People here don't generally try and pass themselves off as journalists publishing supposedly researched pieces though


What passes for modern journalism is a crying joke and all my former editors would be rolling in their graves at the stuff that gets published these days. I did nearly 20 years in regional and digital journalism and thankfully got out just before my son was born in 2008. I wouldn't want to be a journalist in today's era.

It's a bit pointless actually complaining on here about what appears in newspapers.
The people to whom those that have their own agenda should complain, are those who print the papers.

The content of many articles in papers for which links are posted on here, are just for comments for "amusement only,"
The political bias of a newspaper is hardly important if the linked content is just a bit of show business nonsense.

Brendan did at once stage at least judge the New Zealand version along with Craig. I actually think he'd be quite good - he seems like like everyone and yet has been there long enough not to be part of a particular faction and quite a lot of the pros are new. He does also have opinions - he might not get it because of his views on the other judges but then he seems to get on with Craig despite differences in opinion.

Or a copy of Mein Kampf - sadly both my parents and a friends swallow this shit wholesale along with other middle Englanders. They're nice people apart from that believe or not.

Yes, I too know of people who read this type of stuff and regrettably accept it as gospel. And it's no good anyone else telling them otherwise.

I do think those that believe it could have their view changed. If, for instance, I thought there was really any truth in Greg and Natalie 'growing close' it would put me off them as a dancing couple. I think it would others also.

I think the part regarding him and Daisy is very disrespective to them and their real world partners.

Completely agree. It would me too. I think allegations of affairs or of people being cows backstage are incredibly damaging, and people do believe things they read in the papers. We tell ourselves we don't, but I think we absorb most of it, even while telling ourselves it's rubbish. The 'there must be something in it or they'd sue' myth. The only hope is that because they stuffed in every rumour they could think of, it's not as damaging as if they had taken one and made a whole article out of it. Maybe. Nasty though, and intended to be as damaging as possible.

It isn't the same as the stuff written on here imo. This isn't a journalist saying 'I don't like A' or 'I can't quite warm to B' or 'I think if you look at C and D you can tell they hate each other'. This is saying that 'sources' are telling them of events that have happened, facts, things the celebs have said (taken out of context) A newspaper blog where a journalist says what dance they liked best is quite different. We have occasionally had people saying they are sources on here - I remember someone saying they knew Steve and Ola weren't getting on at all for one. But generally people who claim to be sources are treated with suspicion and most posters admit what they are saying is an opinion or feeling. Which is kind of the point of an opinion board.

Tess was the past master of the odd ham-fisted sly suggestion of "something going on."
She embarrassed Kara Tointon in that way, after one of her dances,

The paper has an anti Strictly bias because it hates the BBC and also loathes that Ed might just be popular because the paper hates Ed Balls.

Just to add that in the same paper that nasty piece of work Amanda Platell, has printed a fetching picture of Katya Jones and then made comments about Ed's wife being worried and perhaps this is why Ed nearly dropped her so his head ended up "Up her skirt".

Be realistic.
Try to see a bit further than the printed word, or should newspapers start using smileys for those who only read text messages and internet forums and can't recognise a bit of micky-taking in a newspaper column without them?

The Mail has no Anti Strictly agenda. It's not that important to them.

I don't mind the Mail bashing the BBC now and again, given some of the stokes in the past it's pulled with our cash.

We're still able to make up our own minds... Well, at least some of us are.

no, no... it's real isn't it? I mean Kardashibum.

I wouldn't give anything written in the vile Mail any credence. Sloppy journalism at its best, just pathetic. If you scroll to the comments though the highest rated are supporting Strictly and criticizing the article, common sense does prevail!

The first objective of any newspaper, is to get people to buy it.

What they put in it and whether people read it is of secondary importance.

Whether the purchasers of the paper believe any of it, is of even less importance.

Whether people moan about the content on internet forums, is probably of no significance to them at all.

Common sense is to not worry too much about what any paper prints.

The first objective of any newspaper is to secure online advertising revenue, and to shore up the system that keeps its owner fat.

After that, completely agree. Cadiva is right. Being a journalist must be soul-destroying. No one goes into it on purpose to tell lies and be trivial... Most fledgling journalists probably dream of being Pilger -- brave, intelligent, strong. But here we are

Its vile but you read it. How strange.

The Mail regularly runs the latest 'scandal' (usually fabricated) about Strictly Come Dancing but the same edition with have several articles promoting various people on the programme and generally favourable to the programme - they like to have it both ways!

I remember reading a "Is this the bitchiest Strictly ever?" article in the Mail last year. Strictly's "crime" is that it's on the BBC, which the Mail hates more than anything in the world, with the possible exception of Chris Evans and Carol Middleton. We can expect to see basically the same article with different names every year.

I clicked on the link given by the OP not so strange really???

And then scrolled down to the comments. Ah well I suppose they will be pleased you have added to their huge viewing number that makes them the highest in the UK and one of the highest in the World.

To make a fair judgement on the article before I commented. Are you feeling OK, you seem very cross 😂

Every year, the Daily Mail prints bitchy pieces about the show, the celebrities, the dancers, the costumes, whatever. All a load of horseapples. I did read that the DM owners are very anti-BBC, and make it a policy to run down the biggest BBC shows - could be true!

That was covered in my first point, advertising is generated by the sales of the paper.
You only have to look at the number of advertisements in the Mail, to see it's popular with a wide range of different advertisers.