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

Originally Posted by Fluke

As myself, I dont have time to read large C&Ps .

try this little chunk then

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

arry mentioned the the sunday hardener< news of the world> as a best seller and
what a lot of absolute crap they printed in there and people wallowed in it.
the mail, sun, mirror are also full of crap except the footie results or what'a on telly.
these papers usually get people angry or jealous and give them crap to talk or think about during the day. some kind of social engineering to dumb down the public.
the broad sheets are opinions stretched over 100's of words which give people stuff to argue or mull over. keeping their minds occupied with whatever.
last time i bought an british paper was 25 years ago.
the only person i find interesting at the moment is ed milliband.
the most boring and uninteresting is david cameron.
facts are hard to come by. every newspaper has a different angle.
and this gives people the feeling that they are experts on world or local events.

The problem with news sources is that you have to actually trust the source unless you are actually there. How many of us were actually present at any of these hot topic events?

Originally Posted by Fluke

And theres you believing the Governments figures without questioning them ......

Originally Posted by alwarner

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

That point had already been made, Al. But I'm sure you read all the comments... And who said I wash?

Originally Posted by alwarner

I bet you smell of roses and lenor btw.

Naaah, daffodils and Aldi fabric conditioner

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

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.

And if you pay well, you get Piers Morgan.

Very few journalists have and kind of integrity - they're no better than politicians.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Very few journalists have any kind of integrity - they're no better than politicians.

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

Originally Posted by Fluke

As myself, I dont have time to read large C&Ps .

try this little chunk then

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

Np, you wil have to show where the Daily Mail claimed that 16% of under 16s get pregnant, you claimed that they publish it daily, so why cant you provide just one link ?
Or did you make it all up ?

The UK has become a liberals paradise with overtures of political correctness. In short, lot's of dicks

^Have you just noticed, or is this a post from 1987?

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

^Have you just noticed, or is this a post from 1987?

Good one haha, It is only recently I have woken from a drug and alcohol induced stupor and besides I was 3 in 1987 so you'll have to forgive me for not being involved in social analytical debate.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

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.

And if you pay well, you get Piers Morgan.

Very few journalists have and kind of integrity - they're no better than politicians.

I'm not referring to how much celeb journos get paid.

I'm talking about how much, we, the consumers are prepared to pay.

If I want to get decent financial reporting, I look at the FT, for which I have a login. If I want crappy financial commentary - laden with basic factual errors, I read Socal for free.

ChiangmaiNoon won't pay for content. He wants it for free. That misinformation is widespread is no great surprise therefore.

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

it's the other way around actually, you are feeding peanuts to monkeys

so yes free content and trashy blogs, no matter how biased or silly, is good enough for 99% of the population, they don't deserve better

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

it's the other way around actually, you are feeding peanuts to monkeys

so yes free content, no matter how biased, is good enough for 99% of the population

Butterfly you slag where the fuck have you been ? prison ?

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

the consumers are prepared to pay.

here is the keyword, "consumer"

if you want to "consume" news and content, in the volume scale that we are facing now, it's going to be cheap and "mass produced", just like food. Consumer want cheap goods, not expensive ones. Only the privileged go for the expensive shit.

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

If I want to get decent financial reporting, I look at the FT, for which I have a login

it's actually cheap, so are you really getting something superior for that cheap privilege ? would you pay 10 times what you are paying now to get that same privileged information ? this is the only benchmark to evaluate the true value of content, how far would you go ? my guess, not far.

privileged information?

the FT?

bit of a stretch.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

it's actually cheap, so are you really getting something superior for that cheap privilege ? would you pay 10 times what you are paying now to get that same privileged information ? this is the only benchmark to evaluate the true value of content, how far would you go ? my guess, not far.

Actually, following closer reading, what on earth are you on about?

Apart from the instantly recognisable cheap jibe at the end that seems to make no sense whatsoever.

Why are you so animatedly trying to impress everyone with your financial acumen, btw?

I glanced through another thread about investments recently where you were giving it the big i am, whilst at the same time leaking merely piss and vinegar.

What's that about?

Originally Posted by bangkokbonecollector

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by The Ghost Of The Moog

If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

it's the other way around actually, you are feeding peanuts to monkeys

so yes free content, no matter how biased, is good enough for 99% of the population

Butterfly you slag where the fuck have you been ? prison ?

no, mostly in Europe, but why you ask ? don't remember knowing you,

Originally Posted by cyrille

Originally Posted by Butterfly

it's actually cheap, so are you really getting something superior for that cheap privilege ? would you pay 10 times what you are paying now to get that same privileged information ? this is the only benchmark to evaluate the true value of content, how far would you go ? my guess, not far.

Actually, following closer reading, what on earth are you on about?

Apart from the instantly recognisable cheap jibe at the end that seems to make no sense whatsoever.

Why are you so animatedly trying to impress everyone with your financial acumen, btw?

I glanced through another thread about investments recently where you were giving it the big i am, whilst at the same time leaking merely piss and vinegar.

What's that about?

who the fuck are you again ?

oh, just someone who's noticed you seem to be an egregious blowhard.

Originally Posted by cyrille

oh, just someone who's noticed you seem to be an egregious blowhard.

oh great, another newbie trying to impress the crowd

and why on earth would you "search" my old posts on investment ? are you one of those odd characters like we have sometimes on TD who enjoy stalking members so they can have something to say ?