place to gain a worldview from.
The stopfundinghate campaign is a well organised, targetted action on companies which aims to 'shame' them into not advertising with a paper they've decided they don't like. They won't say who funds them so you can bet if it were known it would raise eyebrows.
It's a little too Stalinist for me, denying choice unless that choice is between sanctioned alternatives - they define 'hate' and I assume they're free to redefine it any time they feel. Those that don't mind them because they target the Mail should consider what else they might find hateful and how it could affect them.
I believe in free speech and all that comes with it - you can say what you want but I can say what I want to show you up for the idiot you are. These kinds of organizations that seek to eliminate free speech (in the form of a newspaper) are the direct opposite and the first steps on a road of censorship of ideas.
2xChevrons said:
Just to offer a bit of insight - The Guardian is by no means a 'Corbynist Pravda'. It's criticised, mocked and disliked by most on the actual political left as a paper by and for middle-class metropolitian liberals who write endless sob-stories about the country's problems and ills of capitalism but then reject any actual left-wing policies that might alleviate them, because they usually target exactly the sort of people that write for and read The Guardian. It's a paper that has always railed against the status quo until the opportunity to change the status quo comes along, and then all its columnists start hand-wringing about the need for "grown-up politics" and "a reconciliatory tone" and "radical centrism" and even some good-old Just World "no such thing as a free lunch." It's quite happy to support and promote social reforms (gender equality, LGBT, multiculturalism etc.) because that doesn't actually threaten the economic status quo. But The Guardian has, and will, always stop short of actually supporting socialism. It does offer some actually lefties a platform (Owen Jones etc.) but it very rarely actually backs their views.
.
You could have saved allot of words by just typing "champagne socialists". Anyhow it seems allot better than the Independent now, and is not behind a paywall. .
2xChevrons said:
Just to offer a bit of insight...
Appreciate the long response and I do concur. Champagne socialists or rather hypocrites is spot on. Readers with a need to sympathise with a left wing agenda but at the same time sending their kids to private schools and secretly admiring the royal family. Not sure why you'd want to associate with an ideal but then not want to live it yourself. Just be capitalist and proud for goodness sake.No matter. Some of them are humorous at least. Stewart Lee and his definition of himself as typifying the 'metropolitan liberal elite' has built a good career on playing the angry leftie... whilst doubtlessly living a life that's the very definition of a champagne socialist.
Oakey said:
Why don't these companies do these offers with The Guardian?
Because the grown ups in the marketing department look at the sales and readership of the Sun and Mail and quite rightly feel that putting their offer in those papers will reach the most potential customers.Unfortunately they forgot to explain how the world works to the graduate they put in charge of their social media and at the first sign of disapproval from authoritarian armchair activists the company appears to have put out a fawning apology for making a commercial decision.
Clearly some people have a search enabled for anytime anyone mentions The Sun or The Daily Mail, because looking at the Twitter page of Pizza Hut they went from getting a dozen or so replies/retweets on their posts to getting 1,400 on their apology tweet...
I rather doubt that many of those 1,400 will have been regularly purchasing Pizza Hut anyway, and we know most of them don't buy The Sun (or the DM) so I am not sure exactly how this has affected Pizza Hut sales. More so, of course, most people don't even use Twitter to have known about this offer, and Pizza Hut only has about 30k followers.
I'd be interested to see what the impact is. I expect there will have been no overall impact.
I rather doubt that many of those 1,400 will have been regularly purchasing Pizza Hut anyway, and we know most of them don't buy The Sun (or the DM) so I am not sure exactly how this has affected Pizza Hut sales. More so, of course, most people don't even use Twitter to have known about this offer, and Pizza Hut only has about 30k followers.
I'd be interested to see what the impact is. I expect there will have been no overall impact.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff