|
|
Post by kinetic on Jan 27, 2015 20:09:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Jan 27, 2015 20:26:50 GMT
I've just read the Guardian piece and it was reported as a murder in a city where racial tensions are high due to anti-immigration rallies with 25,000 supporters attending on the night of his murder. It does not claim that the murder was a direct result of this though and states:
"The circumstances of Bahray’s killing are now under intense investigation, with police looking into everything, from internal strife within the large group of Eritrean refugees to a racial motive."
The report clearly states that at the time of writing nobody has been arrested or charged. Nowhere does it say that a poor Muslim boy has been attacked by right wing thugs.
Of course if you have an agenda and choose to read it differently............
|
|
|
|
Post by kinetic on Jan 27, 2015 20:38:44 GMT
I've just read the Guardian piece and it was reported as a murder in a city where racial tensions are high due to anti-immigration rallies with 25,000 supporters attending on the night of his murder. It does not claim that the murder was a direct result of this though and states: "The circumstances of Bahray’s killing are now under intense investigation, with police looking into everything, from internal strife within the large group of Eritrean refugees to a racial motive." The report clearly states that at the time of writing nobody has been arrested or charged. Nowhere does it say that a poor Muslim boy has been attacked by right wing thugs. Of course if you have an agenda and choose to read it differently............ We know what the agenda is and didn't it work just fine and dandy ?  Did you miss the massive headline of " Killing of Eritrean refugee in Dresden exposes racial tensions" He was killed by another Muslim. |
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Jan 27, 2015 20:39:44 GMT
There is a few days gap between the reports which probably explains how the second has more info. What is weird is how it goes from no foul play to multiple stab wounds to the neck. You'd think that was difficult to miss.
|
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Jan 27, 2015 20:50:16 GMT
I've just read the Guardian piece and it was reported as a murder in a city where racial tensions are high due to anti-immigration rallies with 25,000 supporters attending on the night of his murder. It does not claim that the murder was a direct result of this though and states: "The circumstances of Bahray’s killing are now under intense investigation, with police looking into everything, from internal strife within the large group of Eritrean refugees to a racial motive." The report clearly states that at the time of writing nobody has been arrested or charged. Nowhere does it say that a poor Muslim boy has been attacked by right wing thugs. Of course if you have an agenda and choose to read it differently............ We know what the agenda is and didn't it work just fine and dandy ? Did you miss the massive headline of " Killing of Eritrean refugee in Dresden exposes racial tensions" He was killed by another Muslim. You're being hysterical mate. |
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Jan 27, 2015 20:52:32 GMT
You won't get anywhere. That some have the nerve to even use the word agenda is a joke. They routinely ridicule any news outlet that isn't left leaning and defend the laughable Guardian. Pravda must be their paper of choice. |
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Jan 27, 2015 21:32:45 GMT
You won't get anywhere. That some have the nerve to even use the word agenda is a joke. They routinely ridicule any news outlet that isn't left leaning and defend the laughable Guardian. Pravda must be their paper of choice. You wont get anywhere because it's a nonsense. I've no reason to defend any particular newspaper but the implications of the OP is that the Guardian is being deliberately misleading in the reporting of a murder of an immigrant in Dresden. Read the article........It clearly isn't. The murder occurred on the same night of a far right protest therefore fingers were being pointed in their direction, thus highlighting the underlying racial tensions. Nothing ambiguous at all. It doesn't say it was them anywhere, doesn't even imply this, it just reports that the murder has exposed the tensions in the city. To read it in any other way is being plain hysterical. |
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Jan 27, 2015 21:48:38 GMT
You won't get anywhere. That some have the nerve to even use the word agenda is a joke. They routinely ridicule any news outlet that isn't left leaning and defend the laughable Guardian. Pravda must be their paper of choice. You wont get anywhere because it's a nonsense. I've no reason to defend any particular newspaper but the implications of the OP is that the Guardian is being deliberately misleading in the reporting of a murder of an immigrant in Dresden. Read the article........It clearly isn't. The murder occurred on the same night of a far right protest therefore fingers were being pointed in their direction, thus highlighting the underlying racial tensions. Nothing ambiguous at all. It doesn't say it was them anywhere, doesn't even imply this, it just reports that the murder has exposed the tensions in the city. To read it in any other way is being plain hysterical. Ignoring the headline about racial tensions. Ignoring the paragraph about anti immigration rallies. Ignoring the frankly irrelevant social media posts. Ignoring the again irrelevant Merkel xenophobic quote. Ignoring the Green party's Eritrean spokesman saying how immigrants feared to go out on a Monday. Ignoring the talk of Swastikas. Yes it was a well balance piece of jouranlism, and I can see now how it was a fellow immigrant who murdered him. |
