Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

Daily Mail isn't always lying.

Tabloids print rumours. Unverified rumours. That's why they're often called gossip-magazines. Yes, sometimes rumours are true. But rumours are wrong so often, that its hard to see what we should do with the information.

People just like gossiping. That's a feature of our species. We like a good story. We like the fun of gossiping, because it straddles reality and fiction. Its fun to speculate on how much of a tabloid article is true. Tabloid articles isn't even fake news, because, at no point, have they tried pretending it's real news. Tabloids are great for pinpointing general attitudes in a society. They lay bare our fears, hopes and dreams. But it's still not news.

Tabloids typically hire writers who are famous for writing well, rather than famous investigative journalists.

 

[angelo]

Troops on the streets of London;



DailyMail

As the mayor of London glibly stated, this is just part and parcel of living in a big city.

... during an election campaign where the incumbent party is known to gain from displays of power and authority.



Seriously, what exactly are these soldiers achieving, other than ensuring that the government is seen to be doing something?

What are they achieving? How about the safety of the population from Muslim extremists?

 

[bilby]

... during an election campaign where the incumbent party is known to gain from displays of power and authority.



Seriously, what exactly are these soldiers achieving, other than ensuring that the government is seen to be doing something?

What are they achieving? How about the safety of the population from Muslim extremists?

How is that being achieved?

Are suicide bombers scared that they might get killed?

Are the police going to shoot the shrapnel out of the air after a bomb is detonated?

Are they equipped with devices to detect concealed explosives?

The police themselves refer to this activity as 'reassurance patrols'.

The only thing that they are doing is being seen, so as to reassure the hard-of-thinking that something is being done. Apparently, it works.

In fact, the presence of more armed police on the streets of the UK reduces the safety of the general public. Not once has such a patrol arrested or killed a person who turned out to be an actual terrorist; but as Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes would tell you, there have been instances when they have killed innocent civilians. Well, he would tell you, if he was still alive.

 

[DrZoidberg]

TWissle seems only capable of communicating by neg reping me. But there's no need to keep the "conversation" private.

Portraying sensationalist click-bait rumours as if they were true is lying. And to answer the question "how do you know that it's sensationalist click-bait rumours?" Because it's a tabloid. It's regrettable that he made it so far in life without understanding what a tabloid is. But now he knows, and everybody who has at some point looked the word up.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What are they achieving? How about the safety of the population from Muslim extremists?

How is that being achieved?

Are suicide bombers scared that they might get killed?

Are the police going to shoot the shrapnel out of the air after a bomb is detonated?

Are they equipped with devices to detect concealed explosives?

The police themselves refer to this activity as 'reassurance patrols'.

The only thing that they are doing is being seen, so as to reassure the hard-of-thinking that something is being done. Apparently, it works.

In fact, the presence of more armed police on the streets of the UK reduces the safety of the general public. Not once has such a patrol arrested or killed a person who turned out to be an actual terrorist; but as Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes would tell you, there have been instances when they have killed innocent civilians. Well, he would tell you, if he was still alive.

Anyone who goes to fight for ISIS or others of their ilk, should not be permitted to re enter and their passports revoked. Also question asylum seekers who start returning home for holidays after gaining citizenship.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nope. Not once have you shown anything I have posted from the Daily Mail is "bullshit". Was the Daily Mail talking bullshit when it was one of the few outlets that actually covered the muslim grooming gangs and the cover up by local authorities ?

If somebody says 99 lies and 1 true thing doesn't make them honest. No matter what they say, we will have every reason to distrust them. That will always be the case with the Daily Mail. And I'm willing to bet that this coverage of it was sensationalistic and blown out of all proportion. And why do I know that? Because it's a tabloid.

I've shown that the Daily Mail is bullshit over and over. But I don't really have to. The Daily Mail admits it. It's a tabloid.

I think there's no question that you've been fully informed of what kind of a publication the Daily Mail is. So you can't continue to claim ignorance. If you chose to trust a publication you know is not telling the truth, then you are lying to yourself. If you keep posting Daily Mail links as if they are true I'm going to keep calling you a liar and dishonest, because you will be, and you know you are.

