Finnaldo Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 7 minutes ago, Webbo said: I'm bored with this now, read the article. That's not my point, enough people will read the headline and base it entirely off that. When you have to read the article to understand that the headline isn't actually that faithful to the matter at hand, that's where the issue lies.
Carl the Llama Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 1 minute ago, Strokes said: It's hardly inciting hate though is it? The end result is the same, the information is in the article and there is a rise in immigration. It's a bit naughty at best and it's to sell papers not peddle hate imo. It's not as bad as something like "NASTY IMMIGRANTS ENGAGE IN 20% MORE BORDER SWARMING" but the angle of approach is definitely on the more pejorative side. Whether it's just a clickbait tactic or slightly more than that is a more difficult question to answer because there is no hard empirical evidence or mathematical rules at play making it the sort of point where we can debate all year and we'll just end up having to agree to disagree. 5 minutes ago, bovril said: Ffs I want a sticker too. No sticker until you win a reasonable debate reasonably. You'll have to settle for a rep point.
MC Prussian Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 13 minutes ago, bovril said: Ffs I want a sticker too. Get one for free in tomorrow's edition of the Daily Mail. You have to read it in order to believe it.
GaelicFox Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 9 hours ago, Strokes said: I saw a fat immigrant the other day, can we at least hate her? Can I ask you how you knew she was an immigrant ?
Voll Blau Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 I noticed the 'We're from Europe' front page earlier and thought it might be worth clearing up that the following story did indeed include an outright lie. The story was also covered by the Romford Recorder on its front page... The Recorder journalist took them to task on their initial inaccurate reporting of the incident and a correction was printed. However, as the case wasn't taken to IPSO for adjudication there was sadly no burden placed on the Mail for it to give the correction the same due prominence as the inaccurate article itself.
Guest Bilo Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 9 hours ago, Webbo said: You're very naive if you think this is an attempt to raise standards. You don't like the Mail, don't buy it. But if enough people do that, advertising revenue will plummet and the paper will have to close....
MC Prussian Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 23 minutes ago, Voll Blau said: I noticed the 'We're from Europe' front page earlier and thought it might be worth clearing up that the following story did indeed include an outright lie. The story was also covered by the Romford Recorder on its front page... The Recorder journalist took them to task on their initial inaccurate reporting of the incident and a correction was printed. However, as the case wasn't taken to IPSO for adjudication there was sadly no burden placed on the Mail for it to give the correction the same due prominence as the inaccurate article itself. Also reported in the Grauniad: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/17/daily-mail-publishes-correction-story-migrants-from-europe The refugees were from Syria and Iraq, not Europe.
Voll Blau Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 Also, not sure how this 'Corbyn jig' thing hasn't made its way on to this thread yet. The Mail and Sun cropping out a war veteran to make Corbyn look bad on Remembrance Sunday. FFS. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/no-jeremy-corbyn-wasnt-dancing-9252300
foxy boxing Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 bad news and fear sell more than good news and happy stories, it panders to people and is built in to everyones everyday pyche
Darkon84 Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 I can't believe I've just read all 18 pages of this. Has anyone got a spare noose I could use?
Guest Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 3 minutes ago, Darkon84 said: I can't believe I've just read all 18 pages of this. Has anyone got a spare noose I could use? They're giving one away with the Mail tomorrow as an alternative to Lego
Guest MattP Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 Quite simple really, Lego can choose wherever it wants to advertise. The idea that large or multi-national companies should try and influence editorial lines or reporting under the guise of "stopping hate" should be resisted by all decent people though. If you think this is going to pull the woll over people's eyes and stop them voting for things like Brexit or Trump they are sadly mistaken.
