Question Time

[sparky88]

1 minute ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

 

You're lying now. You said that the National was the only newspaper created in the UK to cater for a specific political point of view. Which is bollocks.

The Daily Mail wasn't created to support the Tories. That's a statement of fact. They may have done throughout their history, but it wasn't why the newspaper was created. 

[Tibbermoresaint]

1 minute ago, sparky88 said:

The Daily Mail wasn't created to support the Tories. That's a statement of fact. They may have done throughout their history, but it wasn't why the newspaper was created. 

The Daily Heil isn't the only paper in the UK.

[BawWatchin]

5 minutes ago, sparky88 said:

The Daily Mail wasn't created to support the Tories. That's a statement of fact. They may have done throughout their history, but it wasn't why the newspaper was created. 

Well if they've been doing it "throughout their history". Then how do you know they weren't created to do that?

[sparky88]

7 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

The Daily Heil isn't the only paper in the UK.

 

3 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Well if they've been doing it "throughout their history". Then how do you know they weren't created to do that?

It was created via merger of other papers- not to support the Tories. Very interesting that not a single newspaper has been mentioned to counter my argument. Almost like there isn't one. 

[GAD]

19 minutes ago, sparky88 said:

All? The only 3 daily newspapers that fit those criteria, I believe, are the daily mail, the express and the telegraph.

The record and the sun in only 4 years have supported multiple parties. The Record in particular now supports a party that argues the exact opposite of all 4 of those policy positions

We were talking about the daily mail and the daily express though, so the answer you were looking for was "none".

[HTG]

Sparky, you're having a bit of a mare here. 

That aside, what we can now see from QT is that the audience is not a free from manipulation vox pop of the people. But it is presented in that way. So you get people who are or were in positions of influence turning up as if they are random punters. If the BBC are aware that these folk hold or have held political office, they should be introduced as such. The impression of random selection is wrong. When you come to Scotland with this stuff it gets really exposed because the panel, the audience and the folk chosen to ask questions are skewed heavily towards unionist views. And they don't even blush when the same people - see William Orange from the last one - are selected despite the odds of that happening being supposedly slim. 

It's a farce.

[Tibbermoresaint]

2 minutes ago, sparky88 said:

 

It was created via merger of other papers- not to support the Tories. Very interesting that not a single newspaper has been mentioned to counter my argument. Almost like there isn't one. 

 

[BawWatchin]

14 minutes ago, sparky88 said:

 

It was created via merger of other papers- not to support the Tories. Very interesting that not a single newspaper has been mentioned to counter my argument. Almost like there isn't one. 

You saying there isn't one, isn't the same as there not actually being any.

Edited May 17, 2019 by BawWatchin

[sparky88]

1 minute ago, BawWatchin said:

You saying there isn't one, isn't the same as there not actually being any.

What are they?

[BawWatchin]

Also. The Daily Mail wasn't created via a merger. Another paper called the "Daily Chronicle" merged with a paper called the "Daily News" to become the "News Chronicle". Which the Daily Mail eventually absorbed.

[Tibbermoresaint]

4 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Also. The Daily Mail wasn't created via a merger. Another paper called the "Daily Chronicle" merged with a paper called the "Daily News" to become the "News Chronicle". Which the Daily Mail eventually absorbed.

Correct. The Daily Heil was originally published as a specifically patriotic pro-Empire paper. For the hard of understanding this means it had a particular political stance from day one.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

23 minutes ago, sparky88 said:

The Daily Mail wasn't created to support the Tories. That's a statement of fact. They may have done throughout their history, but it wasn't why the newspaper was created. 

I see what you're getting at, but you could say the same about The National. 

The National wasn't created to support the SNP,  it came into existence because it supports of specific political position.

A small Google search shows that the Daily Mail was always a right-wing, imperialist newspaper and has remained so throughout its existence. You're absolutely correct to say that it wasn't created specifically to support the Tories, but it just so happens that throughout its existence Daily Mail editorial policies have been aligned to that particular party.

The same is true about The Telegraph, which is actually much more directly aligned to the Tory party itself than any other newspaper. 

