Toby Harden's UK Daily mail comments comparing obama's 2008 run with the current one.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2192704/Toby-Harnden-Barack-Obamas-joyless-slog-election.html


Low blows, lower turnouts and low expectations: Four years after he was swept to victory, how Obama's election campaign is a joyless slog By Toby Harnden
PUBLISHED: 15:21 EST, 23 August 2012 | UPDATED: 22:03 EST, 23 August 2012
Comments (91) Share

..Barack Obama was swept to the White House in 2008 by a wave of idealism and inspirational campaigning in which he encapsulated the mood of the nation with his slogans of ‘Hope’, ‘Change’ and ‘Yes we can’.
Then, his message was a fundamentally positive one. Americans wanted an end to the Bush era but that almost went without saying. Obama pointed to his own vision of the country; a post-partisan, post-racial America in which gridlock in Washington was ended and common-sense centrist solutions were adopted.
What a difference four years makes. Obama is campaigning ferociously for a second term – and he is a candidate who would have probably have been disdained by the Obama of 2008.

Four more years? President Obama, pictured left in March 2008, and right, at an event in Las Vegas earlier this week; the Commander-in-Chief is waging a relentlessly negative campaign for the White House

Drawing crowds: While many came to hear Obama speak Wednesday at Canyon Springs High School in Las Vegas, it's nowhere near the numbers he was reaching in 2008
Obama is waging a relentlessly negative campaign of changing the subject from the one that, overwhelmingly, most Americans care about – the economy. Every week there is a new issue his campaign seizes on, preferring to talk about something, anything other than jobs and 8.3 per cent unemployment.
While Obama is still drawing sizable crowds, they are nothing like the size of those who flocked to see him in 2008. In Las Vegas, Obama held a rally in a high school before more than 2,000 people but there was space for plenty more.
.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2192704/Toby-Harnden-Barack-Obamas-joyless-slog-election.html#ixzz24ZyWbCcm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A shame when Brit news media does a better and less biased job of reporting on obama than our media does. Our mainstream media is a disgrace.. Obama is doing so poorly but our media covers up that fact.-Tyr

[taft2012]

a post-partisan, post-racial America in which gridlock in Washington was ended and common-sense centrist solutions were adopted.

Fail

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Fail

Sure thing, "centrists solutions"-socialised healthcare!, czars, spending trillions to weaken our nation, decreasing use of domestic oil, buying private business with tax dollars, attempted to use a foreign treaty to ban our guns, etc!
Yes, that is centrist if one is living in a communist nation already. Thats far leftist ideology that goes directly against our Constitution here. And the media covers for obama and attempts to fool the public into thinking he isnt on a mission to destroy our nation to remake it into a liberal/socialist hellhole.-Tyr

[Noir]

idk why you guys seem to quote the dailymail so much =/

[jimnyc]

idk why you guys seem to quote the dailymail so much =/

I just went to the index page of the site. Are they more like what I refer to as a rag paper? More like a celebrity type of site and sensationalism? I like them myself, good fun reading! But maybe not a place to get reputable news, I dunno, I'm sure you can tell us.

In this case, if someone wrote an article that was true, and expressed themselves in a manner that hasn't been expressed elsewhere, I still think it's a legit place to quote from.

Do you know of "The National Enquirer"? They're at every check out stand at all stores here in the States. Mostly celebrity crap and other exaggerated stories to sell their rag. BUT, they have been knows to be right on breaking stories many, many times. So while not 'generally' a place to go to for any type of daily news, they CAN still be referenced. If my explanation made any sense anyway!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I just went to the index page of the site. Are they more like what I refer to as a rag paper? More like a celebrity type of site and sensationalism? I like them myself, good fun reading! But maybe not a place to get reputable news, I dunno, I'm sure you can tell us.

In this case, if someone wrote an article that was true, and expressed themselves in a manner that hasn't been expressed elsewhere, I still think it's a legit place to quote from. Do you know of "The National Enquirer"? They're at every check out stand at all stores here in the States. Mostly celebrity crap and other exaggerated stories to sell their rag. BUT, they have been knows to be right on breaking stories many, many times. So while not 'generally' a place to go to for any type of daily news, they CAN still be referenced. If my explanation made any sense anyway!

