| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 12:52:58 PM |
I could not agree more... I feel so sorry for some of the defamation the named journalist has had to endure... it is a tragic state of affairs.
I dont think you should waste your sympathy for this Moir woman. She had choice as to whether she wrote the article or not. She chose to do so and in doing so must have been perfectly aware of the furore it would create. She knew it would be offensive to lots of people but didnt care so she must carry the responsibility for the article. Im sure she got paid plenty for it so dont waste your sympthaty...save that for Stephen Gatelys family, friends and fans for whom this article was offensive. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 1:51:06 PM | Well I think I'll have another go...
I think most people have their own opinions of the daily mail, and certainly readership of a paper proves nothing.
I think that like most other papers, the mail's readership has been diminishing for some time. And in an effort to boost circulation, they began giving away DVD's and CD's in almost every issue since around 2003.
But their figures have continued to decline, and in desperation they have become something of a "shock Jock" newspaper.
That's to say they deliberately publish what they know will be controversial, because that gets people talking about them.
And as we know all publicity is good publicity. So they continue to allow the outspoken controversial journalists to spew their bile, and it entertains the masses, and in the minds of some poor individuals justifies their own delusional views.
But I think it's as old fashioned as bowler hats.
I don't think they are taken very seriously any more, and they are mocked by many comedians on a regular basis for being like angry all the time.
I don't read it, I read the Indy.... | |
|
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 2:09:32 PM |
I think most people have their own opinions of the daily mail, and certainly readership of a paper proves nothing.
I think that like most other papers, the mail's readership has been diminishing for some time. And in an effort to boost circulation, they began giving away DVD's and CD's in almost every issue since around 2003.
In the past year, all newspapers except the Daily Star have seen their circulation fall, and many of them have free dvds, so the Daily Mail is not alone in doing that.
Plus, of course, people will read online...
That's to say they deliberately publish what they know will be controversial, because that gets people talking about them.
You mean, a company that tries to make its product more attractive so that it will sell more of that product?
Amazing concept! Is the copyright for that idea still available?
So they continue to allow the outspoken controversial journalists to spew their bile, and it entertains the masses, and in the minds of some poor individuals justifies their own delusional views.
Exactly the same could be said to those bastions of commie rantings, The Morning Star and Socialist Worker.
But I think it's as old fashioned as bowler hats
Well, the stories are up-to-date, so they can't be 'old-fashioned'.
And, the Mail adheres to traditional British values. I see nothing wrong with that, given that the British are seen around the world as having fair, just 'rules' of behaviour. Some of the stories and columns deal with matters which have a detrimental effect on the British way of life, such as when failed asylum seekers aren't deported until they have killed someone etc...
I only know two Mail readers, and they are dear friends of mine. Neither of them is political in any way (one of them has never voted) and the other votes out of duty. Both are upstanding, normal people who care about the country, and are concerned that so much is going on that suggests that their quality of life is being diminished. This applies to all things, not just the obvious ones.
Both are English, too, so they have English values......thank goodness! | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 2:19:20 PM | Msg 135
. . .such as when failed asylum seekers aren't deported until they have killed someone etc...
Does the Mail balance the story out with a report on how many British people leave these shores and commit similar crimes in other areas of the world? | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 2:23:41 PM |
Does the Mail balance the story out with a report on how many British people leave these shores and commit similar crimes in other areas of the world?
And why does a newspaper have to 'balance' the news out?
Does the Morning Star offer a 'balanced' critique of the Tory conference? Does it have to?
As it happens, the Mail DOES print news about Brits who commit crimes abroad, as do many quality papers.
HTH | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 3:01:39 PM |
It is quite possible that the Daily Mail journalist would have speculated if it were a heterosexual couple. There is no way you or any other poster can say beyond all reasonable doubt that she would not, as it is simply a hypothetical situation, which we can only speculate on
it is not a jounalists job to speculate, its her job to report researched and back up findings with fact, and then give an opinion. we can speculate because we are not paid to report, but when you have a responsible position like hers and you influence the thinking of a large population of people she has a duty to be responsible, jornalisim if it is to be respected is not a business of rumor mungering, which is all her article was.
Was he a friend or a random stranger from the street? Excuse my ignorance on the case...
as far as I am aware he was a friend, however i think its irrelevant, if they met that night and decided to party together, that does not imply sleaze, have you never went to a club and made new friends that didnt lead to sex and copious anounts of drugs?? I know I have.
I feel so sorry for some of the defamation the named journalist has had to endure... it is a tragic state of affairs
Ok this is a joke, what the jounalist wrote is in black and white for all to read, so its not rumor or hearsy. Defemation is when someone is wrongly accused of writing unproven derogatory comments about someone that could effect his/her reputation. she is fully in control of creating her own reputation and defending it, she happens to have a colum in the national press. Stephen Gately on the other hand is dead, he cannot defend her scurrelious comments, and his partner who is grieving should not have to. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/22/2009 4:30:27 PM |
^^^ Msg 125 When transparency is missing, speculation tends to fill in the missing spaces. Does anyone else spot the irony in that comment?