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Jan 27, 2015 22:06:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kinetic on Jan 28, 2015 7:07:45 GMT
Clearly again though what's the first 2 lines in bold print. Prosecutors say suspect lived with asylum seeker found dead on 13 January in city where anti-immigrant group has held ralliesWhy drop the anti-immigrant stuff in ? Headlines should tell facts not distort a piece. Reminds me of the story they were running a couple of years back when the EDL was at its peak. Some nutcase was planting bombs outside Birmingham Mosques. The Guardian made out he was a member of the EDL police finally caught up with him after he stabbed a man to death outside a Mosque, did he have anything to do with the EDL. No he didn't, no agenda though. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 28, 2015 10:34:08 GMT
The guardian is no less biased than the mail depending on your point of view.
It's easy to slag off daily mail and its readers without thought as kbilly often does
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 12:10:41 GMT
The guardian is no less biased than the mail depending on your point of view. It's easy to slag off daily mail and its readers without thought as kbilly often does Or any other newspaper for that matter .....that fact is it's become the norm to criticise the Mail and its readers on here whatever they may print , it's now an established fact on here that it's a rubbish publication .....largely I suspect due to Patrick Collins's constant criticism of Stoke over the last few years in the Mail on Sunday , I understand why people are annoyed by that I feel the same way , but you have to put things in the correct perspective . |
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Jan 28, 2015 13:26:11 GMT
The guardian is no less biased than the mail depending on your point of view. It's easy to slag off daily mail and its readers without thought as kbilly often does You don't really need to give it a lot of thought though do you, well i suppose it's not so hidden agenda is missed on some. The Daily Mail is so beyond being patronisingly transparent that a lot of their headlines and stories wouldn't look out of place if they were printed in Viz as a piss take. If i read a well written article of news from the Mail then i will comment on it positively should i feel the need, it just doesn't happen very often. Your accusation is based on nothing but assumption I agree with you about the guardian being bias though and i would never say otherwise but the article in question raised by the OP is clearly not engaging in the dark arts to anything like the hysterical degree he claims, if at all. All of the points raised were relevant to the story at the time of printing and as such i stand by my other posts on this subject. As for you Bisp, i can assure you that my opinion of the Daily Mail has nothing to do with it's sports reporting whatsoever,........just to help you keep things in perspective like, although i'm fairly sure you weren't referring to me in this instance. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 14:49:55 GMT
The guardian is no less biased than the mail depending on your point of view. It's easy to slag off daily mail and its readers without thought as kbilly often does You don't really need to give it a lot of thought though do you, well i suppose it's not so hidden agenda is missed on some. The Daily Mail is so beyond being patronisingly transparent that a lot of their headlines and stories wouldn't look out of place if they were printed in Viz as a piss take. If i read a well written article of news from the Mail then i will comment on it positively should i feel the need, it just doesn't happen very often. Your accusation is based on nothing but assumption I agree with you about the guardian being bias though and i would never say otherwise but the article in question raised by the OP is clearly not engaging in the dark arts to anything like the hysterical degree he claims, if at all. All of the points raised were relevant to the story at the time of printing and as such i stand by my other posts on this subject. As for you Bisp, i can assure you that my opinion of the Daily Mail has nothing to do with it's sports reporting whatsoever,........just to help you keep things in perspective like, although i'm fairly sure you weren't referring to me in this instance. I always try and keep things into perspective where possible and I'm certainly not in need of any help in doing so, but thank you for the offer. My remarks were not aimed at any specific individual on here certainly not yourself , but as a general observation , which may or may not be correct , it is nothing more than a personal opinion . |
|
|
|
Post by kinetic on Jan 28, 2015 20:08:21 GMT
And so the agenda that does not exist rolls on. Al Jazeera English tells it's news employers the words 'Terrorist''Islamist''jihad' are off-limits.
