Thread: Survey shows that British public is wrong about nearly everything

Anyway, this thread had been hijacked by the descendants of Vespucci, and I'm one of the buccaneers. Sorry NR.

i read in the guardian that the biggest issue facing young british women today is how to style their pubic hair

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

survey shows that british public is wrong about nearly everything

The government must be doing an excellent job

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

fox news viewers in the states are probably more wrong ...some still think weapons of mass destruction were found in iraq

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

No, they firmly believe the WMD's were shifted out of the Rak just before 'Stormin' Norman' went in.

See - proof that you're stoopid too, it was stormin norman who shifted them in

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

some americans still think a fire caused this

Sadly, most Americans don't even know that building existed - let alone the painfully ridiculous "story" about it's demise.

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

official estimates

What have official estimates got to do with the public's perception of any thing?

Originally Posted by November Rain

The great British unwashed seem to literally believe anything they're told, without question.

You mean 1000 of the 63,000,000 people in the country?

Jesus. Talk about an example of the "washed" LITERALLY believing what they read. That's if you did read the article of course.

Anyway, we all agree politicians are shite. Even their compliant stooges.

Those behind closed doors (by which I do not mean a public lavatory), are well aware of public rage, and well aware it is basically quite justified. So what to do? Misdirect it, that's what.

Originally Posted by November Rain

The tabloids, so called reality shows like Benefits Street or On Benefits and Proud, Jeremy Kyle, social media, the list just goes on & on. The great British unwashed seem to literally believe anything they're told, without question.

When the best selling newspaper was The News of the World, I would have thought that would be a given.

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

must be getting fed some nasty misinformation by the daily mail and the likes

So, when did the Daily Mail report these inaccuracies ?
Or do you think that they just probably did and are stating this as a fact ?

"Immigration: some 31 per cent of the population is thought to consist of recent immigrants, when the figure is actually 13 per cent. Even including illegal immigrants, the figure is only about 15 per cent. On the issue of ethnicity, black and Asian people are thought to make up 30 per cent of the population, when the figure is closer to 11 per cent."

If people consider Blacks and Asians to be recent immigrants , then that figure would be close to the 31 % stated

Originally Posted by Fluke

So, when did the Daily Mail report these inaccuracies ?

on pretty much a daily basis

Originally Posted by Fluke

If people consider Blacks and Asians to be recent immigrants , then that figure would be close to the 31 % stated

nonsense

Originally Posted by Fluke

On the issue of ethnicity, black and Asian people are thought to make up 30 per cent of the population, when the figure is closer to 11 per cent."

it's 11% however you want to mangle the figures

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

Originally Posted by Fluke

So, when did the Daily Mail report these inaccuracies ?

on pretty much a daily basis

Originally Posted by Fluke

If people consider Blacks and Asians to be recent immigrants , then that figure would be close to the 31 % stated

nonsense

Originally Posted by Fluke

On the issue of ethnicity, black and Asian people are thought to make up 30 per cent of the population, when the figure is closer to 11 per cent."

it's 11% however you want to mangle the figures

Doh, adding both figures together for the recent Eastern European immigrants with the Black and Asian immigrants gives you the higher total

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

Originally Posted by Fluke

So, when did the Daily Mail report these inaccuracies ?

on pretty much a daily basis

O.K. then it shouldnt be a problem for you to post some of the reports up on here then .
Show me a Daily Mail report which states the figures quoted by the survey , shouldnt be difficult if they are reported on a daily basis , as you claim

^
do a search you lazy fekker

the stuff about immigrants eating swans is priceless

what the mail does very successfully is to skew public perception through misrepresentation of issues


you have a front page article about immigrants eating swans and everybody will froth...of course, it's likely bollux but few people would think how incredibly sad it is that those immigrants were starving

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

^
do a search you lazy fekker

No, you made the claim, you back it up and show that you were correct.
If you cannot that shows that you just made it up .

Or the routine nonsense that Choudhary twat is a Muslim cleric, which he never has been. Just a Muslim nutter.

^
i really don't have the time to indulge you right now so i''ve gone for the cut and paste option which sums the rag up pretty well






The Daily Mail (aka, Daily Fail, Daily Heil, Daily Moan and so on), is a reactionary tabloid rag masquerading as a "traditional values," middle-class newspaper that is, in many ways, the worst of the British gutter press (only Rupert Murdoch's Sun is worse). Its weighty Sunday counterpart is the Mail on Sunday.
The Daily Mail is to the U.K. what the New York Post is to the United States, and what the Drudge Report is to the Internet: to wit, gossipy tabloid "journalism" for those who cannot digest serious news, with a flippantly wingnut editorial stance. The Daily Mail is notable among British tabloids for rejecting the standard red-top banner order to try to appear more upmarket and respectable, although it does sometimes go in for the full front-page picture or headline characteristic of the working class rags. It is also notorious for its frequent harassment of individuals, campaigns of hate directed at various minorities, and willfully deceiving and lying to its readers.



