Daily Mail beggars belief.

[smilodon]

I thought this was a spoof but it seems that in fact this is genuine.  The Daily Mail is becoming a disgusting parody of itself.    http://www.twitter.com/alex_norcliffe/status/250540629803806720?photo=1     Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

[T-Bag]

If that is genuine, it's shocking.

[Doorman]

What is also an absolute disgrace is the way the Daily Mail has hounded that poor Mr. Abu Hamza. Appalling. :crying:

[ArithonUK]

The Daily Mail is just filling in for "The News of the World".

That, and the fact the the first two hundred people outside every Apple store last Friday were not born on our shores. But why?

People on low incomes will happily queue to buy two iPhones for a cash-reseller in exchange for a quick pay day. It's ironic that the wealthy people in the mid-to-back of the queue were complaining about "all the foreigners", but every sale pays VAT into this country's coffers. Most reasonable people just moaned about the wait caused by these "export-trade" buyers. That's a problem Apple will have to work out.

The queues THIS year were predominately Indians at both Lakeside and Bluewater in groups of 10 or 15 - those I spoke to were buying for themselves or their business to resell and had travelled out from inner London to avoid the bigger queues at the London store, whereas last year the huddled masses were Chinese and being "run" by a gang-master who handed out cash and collected phones.

Where were all the "English" people? In bed asleep, because with a welfare state, they don't need to get out of bed at 3am to earn some money. {Daily Mail Byline}

There were some hundred or so "locals" in the queue, but the majority were there to buy iPhones as a money-making transaction, not to obtain a shiny smart-phone for themselves.

If getting up early to earn money is a "race" then I'm all for "positive discrimination"...

[Tutonic]

Even for a Daily Mail article, that is quite amazingly stupid... offensive.... wow.

I often wonder what it must be like to be the sort of person who reads that rag, and actually believes what's written in it. The world must be an incredibly scary place for them.

[Doorman]

Which newspaper, which shows the world as it really is, do you recommend?

[Tutonic]

Which newspaper, which shows the world as it really is, do you recommend?

None of them, they all have an agenda

[Penfold]

Which newspaper, which shows the world as it really is, do you recommend?

From my Politics A Level says it was always the Independent. Yes, they all have affiliations etc but the Independent is non-party affiliated although quite liberal.

For online sources, I like //www.therealnews.com

[Doorman]

..... Independent is non-party affiliated although quite liberal...

Are you saying their columnists don't have opinions? Because the Mail comprises of a lot of people that have different viewpoints. I don't get the feeling they are toeing any particular party line. In fact I'd go as far as to say they're as good at bashing Tories as anyone else. I've come to the conclusion that people choose a paper that reflects their own opinion, anything else is....wrong.
As a matter of interest, who set the politics A level course? Muddy waters, politics.

[T-Bag]

Are you saying their columnists don't have opinions?

Picking columnists whose opinions match that of the readers if how newspapers keep an audience. I've not found one that I particularly like. As far as TV news I find Al Jazeera the best personally, though I'm stuck with the BBC on freeview.

Daily Mail would report "Teenager Murdered, illegal immigrants suspected, they bloody love crime..."

Telegraph "Teenager Murdered, perceived crime is up according to this shockingly narrow independent survey..."

Guardian "Teenager Mudered, possibly with a knife of some sort..."

Independent "Teenager Murdered, here's an abundance of quotes..."

I avoid the Mail and Mail online at all costs as a source of news, and increasingly so the Telegraph. There are too many poorly written and one sided arguments presented as news for my liking. I have my own political views and thoughts on what certain actions represent and would prefer facts to be presented in full with as little spin as possible, or at least the fact to be there in some form, I've been know to buy, on the rare occasion I've bought newspapers, the Guardian and Independent and can usually grasp a situation through these. However recommending what newspaper someone should read is essentially telling someone what they should think and isn't really a good idea...however I'm happy to tell people not to read the Mail.

If you're looking for good reads, Scientific America, New Scientist, Physics World and Nature are all good (well worth following on google+) but aren't likely to cover the iPhone launch.