On the same day Turkish officials tell social media sites to ban pictures of the prophet or be taken off line in Turkey facebook has signed up. Whilst they are doing this the Turkish armed forces are attacking Kurds celebrating pushing ISIS out of the city of Kobane.
Indian paper Dinamalar receives a letter saying expect the same as Charlie Hebdo.
Maybe there is a agenda cant put me finger on it though ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 28, 2015 20:19:59 GMT
The guardian is no less biased than the mail depending on your point of view. It's easy to slag off daily mail and its readers without thought as kbilly often does Or any other newspaper for that matter .....that fact is it's become the norm to criticise the Mail and its readers on here whatever they may print , it's now an established fact on here that it's a rubbish publication .....largely I suspect due to Patrick Collins's constant criticism of Stoke over the last few years in the Mail on Sunday , I understand why people are annoyed by that I feel the same way , but you have to put things in the correct perspective . The only mass circulation daily paper to support the Labour Party is the Daily Mirror. The Guardian is and always has been liberal in it's outlook. Funny how folk on here refer to the Guardian as a "lefty" paper yet don't consider the Mail, Telegraph, Express, Sun, Star as right wing papers. Wonder why that is? |
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Jan 28, 2015 20:23:15 GMT
Or any other newspaper for that matter .....that fact is it's become the norm to criticise the Mail and its readers on here whatever they may print , it's now an established fact on here that it's a rubbish publication .....largely I suspect due to Patrick Collins's constant criticism of Stoke over the last few years in the Mail on Sunday , I understand why people are annoyed by that I feel the same way , but you have to put things in the correct perspective . The only mass circulation daily paper to support the Labour Party is the Daily Mirror. The Guardian is and always has been liberal in it's outlook. Funny how folk on here refer to the Guardian as a "lefty" paper yet don't consider the Mail, Telegraph, Express, Sun, Star as right wing papers. Wonder why that is? Does anyone even consider The Star a newspaper? |
|
|
|
Post by kbillyh on Jan 28, 2015 20:34:16 GMT
And so the agenda that does not exist rolls on. Al Jazeera English tells it's news employers the words 'Terrorist''Islamist''jihad' are off-limits. On the same day Turkish officials tell social media sites to ban pictures of the prophet or be taken off line in Turkey facebook has signed up. Whilst they are doing this the Turkish armed forces are attacking Kurds celebrating pushing ISIS out of the city of Kobane. Indian paper Dinamalar receives a letter saying expect the same as Charlie Hebdo. Maybe there is a agenda cant put me finger on it though ? Wow.  Good club night that Kinetic, ever do the wrong pop night's at the old Talbot in Stoke? |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 28, 2015 20:50:49 GMT
Or any other newspaper for that matter .....that fact is it's become the norm to criticise the Mail and its readers on here whatever they may print , it's now an established fact on here that it's a rubbish publication .....largely I suspect due to Patrick Collins's constant criticism of Stoke over the last few years in the Mail on Sunday , I understand why people are annoyed by that I feel the same way , but you have to put things in the correct perspective . The only mass circulation daily paper to support the Labour Party is the Daily Mirror. The Guardian is and always has been liberal in it's outlook. Funny how folk on here refer to the Guardian as a "lefty" paper yet don't consider the Mail, Telegraph, Express, Sun, Star as right wing papers. Wonder why that is? Regardless of which party it supports (and you brought that up) it is a lefty paper, or centre left to be more specific So it's editorial slant will always be biased that way, just as the mail is biased the other way. And I'm very aware of which papers are right wing and equally biased. Doesn't make them always wrong though imo And the guardian may or may not support the labour party but 80% of its readers do |
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Jan 28, 2015 21:02:27 GMT
