[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Jack_

If you'd read my earlier posts in this thread you'd see that I remarked that I would actually be in favour of all tabloid articles being banned (which would include the left leaning Mirror) as opposed to just the Mail.

Tabloids engage in reactionary, inane, dumbed down gutter journalism and they should have no place in a serious debate.

I don't see that on a site like tibb quoting from tabloids should be banned. Some tabloids are more serious than others and if others want to quote from any tabloid so be it. You don't hear people whining constantly about the lefty papers, although many of those are the worst.

It's just a predictable attempt to undermine others. People should provide more reliable evidence if they can instead of just thinking crying 'it's from the Mail' is all they need to do - that is too easy and proves nothing.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I don't see that on a site like tibb quoting from tabloids should be banned. Some tabloids are more serious than others and if others want to quote from any tabloid so be it. You don't hear people whining constantly about the lefty papers, although many of those are the worst.

It's just a predictable attempt to undermine others. People should provide more reliable evidence if they can instead of just thinking crying 'it's from the Mail' is all they need to do - that is too easy and proves nothing.

I don't really care whether they are or not because I will continue to deride both the Mail and similar tabloids for their vapid 'journalism' regardless, I merely remarked that I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of such a ban being stretched to all tabloids as opposed to just the one. Also you say 'many' when the only national left-leaning papers in the UK are The Mirror, The Guardian (The Observer on Sunday's) and to a certain extent The Independent, the very idea that there are 'many' is quite frankly laughable.

It's the other way round, actually. People who are attempting to engage in a serious debate should source their information from reputable, quality sources (in this context broadsheet newspapers), and not rely on the inflammatory, juvenile nonsense printed in such pathetic rags. Content from a tabloid newspaper - unless used as material for media analysis - would have no place in an academic setting, so why should it in the context of a Serious Debates subforum?

Again, I don't really care either way because I'm happy to bask in the knowledge that it's all ****e - but if we're discussing banning one, we may as well propose banning them all.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I don't really care whether they are or not because I will continue to deride both the Mail and similar tabloids for their vapid 'journalism' regardless, I merely remarked that I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of such a ban being stretched to all tabloids as opposed to just the one. Also you say 'many' when the only national left-leaning papers in the UK are The Mirror, The Guardian (The Observer on Sunday's) and to a certain extent The Independent, the very idea that there are 'many' is quite frankly laughable.

It's the other way round, actually. People who are attempting to engage in a serious debate should source their information from reputable, quality sources (in this context broadsheet newspapers), and not rely on the inflammatory, juvenile nonsense printed in such pathetic rags. Content from a tabloid newspaper - unless used as material for media analysis - would have no place in an academic setting, so why should it in the context of a Serious Debates subforum?

Again, I don't really care either way because I'm happy to bask in the knowledge that it's all ****e - but if we're discussing banning one, we may as well propose banning them all.

You make some good points but tibb is not an academic setting. Serious debates or not it simply is not that serious.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

You make some good points but tibb is not an academic setting. Serious debates or not it simply is not that serious.

And there can never be serious debate in here when so many of the most active posters get their politics from the DM.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

And there can never be serious debate in here when so many of the most active posters get their politics from the DM.

I think we have seen on here that even when posters do produce evidence from good sources people will still not take it on board if it doesn't fit in with their way of thinking. They will find some way off dismissing it.

Besides it would take me back to having to reference every flipping source used in a piece of work. Done and dusted.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I think we have seen on here that even when posters do produce evidence from good sources people will still not take it on board if it doesn't fit in with their way of thinking. They will find some way off dismissing it.

Besides it would take me back to having to reference every flipping source used in a piece of work. Done and dusted.

Name a 'good source'...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I think we have seen on here that even when posters do produce evidence from good sources people will still not take it on board if it doesn't fit in with their way of thinking. They will find some way off dismissing it.

Besides it would take me back to having to reference every flipping source used in a piece of work. Done and dusted.

No one on here EVER produces good evidence from original, unbiased sources. Literally doesn't happen. I'm including myself in that, too, although I'd say I'm usually pretty upfront about my posts being based on my own opinion.

Using a newspaper article as a source - no matter WHICH newspaper - is using a second hand source already biased by the opinions of its author.

Tldr: newspapers are never good sources. You would never get away with citing one in an official or academic document as a source of fact. There's a reason for that.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I think we have seen on here that even when posters do produce evidence from good sources people will still not take it on board if it doesn't fit in with their way of thinking. They will find some way off dismissing it.

Besides it would take me back to having to reference every flipping source used in a piece of work. Done and dusted.

I don't disagree with you. I have a blog post about just this.
Like Withano, I think any link is better than no link at all. There's nothing more frustrating than opening a threat to a news story only to find it has no link… its difficult to start a dialogue on hearsay.

As for using the DM as a source... when a poster perpetually posts stories from this trash tabloid, you know you can't debate with them because their political knowledge is flawed by a distorted view of how politics works.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

.

As for using the DM as a source... when a poster perpetually posts stories from this trash tabloid, you know you can't debate with them because their political knowledge is flawed by a distorted view of how politics works.

Which makes LT's posted stats on "news" circulation / readership stats all the more disturbing. These are the papers that the "great" British public are buying every day. I don't see how anyone can take democracy even remotely seriously when the worldview of the general public, the people voting, is so hideously and bizarrely distorted.