Love Or Hate Her She's Bang On Here.....
Society & Culture2 mins ago
Official Daily Mail newspaper of the year
41 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
News of The World (just as criminally) got it in 2005.
This is actually the 5th time the Mail's won it since 1994. They don't deserve it one little shred for their constant laziness, negligence and dramatic exaggeration of stories. But they are, unfortunately, an extremely popular - and thus influential - newspaper. Which is probably why they get it so often. And that's why the Economist never gets anything despite being far better researched and having far greater quality reporting than any of the British dailies.
This is actually the 5th time the Mail's won it since 1994. They don't deserve it one little shred for their constant laziness, negligence and dramatic exaggeration of stories. But they are, unfortunately, an extremely popular - and thus influential - newspaper. Which is probably why they get it so often. And that's why the Economist never gets anything despite being far better researched and having far greater quality reporting than any of the British dailies.
Good job you where not on the judges panel then. But what one must ask is who made you such an expert?
But they are, unfortunately, an extremely popular - and thus influential - newspaper. Which is probably why they get it so often.
Typical miserable leftie response who are always ready to condemn anything that is extremely popular.
But they are, unfortunately, an extremely popular - and thus influential - newspaper. Which is probably why they get it so often.
Typical miserable leftie response who are always ready to condemn anything that is extremely popular.
I'm not a 'leftie'. Neither am I 'miserable', thanks very much.
Bear in mind that the Judges based the award - like TIME's 'man of the year' (won by Putin last) - on the most influential or, rather, important newspaper (in which case the Mail would certainly come up).
What I'm saying is that the Mail has extremely shoddy reporting. And deserves to be condemned for it.
Bear in mind that the Judges based the award - like TIME's 'man of the year' (won by Putin last) - on the most influential or, rather, important newspaper (in which case the Mail would certainly come up).
What I'm saying is that the Mail has extremely shoddy reporting. And deserves to be condemned for it.
Even more worrying is this http://adinfo-guardian.co.uk/general/awards-mi crosite/guardian-awards.shtml
there are a large number of newspaper of the year awards. The Financial Times won one of them a couple of weeks ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/09/pr essandpublishing?gusrc=rss&feed=media
Buggins' turn
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/09/pr essandpublishing?gusrc=rss&feed=media
Buggins' turn
In which case you assume that everything which is popular is good. An extremely dangerous viewpoint in politics.
Interesting point Kromo, I would be obliged if you could elaborate more on this.
I would have thought that if politicians had the courage and the will to introduce measures that were popular to the electorate, then they themselves would be very popular.
But then I am always prepared to listen to other's points of views, so please explain, why this is wrong?
Interesting point Kromo, I would be obliged if you could elaborate more on this.
I would have thought that if politicians had the courage and the will to introduce measures that were popular to the electorate, then they themselves would be very popular.
But then I am always prepared to listen to other's points of views, so please explain, why this is wrong?
in fact there seems to have been another one this week already, also won by the Financial Times. I have no idea what this one covers, as the awards' own website doesn't appear to have been updated to mention it
http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/04/ 23/newspaper-awards-winners-timesonlinecouk-na med-enews-site-of-the-year/
The FT also won the What the Papers Say award in December, which seems to be rated highly in the indstry
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/21/fi nancialtimes.pressandpublishing?gusrc=rss&feed =media
But as I say, there are quite a few awards; it's only April.
http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2008/04/ 23/newspaper-awards-winners-timesonlinecouk-na med-enews-site-of-the-year/
The FT also won the What the Papers Say award in December, which seems to be rated highly in the indstry
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/dec/21/fi nancialtimes.pressandpublishing?gusrc=rss&feed =media
But as I say, there are quite a few awards; it's only April.
But then I am always prepared to listen to other's points of views, so please explain, why this is wrong?
