Daily Mail sweeps the board at prestigious Press Awards

[claig]

Apologies for a link to the Daily Mail, but this is significant
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118517/In-print-online-Mail-triumphs-journalism-Oscars.html

'Judges at the awards, run by the Society of Editors, praised the Daily Mail for its ?hard-hitting journalism, virulent opinion, remorseless commitment, courage and conviction? and described it as a ?consistently must-read product?.'

I find it a must-read too.

If anything, I think the Society of Editors was a bit skimpy with the superlatives.

Ooh claig... just wait for the lynch mob!! .

THe MN lynch mob
But I apologised for linking to the Mail. Doesn't that exonarate me from the wrath of the misguided lynch mob?

"virulent opinion"

This is a good thing?...

Dictionary definition of virulent.... "Bitterly hostile or antagonistic; hateful: virulent criticism. See Synonyms at poisonous"

That's about right.

Hmm, I think that must be a misquote. I think the Society of Editors must have meant "virtuous" rather than "virulent".

I prefer to judge people by what they actually say, rather than what we think they meant. I'm sure the Society of Editors chose exactly the apposite word on this occasion.

I think we are missing the wood for the trees here and getting bogged down in minute detail over the misuse of the word "virulent". I think our focus should be on the fact that the esteemed and highly learned Society of Editors chose to award the Daily Mail 'Newspaper of the Year'. Such accolades are not earned lightly and should not be met with in a "virulent" manner.

Who sponsored the awards?

Frontpaw, I believe that the Society of Editors is above sponsorship and makes its awards purely on merit, or so it seems based on the 9 awards given to the Daily Mail this year.

Ahahahahaha. There's always a sponsor.