The Mail and its odious style of reporting : Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:04 pm  

This thread needs no other explanation of how that opinion-paper known to all as "The Daily Mail" actually works other than to read the first of these two links ... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2482111/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Ah-Pesto-Meet-poverty-poster-girls.html Yes, we know its Richard Littlejohn, pinnacle of all twattanista's and a self parody of right wing politics so that you wonder if even he believes half of the stuff he writes, but still, some editor at The Mail read his column this week and thought it worthy of publication, it being representative of the readership's own opinions - and what better to get them suitably outraged than a tatoo'ed woman on benefits, nay, a lifestyle choice on benefits and yet daring to speak of things such as "pesto" and "kale" in recipes as if the unemployed do not deserve such foodstuff ? OK, so now read the truth from Jack (female) in fine detail ... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/richard-littlejohn-wrong-about-jack-monroe-daily-mail There is more than a smattering of two newspapers having a bitchfight there but the response tells you everything you need to know about the story and everything you need to know about how much research Littlejohn did into the story before he wrote his vile piece and got it published, zero research is the answer. Such a pity he did no research because he missed something that would have REALLY got his faithful lunatics frothing at the mouth, Jack is a lesbian too, that one fact would probably have got his spiteful writing onto the front page.

This thread needs no other explanation of how that opinion-paper known to all as "The Daily Mail" actually works other than to read the first of these two links ... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2482111/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Ah-Pesto-Meet-poverty-poster-girls.html Yes, we know its Richard Littlejohn, pinnacle of all twattanista's and a self parody of right wing politics so that you wonder if even he believes half of the stuff he writes, but still, some editor at The Mail read his column this week and thought it worthy of publication, it being representative of the readership's own opinions - and what better to get them suitably outraged than a tatoo'ed woman on benefits, nay, a lifestyle choice on benefits and yet daring to speak of things such as "pesto" and "kale" in recipes as if the unemployed do not deserve such foodstuff ? OK, so now read the truth from Jack (female) in fine detail ... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/richard-littlejohn-wrong-about-jack-monroe-daily-mail There is more than a smattering of two newspapers having a bitchfight there but the response tells you everything you need to know about the story and everything you need to know about how much research Littlejohn did into the story before he wrote his vile piece and got it published, zero research is the answer. Such a pity he did no research because he missed something that would have REALLY got his faithful lunatics frothing at the mouth, Jack is a lesbian too, that one fact would probably have got his spiteful writing onto the front page.

Re: The Mail and its odious style of reporting : Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:15 pm  

And don't forget, the Mail is one of the leading lights of the campaign for newspapers to continue to self-regulate – because they're doing such a jolly good job.

Re: The Mail and its odious style of reporting : Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:30 pm  

Incidentally her blog has some nice and simple recipes too ... http://agirlcalledjack.com/

Incidentally her blog has some nice and simple recipes too ... http://agirlcalledjack.com/

Re: The Mail and its odious style of reporting : Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:32 pm  

Aye, but don't forget: kale and pesto aren't for poor people, and they can only have pasta if they get spaghetti in tins.

Re: The Mail and its odious style of reporting : Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:44 pm  

Nay, EAT spaghetti OUT OF tins, saves on plates and other middle class accoutrements.

Re: The Mail and its odious style of reporting : Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:59 pm  

Comprehensive ownage of the odious prick. Well played Jack.

And managed to avoid dropping to his level in response to the "footballers arms" line. Even better. Well played indeed.

Re: The Mail and its odious style of reporting : Fri Nov 01, 2013 2:21 pm  

Where is the Footballers Arms by the way?
Is it a nice pub, or one of those sleezy dives populated by lesbian scroungers?
Shudder!

Re: The Mail and its odious style of reporting : Fri Nov 01, 2013 2:32 pm  

Whoa !

STOP THE PRESS

"Daily Mail in Making poop Up - Shocker !"

That's just above the story about a bear doing something in the woods, and defining the Pope's religion.

Re: The Mail and its odious style of reporting : Fri Nov 01, 2013 2:46 pm  

shinymcshine wrote:

Whoa !

STOP THE PRESS

"Daily Mail in Making poop Up - Shocker !"

That's just above the story about a bear doing something in the woods, and defining the Pope's religion.

Thing is, its not "news" they're making up and presenting as fact, its an opinion piece, fomenting the kind of apoplexy that DM readers get off on, and it's about as far wrong and inaccurate as it could be.

I wouldn't wipe my 'arris on the rag

[DaveO]

Re: The Mail and its odious style of reporting : Fri Nov 01, 2013 3:00 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

Thing is, its not "news" they're making up and presenting as fact, its an opinion piece, fomenting the kind of apoplexy that DM readers get off on, and it's about as far wrong and inaccurate as it could be.

That article is little more than character assassination, in fact isn't it libellous?

If so it just shows where the power lies. Isn't it Lord McAlpine who has been suing various people for re-tweeting a libellous tweet first sent by Sally Bercow including Alan Davies (as in QI's Alan Davies)?

He is quite within his rights to do so but the important point is he also can do so.

Jack on the other hand is reduced to posting a blog reply that while it certainly destroys Littlejohn's credibility (if he had any anyway beyond the Mail's readers) does nothing to elicit a retraction from the Mail or compensation similar to what Lord McAlpine has been able to extract.

If this imbalance in the ability to extract some form of meaningful compensation which would therefore act as a deterrent against libel is not an indication of why it ought to be easier for ordinary folk to go after papers that print such tripe to the extent it actually hurts the papers significantly I don't know what is.