The Mail is usually considered the furthest right of all UK newspapers/tabloids; it competes for this spot with the Daily Express. Although some of the red-top tabloids might throw about more extreme rhetoric, their laddish attitude often means they're not taken too seriously - the Mail, however is entirely Serious Business. Their primary editorial stances are:

• Anti-immigration
• Anti-welfare and poor people in general
• Health sensationalism (particularly with respect to cancer)
• Anti–government control
• Anti-LGBT
• Anti-Europe
• Anti-taxes (mainly for those who can afford to pay them)
• Pro–complaining about anything and everything
• Declinism about UK life, the economy, etc.
• Pro-objectification of women

A traditionally conservative tabloid (by UK standards), The Mail is currently blaming the European Union and European immigration to Britain for the economic crisis in Britain. It likes to incite its readers against minorities with sensationalist headlines about the benefits immigrants receive and the threat they pose to British culture and security (almost always entirely founded on lies). It frequently reports that the country is "going to the dogs" and we're all going to die, while at the same time wondering why people are voting for the British National Party. Some British people find this amusing as the Mail's editorial stances are indistinguishable from BNP policies. It is exceptionally rare for the main headline to be unlinked to asylum seekers or "dangerous" foreigners in some way or another, regardless of the context of the story. Such as the case with Mahira Rustam Al-Azawi, who would otherwise just be another case of long-term fraud if it wasn't for the Mail slanting it toward her being an Iraqi asylum seeker.[4][5]
While the Mail does prefer to blame it all on Johnny Foreigner, other popular editorial villains include gypsies, the workshy, Young People Today, the public sector, the BBC[6] (which, in full Fox News style, it says has a strong liberal bias),[7] and anyone to the left of Norman Tebbit. For much of the late 2000s, the Mail had a major obsession with house prices and how they change, in either direction. Recent drops in UK house prices have sparked massive rage and panic across Mail headlines and front pages, despite these drops being a mere fraction the size of the insane increases that have occurred over the preceding decade. The Daily Mail headline generator pokes fun at these obsessions, with many randomly generated headlines asking whether immigrants are lowering house prices.[8] For the last few years, the Mail has also been the leading voice in demonising anyone who claims social benefits for any reason whatsoever (while completely oblivious to the fact that the State Pension received by about 15m people is a social benefit), which has been shown to fuel stigma of the majority of genuine claimants, and discourage people who may need help from seeking it.[9]
Although these days the Daily Mail is rabidly eurosceptic, this was not always its editorial stance. In fact, during the 1930s, the paper was a big fan of a united European superstate. However, due to a deterioration in Britain's relationship with the Mail's favourite European statesman, the paper was obliged to reverse its stance on the issue rather suddenly in late 1939.
The Mail also occasionally expresses anti-American views. The aforementioned favourite European statesman once called America a "mongrel nation," and the Mail has rarely disagreed with this sentiment. One notable example occurred on 5 September 1956 in a commentary on the film The Blackboard Jungle, the first film with a rock-and-roll soundtrack. And what did the Mail's editorial writer think of the movie and of rock-and-roll?[10]

"It is deplorable. It is tribal. And it is from America. It follows ragtime, blues, jazz, hot cha-cha and the boogie-woogie, which surely originated in the jungle. We sometimes wonder whether this is the negro's revenge."

No doubt they would have preferred Pat Boone if he wasn't one of those nasty colonials, too.
[edit] Link bait


Not even once.


Some theories have emerged that the Daily Mail merely writes the trash that it does in order to provoke massive swarms of links and clicks to its website, thus milking its sponsors and advertisers for masses of cash. In response to this, the website IstyOsty was formed[11] with the intention of storing Daily Mail articles on a proxy server so that people could read them without contributing to the Mail's view count. Not massively impressed with such an Evil Scheme, the Mail threatened the site with around £150,000 worth of legal action and a cease and desist order in August 2011

est of the Daily Fail


A spoof Daily Mail front page.


Here is a selection of some of the best - for the wrong reasons - articles put out by the Daily Mail:

• Amanda Knox found guilty - the Mail decided to release the wrong pre-written story regarding the appeal of accused murderer Amanda Knox. Highlights include reactions from prosecutors who said they were delighted, a description of how she collapsed in a chair sobbing and would be placed on suicide watch. (Knox was actually declared "not-guilty" at the actual appeal, in case you missed the punchline.) The Mail wasn't the only paper to do this. The Sun also briefly had both versions of events on its website and both The Grauniad and Sky News also jumped the gun with the wrong verdict, but didn't start making stuff up to fill the word count. The thing is, the fact that a false story contained so much detail immediately calls into question the veracity of the details contained in the correct version, as both were blatantly written before the fact with plausible and widely applicable details in place.

• "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!" was the Mail's front page headline on 8 July 1934. However, despite the Mail's efforts the British Union of Fascists never did achieve widespread popularity.

• Yes, scientists do much good. But a country run by these arrogant gods of certainty would truly be hell on earth - "The trouble with a 'scientific' argument, of course, is that it relies solely on empirical facts," which says enough.

• On 16 July 1993 the Mail ran with the headline "Abortion Hope after 'Gay Genes' Finding." Whilst even this limited support for a woman's right to choose was daringly liberal for the Mail, its views on the circumstances when abortion would be an appropriate choice were perhaps less enlightened.

