In article ,
Sacha writes:
| |
| | Frankly, the only widely available papers where the news isn't more
| | propaganda than fact the
| | Guardian -
|
| But the DT has a high readership and IIRC, the Guardian and Independent
| have rather low readerships which would suggest that people don't find
| the packaging of their facts very palatable.

That scarcely contradicts my statements :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Broadback wrote:

While waiting for my wife to shop I browsed the headlines of various
daily papers this morning. One of them,I never noticed which, claimed
the dear old government are planning to bring in rules about what we can
do with our gardens. It seems that this is an attempt to reduce waste
production, mainly grass clippings! What a racket this recycling
business is becoming. We spent energy to clean bottles, glasses etc for
recycling then is is all dumped together and shipped to India it seems,
where it is mainly dumped in landfill!

Surprisingly enough the planning rules on garden "structures" are a lot more
involved than most people realise. Recent changes to terms mean you are no
longer entitled to a second shed. If you've got one, you'll need PP for a
2nd. If your greenhouse is within 20m of a road, or I think 5m of the
house you'll need PP. These rules surprised me, though a lot of local
councils waive the right to enforce on these issues, the rules are already
in place.

I know a lot of people who've always considered their gardens to be theirs,
sheds and greenhouses are claimed by many to be "temporary structures" and
thus except, not anymore.

Duncan

In article ,
says...
On 11/9/08 13:41, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote:


In article ,
Gordon H writes:
| In message , Janet Tweedy
| writes
|
| Frankly, the only widely available papers where the news isn't more
| propaganda than fact the
| Guardian -
|
| Good grief Nick, I DO hope you're joking with that suggestion!
|
| The Guarniad is an ecxellant newsapper, but does have rather too much
| poltiical comment. :-)

And, no, I was not joking.

The difference between the Gnurdian and the Daily Torygraph and the
Mordoch publications is that the Grauniad doesn't deliberately distort
and even falsify what it presents as fact to bias the minds of its
readers. That means that it isn't propaganda - its bias is merely
addled and woolly thinking - and it is usually easy to separate its
commentary from what it claims to be facts.

In terms of actual reliability of 'facts', I agree that there isn't
much to choose.

And my remarks are NOT based on prejudice, but on a sample of actual
checking up on the sources that the relevant papers claimed to have
used. Always assume incompetence in preference to malice, but don't
continue to do so when the evidence of malice is convincing. That
is why I can't stand the Daily Torygraph - it makes even the Tit and
Bum look honest - yet otherwise not-totally-idiotic people actually
BELIEVE what it presents as claimed facts :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

But the DT has a high readership and IIRC, the Guardian and Independent have
rather low readerships which would suggest that people don't find the
packaging of their facts very palatable.


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! So this is now a
newspaper free zone, allthough I still find myself suckered into reading
them while trying to light the fire (even more pointless as the
distortions are now way out of date!) Perhaps like other factual texts
they ought to give souces so you can check for yourself.
However Nick, you are wrong about one thing, if you are going to pay for
a newspaper it might as well be one you agree with so the colour of
your politics must play a part and politics and truth have never been
known to go hand in hand :~)
--
Charlie Pridham, Gardening in Cornwall
www.roselandhouse.co.uk
Holders of national collections of Clematis viticella cultivars and
Lapageria rosea

In article ,
Charlie Pridham writes:
|
| However Nick, you are wrong about one thing, if you are going to pay for
| a newspaper it might as well be one you agree with so the colour of
| your politics must play a part and politics and truth have never been
| known to go hand in hand :~)

Why? I read a newspaper to garner facts, correct my misapprehensions
and receive ideas that I haven't already had on my own, and not to
bolster my prejudices. I should have thought that anyone fit to vote
would do the same - but perhaps I am unique in that view :-)

Actually, I am not. Some philosophers have made similar comments,
including some I strongly disagree with on most matters.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article , Nick Maclaren
writes

