Discussion of the more serious side of the Mail's agenda
:sunglasses: 33.3 % :thumbsup: 50 % :grinning: 16.7 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By spoonman
Membership Days Posts
#554035
The Red Arrow wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:08 am
No surprise here, let's hope the new broom sweeps clean...
I'd reckon a series of enemas are needed more myself. And when they do the first one, it would be a good idea to stick the hose in Vero Beach.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#554063
And again

http://www.farrightwatch.net/2018/09/mo ... t.html?m=1

Among other things (many of which we have to run past the lawyers first!) he/she states, quite categorically, that a substantial number of the commentors on Daily Mail stories, especially those with no avatar or ID, are system responses, Mail staffers or paid contractors. On some days, it's over 50%, even 75%.

The Project - suitably named Abyss - was set up in 2015 and has run since. Estimated costs are £22,000 a year for 2017/18, which is lost in their 'Media/Marketing' Budget. It is particularly used when comments are either minimal or critical of the story, to generate false support.
 
By Daley Mayle
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#554072
Is Far Right Watch kosher? I posted the article about the DM writing its own comments elsewhere and someone pointed out that FRW was kicked off twitter for calling Stock, from the 1980s Stock, Aitken, Waterman writing trio m'lud, a cunt.

Possibly well deserved but it calls into question whether the organisation can be trusted.
 
By Kreuzberger
Membership Days Posts
#554075
The veracity of this, or otherwise, needs to established pretty darn sharp.

This is because the mail have hitherto distanced themselves from the legality of these comments, based on claim that they are a conduit rather than the publishers. If that is shown to be not the case and that they are in fact the authors, they could be looking at potentially thousands of charges of incitement.

Is it too much of a stretch to consider that this information, if true, has been put in to the public domain in order to discredit the old regime?

Squeaky-bum time on a few EU-funded Highland estates this morning.
Malcolm Armsteen liked this
 
By Bones McCoy
Membership Days Posts
#554078
Kreuzberger wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:28 am
The veracity of this, or otherwise, needs to established pretty darn sharp.

This is because the mail have hitherto distanced themselves from the legality of these comments, based on claim that they are a conduit rather than the publishers. If that is shown to be not the case and that they are in fact the authors, they could be looking at potentially thousands of charges of incitement.

Is it too much of a stretch to consider that this information, if true, has been put in to the public domain in order to discredit the old regime?

Squeaky-bum time on a few EU-funded Highland estates this morning.
I agree - handle with caution until verified.

It's a pity that the editor is such a supportive boss.
If he had behaved like as victorian mill owning bully we might expect a flood of disgruntled staff ready to spill the beans.

Alternatively, the fuzz gets a warrant and grabs the appropriate IT kit.
However I fear Incitement by nice white people isn't now and rarely has been far up their agenda.
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#554087
The question is, could you prove which 50% or whatever were staff generated? The paper could argue that miraculously all the bland comments were theirs, and the hateful ones other people.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#554094
A comment from a real-world friend on the commenters story:
Sorry, but it’s hardly news. I can actually hang my head in shame and say that I worked as a managing editor for part of the Daily Mail, after the publishing company I worked for was bought by DMGT in around 1995 until I moved on four years or so later. As a result we got to learn of the editorial policies at the parent company. That was common practice then, and still is, and the same applies to most of the publishing empire.
 
By davidjay
Membership Days Posts
#554101
Kreuzberger wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:28 am
The veracity of this, or otherwise, needs to established pretty darn sharp.

This is because the mail have hitherto distanced themselves from the legality of these comments, based on claim that they are a conduit rather than the publishers. If that is shown to be not the case and that they are in fact the authors, they could be looking at potentially thousands of charges of incitement.

Is it too much of a stretch to consider that this information, if true, has been put in to the public domain in order to discredit the old regime?

Squeaky-bum time on a few EU-funded Highland estates this morning.
A friend of mine who runs a fairly controversial forum tells me that when the shit hits the fan you're better off being unmoderated as then you can plead ignorance.
By karlt
Membership Days
#554460
Ignorance of what the law is is not a defence. Ignorance as to fact can be. For example, one cannot buy stolen goods and claim one didn't know it was illegal to do so (well, one can, but it's not a defence in law). However, one can claim that one bought something in good faith and without obvious signs it was stolen (e.g. very low price, insisting on cash purchase in a layby on the Wolds) that is a defence against a charge of receiving stolen goods.
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#558081
Greig’s editorship is going to bring stories we will enjoy reading and like to believe like this one. It’s still piss poor journalism with no sources they can stand up
Brexiteers are urged to buy microwaves for their offices to keep their phones in and protect them from eavesdropping
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... hones.html
The Sun

WAGES have risen at the fastest rate for almos[…]

Jess Phillips

She has a right to speak her mind like every Labou[…]

The Tories, Generally

She could have prevented all this though... She r[…]

Michael Gove

How is he not doing something breaking news?