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

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    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.
    When are you going to make your point? Just say it, you're lucky I'm actually responding to you.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    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.
    First of all, if you actually read the thread I linked you would realise why I think Islamophobia is a stupid word. Let me summarise it for you: the word shuts down any criticism of Islam and an ideology (like a religion) should be allowed to be openly criticised. Also, I'm demanding evidence and sources because you're making claims that these newspapers are "glorifying Putin for stuff he isn't doing in Syria" without even giving an example. That's a perfectly good reason to demand evidence.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NickLCFC)
    First of all, if you actually read the thread I linked you would realise why I think Islamophobia is a stupid word. Let me summarise it for you: the word shuts down any criticism of Islam and an ideology (like a religion) should be allowed to be openly criticised. Also, I'm demanding evidence and sources because you're making claims that these newspapers are "glorifying Putin for stuff he isn't doing in Syria" without even giving an example. That's a perfectly good reason to demand evidence.
    The example of glorifying Putin for stuff he isn't doing is in the OP. First link, I assumed you actually read my post, I'm guessing I overlooked that.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    The example of glorifying Putin for stuff he isn't doing is in the OP. First link, I assumed you actually read my post, I'm guessing I overlooked that.
    There's no glorification and the story is speculation and rumours; something that isn't exclusive to the Daily Express. All newspapers do it. You need to look pass your own bias.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    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.
    No I don't have an opinion as regards to the article. I am critiquing you (and the paper) in terms of grammar and literacy intent, and so far the express is winning.

    Whether Putin actually is/ might/ isn't preparing for a ground invasion is irrelevant when we are discussing the implied meaning of the paper.

    The paper is saying he is reportedly gearing up to invade Syria. Not is/ will/ has. It has also brought sources such as the call up of reservists (true) airstrikes (true) and special forces operating inside Syria (true).

    So from the above evidence, they have deduced that Putin might be getting ready to commit ground troops. It would be lying to say that he is, has or will. But that's not what they are saying.

    It's their opinion that from those three factors Putin could be/ reportedly is getting ready. You might not agree with that, but that doesn't make your opinion any more valid than theirs.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    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.



    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.
    yeaaaaaaah...no.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    btw,what are you 16?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NickLCFC)
    There's no glorification and the story is speculation and rumours; something that isn't exclusive to the Daily Express. All newspapers do it.
    Yes there is, it is informing readers that Russia is taking action in Syria against ISIS. When in fact it is taking action against anyone who opposed Assad's regime.

    Just look in the comments section of that article and you'll see the damage it is doing, people supporting Putin for destroying lives in Syria. This parasitic newspaper is reducing its readers to blind Putins supporters.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    When are you going to make your point? Just say it, you're lucky I'm actually responding to you.
    I'm waiting for you to link me one of these invented fictitious stories. (Not a story that is true, but has a political slant that you disagree with and think is wrong)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is why i use breitbart, the most unbiased, truthful news outlet there is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    No I don't have an opinion as regards to the article. I am critiquing you (and the paper) in terms of grammar and literacy intent, and so far the express is winning.

    Whether Putin actually is/ might/ isn't preparing for a ground invasion is irrelevant when we are discussing the implied meaning of the paper.

    The paper is saying he is reportedly gearing up to invade Syria. Not is/ will/ has. It has also brought sources such as the call up of reservists (true) airstrikes (true) and special forces operating inside Syria (true).

    So from the above evidence, they have deduced that Putin might be getting ready to commit ground troops. It would be lying to say that he is, has or will. But that's not what they are saying.

    It's their opinion that from those three factors Putin could be/ reportedly is getting ready. You might not agree with that, but that doesn't make your opinion any more valid than theirs.
    They are making false claims, simple as that. They will quote almost anyone and present them as a reliable source, that's their issue.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    I'm waiting for you to link me one of these invented fictitious stories. (Not a story that is true, but has a political slant that you disagree with and think is wrong)
    Check the first link in the OP. It is a fiction that Putin is sending 150,000 soldiers to fight ISIS.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Can I point out that when the story about the Pakistani rape gangs operating across the country had the whole of fleet. Street ignoring the parents and local councillors trying to bring it out into the public the DM was one of the first to acknowledge what was going on. Better late than never. At the time they were being slated by the left for being racist, islamophobic liars. The Guardian looked the other way until it was undeniable.
    Fast forward to the Toulouse slaughter and while everyonevheld their hand in the hours after it( even though everyone knew it was very likely to be islamists) to give the police a chance to make intial findings, the Guardian, so desperate to deflect, ran a piece blaming the right wing in France. To the best of my knowledge they have never apologised for this.
    They are the two cheeks of the same arse. Just each cheek is looking in the opposite direction. The difference being the DM doesn't claim sanctimoniously to be whiter than white, most people know what they are getting when they read it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    They are making false claims, simple as that. They will quote almost anyone and present them as a reliable source, that's their issue.
    I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "false claim".

