[Mooaura]

The media (and particularly newspaper) industry is renowned for being sensationalist and if the others aren't printint shit about this, they normally are about something else.

This is absolutely ridiculous! That is like saying 'Westlife are renowned for making bad music, therefore all music must be bad'. Good grief.

And the fact is, as has been said by others, online news aggregators and web sites and 24 hour news channels absolutely negate the need for newspapers now.

Well evidently they do not completely negate the need for newspapers, or else all of the papers would have just stopped printing over the last 8 years.

[Yudster]

I accept that not all newspapers print shit - but probably the only ones that don't are the so called Quality papers. And I haven't lashed out at them, merely said that I prefer TV and internet news - which I do, because it is updated regularly and therefore more relevant than a newspaper which is printed.

[MK Chris]

The media (and particularly newspaper) industry is renowned for being sensationalist and if the others aren't printint shit about this, they normally are about something else.

This is absolutely ridiculous! That is like saying 'Westlife are renowned for making bad music, therefore all music must be bad'. Good grief.

No it's not. As Yudwuk says, certain newspapers are better. I quite like The Indepedent, but certainly most, if not all, of the tabloids are deserving of the reputation they have.

And the fact is, as has been said by others, online news aggregators and web sites and 24 hour news channels absolutely negate the need for newspapers now.

Well evidently they do not completely negate the need for newspapers, or else all of the papers would have just stopped printing over the last 8 years.

OK, they negate my need for newspapers and I'm not totally certain why so many people are still buying newspapers given the alternatives.

[Yudster]

Well, realistically not that many are - circulation figures are tumbling year on year. The newspaper industry has been struggling (relatively speaking) for a long time now.

[foot-loose]

How is that different to any other industry? Everyone is out to make money, otherwise they wouldn't be there, no?

The difference is that newspapers are meant to tell unbiased, factual news. I'd reckon every single paper has had an example where they have printed the wrong information. The popular ones (The Sun, The Mail, The Mirror) have been pulled up for it many times. They are NOT trying to tell you the correct information, they are trying to get as many papers as possible sold. They will do pretty much whatever it takes to get this done.

Therefore, at no point will I trust that they are telling the truth and, as I have said before, anyone who uses any of the afore mentioned papers as their primary news source is deluding themselves in thinking they are informed. They are reading someones opinion who is being paid to get you to read his opinion.

My next complaint, as I am sure others on this forum are sick of hearing, but you, being a new kid, haven't had the pleasure yet, is that they regularly do not print news. They print exciting stories which everyone takes as being news but realistically have little effect on anyone elses lives other than those involved. Lets have a quick look at the main headlines on The Suns website (I like doing this)...



Where do you wish me to start? The top ten editors choice:

We have Shannon Mathews uncle being held in chains - so this is the first time a prisoner has been put in chains is it? The next three are not news stories but celebrity gossip, an advert (which is no doubt really controversial) is getting shown on the telly, THEN we get something that might be important - Woolworths staff might lose their jobs. Then another two celebrity things, another controversial thing on the telly and some shit about football.

Lets look at the fancy pictures (provided for the hard of reading):

BRAD COMES CLEAN!!!! News?
X Factor latest!!!! News?
Jessicas raciest role yet!!!! News?
Football!!!!! News?

Have I made my point yet?

I also think it is hugely unfair for so many people in this thread to lash out at all newspapers when it is, to my understanding, only the Mail and the Mirror who are printing shit? The others aren't; why take it out on them too?

The Mail and The Mirror are certainly not the only ones printing shit in the name of news. I'll take it out on them all until they stop trying to kid the public on (especially the thick ones that actually believe them) that whatever is printed on their front cover is 100% factual and not just a marketing ploy to get the paper bought.

[foot-loose]

The media (and particularly newspaper) industry is renowned for being sensationalist and if the others aren't printint shit about this, they normally are about something else.

This is absolutely ridiculous! That is like saying 'Westlife are renowned for making bad music, therefore all music must be bad'. Good grief.

Do you actually believe that the media is not sensationalist? If anything, not enough people are aware of it.

And the fact is, as has been said by others, online news aggregators and web sites and 24 hour news channels absolutely negate the need for newspapers now.

Well evidently they do not completely negate the need for newspapers, or else all of the papers would have just stopped printing over the last 8 years.[/quote]
They stopped printing news. They started printing shit. They didn't change their name to 'shitpapers'.

[S4B]

Wow! Foots! Wow!!!

[foot-loose]

I rarely get riled up about things which are normally opinions - everyones entitled to their own etc, but in certain circumstances, I don't quite see how anyone can argue with me. Look at the headlines. Hell - go to the website:

www.thesun.co.uk

and exlain to me how the 'headlines' can be classed as news.

[Johnny 1989]

Foot-loose, you and me think along the same lines. The papers are full of absolute b*ll*cks & have been for years. The worst culprit is the Daily Star which is full of shyte, if you've ever read their "letters" page, it's all "txtspk" and is just crap about lynching people up, why Brown is a c**t and other random shyte.

At least the Daily Sport actually takes the p*ss & doesn't take itself seriously, the Daily Star really does think it is "the voice of the real people" it's laughable, the only good thing they did was bring Lucy Pinder to light (well that's good in my opinion ) but other than that, total bilge.

I've never trusted the Mirror since Piers Moron printed those pictures of the "Soldiers & Terrorist". The Sun is only good for football but sod all else, The Express is just as bad as The Star (same owner) and The Daily Heil is just run by tw*ts.

The only one I read was the Evening Standard but now my local newsagent in (K)ilford isn't allowed to distribute it because he isn't selling enough copies (total sh*te) and now they only seem to be selling them inside the North Circular, of which (K)ilford is just outside.

