The Student Room Group

Please don't quote the Daily Mail or Daily Express

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Frank Underwood
It is false because Russia hasn't mobilised 150,000 soldiers for a ground fight against ISIS.

I don't need to quote a source or provide evidence to say that is false because no respected news source in the world has concurred with this claim.

Check any website, nothing will concur with 150,000 reservists being prepped for an all out ground battle against ISIS.


And in the sentence I quoted from the article, it failed to say 'reportedly'.


The Guardian is the only newspaper that is explicitly suggesting that the Tories aim to privatise the NHS (the mirror, independent and Huffington post just imply it). So given that no other news source has made this claim, is the Guardian correct?

How do you know its false? All I am asking, for the third time, is some evidence. I've even spelled it out earlier (although you'll have to find the links yourself, I'm not that kind).

And before you say "they haven't invaded since now and December" - that isn't a valid reason. It took the UK 5 months to train its reservists up to standard before the 2003 Iraq invasion. In 1939 the Times and Telegraph were saying that the USA was preparing for a war with Germany (USA didn't actually join the war till 1941). They haven't given a timeframe, you have assumed one.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AlwaysWatching
The Guardian is the only newspaper that is explicitly suggesting that the Tories aim to privatise the NHS (the mirror, independent and Huffington post just imply it). So given that no other news source has made this claim, is the Guardian correct?

How do you know its false? All I am asking, for the third time, is some evidence. I've even spelled it out earlier (although you'll have to find the links yourself, I'm not that kind).

And before you say "they haven't invaded since now and December" - that isn't a valid reason. It took the UK 5 months to train its reservists up to standard before the 2003 Iraq invasion, and in 1939 the Times and Telegraph were saying that the USA was preparing for a war with Germany (USA didn't actually join the war till 1941)


1. 'just imply' is as good as suggesting, that's basically the definition of implying

2. It is false because no other news source in the world has claimed that Russia is mobilising 150,000 soldiers to fight a ground battle against ISIS, instead we have the pro-UKIP, anti-refugee newspaper reporting it. There's reputation to consider as well, the Daily Express is extremely critical of the EU, of the tories, of anything that isn't UKIP, the Guardian is less extreme in this regard.

Not all stories apply to this, but when it comes to a massive foreign affairs claim, it is pretty safe to consider when ONE newspaper is reporting it, that it is unreliable
Original post by Frank Underwood
When you're trying to argue your points here, don't make the mistake of quoting one of these two pro-tory / UKIP, pro Putin predatory newspapers.

DO not use them as a source when discussing Middle East conflict, they are liars, plain and simple.

They make up anything for a story.

Look at these:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609757/Putin-ISIS-Islamic-State-Syria-Raqqa-troops-soldiers-air-strike-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/article-3447581/ISIS-executioner-beheaded-SAS-sniper-s-special-bullet-demonstrated-decapitate-prisoners.html

The Daily Mail makes up fine details for a story.


Oh, yes, but The Guardian is a completely truthful and honest, non-biased source of information.

All newspapers lie you biased leftist.
Pretty much agree with all the posters on the first page I haven't bothered reading the rest.

Major fail


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by similarBlank
Oh, yes, but The Guardian is a completely truthful and honest, non-biased source of information.

All newspapers lie you biased leftist.


Why are you being thick headed?

No newspaper is 100% honest, no newspaper is devoid of bias, but the extent to which the Guardian fulfils these things is massively greater than the extent reached by the Daily Express and the Daily Mail
Original post by Frank Underwood

2. It is false because no other news source in the world has claimed that Russia is mobilising 150,000 soldiers to fight a ground battle against ISIS, instead we have the pro-UKIP, anti-refugee newspaper reporting it. There's reputation to consider as well, the Daily Express is extremely critical of the EU, of the tories, of anything that isn't UKIP, the Guardian is less extreme in this regard.


The real reason you don't like these newspapers is so obvious. If you looked pass your own bias you would realise the majority of newspapers lie.
Original post by NickLCFC
The real reason you don't like these newspapers is so obvious. If you looked pass your own bias you would realise the majority of newspapers lie.


I don't like these newspapers because they make false claims which constitute to glorifying terrorism and Putin.
Original post by Frank Underwood
Why are you being thick headed?

No newspaper is 100% honest, no newspaper is devoid of bias, but the extent to which the Guardian fulfils these things is massively greater than the extent reached by the Daily Express and the Daily Mail


I disagree. I've seen the Guardian make up stories in favour of its left biased. It will try to spin literally ANYTHING in its favour. I don't have a problem with saying newspapers are biased, I have a problem with someone singling out all the right-wing newspapers when the left-wing newspapers are just as bad or worse.
Original post by similarBlank
I disagree. I've seen the Guardian make up stories in favour of its left biased. It will try to spin literally ANYTHING in its favour. I don't have a problem with saying newspapers are biased, I have a problem with someone singling out all the right-wing newspapers when the left-wing newspapers are just as bad or worse.