The only mass circulation daily paper to support the Labour Party is the Daily Mirror. The Guardian is and always has been liberal in it's outlook. Funny how folk on here refer to the Guardian as a "lefty" paper yet don't consider the Mail, Telegraph, Express, Sun, Star as right wing papers. Wonder why that is? Regardless of which party it supports (and you brought that up) it is a lefty paper, or centre left to be more specific So it's editorial slant will always be biased that way, just as the mail is biased the other way. And I'm very aware of which papers are right wing and equally biased. Doesn't make them always wrong though imo Exactly. 99% of the papers, report 99% of the same stories, 99% of the time. As long as you are aware of the spin that they put on them (and 99% of us are Huddy) you won't go far wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 28, 2015 21:24:39 GMT
The only mass circulation daily paper to support the Labour Party is the Daily Mirror. The Guardian is and always has been liberal in it's outlook. Funny how folk on here refer to the Guardian as a "lefty" paper yet don't consider the Mail, Telegraph, Express, Sun, Star as right wing papers. Wonder why that is? Regardless of which party it supports (and you brought that up) it is a lefty paper, or centre left to be more specific So it's editorial slant will always be biased that way, just as the mail is biased the other way. And I'm very aware of which papers are right wing and equally biased. Doesn't make them always wrong though imo And the guardian may or may not support the labour party but 80% of its readers do They are not "lefty" papers though. The only true dail paper that is arguably "lefty" is the morning star. My point is the media are quick to call papers left wing but you hardly here any "right wing" accusations do you? |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jan 28, 2015 21:27:48 GMT
Regardless of which party it supports (and you brought that up) it is a lefty paper, or centre left to be more specific So it's editorial slant will always be biased that way, just as the mail is biased the other way. And I'm very aware of which papers are right wing and equally biased. Doesn't make them always wrong though imo And the guardian may or may not support the labour party but 80% of its readers do They are not "lefty" papers though. The only true dail paper that is arguably "lefty" is the morning star. My point is the media are quick to call papers left wing but you hardly here any "right wing" accusations do you? You do though You are the first on here to slag the mail off and call anyone who disagrees with you a daily mail reader. Regardless of wether they actually read it. You are just as biased |
|
|
|
Post by boothenboy75 on Jan 28, 2015 22:03:02 GMT
Regardless of which party it supports (and you brought that up) it is a lefty paper, or centre left to be more specific So it's editorial slant will always be biased that way, just as the mail is biased the other way. And I'm very aware of which papers are right wing and equally biased. Doesn't make them always wrong though imo And the guardian may or may not support the labour party but 80% of its readers do They are not "lefty" papers though. The only true dail paper that is arguably "lefty" is the morning star. My point is the media are quick to call papers left wing but you hardly here any "right wing" accusations do you? (rofl) Hardly any right wing acusations. (rofl) (rofl) (rofl) (rofl) |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jan 28, 2015 22:06:22 GMT
They are not "lefty" papers though. The only true dail paper that is arguably "lefty" is the morning star. My point is the media are quick to call papers left wing but you hardly here any "right wing" accusations do you?  Hardly any right wing acusations. You need to explain the source of your apparent hilarity as I have no idea what's amusing you. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 22:45:20 GMT
Or any other newspaper for that matter .....that fact is it's become the norm to criticise the Mail and its readers on here whatever they may print , it's now an established fact on here that it's a rubbish publication .....largely I suspect due to Patrick Collins's constant criticism of Stoke over the last few years in the Mail on Sunday , I understand why people are annoyed by that I feel the same way , but you have to put things in the correct perspective . The only mass circulation daily paper to support the Labour Party is the Daily Mirror. The Guardian is and always has been liberal in it's outlook. Funny how folk on here refer to the Guardian as a "lefty" paper yet don't consider the Mail, Telegraph, Express, Sun, Star as right wing papers. Wonder why that is? Well I have to say that the Guardian is a left winger newspaper , but you are correct in saying the Mail and the others that you mention with the possible exception of the Star ( which has already been pointed out ) are right wing publications , I have never said otherwise as I would have thought it was obvious to everybody .....but don't forget that the Sun and the Times became Labour supporting newspapers during the Blair years when News International changed its alleigience from the Conservatives , but now have changed back ......A marvelous example of the " reversible rosette " syndrome don't you think ? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 22:47:54 GMT