It made sense Jim. Noir would like to discredit the source and disregard the information and points made by crying the source is bad. TRUTH is the truth no matter the source repeating it.. I've always held to that principle myself. Noir is not bright enough to know that. At least his/her? posts here do not show that judgement to be wrong IMHO.-TYR

[Noir]

Yeah most of the paper is either 'Celeb' stories 'x causes cancer' (then 3 weeks later 'x prevents cancer') 'I'm not racist but...' stories and so on. They are also still going on about Princess Diana's death (they make it a front page story every now and then) for reasons beyond sane thinking.

Almost every story is penned to scare, and/or enrage.

[Noir]

It made sense Jim. Noir would like to discredit the source and disregard the information and points made by crying the source is bad. TRUTH is the truth no matter the source repeating it.. I've always held to that principle myself. Noir is not bright enough to know that. At least his/her? posts here do not show that judgement to be wrong IMHO.-TYR

I haven't posted anything about the story, nor tried to discredit it, I was just wondering why the Mail seems to be quoted so much here, when other Brit papers don't. Nothing to do with the story.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I haven't posted anything about the story, nor tried to discredit it, I was just wondering why the Mail seems to be quoted so much here, when other Brit papers don't. Nothing to do with the story.

First, show me how you come to believe the Mail is quoted so often here?
Then why it matters if the stories are true? Try disproving the quoted words not the entity hosting them.
What was in error in Toby's commentary?

[Noir]

First, show me how you come to believe the Mail is quoted so often here?
Then why it matters if the stories are true? Try disproving the quoted words not the entity hosting them.
What was in error in Toby's commentary?

Personal experience, whenever I've seen a UK paper quoted it never seems to be the telegraph, or times, even the guardian (which I would regard as a more world-event newspaper) rarely if ever seems to be quoted. And it's just a bit weird because its the mail =/
Nothing malicious, or trying to 'disprove stories'. Stop looking for something that isn't there.

Edit - a few examples in the past month...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36614-Police-investigate-racist-rant&highlight=Dailymail

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36431-Olympic-gold-medal-winner-slams-dead-beat-dad&highlight=Dailymail

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36383-What-s-wrong-with-this-statement&highlight=Dailymail

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36614-Police-investigate-racist-rant&highlight=Dailymail

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?36379-Someone-in-Vermont-Watches-Too-Much-Smokey-and-the-Bandit&highlight=Dailymail

Again, nothing wrong with quoting it, I just thought it bizzare that it kept popping up on an American forum...

[Drummond]

Well, I for one like the Daily Mail ... and one good reason is that Lefties, by and large, hate it. This will explain their opposition to it here, of course.

Usually it's either the Daily Mail or the Express for me, as my preferred daily paper - both are solidly Conservative. I tend not to begrudge even the 55 pence price for it, over the Express's 50 pence, because I'd say that - by a narrow margin - it's a better quality read than the Express.

Over here in the UK, decades ago, you could easily spot was a 'quality' paper over the 'rags' .. they were the broadsheet papers, over the tabloid 'rag' ones. But these days, most of those have converted to tabloid format, such as the Times. The Mail is another such paper that converted to tabloid from broadsheet, as the Express did.

But the quality of their stories and reporting didn't change much. More pictures, sure, but otherwise essentially the same as before.

They have some GREAT columnists, too. Who's aware of Melanie Phillips's work ? Here's a recent opinion piece from her on Assange ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2190724/This-monstrous-narcissist-playing-Britain-s-governing-class-suckers.html

How about this one, considering Syria ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2178883/Syrias-chemical-weapons-arsenal.html

Here's an interesting quote from it ..


In 2003 the US, Britain and others went to war in Iraq to make the world safe from Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Ever since, however, we have been told that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the proof of that is that none was ever found – surely one of the most profoundly illogical and imbecilic formulations ever to have fallen from human lips.

At the time, however, there were a number of reports that enormous truck movements across the border from Iraq into Syria suggested that some of these WMD had been moved there. Saddam’s Air Vice-Marshal Georges Sada, whom I interviewed, said he was absolutely certain that WMD had been moved from Iraq to Syria. All of this was however brushed aside for, as the bien pensant world has never stopped intoning with positively religious fervour, ‘we were taken to war in Iraq on a lie’.

