Daily Mail article not good press for Kent and East Sussex

[hayfield]

I stand to be corrected but wasn't one of the founders of Wiki linked to The Guardian.

 

Not exactly bias free. 

 

 

Edit, just checked and the 'Claimed'* sole founder of Wiki was a member of the Guardian Media Group until 2017.

 

* there are 2 Co founders but one doesn't recognise the other and edited his own entry to delete the other, which is against the protocol of the site.

 

 

Just read about the Guardian on Wikki,  supposed to be a politically correct organisation..

 

Pity the correctness does not extend to its reporting. Must admit to having a good giggle listening to the BBC late on Friday getting stuck into another very slanted article by this paper, miss representing the facts on another unrelated subject.Is David Icke the editor 

[Dave47549]

.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Dave47549
Removed pointless guff

[Northroader]

reading up Wikipedia to check on the Daily Mail?? Highly objective exercise, not.

[009 micro modeller]

Did the Daily Mail say whether the K&ESR extension will cause or cure cancer? And will it affect house prices?

[Zomboid]

Wiki is many things, but a worthwhile source on any issue where the facts can be debated it isn't.

 

Personally 2 minutes of reading the daily mail leaves me absolutely incandescent at the state of the opinions presented as fact (probably because I disagree with every opinion they present as a fact). So I just avoid it entirely.

[Dava]

"The habitats that survive there are incredible. We are continuing to try to protect this for future generations."

 

It's long been known that one of the best ways of allowing the public to experience rare/fragile habitats without interfering with them is from a slow moving train. As can be seen in Puffing Billy, Ffestiniog, KESR, etc. One suspects the farmers don't actually want current or future generations to have this experience, just to keep it to themselves.

 

The Rother Valley/KESR reunification is a long term [20 year] project, like the Bluebell to East Grinstead or GCR link, that from time to time looks daunting because of practical, legal or financial obstacles, but ultimately succeeds. I look forward to travelling to Robertsbridge in a KESR train in the next 5 years or so!

[brianusa]

Having read this thread, it gives the impression that some UK papers aren't worth the paper they're printed on and it could be put to better uses so where do you get the news these days. Before coming to the US, my family used to read the Daily Express; I read it mostly for Giles and his cartoons! I didn't think it was that in those days.

 

A good job you don't live over here as its very hard to find a good newspaper, some better than others, but I read the BBC website and the World Service on TV.

[kevinlms]

reading up Wikipedia to check on the Daily Mail?? Highly objective exercise, not.

Well, I don't have a copy of the DM to hand. Do you know a better site to get an insight into the DM? Yes an international version of the DM is (or was) available here, but I've never opened a copy.

[kevinlms]

Wiki is many things, but a worthwhile source on any issue where the facts can be debated it isn't.

 

Personally 2 minutes of reading the daily mail leaves me absolutely incandescent at the state of the opinions presented as fact (probably because I disagree with every opinion they present as a fact). So I just avoid it entirely.

Well, certainly from various links I've seen in the past, have not inspired me to be a regular reader at all. Far from it, it appears to be much worse than Rupert Murdoch's 'Herald Sun', which of course was the Murdoch family's starting point!

[PatB]

A while ago (it was before I left the UK so 20+ years now), I saw some figures for complaints upheld by (IIRC) the Press Complaints Commission against the various UK newspapers. At the top was The Sun, followed fairly closely by the Mail, with daylight third and a fairly compact peloton consisting of everyone else some way behind.

 

Make of that what you will.

[kevinlms]

Having read this thread, it gives the impression that some UK papers aren't worth the paper they're printed on and it could be put to better uses so where do you get the news these days. Before coming to the US, my family used to read the Daily Express; I read it mostly for Giles and his cartoons! I didn't think it was that in those days.

 

A good job you don't live over here as its very hard to find a good newspaper, some better than others, but I read the BBC website and the World Service on TV.

I wholeheartedly agree, it seems that they are all a waste of paper, don't they have toilet paper? Certainly several here, have suggested that is the best use for some publications.

It makes me realise how good 'The Age' is in Melbourne, even though its only a shadow of itself, these days.

 

But perhaps the British press, is in fact an insight of Britain these days?

[kevinlms]

Wiki is many things, but a worthwhile source on any issue where the facts can be debated it isn't.

 

Personally 2 minutes of reading the daily mail leaves me absolutely incandescent at the state of the opinions presented as fact (probably because I disagree with every opinion they present as a fact). So I just avoid it entirely.

You forgot to include the click bait on their website.

[LBRJ]

I love the simple fact that the Mail out sells the Grauniad by 10 to 1- yet no one ever seems to read it

 I think some people like to kid themselves.

[Dunsignalling]

reading up Wikipedia to check on the Daily Mail?? Highly objective exercise, not.

About as objective as reading up on Wikipedia in the Daily Mail........... 

[MarkC]

Couple of points - the Mail is the most read on-line British newspaper outlet, and one of the highest-read ones globally, so it must be doing something right

 

Secondly, the Gruiniad displays utter hypocrisy; it slates offshore accounting by the wealthy, yet is itself run from - you guessed it - an offshore setup

 

One of these publications is forever begging for donations when you use its site; the other one isn't. Guess which one is the beggar?

 

Personally, I use a wide variety of media outlets, from both sides of the political divide, then make up my own mind. One thing I won't do, though, is pay for access to news outlets such as the Times and Telegraph. Ad blockers zap much of the stuff from the likes of the Mail too, so thay're not making owt from clickbait from me either

[jjb1970]

In all honesty, every time I've been involved with a story picked up by the media the version I read about or see reported on TV has been nonsense. I suspect in most cases it is because the writer doesn't understand what they're writing about or because of lazy reporting rather than any actual intent to mislead and distort but nevertheless it doesn't alter the fact that reporting has been rather unsatisfactory. What is worse is when specialist industry magazines and professional journals are guilty of misreporting things, as you would expect them to have a basic understanding of specialist subjects.