Yes it was the highpoint of this thread for me after reading a number of posts exchanged between a few debating exactly why Jan Moir's comment was completely wrong and how another poster defending her right to speak her mind used their argument to defend the indefensible. It made me laugh a lot.
When I commented on the news report written in the Daily Mail about Stephen Gately's death I was not commenting on that woman's column where she slated the guy but on a proper news story where it was reported that he died of a Pulmonary oedema, the day before her column was printed.
I think any reasonably well educated or intelligent person who is observant realises that you can never believe everything you read. If I favour a newspaper, journalist or columnist it is because I admire how they think and how genuine they appear to be when expressing their opinion or ensuring that the facts are told as they are but I suspect everybody has an agenda when it comes to letting the world know what they think and if it's because they believe keeping their biggest advertiser happy or that they want to impress a certain someone or promote an idea is more important than anything else, so what, you have your own mind, make it up by yourself. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/23/2009 12:27:33 AM |
t is not a jounalists job to speculate, its her job to report researched and back up findings with fact, and then give an opinion. we can speculate because we are not paid to report, but when you have a responsible position like hers and you influence the thinking of a large population of people she has a duty to be responsible, jornalisim if it is to be respected is not a business of rumor mungering, which is all her article was.
Actually, journalists are quite free to speculate on any item they choose. They can speculate about the likely impact of a government bill, the purchase of a particular footballer, or the death of a celebrity.
Not many fit young people die of 'natural causes' at 33. Something caused that build-up of fluid, and Moir suggested that his occasional drug use might have contributed - his homosexuality wasn't mentioned as a possible cause.
as far as I am aware he was a friend, however i think its irrelevant, if they met that night and decided to party together, that does not imply sleaze, have you never went to a club and made new friends that didnt lead to sex and copious anounts of drugs?? I know I have.
Yeah, but wasn't Gately 'married' in the eyes of some? Hadn't he and his partner entered into a 'contract' on similar lines of 'marriage'?
If so, you are implying that it's perfectly normal for married couples to pick up people and for both to have sex with them.
Now, it might happen on a larger scale than I imagine, but Moir was quite right to point out that, in her opinion, such behaviour is questionable if that is what she thinks.
Defemation is when someone is wrongly accused of writing unproven derogatory comments about someone that could effect his/her reputation.
Incorrect.
Defamation is where someone wrongly accuses another of misconduct that could affect their reputation.
Is it possible to 'defame' the dead?
Either way, Moir has her opinion, and some of her readers will have agreed with it. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/23/2009 8:12:20 AM |
If so, you are implying that it's perfectly normal for married couples to pick up people and for both to have sex with them.
Was it reported that both Stephen Gately and his partner had sex with the man they met?
as far as I am aware he was a friend, however i think its irrelevant, if they met that night and decided to party together, that does not imply sleaze, have you never went to a club and made new friends that didnt lead to sex and copious anounts of drugs?? I know I have.
I interpreted this quote as it being possible to meet people and for it not to lead to sex and copious amounts of drugs. How that leads to an implication that it's perfectly normal for married couples to pick up people and both to have sex with them I don't know, to me it reads entirely the opposite.
According to respected island newspaper Ultima Hora, cops believe Andy then went into the bedroom with the Bulgarian, while Stephen - who rarely drank and was wearing pyjamas - remained on the sofa.
The newspaper claimed: "What happened at the house has not been established, but the investigators have learned that, after a while, Andy retired to the bedroom with the Bulgarian, while Stephen stayed in the lounge, sat on the sofa.
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/2679145/Bulgarian-Georgi-Petrov-Dochev-says-he-woke-up-to-find-Stephen-Gately-dead-after-a-wild-night-partying-with-him-and-husband-Andy-Cowles.html#ixzz0Um8jB0Tv
She's apologised to the Gately family for the timing of the article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/23/jan-moir-stephen-gately-apology | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/23/2009 9:26:38 AM |
Not many fit young people die of 'natural causes' at 33.
Actually, they do. 12 a week to heart conditions alone:
http://c-r-y.org.uk/
And yes, that's not what Gately died from, but its one of many conditions which can cause an unexpected, "natural" death of a young person.
Moir and the Mail pander to base prejudice. Nothing more. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/23/2009 9:38:30 AM |
Not many fit young people die of 'natural causes' at 33.
Phil O'Donnell was 35, Marc Vivien Foe 28, Andy Thomson who played for the Motherwell youth team was 19 years of age, Daniel Yorath was 15, all heart related deaths. I'm sure there are many more deaths that don't make the headlines. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/23/2009 12:03:13 PM | I found Jan Moir's article incredibly upsetting, as I'm sure many others did.