You did something stupid. You got burned. Continuing to claim that you were right all along, just makes you look all the more foolish. How about quitting with this childish nonsense and have a constructive conversation?

edit: The Daily Mail aren't really lying, because they haven't claimed to be honest.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Interesting comments from Muslim girl

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im6CD9yoF50[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Bomb#20]

We're not arguing over whether the Daily Mail is a real newspaper. We're arguing over your groundless and almost certainly false accusation against TSwizzle. You didn't just say the article he posted was make believe. You claimed that he knew it was make believe. You have no grounds for thinking he knows it's make believe. Whether the Daily Mail is a real newspaper has no bearing on whether he knows it's make believe. You accused him of dishonesty, and you did it because you are a person who just makes stuff up. You ought not to have done that. You owe him an apology. Deal with it.

He has been shown over and over that Daily Mail only publishes <expletive deleted>. Everybody here has.

No, he hasn't. Nobody here has been shown this. You just made that up. Evidence follows.

Exhibit A:

Daily Mail isn't always lying.

Exhibit B:

Daily Mail isn't always lying.

Of course it isn't.
It just does so so frequently and unabashedly as to render it valueless as a source.

Exhibit C:

It's worse than false; It's unreliable.

If the Mail were reliably false, then we could find the truth by simply believing the opposite of everything they print.

Second this. There's a reason it's called the Daily Fail.

We have three forum participants testifying that some of what's in the Daily Mail is true. Either all three have been shown over and over that Daily Mail only publishes BS and all three are lying about it or too stupid to understand what they've been shown, or else you were making a false claim. Clearly the latter is far more probable. So what's the source of your false claim? Are you innocently repeating an error your Wikipedia article made? No, because inspection of your link reveals that Wikipedia didn't claim the Daily Mail only publishes BS. Wikipedia, in fact, claims the Daily Mail has won several British Press Awards. If you had a source backing up your claims better than Wikipedia does, you'd probably have linked to it instead. So it's a very safe bet that when you said TSwizzle has been shown over and over that Daily Mail only publishes BS, you just made that up.

Yet he persists spreading their lies. Knowingly spreading lies, trying to pass it off as truth is being dishonest. In what way to I owe him an apology?

You owe him an apology because you say he's knowingly spreading their lies, and that's something you just made up about him. It's not something you have any intellectually honest reason for believing about him.

In the first place, even if it were true that the DM only publishes BS, and even if it were true that you've shown him that over and over, that doesn't imply that he's knowingly spreading their lies. To assume it implies this is to ignore the possibility that TSwizzle simply didn't believe what you told him. He might have instead assumed you are an unreliable source. Analogously, lots of people have told me God is real; but that doesn't mean I'm knowingly spreading lies when I say God is a fairy tale; it just means I think the people who told me He's real were ignorant fools. Do you agree with my reasoning on that point or do you think I'm knowingly spreading lies when I say God is a fairy tale?

It looks to me like TSwizzle thinks you're an ignorant fool. Considering how many false claims you've posted that you demonstrably just made up, I'm inclined to suspect he's right. Why the heck should anyone take your word for anything?

In the second place, it simply isn't true that tabloids in general or the Daily Mail in particular only publish BS. The DM is a mix of BS, sensationalized but still true stories, workmanlike real journalism, and award-winning high-quality journalism. You have exhibited no evidence that TSwizzle doesn't sincerely think the specific articles he's posted were examples of the latter categories.

And in the third place, like much of what you write, your stated reasons for accusing him are a web of self-contradictory nonsense.

Exhibit D:

Portraying sensationalist click-bait rumours as if they were true is lying. And to answer the question "how do you know that it's sensationalist click-bait rumours?" Because it's a tabloid. It's regrettable that he made it so far in life without understanding what a tabloid is. But now he knows, and everybody who has at some point looked the word up.

Exhibit E:

The Daily Mail is a British daily middle-market[2][3] tabloid newspaper owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust[4] and published in London.

Do you even know what a tabloid is?

Here's that link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid_(newspaper_format)

You don't seem to understand what kind of a magazine a tabloid is, or what a tabloid tries to do. It's just entertainment. They're not even trying to tell the truth. That's true for all tabloids. If they have ambitions to tell the truth or deliver nuanced pieces they wouldn't call themselves a tabloid.

Posting tabloid articles and behaving as if the content is true, is failing to grasp what a tabloid is.

So your argument that TSwizzle was lying relies on the premise that he grasped what a tabloid is, even though you stipulate that he fails to grasp what a tabloid is.

I think you've failed to show that I make stuff up. If this is the best you can do, it's clear you have nothing. And you tried really really hard. Points for effort.