[jjb1970]

I stopped paying much attention to the news when I was at sea. I'd go away for several months and have very limited access to news (those were the days before crews had access to the world renowned interweb thingy) and when we did get papers in port it tended to be either English language editions of the local press or international papers like the International Herald Tribune (which I always considered to be an excellent paper, far better than the UK papers). When I got home invariably things were pretty much the same, the world was still turning and I didn't feel like I'd much anything important yet for those at home every day had probably brought a new crises, new gossip etc, all of which is built up into a major event by the news. The truth is there really isn't that much genuinely important news and the press needs to fill their copy every day. And that is before getting into the whole issue of fear mongering and trying to keep people hooked on news with all the stories of doom. The era of 24 hour rolling news has taken it up another order of magnitude.

[PatB]

In all honesty, every time I've been involved with a story picked up by the media the version I read about or see reported on TV has been nonsense. I suspect in most cases it is because the writer doesn't understand what they're writing about or because of lazy reporting rather than any actual intent to mislead and distort but nevertheless it doesn't alter the fact that reporting has been rather unsatisfactory. What is worse is when specialist industry magazines and professional journals are guilty of misreporting things, as you would expect them to have a basic understanding of specialist subjects.

 

Having spent a while in government departments, I can attest that, at least in the area of my experience, what is actually happening, what the media tells the public is happening and what the public actually believe (or are aware) is happening are often three distinct and sometimes mutually contradictory things . I see no reason to believe that this is not the case in fields where I don't have direct experience.

 

Certainly, the tenor of reporting is often strongly influenced by who brought the story to the attention of the news outlet. In the case of the story in the OP it's fairly clear that the naysayers were the ones who went to the paper(s) to spruik their case. I guess that's why the Malcolm Tuckers of the world exist. First to the press gets to set the agenda.

[Dunsignalling]

Since when did any UK "newspaper" report any railway-related topic in a way that didn't display some or all of:

 

Absence of balance.

 

Contempt.

 

Ignorance of the subject. 

 

Absence of research. 

 

Come to think of it, that seems to describe Daily Mail coverage of almost everything. 

 

And, yes, I do read it from time to time just to check it's really as bad as I remember..........

 

John

Edited May 14, 2018 by Dunsignalling

[caradoc]

Presumably none of those sneering at the Daily Mail are aware of its recent campaigns supporting the Windrush generation and highlighting the issues of plastic pollution, culminating over the weekend just gone in a nationwide litter clearance exercise ?

[hayfield]

It’s always worth remembering that the Daily Mail sells papers by making people fear, loath and/or detest other people, or, if they already fear, loath and detest one another, then by reinforcing that fear, loathing and detestation.

 

This particular article seems well-pitched to: make railway enthusiasts fear, loath and detest farmers; to reinforce the fear, loathing and detestation that a small cadre of farmers has for everyone who isn’t a farmer, especially anyone who wants to set foot on their bit of the world; and, assist lots of people who don’t naturally fall into either camp to identify a new group (could be either) to fear, loath and detest.

 

Job done.

 

Exactly what you have written could be said about the Guardian in both reporting about Network Rail and one other totally miss reported item in articles last week. Somehow a large group of the Guardian readers believe they only have the right to hold the high ground on moral matters.

 

Wake up and smell the roses, this group seems to want to demigrade any thoughts and ideas which do not fit into their own personal prejudices, By all means disagree with what others think ,and enter a well thought out discussion.

 

Some of the comments made here by this group are equally distasteful as those they are decrying. Lets keep this thread on track about the topic 

[Nearholmer]

Caradoc,

 

None of which excuses fomenting discord by biased and tendentious reporting.

 

Maybe if they ceased to do that, the good things that they do might become a bit more widely recognised, but it’s a bit hard to see past it, and always has been.

 

Kevin

[hayfield]

I wholeheartedly agree, it seems that they are all a waste of paper, don't they have toilet paper? Certainly several here, have suggested that is the best use for some publications.

It makes me realise how good 'The Age' is in Melbourne, even though its only a shadow of itself, these days.

 

But perhaps the British press, is in fact an insight of Britain these days?

 

 

Certain groups will decry what ever is written, nothing wrong with the British press or news outlets. Thankfully they are free to report what they wish without fear of reprimand, Once you get past the political statements and comments usually the content is both informative, humorous in some cases but most of all entertaining, lets face it each one is pandering to its audience. To get a balanced view. read a few different opposing papers. . The British press is an insight of the British Press not the people. The same could be said about most countries. 

[phil-b259]

Couple of points - the Mail is the most read on-line British newspaper outlet, and one of the highest-read ones globally, so it must be doing something right

 

 

OR you could use the papers high circulation to say that a large section of the UK population are actually pretty unpleasant people inside (i.e. closet racists, hatemongers, Islamophobes, snobs, selfish, vain, etc.)

 

Newspapers are not an enforced purchase - and as such people generally won't buy it unless the appeals to their way of thinking. Thus the appeal of any particular publication is a pretty good indicator of the views of society at large.

Edited May 14, 2018 by phil-b259

[Nearholmer]

Hayfield

 

I stand by my comments. And, if you are right about the Gaurdian, I’m not sure how two wrongs make a right.

 

Also, I’m not sure how you reached your mistaken view about which paper I prefer.

 

Kevin