There's a difference because the Daily Express and Daily Mail focus on sensitive foreign affairs issues. They basically try to brainwash people into thinking that our government is doing nothing in Syria and that Putin is the only one helping, they also make ISIS out to be a massive threat.

This means that Islamophobia and fear of refugees in Europe increases, meaning there is greater tension and an atmosphere for extremism develops. Evidence of this is the popularity of Donald Trump in the US.


whereas the Guardian, maybe lies about some things, but it doesn't try to destabilise the social atmosphere in the EU and provoke attacks
Original post by Frank Underwood
I don't like these newspapers because they make false claims which constitute to glorifying terrorism and Putin.


Leftist newspapers (like the Guardian) consistently lied about the refugee crisis when global interest in the crisis was at its peak. I'm sure you didn't pick any of that up though because what they were lying about fit your political agenda.
Original post by Frank Underwood
1. 'just imply' is as good as suggesting, that's basically the definition of implying

2. It is false because no other news source in the world has claimed that Russia is mobilising 150,000 soldiers to fight a ground battle against ISIS, instead we have the pro-UKIP, anti-refugee newspaper reporting it. There's reputation to consider as well, the Daily Express is extremely critical of the EU, of the tories, of anything that isn't UKIP, the Guardian is less extreme in this regard.

Not all stories apply to this, but when it comes to a massive foreign affairs claim, it is pretty safe to consider when ONE newspaper is reporting it, that it is unreliable


Implying and explicitly saying are close, but not exactly the same. Implying is not a certain deduction, its an encouragement of one to think a certain why, but does have the possibility to be interpreted in a different way. "Saying" is a deduction with certainty and one of which there can be no alternative train of thought.

2) the mail has said it? (no other news source is not that good of an excuse)

I can't remember the case, but there was a paedophile ring once that only the mirror reported on, no other newspaper did. When they were proven to be paedophiles, all the other newspapers jumped on the story. It's called investigative journalism.

I don't know how many times I have to say this. It's a speculation, not a statement of fact. They aren't reporting that he will/ Is. They are speculating that he is preparing to. They have given reasons as to why they have this speculation that seem fairly logical. Now I know that although that speculation is likely to be misguided, given that I've actually looked at what these 150,000 actually did in December/January in hindsight, the express would not and had no way of actually knowing about this exercise (look up Russian snap exercises), so if I was reading this on 4 Dec, it would seem a pretty logical thing to speculate. But I am using hindsight given that I know now what actually occured.
Original post by NickLCFC
Leftist newspapers (like the Guardian) consistently lied about the refugee crisis when global interest in the crisis was at its peak. I'm sure you didn't pick any of that up though because what they were lying about fit your political agenda.


They weren't actively encouraging Islamophobia and hatred towards immigrants though. The press lies, but when their lies cause violence it is irresponsible.

Original post by AlwaysWatching
Implying and explicitly saying are close, but not exactly the same. Implying is not a certain deduction, its an encouragement of one to think a certain why, but does have the possibility to be interpreted in a different way. "Saying" is a deduction with certainty and one of which there can be no alternative train of thought.


2) the mail has said it? (no other news source is not that good of an excuse)

I can't remember the case, but there was a paedophile ring once that only the mirror reported on, no other newspaper did. When they were proven to be paedophiles, all the other newspapers jumped on the story. It's called investigative journalism.

I don't know how many times I have to say this. It's a speculation, not a statement of fact. They aren't reporting that he will/ Is. They are speculating that he is preparing to. They have given reasons as to why they have this speculation that seem fairly logical. Now I know that although that speculation is likely to be misguided, given that I've actually looked at what these 150,000 actually did in December/January in hindsight, the express would not and had no way of actually knowing about this exercise (look up Russian snap exercises), so if I was reading this on 4 Dec, it would seem a pretty logical thing to speculate. But I am using hindsight given that I know now what actually occured.


I've already quoted you the part of the article which makes a STATEMENT about what Putin is doing, it does not say 'reportedly' or 'supposedly', no, it is claiming that Putin is preparing 150,000 reservists for an attack against ISIS. If it said something like 'according to a source...' or 'reportedly' then I would agree, but it did not do that, and it is consequently glorifying Putin for things he isn't doing, when in reality he is killing the Syrians to support a regime which has a proven record of violating human rights and war crimes.
Original post by Frank Underwood
It is false because Russia hasn't mobilised 150,000 soldiers for a ground fight against ISIS.

I don't need to quote a source or provide evidence to say that is false because no respected news source in the world has concurred with this claim.

Check any website, nothing will concur with 150,000 reservists being prepped for an all out ground battle against ISIS.


And in the sentence I quoted from the article, it failed to say 'reportedly'.


The article has said repeatedly "according to sources" or "reportedly".

The line you are referring to:"Putin is set to mobilise 150,000 reservists who he conscripted into the military in September" is, although misleading, correct. He did mobilise them. He mobilised them for a large snap exercise in north Russia.