But now we know that Syria possesses an arsenal of chemical weapons. So could any of this have come from Saddam’s Iraq, just as it was transferred from Egypt two decades previously?

Is it any wonder that the Left hate the Daily Mail ?? The Mail is rarely a paper to agree with Leftie agendas or scripts.

[Noir]

I certainlty wouldn't say I hate it, just you have to admit it does go over the top on a lot of issues...

Personally the only British print I read are Private Eye and The Week. The daily papers are all but insufferable on a regular basis.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well, I for one like the Daily Mail ... and one good reason is that Lefties, by and large, hate it. This will explain their opposition to it here, of course.

Usually it's either the Daily Mail or the Express for me, as my preferred daily paper - both are solidly Conservative. I tend not to begrudge even the 55 pence price for it, over the Express's 50 pence, because I'd say that - by a narrow margin - it's a better quality read than the Express.

Over here in the UK, decades ago, you could easily spot was a 'quality' paper over the 'rags' .. they were the broadsheet papers, over the tabloid 'rag' ones. But these days, most of those have converted to tabloid format, such as the Times. The Mail is another such paper that converted to tabloid from broadsheet, as the Express did.

But the quality of their stories and reporting didn't change much. More pictures, sure, but otherwise essentially the same as before.

They have some GREAT columnists, too. Who's aware of Melanie Phillips's work ? Here's a recent opinion piece from her on Assange ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2190724/This-monstrous-narcissist-playing-Britain-s-governing-class-suckers.html

How about this one, considering Syria ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2178883/Syrias-chemical-weapons-arsenal.html

Here's an interesting quote from it ..



Is it any wonder that the Left hate the Daily Mail ?? The Mail is rarely a paper to agree with Leftie agendas or scripts.

Here is another eye opener from the Daily Mail. Jihadists/terrorists are being raised in Brtian and will go all jihadi for the slightest reason because Islam teaches its Allah's will to do so.
Leftists support their allies.. . Who is shocked by that revelation?-Tyr

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193771/John-Cantlie-NHS-doctor-led-Syrian-terror-cell-took-British-journalist-hostage.html

NHS doctor led Syrian terror cell that took British journalist hostage
British-born doctor was senior member of heavily-armed militant gang that held two photographers captive at a camp in war-torn Syria
Medic told captive John Cantlie he took leave from his post at a leading London hospital to wage 'holy war'
Extremist - who has a wife and child in Britain - intends to return to a job in the NHS when he leaves Syria
By Kerry Mcdermott
PUBLISHED: 05:22 EST, 26 August 2012 | UPDATED: 11:29 EST, 26 August 2012


..An NHS doctor on leave from a London hospital was part of a heavily-armed extremist gang who took a British journalist hostage in war-torn Syria.
The Kalashnikov-toting doctor - believed to be around 28 - told photographer John Cantlie he had taken a sabbatical from his medical work to come to Syria and fight a 'holy war'.
The bearded medic, who spoke with a south London accent and said he had a wife and a child back in the UK, told the captive photographer he intended to return to an NHS job in Britain after his time in Syria.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193771/John-Cantlie-NHS-doctor-led-Syrian-terror-cell-took-British-journalist-hostage.html#ixzz24gc3NW1Q

[Kathianne]

Knocking a source has its place, always good though to know something about the author:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Harnden


Background

Born in Portsmouth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portsmouth), Harnden grew up in Portsmouth, Harefield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harefield), Marple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marple,_Greater_Manchester) and Rusholme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusholme), Manchester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester). He attended Harrytown Comprehensive School in Romiley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romiley), Cheshire and St Bede's College, Manchester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Bede%27s_College,_Manchester). He entered Britannia Royal Naval College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia_Royal_Naval_College), Dartmouth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth,_Devon) in January 1985 and passed out the following August. He was awarded a First in Modern History from Corpus Christi College, Oxford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Christi_College,_Oxford) in July 1988. At Oxford, Harnden was Junior Common Room President of Corpus Christi in 1987, succeeding David Miliband [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Harnden#cite_note-1). Before becoming a journalist, Harnden was an officer in the Royal Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navy), retiring in the rank of Lieutenant in 1994 [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Harnden#cite_note-2) after service ashore and at sea in the assault ships HMS Fearless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Fearless_%28L10%29), and HMS Intrepid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Intrepid_%28L11%29), the minesweeper HMS Itchen (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Itchen_%28M1217%29&action=edit&redlink=1), the destroyers HMS Manchester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Manchester_%28D95%29) and HMS Edinburgh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Edinburgh_%28D97%29) and the frigate HMS Cornwall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Cornwall_%28F99%29). During his training he was an exchange officer with the Royal Norwegian Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Norwegian_Navy), helping to transport reindeer on troop landing craft. His final naval appointment was in the Ministry of Defence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Defence_%28United_Kingdom%29) as Flag Lieutenant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Lieutenant) to the Second Sea Lord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sea_Lord). He married in 2006 and currently lives with his wife Cheryl, their daughter Tessa (born June 2007) and son Miles (born January 2009) in McLean, Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean,_Virginia). In August 2009 he became an American citizen.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Harnden#cite_note-3)