Finnaldo Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 2 minutes ago, MattP said: Quite simple really, Lego can choose wherever it wants to advertise. The idea that large or multi-national companies should try and influence editorial lines or reporting under the guise of "stopping hate" should be resisted by all decent people though. If you think this is going to pull the woll over people's eyes and stop them voting for things like Brexit or Trump they are sadly mistaken. I've always backed people's rights to vote Trump and Brexit and been fairly vocal in pointing out how exaggerated some people have been about the results just because it didn't go their (or in both cases, my) way. I'm aware some will be using this campaign as some way to prevent the Mail to broadcast their views on Islam and immigration, but we all know that will never happen. That's what the Mail is about, that's the right wing perspective on the matter and it won't just go away because some people oppose it. My only issue is that they could approach the matter in a more balanced approach. They can still push an agenda that immigration is bad and there's fundamental issues with Islam but it could be tackled in a calmer manner that still gets their point across without being half as sensationalist which is causing so many errors and misjudgments that continually have them at ends with the IPSO. We know that's the furthest that the Mail will go (and rightfully so). They have a full right to just carry on as they are, but they know that it will come with a backlash from some groups.My entire point on this matter is that this pressure group has as much right in pushing their agenda as the Mail has the right to push their's.
Footballwipe Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 45 minutes ago, MattP said: Quite simple really, Lego can choose wherever it wants to advertise. The idea that large or multi-national companies should try and influence editorial lines or reporting under the guise of "stopping hate" should be resisted by all decent people though. If you think this is going to pull the woll over people's eyes and stop them voting for things like Brexit or Trump they are sadly mistaken. HSBC, Daily Telegraph and a £1m advertising spend spring to mind here. Private Eye's work really should be noticed by more people.
Webbo Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 7 hours ago, Bilo said: But if enough people do that, advertising revenue will plummet and the paper will have to close.... If people stop buying it then it's their choice, it's not been decided for them on their behalf.
lgfualol Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 Everyone should boycott The Daily Mail after what they've said about David Attenbruvva.
RedSoxUK Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 This is actually an extremely tricky subject which dives in to many, many realms... Don't know where to start frankly. I'm with Webbo though.
GazzinderFox Posted 14 November 2016 Author Posted 14 November 2016 4 hours ago, Finnaldo said: They have a full right to just carry on as they are, but they know that it will come with a backlash from some groups. My entire point on this matter is that this pressure group has as much right in pushing their agenda as the Mail has the right to push their's. The thing I'm mulling over is not whether they have the right to do this, of course they do, they're doing nothing illegal, but... a) The potential for it to influence the stories that editors run with. If a scandal breaks tommorow about one of these companies, these papers will now be under substantial pressure to sit on the story. AND b) Whether this is going to become a trend for the future - especially now social media makes such campaigns so easy - lobbying for boycotts rather than debating the issues. Everybody here is saying 'well Murdoch has deep pockets so there's no danger of them going out of business' well then what is this all for if not to put pressure on the DM through financial means? It changes nothing if the DM carries no advertising but carries on with exactly the same stories. They also say 'they'll never change' but the stated aim of this campaign is to 'change the media' that being the case why don't they lobby these papers directly or reach out to DM readers in some way or protest outside their offices with annoying banners, instead of trying to change them through the backdoor? It seems to me that some here are turning a blind eye to to what may be lurking beneath all this just because of the newspapers in question, and to make it clear I don't have any particular love for any of these papers. Finally the flip side of this is that if nothing happens in the next month or so before Christmas and the lobbied companies ride out the storm as it looks like they are doing (Even Lego didn't actually pull any advertising, it's agreement had already lapsed. Cunning for Christmas sales eh?) it actually strengthens the hand of those who they're railing against because they can point to this as another example of the 'liberal elite' seeking to 'stifle the voice of the ordinary man and woman.'
Nick Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 The liberal elite are not trying to stifle the voice of the ordinary man and woman Companies however, perhaps would like the ordinary man or woman to formulate opinion not based on exaggeration, fear and untruths. And if they can't prevent that they perhaps don't want to pay for it happen.
sphericalfox Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 30 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said: The liberal elite are not trying to stifle the voice of the ordinary man and woman Companies however, perhaps would like the ordinary man or woman to formulate opinion not based on exaggeration, fear and untruths. And if they can't prevent that they perhaps don't want to pay for it happen. Yeah, but the right wing media and politicians say so, so it must be. Why would they lie or exaggerate? This broken record will hit the charts once Trumpton gets in the White House studio, and is found out to nothing more than another HoneyT.
