On 11/9/08 21:44, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote:
In article ,
Sacha writes:
| On 11/9/08 16:09, in article
,
| "Charlie Pridham" wrote:
|
| But Nick has a point, I used to read a paper untill a run of stories
| about stuff I actually knew something about, these articles were so wrong
| so often, that I formed the view that the chances were high that all the
| other stories were probably wrong most of the time as well so apart from
| the crossword it made reading the thing a waste of time! ....
|
| I can't think of *one* newspaper that doesn't have a bias of some sort. So
| for me, the answer is to read what comes along and have a large dish of
salt
| on the side!
Yes, but the point isn't the fact they have a bias - even the Independent
does - but whether they deliberately distort and even falsify facts in
order to propagate their prejudices. That is propaganda.
And the simple fact is that the Daily Telegraph is probably the worst
newspaper in the UK for doing that, though the Sun runs it close. The
article that started this thread is an example, though we have had much
clearer ones before.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
To be frank, Nick, I wouldn't put a pin between them for that. I think it's
a question of what one is inclined to agree with oneself. I've read the
Mail for years and I know it's a pernicious habit. I laugh at some of its
reporting and I am furiously indignant at other bits. THEN and this is the
really significant bit - we also read the Western Morning News which is
owned by Associated Newspapers which also owns the Daily Mail. The
reporting style in the WMN is locally slanted so while the DM might e.g.
slag off the Prince of Wales or the Duchess of Cornwall (especially if
Richard Kay is writing the piece) the WMN will universally praise them
because they're popular in the west country and do actually know a thing or
six about rural life! You really do have to know not just the owners but
what they *perceive* to be the agenda of their readers.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon