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

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.

On 12/9/08 09:24, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote:


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'.

Any journalist of experience will tell you that most papers do that. Quite
often they will print something totally unfounded and unsubstantiated just
to see if it will start a hare.

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.

I am really not casting aspersions on your judgment or your reading matter,
you know! But I am definitely beginning to think that which newspaper
people read causes almost as many arguments as those on which computer they
use!

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

The message
from Sacha contains these words:

I am really not casting aspersions on your judgment or your reading matter,
you know! But I am definitely beginning to think that which newspaper
people read causes almost as many arguments as those on which computer they
use!

I read the Eastern Daily Press, one of the Grauniad's supplements on a
Thursday, and sometimes a pootery magazine if it has something I want on
its coverdisc.

My computer was my own creation and runs (depending on what tray's in
the caddy or which live disc is in the CD/DVD drive) DOS & Win 3.11;
Win 98; Win 98SE; Win 2000 Pro; Debian Linux; Knoppix; Ubantu.

Other OSs are stored against possible use, but I haven't got a Mac yet...

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

I Love your Blog!

On Sep 12, 5:25*am, Sacha wrote:
On 12/9/08 09:24, in article , "Nick

Maclaren" wrote:

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'.

Any journalist of experience will tell you that most papers do that. *Quite
often they will print something totally unfounded and unsubstantiated just
to see if it will start a hare.



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.

I am really not casting aspersions on your judgment or your reading matter,
you know! *But I am definitely beginning to think that which newspaper
people read causes almost as many arguments as those on which computer they
use!

--
Sachahttp://www.hillhousenursery.com
South Devon