In article ,
Charlie Pridham writes:
|
| However Nick, you are wrong about one thing, if you are going to pay for
| a newspaper it might as well be one you agree with so the colour of
| your politics must play a part and politics and truth have never been
| known to go hand in hand :~)

Why? I read a newspaper to garner facts, correct my misapprehensions
and receive ideas that I haven't already had on my own, and not to
bolster my prejudices. I should have thought that anyone fit to vote
would do the same - but perhaps I am unique in that view :-)

Actually, I am not. Some philosophers have made similar comments,
including some I strongly disagree with on most matters.



There is another contributory reason for choice - is it a good read/does
it generally use a good writing style? For that reason, I'm happy to
choose the Guardian - which luckily also panders to my prejudices

I suppose the closest other that comes close to fitting in with my
world-view would be the Indie - but I find that indescribeably boring.

In the same way, if I can't get the Garudian, I'd choose the Torygraph
over the Times - it seems a much better read to me. It can also be fun
spotting the old fartism.

--
regards andyw

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
In article ,
Sacha writes:
| |
| | Frankly, the only widely available papers where the news
isn't more
| | propaganda than fact the
| | Guardian -
|
| But the DT has a high readership and IIRC, the Guardian and Independent
| have rather low readerships which would suggest that people don't find
| the packaging of their facts very palatable.

That scarcely contradicts my statements :-(

I must say that I agree - after all, the Sun has an even higher circulation...

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

In article ,
newsb writes:
|
| There is another contributory reason for choice - is it a good read/does
| it generally use a good writing style? For that reason, I'm happy to
| choose the Guardian - which luckily also panders to my prejudices

Well, I prefer fiction for that!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Sep 11, 5:30*pm, (Nick Maclaren) wrote:
In article ,newsb writes:

|
| There is another contributory reason for choice - is it a good read/does
| it generally use a good writing style? *For that reason, I'm happy to
| choose the Guardian - which luckily also panders to my prejudices

Well, I prefer fiction for that!

Another way to secure (reasonable) balance is to read a good number of
papers. Time does not allow me to do that every day, but I spend most
Sunday mornings with the 4 or 5 main Irish Sunday broadsheets - one of
which is the Irish edition of the ST. The odd time, I add the
Guardian, which I like for features and international news, although
for a French woman living in Ireland, it is a little too British for
me ;-))

Cat(h)

On 2008-09-11 13:45:45 +0100, Sacha said:

But the DT has a high readership and IIRC, the Guardian and Independent have
rather low readerships which would suggest that people don't find the
packaging of their facts very palatable.

Few people choose their newspaper because of its perceived accuracy.
Facts are only a part of the package which also includes much opinion,
'colour', feature writing, sports coverage, titilation, humour, etc. My
father was an almost lifelong reader of the Observer, only because he
liked the crossword and the chess puzzles.

Bringing this back on topic, some people choose the Telegraph because
it has the best gardening section.

[quote='Mike';815245Where does that put church magazines, local community newsletters and the Rotary / other local organisations Fete or Bring and Buy Sale notices etc
etc etc?[/QUOTE]
To the extent that they are unsolicited marketing communications which I don't want, I don't see the desirability of giving them any kind of protected status. But I suspect it will in practice be difficult to stop leafleting that doesn't go via a commercial mail provider.

And given the considerable financial difficulties a ban on marketing mail-outs would place on the Royal Mail, I think this is a big political hot potato.

On 11/9/08 14:17, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote:


In article ,
Sacha writes:
| |
| | Frankly, the only widely available papers where the news isn't more
| | propaganda than fact the
| | Guardian -
|
| But the DT has a high readership and IIRC, the Guardian and Independent
| have rather low readerships which would suggest that people don't find
| the packaging of their facts very palatable.