Seems Toby Harnden would know a thing or two about the American political system.

[Drummond]

I certainlty wouldn't say I hate it, just you have to admit it does go over the top on a lot of issues...

Personally the only British print I read are Private Eye and The Week. The daily papers are all but insufferable on a regular basis.

The Week I'm not really familiar with, but Private Eye, for any Americans who don't know, is a satirical magazine that's been around for half a century. It specialises in being anti-Establishment. If it had any biases, I'd call it Left wing, though I'd also have to acknowledge they've lampooned plenty of Lefties in their time as well.

But .. you think the Mail goes over the top on some issues ? Really ? Care to supply an example or 2 ?

[Drummond]

Here is another eye opener from the Daily Mail. Jihadists/terrorists are being raised in Brtian and will go all jihadi for the slightest reason because Islam teaches its Allah's will to do so.
Leftists support their allies.. . Who is shocked by that revelation?-Tyr

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193771/John-Cantlie-NHS-doctor-led-Syrian-terror-cell-took-British-journalist-hostage.html

NHS doctor led Syrian terror cell that took British journalist hostage
British-born doctor was senior member of heavily-armed militant gang that held two photographers captive at a camp in war-torn Syria
Medic told captive John Cantlie he took leave from his post at a leading London hospital to wage 'holy war'
Extremist - who has a wife and child in Britain - intends to return to a job in the NHS when he leaves Syria
By Kerry Mcdermott
PUBLISHED: 05:22 EST, 26 August 2012 | UPDATED: 11:29 EST, 26 August 2012


..An NHS doctor on leave from a London hospital was part of a heavily-armed extremist gang who took a British journalist hostage in war-torn Syria.
The Kalashnikov-toting doctor - believed to be around 28 - told photographer John Cantlie he had taken a sabbatical from his medical work to come to Syria and fight a 'holy war'.
The bearded medic, who spoke with a south London accent and said he had a wife and a child back in the UK, told the captive photographer he intended to return to an NHS job in Britain after his time in Syria.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193771/John-Cantlie-NHS-doctor-led-Syrian-terror-cell-took-British-journalist-hostage.html#ixzz24gc3NW1Q

Well spotted, Tyr, and thanks. These are the sorts of stories that the Mail is happy to print, and which the BBC shies away from !

We in Britain need papers like the Mail. Without them, everyone would be soaking up the soft-Left myopic version of the news that the BBC is so good at .. complete with its presentational biases. Such as, coming close to banning the word 'terrorist' from being used by its own reporters. Why, even the Guardian commented !! >>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/dec/16/terrorism.broadcasting


The new guidance has been sent out internally and tells journalists: "The guidelines do not ban the use of the word. However, we do ask that careful thought is given to its use by a BBC voice. There are ways of conveying the full horror and human consequences of acts of terror without using the word 'terrorist' to describe the perpetrators. And there are a number of important editorial factors that must be considered before its use to describe individuals or a given group that can be justified."

The BBC said the rise of digital media meant there was no longer a split between domestic and overseas audiences, making careful use of such terms even more important.

"Careful use of the word 'terrorist' is essential if the BBC is to maintain its reputation for standards of accuracy and especially impartiality ... that does not mean we should emasculate our reporting or otherwise avoid conveying the reality and horror of what has occurred; but we should consider the impact our use of language may have on our reputation for objective journalism amongst our many audiences ... we must be careful not to give the impression that we have come to some kind of implicit - and unwarranted - value judgement."

