You are viewing jfs

Circle, Triangle, Square - [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
John

[ website | Flay and DeVille's Circus of Marvels ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Links
[Outward bound links| Witchwood Workshop Planet Angel Venom and Bootle Transports of Delight 43 Things del.icio.us ]
[WebComics| Questionable Content Order of the Stick Unshelved Home on the Strange ]

[Jul. 1st, 2011|10:35 pm]
Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry
Anyone who writes for the Daily Mail is probably scum.

Does Googlebombing still work?
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: misterdaniel
2011-07-01 09:46 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I am stunned and appalled.

Whilst I was absorbing the tragedy, a small part of my mind was trying to persuade me I was reading The Onion, or some other parody of journalism.

They link the incident to the strike in the headline and multiple times in the text. Then, eight paragraphs from the bottom we get:

Our beloved daughter's death was a tragic incident, which occurred only 24 hours ago, and we do not want it to be connected to any other events.

That quote from the family should have trumped all other shitflinging quotes from anonymous sources. I am truly sorry for their loss and quite riled that it is being used as propoganda against their wishes.

[User Picture]From: jfs
2011-07-01 10:31 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Pretty much my exact thoughts. But Scum is quicker to type.

It's appalling journalism.

If your blood pressure can stand it - this is a screengrab of the original story as they published it, which is, if you can believe it, even worse.

http://twitpic.com/5ji0ru
[User Picture]From: sarahlascelles
2011-07-01 10:57 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Bastard scum bastards.
[User Picture]From: sarahlascelles
2011-07-01 10:58 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I mean, how *dare* they try and capitalise on this? This was a random tragic accident, nothing to do with anything political.
[User Picture]From: mr_h_r_hughes
2011-07-02 07:11 am (UTC)

(Link)

Reminds me of when that architect was killed in Bristol at Christmas and the Sun et al tried and convicted her landlord in the paper for his crimes of looking a bit weird and being an unmarried middle-aged man. I saw her boyfriend (who lets face it had far bigger things on his mind) pointedly defend the guy, talk of 'innocent until proven guilty' and tear into trial by media. What a guy, the Police who were having their investigation ruined by the papers must have loved him.
[User Picture]From: valkyriekaren
2011-07-02 01:58 am (UTC)

(Link)

Or damaged. There's one particular female journalist I'm thinking of who is clearly mentally disturbed, yet they keep on printing her paranoid ravings because it sells papers.
[User Picture]From: mr_h_r_hughes
2011-07-02 07:07 am (UTC)

(Link)

And next week they'll whinge about how looney health and safety officials spend millions removing trees from the streets due them being 'dangerous' blusterblustersquawk
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: felineparadox
2011-07-02 10:48 am (UTC)

(Link)

Can you imagine what would happen if journalists were forced to write balanced, intelligent and truthful articles? (My English teacher, bless her, was from that school of thought and got us to write in that format).

[User Picture]From: renniek
2011-07-02 11:50 am (UTC)

(Link)

I was surprised when I saw this; not in the Mail, but the Telegraph.

I thought the Torygraph had more class...
[User Picture]From: valkyriekaren
2011-07-02 12:11 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Nah. See my recent post on the subject of lazy journalism at the Telegraph. It's just the Mail with longer words these days.
[User Picture]From: mr_h_r_hughes
2011-07-03 05:55 pm (UTC)

(Link)

The Telegraph whatever there other crimes means but one thing: They are the *morons* who sent the uk media spiralling up Murdoch's backside (despite not being owned by him and really hating him). Like I said MORONS.
[User Picture]From: november_girl
2011-07-04 09:39 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I think they've amended the article as the headline is now different and the text only mentions the strike once, and in a pretty inoffensive way. Unless I'm totally misreading, which is entirely possible.
[User Picture]From: jfs
2011-07-04 10:09 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Yes. The Mail have been doing that a lot.

http://twitpic.com/5ji0ru is a screenshot of the original version.
[User Picture]From: november_girl
2011-07-04 10:26 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Oh dear. Well at least they've changed it now - even though it should never have been written or published in the first place.

Mind you, the News of the World seem to be making the rest of the media look positively angelic, given what's come out today about deleting answerphone messages etc.
[User Picture]From: jfs
2011-07-04 11:42 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Yes - that's really poor, isn't it? I'm watching that with interest.