Oh for the love of god. I have documented case after case of you making stuff up; and you've quoted some of them back to me. Do you deny writing this?

"Nobody got hurt! Nobody."​

I assume you won't deny writing it. If you're going to insist nonetheless that you didn't make it up, then by all means, tell us where you got the claim from. Post us a link to any published article on the riot that says nobody got hurt.

Did you or did you not read the report that said this?

"A number of other injuries were reported, including a shopkeeper. A photographer from Dagens Nyheter said he was assaulted by a group of people when arriving to report on the unrest and spent the night in hospital."​

edit: btw, trying to misrepresent what I've said is dishonest. So where my apology from you

What grounds do you have for accusing me of trying to misrepresent you? Quoting you making a fool of yourself is not a misrepresentation. You're calling me dishonest. That's something you just made up.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In the second place, it simply isn't true that tabloids in general or the Daily Mail in particular only publish BS. The DM is a mix of BS, sensationalized but still true stories, workmanlike real journalism, and award-winning high-quality journalism. You have exhibited no evidence that TSwizzle doesn't sincerely think the specific articles he's posted were examples of the latter categories.

Of course a tabloid can win awards for being a good tabloid. Tabloids can even get scoops. Which is cool, and a great service to mankind. But they're still never going to attempt nuanced reporting, or try giving an accurate account of anything. It will never happen. Why do I know that? Because that's what they've told the world they're doing.

Calling a paper a tabloid isn't a slur or an insult to a publication. Being a tabloid is a popular, recognised and valued market niche. Tabloid journalism has a long tradition. There's rules to it. The journalists writing for tabloids follow those rules, and the readers are supposed to understand that the journalists are stretching the truth when reading it. When you read tabloids you need to be aware of this or you'll get a warped sense of reality.

Tabloids exist because people like reading that style of journalism. Still doesn't make it honest reporting. That's not what tabloid readers are paying for, and obviously not what they want. People get what they pay for. If they want to read sensational stories on the fringe of truth there will be newspapers providing it. The fact that people are buying tabloids doesn't magically make it honest reporting.

Anyhoo... the quoted bit tells me that you've understood the problem. I hope it will eventually sink in, and why DM will never be a reliable source with which to support a claim.

 

[whichphilosophy]

In the second place, it simply isn't true that tabloids in general or the Daily Mail in particular only publish BS. The DM is a mix of BS, sensationalized but still true stories, workmanlike real journalism, and award-winning high-quality journalism. You have exhibited no evidence that TSwizzle doesn't sincerely think the specific articles he's posted were examples of the latter categories.

Of course a tabloid can win awards for being a good tabloid. Tabloids can even get scoops. Which is cool, and a great service to mankind. But they're still never going to attempt nuanced reporting, or try giving an accurate account of anything. It will never happen. Why do I know that? Because that's what they've told the world they're doing.

Calling a paper a tabloid isn't a slur or an insult to a publication. Being a tabloid is a popular, recognised and valued market niche. Tabloid journalism has a long tradition. There's rules to it. The journalists writing for tabloids follow those rules, and the readers are supposed to understand that the journalists are stretching the truth when reading it. When you read tabloids you need to be aware of this or you'll get a warped sense of reality.

Tabloids exist because people like reading that style of journalism. Still doesn't make it honest reporting. That's not what tabloid readers are paying for, and obviously not what they want. People get what they pay for. If they want to read sensational stories on the fringe of truth there will be newspapers providing it. The fact that people are buying tabloids doesn't magically make it honest reporting.

Anyhoo... the quoted bit tells me that you've understood the problem. I hope it will eventually sink in, and why DM will never be a reliable source with which to support a claim.

Tabloids are Tabloids and in their own groups pass round awards for investigative journalism, but sometimes really bottom-feeding.

 

[angelo]

Read The Daily Mail as you would most papers. Where there's smoke there's fire. Besides, show me a newspaper journalist who isn't biased and I'll show you an honest catholic priest.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Read The Daily Mail as you would most papers. Where there's smoke there's fire. Besides, show me a newspaper journalist who isn't biased and I'll show you an honest catholic priest.

You can't compare them for honesty. A tabloid tries to be a tabloid. A more serious newspaper tries to be a serious newspaper. It's completely different products. The Daily Mail will always be untrustworthy. Their articles may be food for thought. But you can never trust what they write. Of course it's good to have a sceptical attitude when reading newspapers. But newspapers have track records. We have a fair idea of how trustworthy different papers are. Daily Mail, not so much.

