luke mccormick

[ghanimah]

More the other way around leefer. Papers like the Sun often tell a large percentage of the population what to think.

Hence the saying...... I think, therefore I am not a Daily Mail/Sun reader.

As opposed to other newspapers which don't print tripe nor pander to their readers' prejudices? If you do actually think then you're able to sort out the wheat from the chaff in all newspapers.

[Flashheart]

As opposed to other newspapers which don't print tripe nor pander to their readers' prejudices? If you do actually think then you're able to sort out the wheat from the chaff in all newspapers.

I don't read any newspapers, they are all at it.

Why are people being so defensive of such scummy operations?

[Exiled Bob]

As opposed to other newspapers which don't print tripe nor pander to their readers' prejudices? If you do actually think then you're able to sort out the wheat from the chaff in all newspapers.

I think the point is that people who read The Sun, etc.., aren't able to think for themselves.....(generally speaking - there are, obviously, some exceptions).

[ghanimah]

I don't read any newspapers, they are all at it.

Why are people being so defensive of such scummy operations?

Not really, just an observation that some papers seem to get more stick than others despite, as you say, 'they're all at it'. Journalistic standards have plummeted in the last 20 years right across the board.

Personally I do think you over estimate the Sun's influence. Take general elections - it likes to take credit for them particularly '92, but in truth its readers (A/B/C1) had already clocked Kinnock, Major and Brown for the losers that they were, long before the Sun changed positions. Rather than influencing thinking it was following the herd. And 42 years of page 3 hasn't really changed blokes' views on women's tits...

[Flashheart]

Not really, just an observation that some papers seem to get more stick than others despite, as you say, 'they're all at it'.

I think the more sensationalist ones just draw more attention to themselves. Overestimating or not, their influence is still considerable and scary at times.......

Which of these two titles is a correct statement?:

A) Mohammed is now the most popular name for baby boys ahead of Jack and Harry

or

B) Only one in one hundred of all the boys born in the UK are given the name Mohammed.

I think (hope) most of us on the TEF know the answer, but the interweb was raging with anti-muslim (they're taking over) sentiment that day.

[wokinghamred]

"after all it wasn't Sun readers who brought the country crashing down, i would say that was Financial Times readers"

So it was the Financial Times readers that caused the country's problems. God, you talk some bollocks, Leefer.

[Flashheart]

I think the more sensationalist ones just draw more attention to themselves. Overestimating or not, their influence is still considerable and scary at times.......

Which of these two titles is a correct statement?:

A) Mohammed is now the most popular name for baby boys ahead of Jack and Harry

or

B) Only one in one hundred of all the boys born in the UK are given the name Mohammed.

or

C) Oliver becomes most popular boy's name in England and Wales

I think (hope) most of us on the TEF know the answer, but the interweb was raging with anti-muslim (they're taking over) sentiment that day.

Ha

I missed this before.

Was curious about what the Guardians viewpoint was and found option C

[tans]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4390937/Killer-goalie-Luke-McCormick-goes-for-a-poo.html

zzzzzzzzzzz.

Fixed

[Simon Pieman]

It wouldn't surprise me if she never actually said anything.

I actually thought it was a re-used quote. I haven't the inclination to have a look though.

[ghanimah]

I think the more sensationalist ones just draw more attention to themselves. Overestimating or not, their influence is still considerable and scary at times.......

Which of these two titles is a correct statement?:

A) Mohammed is now the most popular name for baby boys ahead of Jack and Harry

or

B) Only one in one hundred of all the boys born in the UK are given the name Mohammed.

I think (hope) most of us on the TEF know the answer, but the interweb was raging with anti-muslim (they're taking over) sentiment that day.

All papers are sensationalist, just on different subjects. For example hardly a day goes past without the Independent warning on its front page of some kind of global environmental apocalypse - with sensational uncritical regurgitation of environmental group press releases - such as this notorious effort:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/a-triumph-for-man-a-disaster-for-mankind-1786128.html

Which was complete bollocks:

http://www.ikz.ru/siberianway/engl/sevmorput.html

But it doesn't come in for the same flak though...

[pauld]

Anyone who thinks they are a more informed person because they do not read the Sun is deluded.......if you honestly believe that a newspaper tells a big proportion of the population how to think then you are wrong.

Truth is most people who buy the Sun are pretty capable of thinking and believing what they want....not what they read.

Absolutely right. However, if people are not told the full facts of a given story (or told a pack of lies or just not told about a story at all), then they won't be in a position to make up their own mind about it no matter how intelligent they are. It is this behaviour that is more prevalent in the tabloid press and why their influence is so insidious.

[joteddyred]

Truth is most people who buy the Sun are pretty capable of thinking and believing what they want....not what they read.

As i said most who buy it are decent hard working people who are a lot more savvy than the average Toff will give them credit for.......after all it wasn't Sun readers who brought the country crashing down,i would say that was Financial Times readers and the such reading and believing the utter tripe being drip fed to them....in the broader sheets.

I read the sun and would like to think I fall into Leefer's description above. I'm more than capable of making my own mind up based on facts and the way they print something isn't going to suddenly change my mind.  Sometimes they do kick the life out of a specific story, but they're certainly not alone.

My dad reads the Daily Express and at least once a week there's an article about the Diana conspiracy or the latest possible suspect in the Madeline McCann disappearance.  It's all utter crap.

[Flashheart]

Absolutely right. However, if people are not told the full facts of a given story (or told a pack of lies or just not told about a story at all), then they won't be in a position to make up their own mind about it no matter how intelligent they are. It is this behaviour that is more prevalent in the tabloid press and why their influence is so insidious.

And not so long the Daily Mail were caught red handed making stuff up.

I don't know what's worse: The Daily Mail for lying, or it's readers for continuing to by the thing.

[RedRag]

Wow he has had a pint of cider.... Well fuck me sideways

I'd rather have a Bounty

[Samdy Gray]

I'd warrant that 90% of Sun readers open at page 3, glance through the sports section and then chuck it on the dashboard of their truck/van.