GaelicFox Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 9 minutes ago, sphericalfox said: Yeah, but the right wing media and politicians say so, so it must be. Why would they lie or exaggerate? This broken record will hit the charts once Trumpton gets in the White House studio, and is found out to nothing more than another HoneyT. But that's standard for president of the US, every president in my lifetime has been a puppet with the right rhetoric and backing honeyT has had the right rhetoric and despite the wrong backing he pissed in ......he certainly is different but you would be a fool to underestimate him , that's already what got the Republican Party and the clinton war machine crushed ! He is serious and he is going to make waves
GazzinderFox Posted 14 November 2016 Author Posted 14 November 2016 1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said: The liberal elite are not trying to stifle the voice of the ordinary man and woman Companies however, perhaps would like the ordinary man or woman to formulate opinion not based on exaggeration, fear and untruths. And if they can't prevent that they perhaps don't want to pay for it happen. I didn't say they were I suggested the DM will say they were. Companies care about their bottom lines not about the morality of the press. That's why they are advertising in the DM today but maybe not tomorrow. To suggest that Waitrose should become some kind of arbiter of the press is bizarre.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 On 13/11/2016 at 20:20, GaelicFox said: On 13/11/2016 at 20:20, sphericalfox said: On 13/11/2016 at 20:20, GaelicFox said: 11 hours ago, MC Prussian said: Also reported in the Grauniad: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jun/17/daily-mail-publishes-correction-story-migrants-from-europe The refugees were from Syria and Iraq, not Europe. Simply not true ! Lack of Government spending and the Tory NeoCon machine is to blame for these issues lack of housing , poorly funded police , education and NHS load of crap to blame it on immigrants ! The same services all collapsed under Maggie and there were no Poles or Latvians to blame then , away now and spout your ill informed and poorly constructed xenophobic shite somewhere else ! Freeloading Brit millions of them who have never contributed to the system but want free prescriptions , low cost social housing and free dole money are probably the biggest drain on society and public services Did he study in Scunny? Simply not true ! Lack of Government spending and the Tory NeoCon machine is to blame for these issues lack of housing , poorly funded police , education and NHS load of crap to blame it on immigrants ! The same services all collapsed under Maggie and there were no Poles or Latvians to blame then , away now and spout your ill informed and poorly constructed xenophobic shite somewhere else ! Freeloading Brit millions of them who have never contributed to the system but want free prescriptions , low cost social housing and free dole money are probably the biggest drain on society and public services
Miquel The Work Geordie Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 I'll be on the side bar of shame daily til the day I die
RedSoxUK Posted 14 November 2016 Posted 14 November 2016 Honestly think I need a 10 page space to write about this in depth, but to keep it mildly short, here is a messy post. These companies that are advertising in the three / four right-leaning newspapers have very strong marketing teams that conduct continuous SWAT analysis of their activity, and are very clear about who they choose to do business with in terms of advertisement deals. These are not just things they do at the last minute, especially campaigns. John Lewis (w/ Waitrose,) has legitimate reasons why they're advertising with the Daily Mail - and it's not because they "fund hate," to suggest for them to cut all ties with The Daily Mail because a few headlines don't fit in with your narrative is extremely harsh. It actively calls for the fall of three newspapers, because their narrative is different to yours -- while holding on to this crazed illusion that they stick up for Freedom of Expression??!? No, I’m not buying that for a minute. If they stood up for Freedom of Expression then they would go about this a different way. They would be protesting these three newspapers direct, questioning the journalism that takes place - not attacking companies who don't share / nor pick the content that goes in those papers. They made this about censorship without trying, and I’m extremely worried about the direction this takes the free press... and to a lesser extent, peer pressure. The answer is quite simple. Don't buy the papers if they offend you... If you're so triggered that a few national newspapers are sensationalising stories; then I’m sorry you'll just have to walk around the news agents with your eyes closed or if it's legit and they are literally inciting hate, how about paying a visit here http://report-it.org.uk/your_police_force citing the Racial and Religious Hatred Act; see how much Stop Funding Hate care about the validity of Freedom of Expression then. The press is not your safe space. As for not shopping for high end goods at John Lewis, flying BA, buying frozen food from Iceland.... all because they choose to advertise in The Daily Mail (who the chief activist of Stop Funding Hate clearly has an inner hatred for,) I just think it’s bizarre. I don't read The Daily Mail, I don't like The Daily Mail - the same goes for many of our news sources; but I wouldn’t ever want to censor, or attack them to the point they lose business because I disagree with their view; be it strong or mild, they have the right to it, as do you.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.