No, you don't need a fire for smoke for an article. All you need is preconceptions and fears. Tabloid journalism constantly plays on people's fears. That's been a large chunk of their income all along. If tabloid articles were accurate we'd have had Armageddon a thousand times over already. In tabloid land crime is constantly on the rise, while this rise is somehow always absent in crime statistics. People's fears are often completely irrational.

Every minor mistake in the New York Times is a big deal. All out lies in the Daily Mail is expected.

 

[blastula]

Daily Mail isn't always lying.

Tabloids print rumours. Unverified rumours. That's why they're often called gossip-magazines. Yes, sometimes rumours are true. But rumours are wrong so often, that its hard to see what we should do with the information.

People just like gossiping. That's a feature of our species. We like a good story. We like the fun of gossiping, because it straddles reality and fiction. Its fun to speculate on how much of a tabloid article is true. Tabloid articles isn't even fake news, because, at no point, have they tried pretending it's real news. Tabloids are great for pinpointing general attitudes in a society. They lay bare our fears, hopes and dreams. But it's still not news.

Tabloids typically hire writers who are famous for writing well, rather than famous investigative journalists.

Where specifically was the Daily Mail false in the article on the riot?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Tabloids print rumours. Unverified rumours. That's why they're often called gossip-magazines. Yes, sometimes rumours are true. But rumours are wrong so often, that its hard to see what we should do with the information.

People just like gossiping. That's a feature of our species. We like a good story. We like the fun of gossiping, because it straddles reality and fiction. Its fun to speculate on how much of a tabloid article is true. Tabloid articles isn't even fake news, because, at no point, have they tried pretending it's real news. Tabloids are great for pinpointing general attitudes in a society. They lay bare our fears, hopes and dreams. But it's still not news.

Tabloids typically hire writers who are famous for writing well, rather than famous investigative journalists.

Where specifically was the Daily Mail false in the article on the riot?

They misrepresented what happened. They made minor incidents into something it wasn't. We've discussed three different Swedish riots here. So I'm not sure which one you're thinking of specifically. But they misrepresented all of them. As tabloids do.

edit: In the last Rinkeby riot the source for the Daily Mail article was a Swedish tabloid (Aftonbladet). A tabloid is a tabloid everywhere. I wonder why they didn't use a more trustworthy source?

 

[angelo]

Where specifically was the Daily Mail false in the article on the riot?

They misrepresented what happened. They made minor incidents into something it wasn't. We've discussed three different Swedish riots here. So I'm not sure which one you're thinking of specifically. But they misrepresented all of them. As tabloids do.

edit: In the last Rinkeby riot the source for the Daily Mail article was a Swedish tabloid (Aftonbladet). A tabloid is a tabloid everywhere. I wonder why they didn't use a more trustworthy source?

Three Swedish riots! I'll bet my right knacker all three were caused by the religion of peace!

 

[DrZoidberg]

They misrepresented what happened. They made minor incidents into something it wasn't. We've discussed three different Swedish riots here. So I'm not sure which one you're thinking of specifically. But they misrepresented all of them. As tabloids do.

edit: In the last Rinkeby riot the source for the Daily Mail article was a Swedish tabloid (Aftonbladet). A tabloid is a tabloid everywhere. I wonder why they didn't use a more trustworthy source?

Three Swedish riots! I'll bet my right knacker all three were caused by the religion of peace!

One riot and two "riots". Only the one in Husby in 2013 had any magnitude to it.

You'd have to work really hard and be very very creative to find a trace of religion in any of these. The culprits in all these riots were children. They're more likely to have been influence by Star Wars or Grand Theft Auto than Mohammed.

I don't know about over where you live, but over here children do dumb shit. All the time. It's not until they grow up and are still rioting that I think we need to worry. At this point I think we just need to give these kids a stern talking to. I doubt they'll do it again. Not those kids at least. But every new generation will have it's idiots.

Even the one in Husby was pretty tame compared to the kind of riots we regularly find in France, England or USA. Or what happens after any major sports event. If the same things had happned in most other places in the world I highly doubt it would have made it into the news.

edit: every couple of years we get a riot in Brixton. This is a riot.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13015934

Or compare it to the 1992 Los Angels riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

It took the police a week to sort that out, with widespread destruction and looting.

