"So Much Guardian" on Twitter

Mkjackary

Fretwired;804900" said:

Mkjackary said:

I used to dispose far right wingers and sigh at the far lefty's.



Now I avidly dislike far left feminazis and the like, with a passion. Far rightys now I pity more than anything.





Ah .. you're suffering from Man in The Middle Syndrome. I prescribe a Scottish remedy to soften the effects. A large glass of single malt whisky to be taken at 18.00 hrs every day.

Nah, I'm not though I'm right wing and left wing. I.e. right wing on many issues and left on many too. Meaning I just get pissed off at every party.

For that remedy do you reckon a pint would do it?

Emp_Fab

Fretwired said:

Go on the Daily Mail site and find me a hate-filled story. Just one. The paper is right wing especially the online version as ,ore yanks read it than Brits.

A variation on race hate and anti-BBC frothing.  I wonder if this is the "Extremely professional" journalism Evilmags was referring to ?

Sambostar

True dat doh.

chillidoggy

I always look at the newspaper circulation figures before I comment. And it appears the Daily Mail puts the Grundian in the shade, and then some. So, by that measure I reckon that, as a Telegraph reader (also well down the pecking order), my views and that of the Grundian readers, are in the minority.

As to who is 'right' and who is 'wrong', well I reckon the majority is going to rule, whether I like it or not. Ranting about the Daily Mail makes no sense to me, whatsoever. Apart from letting off steam, it's a pointless exercise.

 

I did chuckle at Fretwired's summary of the Grauniad's journos, though!

Fretwired

Emp_Fab said:

Fretwired said:

Go on the Daily Mail site and find me a hate-filled story. Just one. The paper is right wing especially the online version as ,ore yanks read it than Brits.

A variation on race hate and anti-BBC frothing.  I wonder if this is the "Extremely professional" journalism Evilmags was referring to ?

Bad taste, but not race hate. It's attacking the supposedly PC nature of the BBC and the baking show, not the contestants themselves. I don't watch so I can't comment. It's what passes for Aussie humour - it's not very funny. I'd agree that it's not professional journalism if it even qualifies as journalism.

Evilmags

Emp_Fab;805824" said:

Fretwired said:



Go on the Daily Mail site and find me a hate-filled story. Just one. The paper is right wing especially the online version as ,ore yanks read it than Brits.














A variation on race hate and anti-BBC frothing.  I wonder if this is the "Extremely professional" journalism Evilmags was referring to ?

It's professional fluff for lower middle class women. The fact that it is very low brow does not make it unprofessional just as the Grauniad (named so by the hardly right wing private eye for its very low standard of editing) trying to be highbrow doesn't make it any less unprofessional. The Sun is very professional and the Star less so. Both are 100% shite in my view, but I'm not their readership.

The Mail is an excellent product for its market. That is what lowbrow journalism is. The Guardian is just as dumb, low brow and bigoted but adds extremely pretentious ro it's charge sheet.

equalsql

The Daily Mail..Gord bless it.
It truly is the toilet-paper of the British press. The reason it sells so well is not down to its casual xenophobia or hysterical hatred of the underclasses, but because it's so much cheaper than buying Andrex.

It takes a turd to know a turd and nothing shifts klags and winnets better than a fresh copy of the Mail.

equalsql

Evilmags said:

Emp_Fab;803845" said:

Evilmags said:

The Daily Mail ..... It is extremely professional in its production and edition.





You need to up your dosage.

Your not the intended reader. It's sales alone justify my comment. It trumps it's main competition (The Express) in sales month in month out. That's what it's editor is paid to do. It's crime desk is the best in the UK by some distance and it supports it's staff and owners through sales, something the Guardian fails to do because it's a crap product written for people with more interest in virtue signalling than analysis and intellectual rigour.

)

mellowsun

Guardian journalists are North London obsessed champagne socialists, sneering at anything that's not in a prescribed range of approved postcodes.

JezWynd

The Daily Mail's prurient cant is vile and their appetite for 'stars in distress' with copious pics, repellant.

Bucket

While we're on newspapers being absolute cunts, I found this in the Sun while flipping through it on my break yesterday.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQlV1oqUEAE0lw9.jpg

So... some hack has found it perfectly acceptable to make a crap pun out of an innocent man's gruesome death. 

I'm sure his mum's super fucking proud of him. Jesus.

Evilmags

equalsql;805896" said:

The Daily Mail..Gord bless it.

It truly is the toilet-paper of the British press. The reason it sells so well is not down to its casual xenophobia or hysterical hatred of the underclasses, but because it's so much cheaper than buying Andrex.