Three reasons:
First, public opinion is schizophrenic. People are always pushing forward 'big-state' (and big-cost) solutions to problems, who also complain about high taxation. Public opinion is also often subject to style rather than substance (I recognise I'm generalising furiously here, but that's what one does whenever we measure opinion).
Second, Politicians are representatives, not delegates. Representatives are people who (in theory, at least) try to act in our interests according to what they believe to be in our interests, who we can fire at the next election opportunity. They aren't delegates - who just do what we tell them.
Take the economic reforms of the 80s, for instance: without getting into the full on debate, the legacy has been broadly positive from an economic perspective despite being hugely unpopular at the time. Again, I'm generalising. But that's what happens when you deal with this kind of thing.
Third, Populism and democracy are very different things. Full-on populism leads to things like rule of mob over rule of law, and when the 'tyranny of the majority' prevails. That's why the government has to be able to take responsible decisions rather than ones based solely on their popularity.
cont.
Three reasons:
First, public opinion is schizophrenic. People are always pushing forward 'big-state' (and big-cost) solutions to problems, who also complain about high taxation. Public opinion is also often subject to style rather than substance (I recognise I'm generalising furiously here, but that's what one does whenever we measure opinion).
Second, Politicians are representatives, not delegates. Representatives are people who (in theory, at least) try to act in our interests according to what they believe to be in our interests, who we can fire at the next election opportunity. They aren't delegates - who just do what we tell them.
Take the economic reforms of the 80s, for instance: without getting into the full on debate, the legacy has been broadly positive from an economic perspective despite being hugely unpopular at the time. Again, I'm generalising. But that's what happens when you deal with this kind of thing.
Third, Populism and democracy are very different things. Full-on populism leads to things like rule of mob over rule of law, and when the 'tyranny of the majority' prevails. That's why the government has to be able to take responsible decisions rather than ones based solely on their popularity.
cont.
I'm not saying that popularity is a negative thing. If something is universally unpopular, then obviously it's clear that the government ought to rethink its position pretty sharpish. It's also hugely important that a government is held to account. Plus, there's nothing wrong with the government acting in the interests or beliefs of a majority of the people.
But there's a significant line to be drawn between always acting in the interests of the people/country and in governing well. Popularity is not the only consideration, and unpopular decisions are sometimes a necessity. And likewise it can be extremely dangerous for the government to get caught up in every popular whim or hysteria. Note the Dangerous Dogs Act, for instance. Or for a much more extreme example, the Terror in revolutionary France.
This is the kind of thing I meant when I said 'dangerous'. What the Mail does is stoke that kind of sentiment and demonise the government for not bending to the people's will (or the paper's view). Plus the quality of its evidence is dubious, but that's another point...
But there's a significant line to be drawn between always acting in the interests of the people/country and in governing well. Popularity is not the only consideration, and unpopular decisions are sometimes a necessity. And likewise it can be extremely dangerous for the government to get caught up in every popular whim or hysteria. Note the Dangerous Dogs Act, for instance. Or for a much more extreme example, the Terror in revolutionary France.
This is the kind of thing I meant when I said 'dangerous'. What the Mail does is stoke that kind of sentiment and demonise the government for not bending to the people's will (or the paper's view). Plus the quality of its evidence is dubious, but that's another point...
You have once again gone to extreme lengths to prove your point, but I am afraid once again it does not answer the point in question.
Your fault in trying to win an argument is always your way of making very many generalisations, a fact that you, yourself have admitted. Another fault of yours is that you also make many assumptions. Take this for instance that you posted on Friday 25/04/08 16.07
MY STATEMENT:
always ready to condemn anything that is extremely popular
YOUR ANSWER:
In which case you assume that everything which is popular is good. An extremely dangerous viewpoint in politics.
Where did I ever say that "I assume everthing which is popular is good"?
It was you who made this assumption not me.
But let's get back to the point in question, your continual slagging off of the Daily Mail, and I quote.
What the Mail does is stoke that kind of sentiment and demonise the government for not bending to the people's will (or the paper's view). Plus the quality of its evidence is dubious.