The Husby one took a day for the Swedish police to put a lid on. And then a couple of more days to calm down the generally jittery atmostphere among kids around the country. The spark for this one was the police accidentally shooting a 68-year old Portugeuse man, ie police brutality. They haven't released many details about the man. But I'd say it's highly unlikely he was anything but Catholic or an atheist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Stockholm_riots

 

[Bomb#20]

Tabloids are Tabloids and in their own groups pass round awards for investigative journalism, but sometimes really bottom-feeding.

No doubt; but the British Press Awards does not appear to be just a group of tabloids giving awards to tabloids.

National Newspaper of the Year

1993 The Daily Telegraph[22]
1994 Daily Mail[22]
1995 Daily Mail[22]
1996 The Daily Telegraph[22]
1997 Daily Mail[22]
1998 The Guardian[22]
1999 The Sunday Telegraph[22]
2000 Daily Mail[23]
2001 The Daily Mirror[23]
2002 Daily Mail[23]
2003 The Independent[23]
2004 News of the World[23]
2005 The Guardian[23]
2006 The Observer[23] (see British Press Awards 2006)
2007 Financial Times[23]
2008 The Times[23]
2009 The Daily Telegraph[24]
2010 The Guardian[25]
2011 The Daily Mail[26]
2012 The Times[27]
2013 The Guardian[28]
2014 The Times[29]
2015 The Mail on Sunday [30]
2016 The Daily Mail [31]

 

[blastula]

Where specifically was the Daily Mail false in the article on the riot?

They misrepresented what happened. They made minor incidents into something it wasn't. We've discussed three different Swedish riots here. So I'm not sure which one you're thinking of specifically. But they misrepresented all of them. As tabloids do.

edit: In the last Rinkeby riot the source for the Daily Mail article was a Swedish tabloid (Aftonbladet). A tabloid is a tabloid everywhere. I wonder why they didn't use a more trustworthy source?

Riots in the Stockholm suburb Trump mentioned in speech | Daily Mail Online

That is the Daily Mail article about a riot mentioned here.

What specifically did they report that was false?

 

[Bomb#20]

In the second place, it simply isn't true that tabloids in general or the Daily Mail in particular only publish BS. The DM is a mix of BS, sensationalized but still true stories, workmanlike real journalism, and award-winning high-quality journalism. You have exhibited no evidence that TSwizzle doesn't sincerely think the specific articles he's posted were examples of the latter categories.

<Yet another red herring on the qualities of tabloids snipped>

Anyhoo... the quoted bit tells me that you've understood the problem. I hope it will eventually sink in, and why DM will never be a reliable source with which to support a claim.

Excuse me? "Sink in"?!? Quote me citing the DM as a source for a claim. Yet again you are talking as though the topic in dispute is the DM's merit. I disproved your false claim about the DM not to defend it but rather as a lemma in a refutation of your anti-TSwizzle libel.

Feel free to lecture TSwizzle to your heart's content about the unwisdom of his habitually using DM articles as sources for his claims. But the fact that he evidently does not share your contempt for the DM does not entitle you to call him a liar.

 

[LordKiran]

Tabloids are Tabloids and in their own groups pass round awards for investigative journalism, but sometimes really bottom-feeding.

No doubt; but the British Press Awards does not appear to be just a group of tabloids giving awards to tabloids.

National Newspaper of the Year

1993 The Daily Telegraph[22]
1994 Daily Mail[22]
1995 Daily Mail[22]
1996 The Daily Telegraph[22]
1997 Daily Mail[22]
1998 The Guardian[22]
1999 The Sunday Telegraph[22]
2000 Daily Mail[23]
2001 The Daily Mirror[23]
2002 Daily Mail[23]
2003 The Independent[23]
2004 News of the World[23]
2005 The Guardian[23]
2006 The Observer[23] (see British Press Awards 2006)
2007 Financial Times[23]
2008 The Times[23]
2009 The Daily Telegraph[24]
2010 The Guardian[25]
2011 The Daily Mail[26]
2012 The Times[27]
2013 The Guardian[28]
2014 The Times[29]
2015 The Mail on Sunday [30]
2016 The Daily Mail [31]

Yeah and the Nobel peace prize doesn't appear to be an award they just hand out to whomever happens to be hot at the moment, does it?

Accolades don't honestly mean very much in this day and age where anyone can hand out some meaningless prize and make a big PR deal over it.