Daily Mail fail

[Gooseberrybushes]

Have just done the usual check around the papers and wanted mners to respond to a query if you can.

Re Daily Mail: the most important story of the day is not the lead, unsurprisingly, nor anywhere near it. It seems an average day for the Mail. There is the usual celebrity bilge down the right column.

So I was wondering, in terms of news choices and news coverage, what kind of thing is being objected to and on what grounds.

For eg: there's a story about school heads being paid over 100,000 a year. If you really hate the Mail, can you explain why in terms of specific stories.

Thanks. I'm neutral, I read all the papers (well not cover to cover but I get across them all online to get a rounded view.

In case this counts: my chosen paper would be the Telegraph, favoured media the BBC and out of the Guardian and the Indie, I'd take the Indie.

I wonder if anyone will respond!

'it's how you use the numbers which makes the difference'

Quite, and so we are back to spin and politics. It's no different to election claims etc.

The public can't be fooled as opinion polls consistently show.

Ah, those statistics are valid are they? The ones that do support your argument? The laws of nature aren't influenced by opinion though, unfortunately. 'The public' have in the past been fooled by all manner of pseudoscience.

The problem with bankers is they didn't have anything approaching a valid model. They may have (mis)used statistics but that wasn't the root of the problem ... the problem was essentially that they set up a system based on thin air rather than real assets.

There's enough food to feed the planet.
yes, at the moment. Because scientists and technologists worked out how to increase yields. Fertilizer, GM, pesticides....

''The public' have in the past been fooled by all manner of pseudoscience.'

But not this time.

'the problem was essentially that they set up a system based on thin air rather than real assets.'

agree with that. The public suspect that the '50 days to save the planet' pulpit preachers, thumping the pulpit and preaching doom and armageddon, may be exactly the same.

GrimmaTheNome, scientists are great. They're not the issue. The public are in favour of science and medicine and the combustion engine and the railways and their computers and all the things that clever scientists have created. It's the liberal elites that the public don't believe. Just read the comments section in that notorious paper, the Daily Fail, and you'll see what the public think. Of course, Gordon Brown calls them "flat earthers", but that only makes the public believe him even less.

I've never heard a coherent explanation for what earthly motive there would be for a 'liberal elite' to fabricate climate change. I can easily imagine motives for capitalists on both sides of the issue - carbon technologies versus 'green' technologies both making money from supplying to the demands. Hence my bafflement at your political take.

Grimma, it's not about money, it's about the opposite, it's about impoverishment. There is a reason. Climategate was exposed, but that had nothing to do with money.

Gooseberry - there are many reasons to despise the Daily Mail, but this woman's experience sums up a good many of them.

nosleeptilbrooklands.blogspot.com/2011/01/true-story-of-daily-mail-lies-guest.html

It's about cutbacks, downsizing, and an end to growth, it's about "sustainability".
It's about "cuts, cuts and more cuts", just like the other cuts we see reflected in current policies. It's about impoverishment and a reduction in the standard and quality of life. And that is only the start, just like the ideological cuts that you are seeing now in other spheres are also only the start. It's not real, it's ideological, it's political.

Sorry, that still makes no sense at all. I think you've been suckered by some sort of conspiracy theory.

OK, we'll have to disagree.
But think about the other cuts that you see and ask if they are all necessary or if some are ideological. If they are ideological, why should that be. What's the point?

Probably some cuts are ideological. The reason may be because the spending was ideological in the first place. In some cases the spend will have been reasonable and the cut wrong, sometimes the other way round.

claig "GrimmaTheNome, scientists are great. They're not the issue. The public are in favour of science and medicine and the combustion engine and the railways and their computers and all the things that clever scientists have created. It's the liberal elites that the public don't believe. Just read the comments section in that notorious paper, the Daily Fail, and you'll see what the public think. Of course, Gordon Brown calls them "flat earthers", but that only makes the public believe him even less."

This is beyond weird from someone who doesn't accept the conclusions of scientists in relation to climate change, and thus rejects the consensus view of marine biologists, oceanographers, meterologists, geologists, glaciologists, dendroclimatologists, zoologists, palynologists, and many dozens of other scientific disciplines. Wtf, did you think that Al Gore and someone with a PPE degree dreamt up climate change in George Monbiot's lounge one evening as a wicked means of attacking our western lifestyle?

