[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Because I'd only read the section which mentioned cultural practices. Cultural does not always equate to religious.

They've explained what culture this man is referring to when saying he doesn't use toilet paper. The same section which mentions the person having to wash the left hand which they use to use to wash with. Obviously indicating this particular man wasn't really very hygienic no matter his culture.

Still wasn't stating or implying that they are "all" unhygienic swines.

Of course it doesn't, the reason I brought religion into the equation is because the Mail did in the article - my entire point. In fact, it should be pointed out that there's as yet no evidence to suggest this man is of any faith - I've tried to research several articles but none of them specify whether he does or doesn't, so the Mail's decision to devote an entire section entitled 'NO LOO ROLL: HOW MUSLIMS, HINDUS AND OTHERS USE WATER WHEN THEY GO TO THE TOILET' is really quite unnecessary, no?

I am aware of the content of that section once you've read between the lines, but that subtitle is totally inflammatory, why not entitle it 'How Mr Chowdhury can't use culture as an excuse - here's how it works:' or words to that effect? Because they're trying to get their readers to go 'ewwww! So this is what they're all doing! They need to learn how to live like us!'.

Newspapers do not explicitly say things like that, they imply them and try to incite their readers to pick up on discreet messages in a bid to further their particular agenda. Just because it doesn't actually say 'this is yet another example of how these different religions and cultures are so disgusting and not like us', doesn't mean the meaning isn't there. All it takes is a little bit of objectivity and trying to assess how this story can be used to further a title's often well known editorial stance.

Originally Posted by Marsh.

You're the one apparently blind.

Using your view of the publication as a whole to make things up about this specific article which simply is not there.

My view of the publication? You aren't serious, right? The Daily Mail is a well known fervent defender of British culture and its traditional, more conservative values. It is also not a huge fan of immigration, Islam or other non-Christian religions for that matter. This is not something I'm making up - it's well documented. Of course other titles have either similar or differing agendas - I'm not trying to deny that, supply me with an article from The Mirror or The Guardian and I'll show you how they're trying to push an anti-Tory, progressive, liberal agenda. I'm not being biased, just being objective. I am not passing judgement on the Mail's attempts at using this story to further their cause (though I do obviously have my opinions on it), merely pointing out that's what they're doing - because they are.