Mail hypocrisy

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:08 am

Royals on jolly while boob job people .... tough shit....

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:12 am

Esqui wrote:

Does the DM (or any news outlet for that matter) have the right to write lies, and the right to omit the truth in order to mislead their readers? Does it have the right to constantly target certain individuals or organisations with a drip feed of minor stories twisted to make them look bad?

Freedom of speech means freedom to lie.

Which is why freedom of speech is useless as a concept unless it includes/demands reciprocity.

Arnold · **Posted:** Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:06 pm

Quote:

New 'silent camera' apps cause plague of voyeurism in Japan - and some are on sale in West

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1iJV8vGFN

shyamz · **Posted:** Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:17 pm

^ "Daily Mail editor reccomends new app to his photographers".

As if the mail is angry about this, they can't wait for this to catch on - just to see what kind of tasty secret shots people can take with them. In this age of you-do-the-reporting-for-us, they'll happily pay a scummy member of the public for a half decent shot of a degraded celebrity.

McSnark · **Posted:** Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:24 pm

Arnold wrote:

Quote:

New 'silent camera' apps cause plague of voyeurism in Japan - and some are on sale in West

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1iJV8vGFN

Yeah, I've got an HTC phone and as long as I have the sound turned down, the media volume and the alarm volume, I can take as many pics as I want totally silently. Maybe I should get a job with the Mail?

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:28 pm

As pointed out in the comments, the iPhone takes pictures silently in mute-mode. I'm pretty certain that a Nikon compact I had c2001 had a silent option, too. As were all in-lens leaf shutters, such as those in rangefinder Leicas, etc.

Arnold · **Posted:** Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:42 pm

What are many of the photos on the DM side bar, other than voyeurism?
I've just checked the phone app on my Android phone. The settings do allow the shutter sound to be turned off.

Daley Mayle · **Posted:** Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:02 pm

The highest rated comment...

Quote:

My bridge camera I've had for about 7 years and that has a silent mode, it's very handy for taking candid photos and they can be very good, but we're not all perverts you know.

- Working class hero, eussr, 02/1/2012 13:30
Click to rate Rating 39

Maybe not a fully fledged stained-in-the-underpants pervert but maybe just a tad tacky, unpleasant hero.

oboogie · **Posted:** Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:37 pm

This made me laugh, was it one of us?

Quote:

who needs a silent camera, i just run as far away from the school as i can..
- Dave, DT, 02/1/2012 14:37

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1iJsHYCZK

McSnark · **Posted:** Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:35 pm

Arnold wrote:

What are many of the photos on the DM side bar, other than voyeurism?

YES. EXACTLY. Fucking hypocrites.

a bit of balance · **Posted:** Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:30 pm

McSnark wrote:

Arnold wrote:

What are many of the photos on the DM side bar, other than voyeurism?

YES. EXACTLY. Fucking hypocrites.

Yet again there is no FUCKING hypocrisy in the article quoted. Nowhere and I mean absolutely NOWHERE in that article is the Daily Mail complaining about the voyeurism, they are simply reporting (it's what newspapers do - REPORT) the facts of the camera apps allowing voyeurism - they are NOT saying it should be stopped. If they were complaining, then yes you'd have your claim of hypocrisy.

If anything, it is this website that is hypocritical in the manner in which stories are twisted to represent something that isn't in the original article.

I really thought this website would stick to the facts that they so desperately crave of the mail, but it looks like you tie and spin far more than the Mail has ever done.

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:33 pm

a bit of balance wrote:

they are simply reporting (it's what newspapers do - REPORT)

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:39 pm

Seriously Abob....

The Mail's job is to spread vile and hateful misinformation and lies.

ezinra · **Posted:** Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:59 pm

wrote:

Nowhere and I mean absolutely NOWHERE in that article is the Daily Mail complaining about the voyeurism, they are simply reporting (it's what newspapers do - REPORT) the facts of the camera apps allowing voyeurism

There's that painstakingly neutral word 'plague' in the headline. (Not to mention 'problem' and 'illicit' in the article.)

The Mail should be complaining about voyeurism. Sticking a camera up a woman's skirt isn't a practice that needs to be reported in a balanced way. Not that the Mail bothers to be balanced. The only use for the camera mentioned in the article is taking "illicit" photos of strangers. Perhaps it has other, more valuable uses too. I'll never know if I rely on the Mail for my news.

What interests the Mail is not the camera technology but the opportunity to write (yet again) about voyeurism. Yum yum. And that's what's hypocritical: the Mail retains a censorious, faux-outraged attitude towards sex and titillation while printing story after story after story about women flaunting their curves and enduring "Marilyn moments", lovingly captured for its readers by "illicit" pictures taken using advanced camera technology.

torontoboy45 · **Joined:** Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:03 pm **Posts:** 171

a bit of balance wrote:

McSnark wrote:

Arnold wrote:

What are many of the photos on the DM side bar, other than voyeurism?

YES. EXACTLY. Fucking hypocrites.

Yet again there is no FUCKING hypocrisy in the article quoted. Nowhere and I mean absolutely NOWHERE in that article is the Daily Mail complaining about the voyeurism, they are simply reporting (it's what newspapers do - REPORT) the facts of the camera apps allowing voyeurism - they are NOT saying it should be stopped. If they were complaining, then yes you'd have your claim of hypocrisy.

If anything, it is this website that is hypocritical in the manner in which stories are twisted to represent something that isn't in the original article.

I really thought this website would stick to the facts that they so desperately crave of the mail, but it looks like you tie and spin far more than the Mail has ever done.

seriously. please. are you deliberately missing the space-filling, scare- mongering qualities of this piece? are you missing the irony of the DM warning against the 'danger' of undercover/voyuer photographic opps?

fuck me ragged.

Mail hypocrisy

Who is online