[smilodon]

Sadly I think that through ever declining circulation figures newspapers are becoming more and more interested in selling papers and less and less interested in reporting news. Add that to the fact that more and more of their readership buy papers on a whim from news stands and fewer have a regular paper delivered each morning and what's on the front page becomes more and more crucial in selling their copies. This results in them writing stories that grab our attention. The fastest way to do that is to shock us and frighten us. The formula works along the lines that we get told something dreadful has happened, is happening or will happen. We then get comforted by the paper reporting it's not our fault. Who 'we' are depends on the paper in question. If it's the Sun then 'we' is the decent hard-working but downtrodden working classes. If it's the Daily Mail then 'we' are the lower middle and middle classes that work hard and pay our taxes. If it's the Independent then 'we' are the intelligent, reasoned professionals that run the show. We then get told who's fault it actually is. And it's invariably one of the other lot or often Johnny Foreigner who is unlikely to even read the news paper in question. The paper sells copies, rakes in the advertising revenue and makes it's share holders or ogliarch owner happy. The price we pay is that we no longer get facts or are challenged that our own world view might not be correct.

This is why we get told that any large group of Asian people queuing up for an iPhone can't possibly have the intelligence to get a job that would earn them the money to buy their own phone. So they are being paid to stand in line for a decent white person or are part of some scam conspiracy in reselling iPhones. This might actually be true, but the paper, or in this case it's columnist, doesn't provide any facts or research at all. It just makes a wild leap and expects us to accept it like sheep.  Oh and don't forget the Polish are all scum who just come here and steal our jobs.

What angers me is that there's no moral compass being used. The press seem willing to take a short term view and just sell more papers. They never ask what effect their lies and slanted opinions have on us as a population. Our views are shaped by what we read and watch and that has real consequences in how we treat the people arround us. Tell me often enough that some arbitrary group of people I have little in common with are the root of all evil and eventually I'll start to believe it.

[Penfold]

None of them, they all have an agenda

Aye, I think they're all much of a muchness in reality. Most of their news is gathered from the same sources or newswire services and it's just what they choose to run and the angle they want to put on it.

As a matter of interest, who set the politics A level course? Muddy waters, politics.

Oxbridge I think.

The  point is more that The Independent is the only UK paper which doesn't  claim party affiliations. Of course Journalists and writers have their  own view but they're not editorially-controlled with a political slant. That may well have changed but it used to be the case.

I  don't tend to read much print for the very reason they're all biased. That's why I tend to read sources such as therealnews.com or Reuters

What do people think of Sky News or BBC News ?

[T-Bag]

This is why we get told that any large group of Asian people queuing up for an iPhone can't possibly have the intelligence to get a job that would earn them the money to buy their own phone.

My opinion is, what does it matter? If the store wants the phones to only be used by the person purchasing the phone they could link it to a SIM card for a month at which point the resale value drops to effectively zero. The store doesn't care, it's not illegal so why is that news? The answer is it's not, but the paper likes racial discrimination.  

What do people think of Sky News or BBC News ?

Neither are particularly good. BBC is the better of the two, and sadly on freeview I've few alternatives. I saw an interview on the BBC after the "Bigot speech" that never was. It just went into a love-in with one of the conservatives who was offended by the statement that was never actually made. It spent a good 10-15 mins talking about whether Clegg should resign because of it and the reporter interviewing him didn't seem to want to point out that the statement was never made and also failed to mention the fact that he is allowed to have differing views to him. It was all sensationalising that the coalition was about to come crumbling down.

Personally I'm for same-sex marriage and would have no problem using the term bigot about people who oppose it, just as I would use the term about racists, sexists etc. Maybe Nick could have put it more delicately, but in reality he never actually said the words, and even if he had the story was so hyped up it was sickening.

[Tutonic]

Sky News is slowly morphing into The Day Today, which is both terrifying and hilarious.

[TeaLeaf]

Financial Times.   Just the facts please.