They are only just getting warmed up with Cummings Fire .Quote:
Originally Posted by great_fire
Make the kind of enemies he's making they will not only ruin his career , they'll ruin his entire life if they have to .
Printable View
They are only just getting warmed up with Cummings Fire .Quote:
Originally Posted by great_fire
Make the kind of enemies he's making they will not only ruin his career , they'll ruin his entire life if they have to .
Aye he looked the part today alright , blubber blubber and he's suddenly developed a stammer .Quote:
Originally Posted by crashbang
Out of his intellectual depth dealing with Starmer pal .
4 years to find out 😊
You'll get ulcers with stress pal.
Get Boris on board and chillax.
So people with a stammer or slight speech defects are stupid then?Quote:
Originally Posted by animallittle3
Nice one.
4 years to a GE I'll give you that but your man won't be contesting it , he'll be long gone by then .Quote:
Originally Posted by crashbang
No I didn't say that and you know I didn't .Quote:
Originally Posted by crashbang
He's developed a stammer because he's nervous , under pressure and can't deal with the leader of the opposition , completely out of his depth and completely out of his depth running the country as well as all is other past failings in his professional life .
But you knew that anyway ....... right ???
The Times on the centre right and the Observer/Guardian on the centre left generally have good fact check records, as do the Independent and i and Telegraph. The worst in terms of deliberately presenting misinformation as facts are the Mail, Express and Sun who do very badly by pretty much any fact check report.Quote:
Originally Posted by crashbang
One of the things that get confused is the difference between political bias that a newspaper editorial takes, and the actual record of presenting facts/non facts as truth to inform or mislead their readers. It might be debatable to some, but I know that the Times or Telegraph will aim to pursuade me to take their editorial stance on certain issues/political sides (and the Observer/Guardian from a more lefty perspective) but they generally (but not always) present factual information as they do so. Whereas the Mail/Sun/Express deliberately and regularly present misinformation as fact in an attempt to persuade them to agree with their owner's world view. I personally have no problem with reading the right wing broadsheets as they generally do not attempt to deceive me and I can agree/disagree with their political stance. This is in contrast to someone like Grist who I think discredits The Guardian as unreliable simply because he disagrees with their political stance. I think there is a big difference between a news source's political bias (which is acceptable) and their attempt to lie to their readers (which is not).
This is not to say that these less reputable, more devious sources don't sometimes have very valid arguments. I wouldn't 'do a Kerr' on this by refusing to engage with an argument presented by a news source, just because of who they are. The Mail will sometimes be well presented and correct in both facts and political argument. The difference is that they are, as an organisation, willing to deliberately and strategically lie to its readers in order to further it's owners political agenda. That for me is the difference.
So, in answer to your questions, choose broadsheets and avoid the Sun/Mail/Mirror/Express. Unless of course you just want them to confirm your current world view with whatever distorted evidence they can find for you on a daily basis. Or maybe go the whole hog and just bookmark Brexit Central and Guido Fawkes O:)
Stammer v Starmer.
Sounds like a film.
Yep, Close Encounters Of The Turd KindQuote:
Originally Posted by crashbang