Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Please don't quote the Daily Mail or Daily Express watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    They make up anything for a story.

    Look at these:

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...-jets-military

    Downright lying about the situation. The Express glorifies Putin for stuff he ISN'T DOING in Syria.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...prisoners.html

    The Daily Mail makes up fine details for a story.
    I agree their quoted 'SAS source' can't be considered reliable but what's your source for proving that this story isn't true?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    They might be biased, like every single newspaper in the world, but they don't make up stories.
    Which story is "made up"? What are you referring to?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    Why is your opinion anymore valid than the opinion of the mail and express anyway?
    Because their opinions indirectly glorify terrorist groups which contributes to scaremongering, and they increase Islamophobia and affect the way we see migrants in a bad way.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NickLCFC)
    I agree their quoted 'SAS source' can't be considered reliable but what's your source for proving that this story isn't true?
    I didn't say it wasn't true I said that parts of it weren't true, hence 'makes up fine details of a story'.


    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    Which story is "made up"? What are you referring to?
    Try the first link, the 'story' that Russia is supposedly sending 150,000 soldiers to Syria.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    They might be biased, like every single newspaper in the world, but they don't make up stories.
    yeah...and the other two literally just come up with whatever whenever...
    You might wanna quit while you're ahead given that you cant differentiate between putting a spin on a story and outright inventing something...
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Also,lol at the guardian reporting on "facts"...their entire newspaper is 70% opinion pieces convuluted in self-righteousness...just...stop.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    Because their opinions indirectly glorify terrorist groups which contributes to scaremongering, and they increase Islamophobia and affect the way we see migrants in a bad way.
    That's not an explanation as to why your opinion is more valid than theirs. It's an explanation as to why you disagree with their opinion, which isn't an answer to the question I asked.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    They might be biased, like every single newspaper in the world, but they don't make up stories.
    No, they just ignore stuff that doesn't fit with their agenda.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by P357)
    yeah...and the other two literally just come up with whatever whenever...
    You might wanna quit while you're ahead given that you cant differentiate between putting a spin on a story and outright inventing something...
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Also,lol at the guardian reporting on "facts"...their entire newspaper is 70% opinion pieces convuluted in self-righteousness...just...stop.
    You don't understand what you're talking about. There is nothing wrong with opinions and bias.

    The problem is when newspapers make up stories for no good reason, which then contribute to glorifying ISIS and increasing Islamophobia. The Independent and Guardian are careful about what they say, whereas the Daily Express and Mail have no filter whatsoever.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    I didn't say it wasn't true I said that parts of it weren't true, hence 'makes up fine details of a story'.
    What's your source that parts of it weren't true? You're just as unreliable as the Daily Mail or Daily Express if all you can give me is your own word.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    That's not an explanation as to why your opinion is more valid than theirs. It's an explanation as to why you disagree with their opinion, which isn't an answer to the question I asked.
    Go away if you're going to derail this by bringing up opinion validity for no good reason.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "pro-tory / UKIP, pro Putin predatory newspapers."

    Hahahahahahahah.

    No.

    The DM is definitely not pro UKIP. The commenters might be, but 9/10 times DM is normally bashing UKIP.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NickLCFC)
    What's your source that parts of it weren't true? You're just as unreliable as the Daily Mail or Daily Express if all you can give me is your own word.
    At least my word doesn't glorify Putin for stuff he isn't doing in Syria, and it doesn't cause mass Islamophobia for the brain dead readers of these newspapers.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DingdongJR)
    "pro-tory / UKIP, pro Putin predatory newspapers."

    Hahahahahahahah.

    No.

    The DM is definitely not pro UKIP. The commenters might be, but 9/10 times DM is normally bashing UKIP.
    Daily Express = pro UKIP

    Daily Mail = pro tory

    Hence why I said pro-tory / pro-UKIP, open your mind up please
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    At least my word doesn't glorify Putin for stuff he isn't doing in Syria, and it doesn't cause mass Islamophobia for the brain dead readers of these newspapers.
    Do you have any evidence of them glorifying stuff Putin ISN'T doing in Syria? Also 'Islamophobia' is a stupid word.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=3898323
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    You don't understand what you're talking about. There is nothing wrong with opinions and bias.