No other newspaper (other than the mail, Brebeit and a few other right wing websites) reporting it doesn't mean anything when it's a speculation. A logical one at that (if reading on the 4 December 2015). If they were stating it as fact, you would be correct since no other newspapers are concurring that Russia is invading Syria.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Frank Underwood




I've already quoted you the part of the article which makes a STATEMENT about what Putin is doing, it does not say 'reportedly' or 'supposedly', no, it is claiming that Putin is preparing 150,000 reservists for an attack against ISIS. If it said something like 'according to a source...' or 'reportedly' then I would agree, but it did not do that, and it is consequently glorifying Putin for things he isn't doing, when in reality he is killing the Syrians to support a regime which has a proven record of violating human rights and war crimes.


You took the quote out of context, and the express hasn't made that statement. The text you quoted said nothing about Syria, just reservist mobilisation, which is technically true. You have assumed they were talking about mobilised for Syria, because the article on the whole was about Syria, and the sentences above it were about reports" of troop preparation.

You need to actually read the article.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Frank Underwood
All newspapers are biased.

But they don't make up fictional stories like the Daily Mail and Daily Express do. I'm fine with right-wing bias, but when they forge stories for sales and when they show actual footage from terrorist propaganda, it is reckless.


Extreme confirmation bias detected.
Original post by Frank Underwood

This means that Islamophobia and fear of refugees in Europe increases, meaning there is greater tension and an atmosphere for extremism develops. Evidence of this is the popularity of Donald Trump in the US.


whereas the Guardian, maybe lies about some things, but it doesn't try to destabilise the social atmosphere in the EU and provoke attacks


Islamophobia - maybe anti-muslim sentiment instead? A phobia of Islam isn't irrational. Perhaps it isn't fearing Islam that makes people dislike the thought of mass migration of refugees but rather economic / social impacts etc? Honestly this is such a pointless discussion because it objectively amounts to nothing. Every newspaper has bias, you can't just single a few out and say "hur dur dur don't quote this bcuz I'm left wing n stuff". The Guardian has a whole host of issues like it peddling feminist BS like the "rape crisis" using inaccurate studies etc. There's nowhere to really draw the line on bias, just have to read the paper and figure out fact from opinion, although I appreciate that isn't always easy.
I have a lot of respect for Putin.

Spoiler

Original post by Frank Underwood
There's a difference because the Daily Express and Daily Mail focus on sensitive foreign affairs issues. They basically try to brainwash people into thinking that our government is doing nothing in Syria and that Putin is the only one helping, they also make ISIS out to be a massive threat.This means that Islamophobia and fear of refugees in Europe increases, meaning there is greater tension and an atmosphere for extremism develops. Evidence of this is the popularity of Donald Trump in the US.whereas the Guardian, maybe lies about some things, but it doesn't try to destabilise the social atmosphere in the EU and provoke attacks


No, you think the Guardian doesn't try to destabilise the social atmosphere, etc, because you support it. To me, the Guardian is the most vile and bigoted newspaper there is and the most destabilising. Saying the Guardian is good because it's not trying to destabilise the EU is like saying it's good that newspapers aren't allowed to criticise the government in North Korea otherwise it'd cause unstabilisation. (Of course, knowing the Guardian they probably do think that of their Communist comrades.) The Guardian supports the abolishing of the Monarchy. To me, that is provoking unstabilisation.

So what if Trump has risen? You know why? It's because of bigoted left-wingers screwing everyone over with their self righteous bull crap. When a Yin is created a Yang is also, and it is because of these ultra left-wing imbeciles that the ultra right-wing exist. You can not say one of these are bad without saying the other is and that's the only thing wrong you've done here. Until you say The Guardian should be banned as well as the Daily Express you are a bigot; intolerant of one side of views.

There is no difference so don't pretend there is.
Original post by similarBlank
No, you think the Guardian doesn't try to destabilise the social atmosphere, etc, because you support it. To me, the Guardian is the most vile and bigoted newspaper there is and the most destabilising. Saying the Guardian is good because it's not trying to destabilise the EU is like saying it's good that newspapers aren't allowed to criticise the government in North Korea otherwise it'd cause unstabilisation. (Of course, knowing the Guardian they probably do think that of their Communist comrades.) The Guardian supports the abolishing of the Monarchy. To me, that is provoking unstabilisation.

So what if Trump has risen? You know why? It's because of bigoted left-wingers screwing everyone over with their self righteous bull crap. When a Yin is created a Yang is also, and it is because of these ultra left-wing imbeciles that the ultra right-wing exist. You can not say one of these are bad without saying the other is and that's the only thing wrong you've done here. Until you say The Guardian should be banned as well as the Daily Express you are a bigot; intolerant of one side of views.

There is no difference so don't pretend there is.


This


Posted from TSR Mobile
Every single news outlet in the UK reported Roosh as being pro-rape.

So they ALL invent stories, evidently.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you