The only mass circulation daily paper to support the Labour Party is the Daily Mirror. The Guardian is and always has been liberal in it's outlook. Funny how folk on here refer to the Guardian as a "lefty" paper yet don't consider the Mail, Telegraph, Express, Sun, Star as right wing papers. Wonder why that is? Regardless of which party it supports (and you brought that up) it is a lefty paper, or centre left to be more specific So it's editorial slant will always be biased that way, just as the mail is biased the other way. And I'm very aware of which papers are right wing and equally biased. Doesn't make them always wrong though imo And the guardian may or may not support the labour party but 80% of its readers do Who do you think the other 20% may support ? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 22:50:41 GMT
Regardless of which party it supports (and you brought that up) it is a lefty paper, or centre left to be more specific So it's editorial slant will always be biased that way, just as the mail is biased the other way. And I'm very aware of which papers are right wing and equally biased. Doesn't make them always wrong though imo And the guardian may or may not support the labour party but 80% of its readers do They are not "lefty" papers though. The only true dail paper that is arguably "lefty" is the morning star. My point is the media are quick to call papers left wing but you hardly here any "right wing" accusations do you? I would suggest that the Morning Star is more than merely " lefty" .......it is certainly more than that , Communist more likely . |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 22:53:37 GMT
You need to explain the source of your apparent hilarity as I have no idea what's amusing you. It's quite apparent what he's laughing at ......it's just not all appertaining to newspapers I think ? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 23:21:59 GMT
Several points ....
Huddy = He's not all there ....there's something missing.
Newspapers .....They all represent yesterday's news. If you want the news as it happens switch on the TV and try the scores of news channels.
I don't buy newspapers ....what's the fucking point when you can get minute by minute updates electronically.
In ten years time we won't have a newspaper industry.
The reporting of all news regardless of which source it's from needs to be tempered with inaccuracies until specific points are confirmed by the relevant police or government authorities.
Reading some of the bullshit written on here , it is clear that some of us still live in the dark ages. Some of us still cling to party allegiences when considering the real truths.
That episode of my life died many years ago in my case. I don't think it's clever or trendy to start slagging off particular papers or journalists just because they don't sit comfortably with my particular brand of politics . The trick is to consider all salient points and form your own conclusions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 0:30:40 GMT
Several points .... Huddy = He's not all there ....there's something missing. Newspapers .....They all represent yesterday's news. If you want the news as it happens switch on the TV and try the scores of news channels. I don't buy newspapers ....what's the fucking point when you can get minute by minute updates electronically. In ten years time we won't have a newspaper industry. The reporting of all news regardless of which source it's from needs to be tempered with inaccuracies until specific points are confirmed by the relevant police or government authorities. Reading some of the bullshit written on here , it is clear that some of us still live in the dark ages. Some of us still cling to party allegiences when considering the real truths. That episode of my life died many years ago in my case. I don't think it's clever or trendy to start slagging off particular papers or journalists just because they don't sit comfortably with my particular brand of politics . The trick is to consider all salient points and form your own conclusions. Exactly . |
|