The edict reminds BBC staff of the existing BBC editorial policy, which states: "The word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them."

"We should not adopt other people's language as our own. It is also usually inappropriate to use words like 'liberate', 'court martial' or 'execute' in the absence of a clear judicial process. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as 'bomber', 'attacking', 'gunman', 'kidnapper' 'insurgent' and 'militant'."

The new guidance suggested using words such as "bomb attack" instead, or "bomber" or "assassin".

[Noir]

The Week I'm not really familiar with, but Private Eye, for any Americans who don't know, is a satirical magazine that's been around for half a century. It specialises in being anti-Establishment. If it had any biases, I'd call it Left wing, though I'd also have to acknowledge they've lampooned plenty of Lefties in their time as well.

Half of Private Eye (The later half of the print) is satire. The other half deals with corruptions (especially within county councils) freedom of the press (most recently in the fight against super injunctions) and pointing out editorial hypocrisy/misrepresentation.

As for the week - Brilliant Mag, covers UK, European and World Politics and events, definitely worth a pick-up-and-try if you haven't read one before.


But .. you think the Mail goes over the top on some issues ? Really ? Care to supply an example or 2 ?

Example one - 'Causes of cancer'
Example two - 'Princess Diana'

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well spotted, Tyr, and thanks. These are the sorts of stories that the Mail is happy to print, and which the BBC shies away from !

We in Britain need papers like the Mail. Without them, everyone would be soaking up the soft-Left myopic version of the news that the BBC is so good at .. complete with its presentational biases. Such as, coming close to banning the word 'terrorist' from being used by its own reporters. Why, even the Guardian commented !! >>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/dec/16/terrorism.broadcasting

Apparently they want to limit and eventualy ban the use of the word terrorist altogether. Remember when obama and his admin decided to call terrorist's attacks man caused disasters? All done to protect muslims. We must ask why protect those that have as their primary mission in life the destruction of all that are not muslim. We must see that they plan on enslaving the entire world in that barbaric militant political cultlike religion. Papers like the Mail still have the courage to present the TRUTH about their barbaric evil acts. Big question is for how long or how long until socialist muslim appeasing government there shuts the Mail down? -Tyr

[jimnyc]

I like the Daily Mail for it's layout, and what seems to be always a wealth of current articles. Seems to be a lot of celebrity stuff, which I like, but I haven't found any outrageous or articles that were obvious lies.

As for Princess Diana, damn, we have legitimate papers over here still posting conspiracies about her and Dodi to this day! Maybe some more than others, but it's not something exclusive to the Mail. And Cancer? Hell, one day a paper recommends a new brand of coffee or bottled water, and 3 weeks later we're told it causes cancer. But I'll defer to those actually in the UK. I still like to read that paper, I just do my due diligence if I find something of importance to me.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Knocking a source has its place, always good though to know something about the author:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Harnden



Seems Toby Harnden would know a thing or two about the American political system.

Yes ma'am, Toby Harnden is a stand up guy..Well educated , great experience in and out of the military. Not one to be dismissed lightly. And now he is an American citizen. I believe he may have simply rejected what Britain has become. How can anybody blame the man for wanting his family safer over here?-Tyr

[Drummond]

Half of Private Eye (The later half of the print) is satire. The other half deals with corruptions (especially within county councils) freedom of the press (most recently in the fight against super injunctions) and pointing out editorial hypocrisy/misrepresentation.

As for the week - Brilliant Mag, covers UK, European and World Politics and events, definitely worth a pick-up-and-try if you haven't read one before.



Example one - 'Causes of cancer'
Example two - 'Princess Diana'

Subject headings aren't examples, Noir.

But if you're familiar with British headlines, you'll know that most of our papers have printed a great many headlines on both. As for Diana .. I might have taken your suggestion more seriously had you cited the Express rather than the Mail.

Recent stories from the EXPRESS, not the MAIL, on cancer ...

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/342135/Flood-cuts-supplies-of-cancer-drug

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/341850/Lance-Armstrong-A-force-of-nature-who-beat-cancer-

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/335181/Under-35s-twice-as-likely-to-get-cancer-from-sunbeds

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/328684/Just-a-brisk-walk-cuts-risk-of-breast-cancer

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/322320/New-drug-targets-cancer-cells

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/311140/No-excuse-for-half-of-all-cancers

I don't see that you're being fair in singling out the Mail on that subject at all. If a story becomes newsworthy, then our papers will print it (not quite as simple as that for the Mirror and Guardian, of course ..).

