[carl.waring]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

I believe he's doing it free, as a peace offering for the Sachs incident... Seems suspiciously nice..

Nice 'get out' clause there. No. He won't be doing it "for free" at all.

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/6527/...orrections.jpg

'nuff said

[zz9]

Originally Posted by VincentH

It's obvious the Daily Mail has decided to bash the BBC quite deliberately to generate clicks on their website (they're doing well as it's the most viewed newspaper site).

That agenda is so obvious that they sometimes make mistakes in their haste to generate those clicks:

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/...n-removes.html

Sadly the world still spins and people still click on their website and consume their BS. Whatever.

I saved a screengrab from a Daily Mail story about the Beatles refusing to play to a segregated audience in the 1960s Us "despite the civil rights movement gaining ground" which was quickly changed to "as the civil rights movement..."

They actually thought refusing to play to a segregated audience was a bad thing!

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by carl.waring

Nice 'get out' clause there. No. He won't be doing it "for free" at all.

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/6527/...orrections.jpg

'nuff said

Well, my information was based on a report from the Gaurdian . I knew it wasn't 100% confirmed, so I didn't present it as such....

Are you suggesting I should have lied, or that I shouldn't have brought up the Gaurdian's claim?

[Nilrem]

If the DM is hoping clicks through to it's website equate advert views, I suspect they're being let down a bit by the number of people who use adblockers these days

I know I only allow adverts on sites I either support or trust - the DM is neither

[carl.waring]

Originally Posted by theonlyweeman

Well, my information was based on a report from the Gaurdian . I knew it wasn't 100% confirmed, so I didn't present it as such....

Are you suggesting I should have lied, or that I shouldn't have brought up the Gaurdian's claim?

My apologies. You were right. I was wrong. I didn't know that.

[Shrewn]

The BBC (after a poor Diamond Jubilee) produced brilliant, insightful and – dare we say it – patriotic coverage.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...#ixzz23P4FKwhN

[mossy2103]

No, that has to be a wind-up.

Or maybe the website has been hacked?

[Shrewn]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

No, that has to be a wind-up.

Or maybe the website has been hacked?

They read it out on the Today program, I just had to check

[OB racks]

"The Mail must be paying peanuts"

What, to it's staff? As the old adage goes, 'you pay peanuts and you get monkeys'

QED, then.

[AidanLunn]

Originally Posted by Twenty10

Wow......correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Margaret Thatcher leave No 10 some 22 years ago? Yes, 22 years! That's getting on for a quarter of a century. And you're still going on about her now? You really do need to move on somewhat! Have you forgotten that we had a Labour Government up until a few years ago? They had 13 years to undo any 'wrongs'. Obviously they didn't make much of an impression on you for those 13 years!!

I really can't believe that you're banging on about her 22 years later!!!

I can't believe that people bang on about Hitler nearly 80 years after he got some serious power in germany - but they still do. Thatcher wasn't just "another prime minister" - she was a prime minister that has had an effect on our country like no other before (apart from Churchill) or since.

Not that I'm praising her or anything. if someone sticks out from all the others and makes changes to our economy and society as drastic as she did then obviously people will continue to talk about her and her effects for many years afterwards. She changed everything here economically.

And New Labour was just the Tory party with a red rose and a caring face.

[exlordlucan]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

No, that has to be a wind-up.

Or maybe the website has been hacked?

No they're up to something, not sure what but look out

[AidanLunn]

Originally Posted by John Ferrier

Peter is that you?????

Most hated taxes and Thatcher, Bowie wrote a song about you 'Life on Mars'

Pathetic.

It amuses me how you think a lifelong socialist like myself is in any way related to Peter Hitchens.

As that survey proved, like it or not (and I most certainly like the idea of a TVL), that the majority of people don't like it.

[i4u]

A news editor or editor of a paper was saying the other night newspapers had to turn from cynics to embracing the Olympics and the coverage.

When over 20 million people tune in to the openning and closing ceremonies and react positively on social media...papers like the Mail have had to accept they would alienate their readers by attacking the BBC.

The editor suggested we'll see a change in how newspapers report matters as the public has shown in their zillions what appeals to them far more than tittle tattle about some surgery enhanced female.

Although checking the Mail's website they still think any female going out without make-up is newsworthy.

[mike65]

Originally Posted by VincentH

It's obvious the Daily Mail has decided to bash the BBC quite deliberately to generate clicks on their website (they're doing well as it's the most viewed newspaper site).

That agenda is so obvious that they sometimes make mistakes in their haste to generate those clicks:

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/...n-removes.html

Sadly the world still spins and people still click on their website and consume their BS. Whatever.

Its not like the Mail is alone in this either - the Guardian know the way to more ad impressions and click throughs is by running a Jeremy Clarkson/Top Gear story.