• A strange, lonely and troubling death... - the controversial article by Jan Moir on the death of Stephen Gately, known for being quite shockingly homophobic and leaping to conclusions as if Moir had suddenly become an expert coroner. The article was originally titled "Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death."[40]

• Spare us the 'Peoples Prostitute' routine... Richard Littlejohn uses his consistently distasteful column to remind his readers that five women murdered by a serial killer were prostitutes, and thus practically deserved it.

• Curiously absent from the Daily Mail's archives, in 1997 columnist Lynda Lee-Potter described Mo Mowlam, Labour MP and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as an "only slightly effeminate Geordie trucker", due to her hair that looked like a wig and her recent weight gain. The paper was forced to apologise after it emerged that Mowlam had lost her hair due to cancer and that her weight gain was due to medication.

• Sex & The Country (since deleted from the Mail's website) tracks the sexual antics of four women who moved from the city to the countryside. However, one of the participants recently wrote an extensive blog post refuting the piece, claiming outright lies, misquotation and sensationalism.

• Teachers leave boy, 5, stranded in tree because of health and safety (then report passer-by who helped him down to police) - an interesting story involving teachers who, due to "health and safety" regulations, didn't rescue a kid from a tree. Shame it's total bullshit.

• Hotel killers: Three female convicted murderers given jobs at same Travelodge, but neglects to mention that in at least one case the prisoner had already served 15-16 years of a sentence, and were eligible to apply for parole. Should we demand that they be locked-up forever, forced to live on unemployment benefits, or driven in to a life of crime? The Daily Mail isn't that specific, but on behalf of its angry befuddled readers the Mail demands that someone do something about this outrage!

• EastEnders sparks uproar with gay bedroom scene before the watershed - oh noes, you'll catch teh gay by watching the evul librul BBC!!!11 Of course, the "uproar" mentioned in the headline came exclusively from the Daily Mail itself.

• In September 2013 (and smeared out over more articles and opinion columns than are worth listing, but here's a BBC link to explain it), the Mail attacked Labour Party leader Ed Miliband for having a father - the Marxist academic, Ralph Miliband - who "hated Britain." This was ironic in numerous ways:

1. A key piece of "evidence" for this was the 17 year-old Ralph's diary that called the English "perhaps the most nationalist people in the world," which of course is something you could easily conclude ever looking at the Mail;
2. Miliband was a staunch anti-Stalinist,[41] so his political views look more like Orwell's than the Great Satan the Mail presented; and
3. Most staggeringly is the fact that the Mail would push such a smear campaign in the face of their own history in cosying up to Adolf "the Great" Hitler and the National Front, as well as the aforementioned pro-British Union of Fascists story at the time they were sucking up to the former; Ralph Miliband, on the other hand, fled to the UK in 1940 to avoid anti-Semitic persecution, enlisted in the Royal Navy, and served in the D-Day landings. This prompted a particular public savaging by Mehdi Hasan on the BBC's Question Time programme,[42] a pwnage which in turn prompted the Mail to respond with a smear campaign against Hasan that did everything but outright say "that muzzie towelhead should go back where he came from."

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

At work I'm constantly infuriated by my colleagues uninformed opinions on issues, and verbatim regurgitation of the shite they're spoon-fed from the media.

I honestly can't even enter into debate with most of these people, when I try to interject some actual facts into their ignorant tirades, they look at me as if I'm some form of oddball.

Colleague: "All benefit claimants are scum. They should be left to starve if they don't wan't to work"

Me: "The economy is in the shit, there are 2.5 million unemployed and only 500,000 odd available positions, including zero hours contracts and temp work.

Most people on benefits want to work, it's a very small minority who are the perpetual n'eer do wells portrayed by the media.

In the grand sceme of things, benefit fraud constitutes a pitifully small fraction of govt spending. Why do you not direct your anger at those who really affect the economy: The bankers, the tax avoiding mega-corps, the politicians feathering their nests? Why instead do you prefer to focus on the most unfortunate in society?"

Them: "errrr...." Tiny, easily propagandised, ill-informed mind blown.

Originally Posted by khmen

All benefit claimants are scum.

Was he referring to the Banking sector, or unemployed people scratching for non-existent jobs?

Originally Posted by sabang

Then there is confirmation bias, a considerably more powerful tool than I had previously thought (in the right hands). As the internet era has proved, flood the average Jo with information, and they will just select from it to 'confirm' their pre-existing bias. Perhaps the next great leap of the human mind is to differentiate information from Facts.

And this is precisely why the expectation of getting news and information for free - and steadfastly refusing to pay to it, is going to culminate with properly-researched news reporting fading in comparison to biased blogs and thinly disguised opinion columns.

If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

A real Daily Mail front page. Did you know that blacks have 18 more kids than middle-class white people?

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

^
i really don't have the time to indulge you right now so i''ve gone for the cut and paste option which sums the rag up pretty well

As myself, I dont have time to read large C&Ps .
Are you aware that it was a random phone survey and therefore asked everyones opinion and not just daily mail readers ?