more Daily Mail absurdities

IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
Looks to me as though, unlike the Daily Mail, you are incapable of grasping the finer details of this complex and delicately nuanced issue.
 
J

jtg

???
I find it amusing how the Daily Mail (UK version) is attacked like the biggest straw man ever. This article is ludicrous. The two papers in question have a completely different editorial staff, and apart from common ownership, and the name, they're totally different papers. Would it be so outrageous if the Observer took a different stance on an issue from the Guardian? The suggestion that it "proves that they don't give a crap" and that they're "evil" is nonsense on stilts.
 
B

BareBones

wheezy
are the UK and Irish Daily Mails totally different then? Genuine question - i have no idea, have never been to ireland. I don't think it's completely outlandish to assume that they'd both be at least quite similar and/or have fairly similar stances on issues like this. And i think i probably would be quite surprised if the guardian ran a strongly pro-HPV vaccine story on a saturday and then the observer ran a strongly anti-HPV vaccine story the next day, but maybe i'm just being naive. Admittedly i am often incapable of grasping the finer details of complex and delicately nuanced issues, as rich says.
 
C

crackerjack

Well-known member
BareBones said:
are the UK and Irish Daily Mails totally different then? Genuine question - i have no idea, have never been to ireland. I don't think it's completely outlandish to assume that they'd both be at least quite similar and/or have fairly similar stances on issues like this. And i think i probably would be quite surprised if the guardian ran a strongly pro-HPV vaccine story on a saturday and then the observer ran a strongly anti-HPV vaccine story the next day, but maybe i'm just being naive. Admittedly i am often incapable of grasping the finer details of complex and delicately nuanced issues, as rich says.
Click to expand...

The Guardian and the Observer famously took different sides on the Iraq war (and the Obs wound up looking pretty silly), but then they were wholly separate until about a decade ago.

It's not unusual, though, for Sunday papers to differ from their daily sisters - see last general election where Times backed Labour and Sunday Times the Tories.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
My uncle edits the NI Daily Mirror and from what I can recall it is quite different from the UK version, other than some shared stories.
 
S

scottdisco

rip this joint please
i have no horse in this race (re the point raised by jtg: fair play) but in the comments to the article itself i was struck by someone noting

Secondly, your assertion that these are "two different papers" is deeply flawed - the Irish edition is basically just the British edition with a different layout and a few Irish-centric stories. They share much of the same content and even the same columnists, along with most of the same staff.

Thirdly and following on from that, we're not talking about some Irish journalists disagreeing with some British journalists, we're talking about the editorial stance - set by the same London-based people. And that's why this is a noteworthy story.
Click to expand...

dunno how accurate this is of course but thus far nobody has rebuked it there, it's mostly a discussion about the issue itself.
 
J

jtg

???
BareBones said:
I don't think it's completely outlandish to assume that they'd both be at least quite similar and/or have fairly similar stances on issues like this. And i think i probably would be quite surprised if the guardian ran a strongly pro-HPV vaccine story on a saturday and then the observer ran a strongly anti-HPV vaccine story the next day, but maybe i'm just being naive.
Click to expand...

You're not being naive at all -- the story was surprising, I don't deny that. It's the bizarre conclusion that the two papers' differing opinions 'prove' that they're both pure evil that I objected to.

Edit: As regards whether the papers are different, although the Irish edition borrows articles from the British, it has a different editor. That alone, for me, makes it a different paper, and the contrasting stances on HPV are down to the editors.
 
Last edited:
craner

craner

Beast of Burden
Callers have been told, apparently by giggling lunatics on 'helplines', that various forms of lawless brain-frying are really all right. No surprise to me.
Click to expand...

Quality, vintage stuff.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
In the words of Littleprick, "You couldn't make it up!".

May I suggest some more possible topics for the Mail's online polls:

  • Should the Queen be chopped up and fed to paedophiles?
  • Should school nativity plays be scrapped in favour of something vaguely to do with Islam?
  • Should taxpayers' money be spent on sanctuaries for gay animals?
  • Is Britain basically going down the pan?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top