Quite frankly the free ones on the tueb are best, and even they've become sensationalist.

[foot-loose]

I rarely read the papers these days, my folks still get the Glasgow Herald which is not too bad, although its very biased towards Scotland. They also have an irritating habit of printing a large, interesting picture on the front page and forget to print a decent story about it (unlike The Sun who will print a large picture on the front page then an 'interesting' story on it on pages 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 15). I assumed that noone actually bought the Daily Sport or the Star as newspapers and more as softcore porn?

Surely noone can take those two papers seriously??

[Johnny 1989]

I rarely read the papers these days, my folks still get the Glasgow Herald which is not too bad, although its very biased towards Scotland. They also have an irritating habit of printing a large, interesting picture on the front page and forget to print a decent story about it (unlike The Sun who will print a large picture on the front page then an 'interesting' story on it on pages 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 15). I assumed that noone actually bought the Daily Sport or the Star as newspapers and more as softcore porn?

Surely noone can take those two papers seriously??

Well they don't with the Sport, it's obvious it's a complete p*sstake, headlines include "Double Decker Bus found on the moon" & one about a woman giving birth to a vampire child, as well as having Shaun Ryder as a columnist & pics of dodgy looking birds with space hopper breast implants that are about a mile apart & don't line up

The Daily Star though does but is full of sh*t & the only reason The Star & The Express suddenly changed from been up Labour's arse & saying how great they are to saying that they are the worst Goverment ever & haven't done one good thing to this country since they've been in power is because Labour denied getting a donation from Richard "Dirty" Desmond (owner of such porno magazines as Asian Babes & Big, Black & Bouncy). Completely crap & onyl sells because they have a pretty woman on the front cover.

[Boboff]

I bought it in Tuesday as it was only 20p! It's worth that for the made up problem page !

[Andy B]

I quite like local papers but other than that I'm a Times man. Cos my missus sister works for em and if I get it on Sunday I can keep reading till the next Sunday.

[ladbroke]

This is what I love about The Sunday Times, I work for 12 hours some Sundays and it lasts all day, it's great value for money. I balance things out and usually buy The News of The Screws too!

[MK Chris]

Balance? Surely that's the same opinion (Murdoch's) in compact form?

If I had to buy a tabloid, I would absolutely refuse to buy the News of the World on the principle that they decided to implement their own version of "Sarah's Law", which I totally disagree with and which caused chaos. I don't agree with Sarah's Law in the justice system either.

[Andy B]

That's my guilty pleasure. Just Reading it makes me feel so much better about my life. Also have they ever had a problem on the problem page that didn't go into graphic details about someone's sordid sex life?

[Mooaura]

I accept that not all newspapers print shit - but probably the only ones that don't are the so called Quality papers. And I haven't lashed out at them, merely said that I prefer TV and internet news - which I do, because it is updated regularly and therefore more relevant than a newspaper which is printed.

Indeed, but others have.

I give up trying to make a point on here, it is like debating with walls.

[MK Chris]

I accept that not all newspapers print shit - but probably the only ones that don't are the so called Quality papers. And I haven't lashed out at them, merely said that I prefer TV and internet news - which I do, because it is updated regularly and therefore more relevant than a newspaper which is printed.

Indeed, but others have.

I give up trying to make a point on here, it is like debating with walls.

Ahem. Have I not conceded this:

The media (and particularly newspaper) industry is renowned for being sensationalist and if the others aren't printint shit about this, they normally are about something else.

This is absolutely ridiculous! That is like saying 'Westlife are renowned for making bad music, therefore all music must be bad'. Good grief.

No it's not. As Yudwuk says, certain newspapers are better. I quite like The Indepedent, but certainly most, if not all, of the tabloids are deserving of the reputation they have.

What's the point in having a debate if you're just going to stop when people don't agree - surely the point of a debate is that people have differing opinions.

[foot-loose]

I give up trying to make a point on here, it is like debating with walls.

How is this? I spent a bit of time posting that reply, it was relatively well thought out and had some worthwhile points whither or not you agree with them. As Topher says, the point of a debate is you take two people with different opinions and talk about them.

It sounds more like you can't come up with a decent argument against what has been said, so you are just going off in a huff.

[Ben from Leeds]

As a man with Polish relatives, I can easily interpret this as racist. What Moyles said, if I were Polish, would offend me. I think the joke was a bit strong for a breakfast show with so many listeners. If you (I'm referring to the Moyles defenders here) were Polish I'm almost certain you would be offended.

Saying that, I'm not Polish (well maybe a little bit). I'm English and it really doesn't offend me at all, but as I said before I can understand why Poles were offended.

As for the Daily Mail and the others, I don't see why they need get involved. My opinion is, if you're not Polish, stay out of the argument.

[MK Chris]

In my opinion if I were Polish I still wouldn't be offended. People joke about the English all the time, I'm not particularly fussed.

[Ben from Leeds]

On a publicly funded radio station?

I think not.

[Andy B]

Have you actually heard the show. I did. I remember it being close to the knuckle but as far as I remember he never actually said that the Polish make good prostitutes. He said prossies make good cleaners as do the Polish but never said that the poles make good ho's. That's why his comments are always edited. With the "..." bits.

I may be wrong but I remember thinking at the time he'd not actually said what it was everyone was thinking.

[Johnny 1989]

On a publicly funded radio station?

I think not.

But there's always jokes about the Welsh from time to time, & no one ever bats an eyelid when the French get slagged off either.

Trust me, some of the nasty jokes I've heard over the years, what Moyles said is really nothing.

[foot-loose]

The French don't have eyelids.