Black Mofoin' MIRROR. And other UK shows. - by SubJeff
demagogue on 16/2/2013 at 07:39
I don't support stupidity, but I sometimes find it enlightening how smart people debunk it. I mean two intelligent people can both agree something is stupid, but they can still debunk it in quite different ways. That says something about how they see the world a little differently, both with their merits. And you won't always be able to tease that out until you had that occasion for them to actually explain why something is so stupid.
So stupidity has its silver lining in that IMO. Unfortunately it's usually only other intelligent people that can get even that much out of it, who already figured out the original thing itself was dumb.
june gloom on 18/2/2013 at 04:56
that link is ttlg defined
demagogue on 18/2/2013 at 06:24
That link is Internet defined.
... At least I think. I'm not sure. Here's a 13 paragraph discussion qualifying and hedging that point... :p
gunsmoke on 19/2/2013 at 14:11
faetal is hinting that I support these papers skewing the facts. No. Never. I don't care what agenda they support, or how they choose to report the facts, but they need to report facts. Only. Save the opinion for the editorials. People are smart enough to know WHY they read THEIR paper. It's why they read the thing, they know which way it leans.
faetal on 19/2/2013 at 20:34
Sorry Gunsmoke, I didn't think you were in support of that per se, I was just clarifying my stance on the media.
The trouble is that when people stick to their paper, they don't know what are the facts. When you read a few and see that they are all spinning the same story differently, it gives a level of doubt that sticking to the one paper doesn't.
SubJeff on 19/2/2013 at 21:27
If you think the Daily Mail prints many facts you've got your facts wrong.
june gloom on 19/2/2013 at 23:29
The Daily Mail is a lousy, lousy example, though, since pretty much everyone who doesn't read it is fucking
aware that it's a tabloid. I mean, for fuck's sake, look at any front page of any edition of the Daily Mail: Huge headlines taking up 50% of the page, often attention-grabbing and misleading if not outright editorializing, lurid photographs, lots of color and big fonts and sloganeering, the works. See also: the New York Post. These rags are little more than birdcage liners for stupid people. I'm not even calling the Mail a tabloid out of scorn (okay yes I am) -- its specific printing format (roughly 360mm x 268mm, per (
http://www.anmedia.co.uk/pre-press-production/daily-mail) here)
is a tabloid format.
Real newspapers tend to be in broadsheet format (about 560mm or more in length) with a somewhat conservative design (carefully considered headlines, lack of sensationalism in articles, A1 headlines take up less than an inch of space, photos avoid being intrusive or otherwise sensationalist.) Brit examples would be the Times or the Guardian. American examples would be the New York Times, or the Cincinnati Enquirer (:cool:)
Or perhaps to put it another way, the smaller the newspaper and the bigger the text, the dumber the intended audience.
Chimpy Chompy on 20/2/2013 at 12:25
Times and Guardian are both using tabloid format these days, or something close to it.
You're right tho about the huge headlines in the Mail. It kind of amuses me when they scream about COULD CHANNEL 4 GIVE MIDDLE BRITAIN SWINE FLU? or WILL THE HOUSE PRICE CRASH MOLEST THE COUNTRYSIDE?, give you one paragraph cos that's all there's room left for, then say story continued on page 4. Like, if this is SOMETHING WE URGENTLY MUST KNOW ABOUT RIGHT NOW LOOK LOOK why is something else taking up space on pages 2 and 3?
june gloom on 20/2/2013 at 20:25
The Times and Guardian may have switched to the smaller Berliner format (315 mm x 470 mm) to save money on printing costs. The Enquirer has technically done that too. That being said, they still follow a broadsheet style, just with less room to do it in.