Gross generalisation without a shred of evidence.
Your fault in trying to win an argument is always your way of making very many generalisations, a fact that you, yourself have admitted. Another fault of yours is that you also make many assumptions. Take this for instance that you posted on Friday 25/04/08 16.07
MY STATEMENT:
always ready to condemn anything that is extremely popular
YOUR ANSWER:
In which case you assume that everything which is popular is good. An extremely dangerous viewpoint in politics.
Where did I ever say that "I assume everthing which is popular is good"?
It was you who made this assumption not me.
But let's get back to the point in question, your continual slagging off of the Daily Mail, and I quote.
What the Mail does is stoke that kind of sentiment and demonise the government for not bending to the people's will (or the paper's view). Plus the quality of its evidence is dubious.
Gross generalisation without a shred of evidence.
Gross generalisation without a shred of evidence.
Evidence? Take a look at the Mail's language. It's invariably emotive and vitriolic. You won't find language like that elsewhere. Well, except the red-tops.
I also provided some very nice examples of this in this thread. If you want more, I can provide them given a little time.
Your fault in trying to win an argument is always your way of making very many generalisations, a fact that you, yourself have admitted
When arguing over something as broad as the value of popularity, you're dealing in very general terms. It's near impossible not to make generalisations, because that's exactly what measuring public opinion does.
Plus I've given very specific examples of populist legislation (the Dangerous Dogs Act) and a specific example of something unpopular which was beneficial in the long run (the 80s economic reforms). The reason I didn't provide many more was because I was trying to be concise and thought a few would be fine.
Where did I ever say that "I assume everthing which is popular is good"?
A fair point. I thought the underlying implication of your statement was that what was popular=what's good. I made a mistake. Sorry.
Evidence? Take a look at the Mail's language. It's invariably emotive and vitriolic. You won't find language like that elsewhere. Well, except the red-tops.
I also provided some very nice examples of this in this thread. If you want more, I can provide them given a little time.
Your fault in trying to win an argument is always your way of making very many generalisations, a fact that you, yourself have admitted
When arguing over something as broad as the value of popularity, you're dealing in very general terms. It's near impossible not to make generalisations, because that's exactly what measuring public opinion does.
Plus I've given very specific examples of populist legislation (the Dangerous Dogs Act) and a specific example of something unpopular which was beneficial in the long run (the 80s economic reforms). The reason I didn't provide many more was because I was trying to be concise and thought a few would be fine.
Where did I ever say that "I assume everthing which is popular is good"?
A fair point. I thought the underlying implication of your statement was that what was popular=what's good. I made a mistake. Sorry.
Good Day anotheoldgit, nice to see you missed me while I was away.
Unfortunately, you have been misled by the Daily Mail yet again.
At the prestigious British Press Awards, the highly coveted 'Newspaper of the Year' award went not to the Daily Mail, but to the Financial Times. This is a UK wide award and is highly respected in the industry.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/09/pr essandpublishing?gusrc=rss&feed=media
What the Daily Mail misleadingly calls "a prestigious British press awards ceremony was in fact a rather parochial affair by the London Press Club, a rather meaningless private members club in the capital.
http://www.londonpressclub.co.uk/news.shtml
So well done the FT.
Unfortunately, you have been misled by the Daily Mail yet again.
At the prestigious British Press Awards, the highly coveted 'Newspaper of the Year' award went not to the Daily Mail, but to the Financial Times. This is a UK wide award and is highly respected in the industry.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/09/pr essandpublishing?gusrc=rss&feed=media
What the Daily Mail misleadingly calls "a prestigious British press awards ceremony was in fact a rather parochial affair by the London Press Club, a rather meaningless private members club in the capital.
http://www.londonpressclub.co.uk/news.shtml
So well done the FT.
Latest Posts
You Could Have Protected Her....
News9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Country Life Crossword Prize Reduction
Crosswords15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.