"Wtf, did you think that Al Gore and someone with a PPE degree dreamt up climate change in George Monbiot's lounge one evening as a wicked means of attacking our western lifestyle?"

Yep. I truly believe there are some chumps out there who actually think it is all a plot.

slhilly, you are so credulous, you believe what the liberal elite say. Did you also believe there were WMDs? The socialist magazine, "The New Statesman", told you of the gulf between the people and the political elites. All of the millions who don't believe it, are all fans of science, they are grateful for all the benefits that it has brought. They are not 'flat earthers' as Gordon Brown said. The majority don't believe the global warmers, they're not all daft. They don't believe the elites, Al Gore of Harvard University, George Monbiot, of Stowe public school and Oxford, and all that sillio.

They think the cuts are ideological, just like the cuts and taxes of global warming. They understand what the ideology is, and what lies behind it. They understand the ideology of the elites.

The million and millions that "The New Statesman" wrote about who doubt the dire warnings of the political elites, weren't surprised by Climategate or the mistake of the IPPC over the Himalyas. They expected it, they understand the game. They know there will be more before the game is finally up. They know that in time, one day, the elite will admit defeat.

The people will be victorious, and the Daily Mail will report "how glorious", come that pleasant day, when the people, the masses, finally hold sway.
The Guardian will be confined to the dustbin of history, the drum that they banged will be broke, everyone will finally realise what the public always knew, global warming was a joke.

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

"Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the IPCC, added that the mistake did nothing to undermine the large body of evidence that showed the climate was warming and that human activity was largely to blame. He told BBC News: "I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report."

Reminds me of Blair's "45 minute" claim. These reports all seem to be the same. What a shame. Who's to blame?

Morning claig and the rest of you. Need a 2nd coffee before I can read all your posts! Will get the Daily Mail today to get Royal wedding stuff..will probably tut but thoroughly enjoy it..
Have a nice day all of you.

Why do the elite do it? Why do they use simplistic headline grabbing arguments like "45 minutes" and "that the Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035"? Because they think the public are stupid, they say they read the Daily Fail. They call them idiots and laugh at how easy it is to fool them.

They have to frighten the public, to scare them to do as they are told, now there are only "50 days left to save the planet", shut up and do as you are told.

but claig, you are yet again failing to address the main point: it's not the "liberal elite" only who are saying that climate change is real. It's scientists. You know, the people whom you say "are great" and "not the issue". So why don't you believe the scientists? Is it simply because you don't like some of their fellow travellers?

I'd like you to explain very clearly why you don't believe the scientists who are telling you that climate change is a grim reality we have to deal with. We all know what you think about the sodding liberal elite but what about the scientists?

Morning, 2BoysTooLoud. Have a great day. I will also buy the people's paper today.

Is there any other issue where you happen to disagree with the considered professional views of lots of dedicated scientists, by the way? Do you disagree with them about the epidemiology of smoking? or the formation of pulsars? or catalytic chemistry? or the propagation of stress through quake fractures? or is it just climate change, presumably because the "liberal elites" have taken a view?

slhilly. It's about power and politics. Many scientists disagree with the IPCC scientists, but the elite don't give them a great voice in the media. The powerful have the money, they fund projects, they fund studies, they fund the IPCC.

Nothing has changed, power remains the same. The Church had lots of scientists who claimed the sun revolved around the earth. It was the brave anti-global warmer, Galileo Galilei, who stood alone and took the elite of the time on. They called him an idiot, because he didn't read the Guardian, he, naturally, read the Daily Fail. But today, it is him we praise. The elite faced defeat, and history will again repeat.

Let's wait for the people's saviour, the new Galileo. He will assuredly come from the ranks of that great newspaper, the Daily Mail.

I don't disagree with catalytic chemstry, because it is purely scientific, and the elite politicos like Al Gore don't pay any attention to it.

Daily Mail, Fail?
Impossible, an oxymoron of the highest degree.

Those ranked against the Daily Mail and its good, honest readers are:

The chatterati, the litterati, and yes the illiterati, those who with the truth play karate, the fibberati, the cheaterati, the liarati, the Bliarati, the hierarchy, the high and mighty and they all accuse the honest Mail readers of a fail. But just as the Devil never reads the Bible, the global warmer never reads the Mail.