    The problem is when newspapers make up stories for no good reason, which then contribute to glorifying ISIS and increasing Islamophobia. The Independent and Guardian are careful about what they say, whereas the Daily Express and Mail have no filter whatsoever.
    read that bit in bold again...50 times over...out loud if you must...
    Having no filter=/= inventing
    Being careful with what they say=/= factually reliable.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    p.s. the guardian is only careful with what they say in relation to what the left-wing perceives as "vulnerable groups"(i.e. minorities)...you shan't get the same "care" and sensitivity with "man spreading"
    pps :no such thing as islamaphobia...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    .




    Try the first link, the 'story' that Russia is supposedly sending 150,000 soldiers to Syria.
    Key word: "supposedly".

    The Russian leader is reportedly mounting an enormous military mission to take control of the terror group's stronghold of Raqqa.

    So the express isn't saying that Russia is or has, it's saying it might and might be making moves to do so. There are reports of him doing so.

    Putin is set to mobilise 150,000 reservists who he conscripted into the military in September

    The above is the basis for making that assumption, along with Russian airstrikes and special forces operatives that are already in Syria. (Putin did draft 150,000 reservists btw) So that assumption could be correct. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it wont ever.

    Try reading.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The Times is probably the least biased mainstream paper, but it only really has a premium online service. For all its faults, the metro is probably the next best.

    LOL @ people who say use the guardian, may as well use Breitbart if you're going to be like that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NickLCFC)
    Do you have any evidence of them glorifying stuff Putin ISN'T doing in Syria? Also 'Islamophobia' is a stupid word.

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=3898323
    I'm not going to argue with someone who says Islamophobia is a stupid word, and someone who is demanding evidence and sources for no good reason.

    (Original post by P357)
    read that bit in bold again...50 times over...out loud if you must...

    Having no filter=/= inventing
    Being careful with what they say=/= factually reliable.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    p.s. the guardian is only careful with what they say in relation to what the left-wing perceives as "vulnerable groups"(i.e. minorities)...you shan't get the same "care" and sensitivity with "man spreading"
    pps :no such thing as islamaphobia...
    Okay, let's flip the scenario. What if my OP just condemned these two newspapers as unreliable? And I didn't mention any credible ones? The scenario doesn't change, you see. They are still more unreliable newspapers regardless of whether or not I bring up the others. So quit attacking them, they are more reliable, that is a fact.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    Go away if you're going to derail this by bringing up opinion validity for no good reason.
    Erm no, the whole basis for this thread is that you believe that 1) the express/ mail make up every single story and nothing of what they report is ever true/ ever happened and 2) your opinion is more valid than theirs.

    I am challenging you. You'd think somebody who seems to be perfectly fine challenging other people's opinions and disregarding them so casually would be at ease at having his own opinions challenged. Evidently not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    Key word: "supposedly".

    The Russian leader is reportedly mounting an enormous military mission to take control of the terror group's stronghold of Raqqa.

    So the express isn't saying that Russia is or has, it's saying it might and might be making moves to do so.

    Putin is set to mobilise 150,000 reservists who he conscripted into the military in September

    The above is the basis for making that assumption, along with Russian airstrikes and special forces operatives that are already in Syria. (Putin did draft 150,000 reservists btw) So that assumption could be correct. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it wont ever.

    Try reading.
    You're not actually defending that article are you? It just told its viewers that Putin was preparing to send 150,000 soldiers into Syria to wipe out ISIS, when in reality he is bombing anyone who opposes the Assad regime, thereby glorifying Putin for stuff he isn't doing and increasing his influence over the west, when he is responsible for catalysing the destabilising of the EU due to the migrant crisis.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.