It takes a turd to know a turd and nothing shifts klags and winnets better than a fresh copy of the Mail.

Perfect example of virtue signalling. Grow a brain please...

Drew_TNBD

This is something I have noticed... Whenever you criticize the Guardian... people eventually twist the conversation into an anti-Daily Mail rantathon...

... interesting tactic.

Emp_Fab

chillidoggy said:

I always look at the newspaper circulation figures before I comment. And it appears the Daily Mail puts the Grundian in the shade, and then some. So, by that measure I reckon that, as a Telegraph reader (also well down the pecking order), my views and that of the Grundian readers, are in the minority.

As to who is 'right' and who is 'wrong', well I reckon the majority is going to rule, whether I like it or not. Ranting about the Daily Mail makes no sense to me, whatsoever. Apart from letting off steam, it's a pointless exercise.

...Indeed, as does ranting about the Guardian (which is the subject of this thread).  However as far as circulation figures go, The Sun puts them both in the shade, and by that logic, extrapolated to the UK population, most people are morons.  Which, I think is a perfectly reasonable assumption.  Statistically it's a valid point, and I do believe that the UK is made up of 70-80% fuckwit.  Actually, not just the UK - all countries - except Scandinavia and Germany, where I think the twatbadger quotient is lower.

Evilmags said:

It's professional fluff for lower middle class women.

Classist and sexist in one sentence !  Bonus !  As for it being 'professional' - I think we perhaps have different perspectives on what that constitutes.

JezWynd said:

The Daily Mail's prurient cant is vile and their appetite for 'stars in distress' with copious pics, repellant.

You'd have whipped my arse at Scrabble last night with a vocabulary like that.  Have a Wiz.   >-

jonnyburgo

The Guardian is read by people who live in Didsbury, they were students a loooong time ago and now live in big Victorian Terraces on leafy streets that native Didsbury-ites can't afford and wear £500 North Face jackets for the 4x4 school run in winter, sit outside coffee shops "working" on their Macbooks hoping they will be seen by people they know, before nipping to the Deli for a £5 sandwich, self satisfied, self obsessed, image conscious lefties that tweet about racism but would shit themselves if they drove through Moss Side by accident.

Oh, and theyre always trying to knock me off my fucking bike, worst place to cycle through in Manchester, selfish go getting cunts.

hungrymark

Drew_fx;806375" said:

This is something I have noticed... Whenever you cruiticize the Guardian... people eventually twist the conversation into an anti-Daily Mail rantathon...



... interesting tactic.

Yeah, wis. Totally true. My friend reads the Guardian and whenever I criticise it it turns into 'yeah well, that's the left wing media bias hurr hurr"

mellowsun

The Guardian is simply the Daily Mail for Guardian readers

Heartfeltdawn

Evilmags said:

The Daily Mail was the newspaper that accused the Stephen Lawrence killers and campaigned to bring them to justice when no other newspaper would touch it. 

It was also the newspaper that changed its tune. Initially the reporter sent to cover Lawrence's murder was told to treat it with hostility. When it emerged that Lawrence's father had worked for Paul Dacre some years earlier and that Dacre had even met Stephen, the Mail did a complete about face. 

http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/2012/01/05/the-daily-mails-initial-coverage-of-the-stephen-lawrence-murder/

Dacre as an editor has to be respected for what he has done. I liked Peter Oborne's summing up of what he does:

“He articulates the dreams, fears and hopes of socially insecure members of the suburban middle class,”

It would be a perfect epitaph for my father.  

mellowsun said:

Guardian journalists are North London obsessed champagne socialists, sneering at anything that's not in a prescribed range of approved postcodes.

In the Aldi era, "champagne socialist" is a redundant term. 

lloyd

The cure for plant blindness is my Ma

jonnyburgo said:

The Guardian is read by people who live in Didsbury, they were students a loooong time ago and now live in big Victorian Terraces on leafy streets that native Didsbury-ites can't afford and wear £500 North Face jackets for the 4x4 school run in winter, sit outside coffee shops "working" on their Macbooks hoping they will be seen by people they know, before nipping to the Deli for a £5 sandwich, self satisfied, self obsessed, image conscious lefties that tweet about racism but would shit themselves if they drove through Moss Side by accident.

Oh, and theyre always trying to knock me off my fucking bike, worst place to cycle through in Manchester, selfish go getting cunts.

Wiz, Didsbury is full of cunts.

guitarfishbay

Good thing we've got Jonny to sort them out one mobile phone at a time then!