The Express was founded to appeal to the 'conservative working class' (thanks again Google) and as far as I'm aware has always been a right-wing propaganda sheet that in the main has supported the Tories, but in recent years has lurched even further to the right. 

It's probably the most despicable of all the 3 of them. 

[sparky88]

3 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

Also. The Daily Mail wasn't created via a merger. Another paper called the "Daily Chronicle" merged with a paper called the "Daily News" to become the "News Chronicle". Which the Daily Mail eventually absorbed.

Two Hull Newspapers were merged together moved to London and called the Daily Mail in the 1890s. At least try and Google properly

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

As a general point, this discussion only proves how poorly served the population of the UK is served by its media, both print and television.

People are reading propaganda which appeals to their binary point of view. I'm as guilty of it as any, because the only UK-wide paper I'll look at is The Guardian....a newspaper which in the main (Scottish independence aside) appeals to my slightly left of centre political leanings. 

I simply can't watch Question Time or any other political discussion programme. The whole thing  is an ever decreasing circle filled with bitter arguments and accusations, and serves no purpose other than to reinforce the blinkered  and hardened point of views of people on either side of any discussion. 

The UK is a sad, sad place these days. It could take decades to escape from this madness. 

[John Lambies Doos]

Everytime Swinney talked, Bruce just wanted to cut him off.

[John Lambies Doos]

Loved when Leonard said, clearest way to get out of this mire is to vote labour next week. In unison everyone laughed [emoji23]

He's worse than Kez [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

[BawWatchin]

2 hours ago, sparky88 said:

Two Hull Newspapers were merged together moved to London and called the Daily Mail in the 1890s. At least try and Google properly

That's a complete fabrication. The paper was founded by 2 brothers. Alfred and Harold Harmsworth in 1896. There was no "merger". The paper also took an imperalistic political stance right from the very beginning and has continued that way for over 120 years.

[Tutankhamen]

3 hours ago, Bob Mahelp said:

I see what you're getting at, but you could say the same about The National. 

The National wasn't created to support the SNP,  it came into existence because it supports of specific political position.

A small Google search shows that the Daily Mail was always a right-wing, imperialist newspaper and has remained so throughout its existence. You're absolutely correct to say that it wasn't created specifically to support the Tories, but it just so happens that throughout its existence Daily Mail editorial policies have been aligned to that particular party.

The same is true about The Telegraph, which is actually much more directly aligned to the Tory party itself than any other newspaper. 

The Express was founded to appeal to the 'conservative working class' (thanks again Google) and as far as I'm aware has always been a right-wing propaganda sheet that in the main has supported the Tories, but in recent years has lurched even further to the right. 

It's probably the most despicable of all the 3 of them. 

The Scottish Daily Express was until it went tits up in the 1970s the biggest selling daily newspaper in Scotland. The Daily Record which used to have “incorporating the North British Daily Mail” in it's banner. In the 1995 Daily Record anniversary special edition it managed to pass the North British Daily Mail off in one sentence. It also managed to forget it’s highly Tory past which stopped overnight in 1964. The exact same year the Tories Scottish branch stopped calling themselves the Unionist Party. The then Unionist name having f**k all to do with the union between Scotland and England but Great Britain and Ireland and later GB and Northern Ireland. The Scottish part in the “Union” was 50 years in the future.

[Loondave1]

Everytime Swinney talked, Bruce just wanted to cut him off.

Think that was for his own good to be honest. He's a dud that even the Nats on here have reservations about. That said the whole show was short on "gammon" by recent standards and I expect more incoherent shouting than Elgin provided.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

45 minutes ago, Loondave1 said:

4 hours ago, John Lambies Doos said:

Everytime Swinney talked, Bruce just wanted to cut him off.

Think that was for his own good to be honest. He's a dud that even the Nats on here have reservations about. That said the whole show was short on "gammon" by recent standards and I expect more incoherent shouting than Elgin provided.

Swinney isn't a 'dud' by any means. He's a fair and honest politician who happens not to be desperate to spout populist garbage.

You may not agree with his politics, and that's fair enough, but like many old-school politicians in all parties these days he seems to be criticised because he's not 'shock-jock' material like Johnson, Rees-Mogg or Farage.