That scarcely contradicts my statements :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

I'm not really trying to contradict you. I just point out that the gospel
according to the Guardian isn't very popular or widespread, so its unbiased
- as you see it - message, is not getting across to many.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

On 11/9/08 16:09, in article ,
"Charlie Pridham" wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 11/9/08 13:41, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote:


In article ,
Gordon H writes:
| In message , Janet Tweedy
| writes
|
| Frankly, the only widely available papers where the news isn't more
| propaganda than fact the
| Guardian -
|
| Good grief Nick, I DO hope you're joking with that suggestion!
|
| The Guarniad is an ecxellant newsapper, but does have rather too much
| poltiical comment. :-)

And, no, I was not joking.

The difference between the Gnurdian and the Daily Torygraph and the
Mordoch publications is that the Grauniad doesn't deliberately distort
and even falsify what it presents as fact to bias the minds of its
readers. That means that it isn't propaganda - its bias is merely
addled and woolly thinking - and it is usually easy to separate its
commentary from what it claims to be facts.

In terms of actual reliability of 'facts', I agree that there isn't
much to choose.

And my remarks are NOT based on prejudice, but on a sample of actual
checking up on the sources that the relevant papers claimed to have
used. Always assume incompetence in preference to malice, but don't
continue to do so when the evidence of malice is convincing. That
is why I can't stand the Daily Torygraph - it makes even the Tit and
Bum look honest - yet otherwise not-totally-idiotic people actually
BELIEVE what it presents as claimed facts :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

But the DT has a high readership and IIRC, the Guardian and Independent have
rather low readerships which would suggest that people don't find the
packaging of their facts very palatable.


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! So this is now a
newspaper free zone, allthough I still find myself suckered into reading
them while trying to light the fire (even more pointless as the
distortions are now way out of date!) Perhaps like other factual texts
they ought to give souces so you can check for yourself.
However Nick, you are wrong about one thing, if you are going to pay for
a newspaper it might as well be one you agree with so the colour of
your politics must play a part and politics and truth have never been
known to go hand in hand :~)

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!
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

In article ,
Sacha writes:
|
| I'm not really trying to contradict you. I just point out that the gospel
| according to the Guardian isn't very popular or widespread, so its unbiased
| - as you see it - message, is not getting across to many.

Given its generally unreliable and even addled viewpoints, that is
not something that causes me sleepness nights! What does concern
me is the number of people who take their views from Murdoch.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 11/9/08 17:10, in article ,
"Rusty Hinge 2" wrote:

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
In article ,
Sacha writes:
| |
| | Frankly, the only widely available papers where the news
isn't more
| | propaganda than fact the
| | Guardian -
|
| But the DT has a high readership and IIRC, the Guardian and Independent
| have rather low readerships which would suggest that people don't find
| the packaging of their facts very palatable.

That scarcely contradicts my statements :-(

I must say that I agree - after all, the Sun has an even higher circulation...

Exactly so.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon

On 11/9/08 19:28, in article , "Stan
The Man" wrote:

On 2008-09-11 13:45:45 +0100, Sacha said:

But the DT has a high readership and IIRC, the Guardian and Independent have
rather low readerships which would suggest that people don't find the
packaging of their facts very palatable.

Few people choose their newspaper because of its perceived accuracy.
Facts are only a part of the package which also includes much opinion,
'colour', feature writing, sports coverage, titilation, humour, etc. My
father was an almost lifelong reader of the Observer, only because he
liked the crossword and the chess puzzles.

Bringing this back on topic, some people choose the Telegraph because
it has the best gardening section.


That's one of the reasons we take it, certainly. Last Sunday, we read The
Mail on Sunday and I was very amused to read two book reviews therein. One
castigated the writer of a book of letters of the Mitford sisters because
the book was bland and not sufficiently indiscreet; the second reviewer
positively howled at a book of Dirk Bogarde's letters because they were
bitchy and far too indiscreet! I did find the side by side contrast very
amusing.
--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon