In article ,
Sacha writes:
|
| 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.
|
| 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. ...

No, it isn't. I often track down the original sources of surprising
articles, and most newspapers have clearly read them through blinkers.
But that's not what I am referring to.

Also WHERE did you get the idea that I am inclined to believe what
any particular newspaper says? When we started to get the Independent,
I took the trouble to check a range of its articles, out of general
suspicious principles. I still do check anything surprising (including
where it differs from other papers).

However, in some cases, I have tracked down the items used as a basis
by a newspaper article's author, and realised that mere incompetence
could not explain the result. In extreme cases, the newspaper article
says something entirely incompatible with the original, and I have seen
that more with the Daily Telegraph than with any other UK newspaper,
despite tracking down far more surprising aricles by many other papers.
No, it is probably not the author lying through his teeth, but the
editor inventing 'facts' that fitted the newspaper's 'message'.

How often have you tracked down the sources THAT WERE USED BY THE
AUTHOR OF THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE and found that phenomenon? I have done
it hundreds of times, and have enough data to form a reliable judgement.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.