[Kathianne]

Half of Private Eye (The later half of the print) is satire. The other half deals with corruptions (especially within county councils) freedom of the press (most recently in the fight against super injunctions) and pointing out editorial hypocrisy/misrepresentation.

As for the week - Brilliant Mag, covers UK, European and World Politics and events, definitely worth a pick-up-and-try if you haven't read one before.



Example one - 'Causes of cancer'
Example two - 'Princess Diana'

I don't know which of the Brits print media were worse with the Diana death, but as for 'causing cancer' no one publication or source could possibly be called out. Here's google responses to 'causes cancer.'

http://www.google.com/search?q=causes+cancer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[Drummond]

I don't know which of the Brits print media were worse with the Diana death, but as for 'causing cancer' no one publication or source could possibly be called out. Here's google responses to 'causes cancer.'

http://www.google.com/search?q=causes+cancer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Yes, and the first link I see listed from a mainstream British newspaper is from the Leftie GUARDIAN ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/dec/07/cancer-causes-list

[Noir]

I don't know which of the Brits print media were worse with the Diana death, but as for 'causing cancer' no one publication or source could possibly be called out. Here's google responses to 'causes cancer.'

http://www.google.com/search?q=causes+cancer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I don't know which where worse during Dianas death, but the daily mail is the only one left that still prints stories about it. Indeed it was a front page again about a year ago after 'NEW DIANA CCTV TAPE RELEASED HOURS BEFORE HER DEATH' kinda thing.

And as for cancer, they say everything causes cancer, litterally, name something and they will have covered it, because for them its a filler story, 'have a blank page? x causes cancer, filled'.

[Kathianne]

I don't know which where worse during Dianas death, but the daily mail is the only one left that still prints stories about it. Indeed it was a front page again about a year ago after 'NEW DIANA CCTV TAPE RELEASED HOURS BEFORE HER DEATH' kinda thing.

And as for cancer, they say everything causes cancer, litterally, name something and they will have covered it, because for them its a filler story, 'have a blank page? x causes cancer, filled'.

Diana is a case onto itself.

As for the cancer scares, the AMA does the same repeatedly. Don't get me started with Lancet. YOU blame the tabloids?

[Noir]

Diana is a case onto itself.

They're obsessed with Diana to the point of being perverse, anything to get her name in the paper, including stories like 'Shock - Actress to play Diana in movie, looks like Diana!!!'

One of the worse I saw earlier this year was, bizarrely, a story about how one of Diana's nieces posted pictures online, of herself getting drunk/ partying. This ofcourse is considered national news to the mail, because they can print 'would Diana approve of this?' and so on...


As for the cancer scares, the AMA does the same repeatedly. Don't get me started with Lancet. YOU blame the tabloids?

Yeah tabloids are the problem, the trouble is that the people who read the mail don't treat it as a tabloid (in general)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

They're obsessed with Diana to the point of being perverse, anything to get her name in the paper, including stories like 'Shock - Actress to play Diana in movie, looks like Diana!!!'

One of the worse I saw earlier this year was, bizarrely, a story about how one of Diana's nieces posted pictures online, of herself getting drunk/ partying. This ofcourse is considered national news to the mail, because they can print 'would Diana approve of this?' and so on...



Yeah tabloids are the problem, the trouble is that the people who read the mail don't treat it as a tabloid (in general)

If it were a solidly leftist rag you'd be declaring its greatness. Your bias is showing all too well. So what if it prints some silly stuff too? All papers do that now it seems. When its not silly stuff, its lying crap and fantasy. The trick is to be able to tell the difference . To be able to pick out the gems that are true when one finds them..-Tyr

[Noir]

If it were a solidly leftist rag you'd be declaring its greatness. Your bias is showing all too well. So what if it prints some silly stuff too? All papers do that now it seems. When its not silly stuff, its lying crap and fantasy. The trick is to be able to tell the difference . To be able to pick out the gems that are true when one finds them..-Tyr

When have I ever declared any papers greatness? Papers (of any political spectrum) are both overpriced and over-agendea'd, though some are worse than others.