    What have they claimed exactly? Saying that calling up reservists, increased airstrikes and the use of special forces might be preparation for a ground invasion is not a "false claim". It's actually rather logical to follow on that line of thought.

    What is a false claim is saying that Russia will invade. Which the paper has not said.

    They are being far more valid than you, who has not provided any reasoning as to why those three factors are not signals for a ground invasion. So again, so far the express is winning.

    Now I could if I so wished, argued against the express, pointing to an large exercise in northern Russia that used those reservists, the use of the revolutionary guards by Iran (and Hezbollah) that means that Russian conscripts aren't needed, and the fact that Putin can't afford to commit troops financially to suggest that there are no preparations for an invasion. But you haven't done so, so again the express is still more valid than you who has not actually provided a reason as to why there are no preparations.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "false claim".

    What have they claimed exactly? Saying that calling up reservists, increased airstrikes and the use of special forces might be preparation for a ground invasion is not a "false claim". It's actually rather logical to follow on that line of thought.

    What is a false claim is saying that Russia will invade. Which the paper has not said.

    They are being far more valid than you, who has not provided any reasoning as to why those three factors are not signals for a ground invasion. So again, so far the express is winning.

    Now I could if I so wished, argued against the express, pointing to an large exercise in northern Russia that used those reservists, the use of the revolutionary guards by Iran (and Hezbollah) that means that Russian conscripts aren't needed, and the fact that Putin can't afford to commit troops financially to suggest that there are no preparations for an invasion. But you haven't done so, so again the express is still more valid than you who has not actually provided a reason as to why there are no preparations.
    The article says that Putin is preparing to send 150,000 soldiers to eradicate ISIS.

    False claim.

    Simple as that.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by earthworm)
    Because they are left bias.. So just the times, metro and beeb then?
    The Metro isn't journalism, it's a fantasy comic book for bored commuters
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    Check the first link in the OP. It is a fiction that Putin is sending 150,000 soldiers to fight ISIS.
    You need to read the article again.

    Anyway, suppose I'm completely wrong and even though I've read through it several times and pointed out your error and where you have misread and used assumptions, I'm still talking out my arse. Is one "incorrect" article the basis for disregarding every single story ever done by that paper on every single subject? Because if so, then the guardian, telegraph, times, bbc, sky news etc etc are all guilty too and I could link you stories that are factually incorrect (and not simply articles that have a political stance I disagree with).

    Your OP is stupid. Argue against the articles political slant, but don't be stupid about it. The mail and express are perfectly valid and legitimate, even if you disagree with them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    You need to read the article again.

    Anyway, suppose I'm completely wrong and even though I've read through it several times and pointed out your error and where you have misread and used assumptions, I'm still talking out my arse. Is one "incorrect" article the basis for disregarding every single story ever done by that paper on every single subject? Because if so, then the guardian, telegraph, times, bbc, sky news etc etc are all guilty too and I could link you stories that are factually incorrect (and not simply articles that have a political stance I disagree with).
    How?

    The article says "Putin is set to mobilise 150,000 reservists who he conscripted into the military in September."

    If that isn't a claim then I don't know what it is

    and it most definitely is false.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    The article says that Putin is preparing to send 150,000 soldiers to eradicate ISIS.

    False claim.

    Simple as that.
    You haven't explained why its a false claim. Use evidence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    How?

    The article says "Putin is set to mobilise 150,000 reservists who he conscripted into the military in September."

    If that isn't a claim then I don't know what it is

    and it most definitely is false.
    They aren't saying that he has or will. Again, you conveniently missed out the key word: reportedly.

    Use evidence to say why they aren't "reportedly preparing" to invade Syria. You haven't actually explained why.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    You haven't explained why its a false claim. Use evidence.
    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'.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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