The daily mail is systematically racist, homophobic and anti-public sector

If you are any of these then I guess you won't object to it

My favourite daily mail lead was:

"did we lose the Olympic bid because our video was too multi- cultural"

ie were there to many pakis and fuzzy wuzzies which all right thinking euro racists would not have liked to see? It's just not Arian is it?

Don't confuse a sensible debate on immigration with what the mail peddles as racist bile under the guise of journalism

Think you've gone a bit over the top there with one of the words.

Because I'm anti (or controlled immigration) does that make me a racist ?

I don't know if the paper is systematically racist but I'll take your word for it

Is it homophobic ? Why ? Aren't a lot of people homophobic including a lot of minorities that the left wing press would be only too quick to back up ?

If what they print is the truth then fine. But it often is not.
The Mail editors know their readership is not bright enough or able to concentrate long enough to read an entire article. They get their info from the headline and first paragraph. That is where the lies are. Often, if you read the whole story, the truth comes out and you realise the headline is a lie. But the Mail knows most will not get that far.
Take a recent story about a favourite Mail target....local councils and health/safety.
An elderly couple owned a house and a large garden with some agricultural land next to the garden. Their neighbours had a large climbing frame in their garden for their kids and were moving house so this old couple decided to buy the climbing frame for their grandchildren. They put it on the agricultural land, a complaint was made and they were told by the council to take it down or move it.
The Mail headline was about a council forcing elderly grandparents to take down a childs climbing frame due to health and safety.
The truth, hidden in the article was that they had not applied for permission to change the use of the agricultural land but they could have the climbing frame in the garden. So in reality there was no story but the Mail created the lie in the headline and knew that was all they needed.

really

Yes but it was the World cup 2018

I would check the Mail for the Cameron stories, if I were you.

Fair enough and I accept your point. I suppose the only way would be to have a sensible debate but everyone is so scared to talk about it. The point I was making is at least the Mail would run the story. Everyone else runs and hides. It's brushed under the carpet, people stew on their feelings rather than discuss and then you end up with a load of extremists. According to Groomyd he thinks all people against immigration are p*ki bashers and he has completely answered why the issue is never discussed.

Yes, sorry, I meant world cup (which we didn't get of course)

The headline won the annual "knowing what your readership wants and providing it" award

An open and sensible debate on immigration is needed but can never happen so long as the Mail is allowed to actively promote racial hatred. The left has it's groomys who also prevent sensible debate so we get stuck and the extremists get to air their views and no one else does.

Starts thread. I'm happy to discuss it. Always. And no I don't think anyone who is anti immigration is a racist.

But they have to be a little more informed than to say simply "anti-immigtration"

The answer to your question is: most emphatically no. There are many good reasons to be anti-immigration at this day and age in the UK. I like to think of myself as a multi-culturist yet I think we should be doing a better job at providing basic education, health and housing for all the people already here. Constantly adding more and more will just stress those services to breaking point and make them worse for everyone; or example, we could see the NHS become payable at the point of contact.

The problem is that the Daily Mail and the other right-wing papers consistently and proveably print lies and distortion to back up their anti-immigration and other agendas. I'm not so sure the Mail writers are flat out racist and homophobic but they are evil people wiriting lies - or at best lazy ****s regurgitating dubious stories they cannot be arsed to research - to pander to the lower instincts of their readership with "shock horror" nonsense. And this makes money for the owner.

Every paper has its own agenda, left or right and paints stories to its own views but the Mail and the Sun are the absolute worst at printing lies and deliberate distortion. I'm not aware of any left-wing paper that is anyway as near as bad as the Mail or the Sun.

If you're lazy and take their "shock horror" stories at face vaue, I would recommend you do some research on it. This is a good starting point - http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2010/10/16/h ... dia-myths/ If your reaction is "What! They're lying to us?!" then good!

Prejudiced people will actively welcome any stories - that backup their prejudices - as true without question. And this is why the writers of these lies are evil (IMO) as they are deliberately and consistently pandering to that prejudice for financial profit.

Actually I think the Express is worse than the Mail or the Sun - it's certainly the most racist. And the Mirror is the most politically biased. The Times, Telegraph and Guardian all have their political agendas but none slavishly toe the party line like the Mirror does. Ironically, the "Torygraph" criticises the Tory party as much as anyone.

The telegraph does indeed criticise the Tories. LAst week or so, it led a story about 20k funding lansley andrew health secretary was getting from private healthcare company. No other papers brought it up, even the following days. They were just going on about Fox instead, but this story was as big as any.

I think the Torygraph has its own agenda, within the Tory Party.

Keep going blah, everyone loves a good conspiracy.

Of course it does, if you don't think it has its own agenda then think again. (I'm not saying the others don't have agendas, either.)

I don't follow any paper nowadays, beyond the occasional glance at a front page as the news is subjective in all of them.

Thought it was interesting that the Daily Mail, given their usual position, produced a piece showing admiration for the Wall Street protesters in the US.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055044/Snowstorm-hits-Occupy-Wall-Street-New-York-City-Protesters-tough-out.html

Or were they just trying to make the point that the St Pauls protesters are wimps by comparison?

Temperatures, which plunged below 40 degrees last night, weren’t raining on the parade of Occupy Wall Street protesters, who remained in their tents overnight.

The same could not be said for their counterparts in a much warmer London, as the same thermal imaging showed protesters were deserting their tents near St Paul’s cathedral as the sun went down.

It does say as much.

Yes but would they really write an entire article pretending to support US protesters, which must have grated a bit, just so they could have a go at the UK protesters? I think I'm answering my own question.