She said "Healthy and fit 33-year-old men do not just climb into their pyjamas and go to sleep on the sofa, never to wake up again." But they do!
I lost a close friend some 20 years ago to Sudden Adult Death Syndrome..... he was 33 at the time and, to my knowledge, was considered fit and healthy.
We had met up for a drink on the Thursday evening as he wanted to discuss a new business idea he had, he was animated and excited about his future prospects.
On the Saturday morning I had a phone call from his wife, between hysterical sobbing I heard her say......... "Tony died during the night, we have no idea what happened!" I was totally gobsmacked.
The post mortem found nothing physically wrong with him.......... he had just died in his sleep. It was a devastating experience for his wife and children, and his friends of course.
He never took drugs, never smoked, drank only socially and was never inclined to homosexuality. We will never know what it was that caused his death but it certainly wasn't due to a 'debauched lifestyle'. | |
|
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/25/2009 1:51:06 AM | The Daily Mail is a right wing Tory newspaper and the folk that read it are Tories. This is why I stick well clear of it.
Hmmm, well I read it for the unintentional Lols and I'm somewhere to the left of Trotsky. There's a bit of know thy enemy about reading it too. I don't think you can peg someone's political views merely by what paper they read. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/25/2009 5:17:43 AM | i think it's probably because if you beleive the tone of everything you read in it you would never leave the house again
but the other rahs are no better ..i refise to have the sun in my house or the mirror...i read private eye now and again because they sey things staright and ask the right questions
other wise i watch the news or go to the bbc website | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/25/2009 5:49:16 AM |
Incorrect.
Defamation is where someone wrongly accuses another of misconduct that could affect their reputation.
Is it possible to 'defame' the dead?
Either way, Moir has her opinion, and some of her readers will have agreed with it.
Yes, it is possible to defame the dead, if it weren't then hundreds of people wouldn't be campaigning for posthumous pardons for people who have been dead for a long time
eg.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1526437/Pardoned-the-306-soldiers-shot-at-dawn-for-cowardice.html
People's reputations are still important to the people who loved them.
As I said in an earlier post, by being slightly offensive, and controversial, the Mail gains publicity, using the same paradigm as the American "shock jocks".
Contentious views gain publicity, and probably increase sales. | |
|
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/25/2009 10:17:50 AM |
it isn't possible to defame the dead under UK law.
I've done some research and you're quite right!
I stand corrected!
I find this really strange to be honest, clearly the Mail will have known this, and can therefore print anything they like about a person as soon as they are dead.
How very charming.
I wonder if this is one of the very 'British' traits of the paper that others were mentioning....
 | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/25/2009 11:08:33 AM | In English Law you cannot defame or libel the dead. So to some degree journalists exploit this.
However there's a typically British 'solution'. If a journalist libels or slanders a dead person, another journalist has the option of stating something like "Journalist X is the scum of the earth because of the unscrupulous, inaccurate and shabby way they have written about Dead Person Y".
Said journo then has the option of accepting the criticism or suing. In the process of suing they would of course have to prove that their criticism of said Dead Person was fair and reasonable comment.
Sir David English 'turned this on its head' with the murderers of Stephen Lawrence - he published their pictures and allegations that they murdered him in The Mail and invited them - in the pages of the paper - to sue The Mail for libel. Oh that it was so brave and upstanding now. | |
|
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/25/2009 5:04:38 PM |
Sir David English 'turned this on its head' with the murderers of Stephen Lawrence - he published their pictures and allegations that they murdered him in The Mail and invited them - in the pages of the paper - to sue The Mail for libel. Oh that it was so brave and upstanding now.
Well, you're wrong.
It was a cowardly act.
The Mail knew that the men couldn't afford to sue the Mail;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1997/feb/15/lawrence.ukcrime1
"Critics condemned the Mail for 'trial by media' and derided the paper's defence that the five named youths were free to clear their names by suing for libel. It is hardly an even playing field. There is no legal aid for libel - an elementary fact of which the Mail's deputy editor seemed unaware in his interview on the BBC's World at One yesterday. How do five uneducated school drop-outs take on a newspaper as powerful as the Mail? More serious, the paper carried out little investigation of its own nor unearthed any significant new facts. Its indictment was based largely on police belief. But the police are not always right. That is the purpose of a trial: to ensure the prosecution's evidence is fully tested. "
What's wrong with the Daily Mail? Jan Moir's comments illustrate what's wrong - unsubstantiated conjectural snide remarks.
Just like in the Lawrence suspects' case! | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/25/2009 6:31:52 PM |
So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Because it tells you WHAT to think, not HOW to think. My advice? Get the facts from Reuters, then see what the papers (not just the Mail!) do to them. The truth is out there, but remember who bankrolls your sources of information! | |
|
| |
| |
Home
login 
