Why is the Daily Mail so anti Veteran?

[walker 0]

Hi all

I have been watching the Gurkha press conference.

And I cannot think of a time when I have been so shocked and angered by journalists.

The sheer racism of the Daily Mail was there for all to see.

I hope the journalist involved rots in hell.

Pissed off Walker

[Laertes 10]

How, does this even remotely count as ArmA 2 - General? Take your rants to Off-Topic, or even better, to a different site.

[dmarkwick 261]

The Daily Mail is a cesspool of racist idiocy and scaremongering lunacy dressed up as journalism. All newspapers have had to find a niche market in order to continue selling in the face of internet journalism, and The Daily Mail has chosen the niche market of the nasty old middle-English racist tutting brigade.

Take no notice of Daily Mail lunacy, in the UK it's well known that they're a bunch of idiots.

[Laqueesha 474]

I can see it now...

Wolle: "Walker, you've been here long enough to know the forum rules. Closing." :D

[walker 0]

Hi all

I reported myself for posting in the wrong section it was just I was so angry from hearing that Daily Mail journalist trying to infer Joanna Lumley was parachuted in so she could get the publicity and a slavering rant of similar nature against all involved that they were trying to rip Gurkhas off while at the same time saying 100,000 would come here and take all our jobs and that they were dirty beggars in another part all this going on throughout the News Conference.

I know the Daily Mail is crap and in general life all I am exposed to are their headlines as I pass the news stand; it is the first time I have had to listen to the stream of their shit so it really incensed me.

Kind regards walker

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Hi all

I reported myself for posting in the wrong section it was just I was so angry from hearing that Daily Mail journalist trying to infer Joanna Lumley was parachuted in so she could get the publicity and a slavering rant of similar nature against all involved that they were trying to rip Gurkhas off while at the same time saying 100,000 would come here and take all our jobs and that they were dirty beggars in another part all this going on throughout the News Conference.

I know the Daily Mail is crap and in general life all I am exposed to are their headlines as I pass the news stand; it is the first time I have had to listen to the stream of their shit so it really incensed me.

Kind regards walker

I know how you feel. The Westboro Baptist Church protested the funeral of a friend of mine carrying signs that said things like "Thank God for IEDs" "I'm glad God killed your fag son" and shouting slogans about how soldiers die in war beause there are gays in the Army. Eventually, I had to learn to shrug that stuff off.

Our (US) media usually plays the "We support the troops!" card, but there are times when they can become pretty rabid against us, and the various protest groups can be downright awful sometimes.

Just have to learn how to shrug it off. Like your Gurkhas, being unappreciated is a bitch.

[savagevcb 10]

The majority of all media is bias to one viewpoint or another, never use one source of information for anything. That said, I thought the mail was pro-soldiers, I'm sure it was the mail who did an article aimed at shaming people who refused to employ veterans...

[dmarkwick 261]

I thought the mail was pro-soldiers, I'm sure it was the mail who did an article aimed at shaming people who refused to employ veterans...

... as long as they're proper, British, white veterans.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The mail do tend to be a bunch of two faced f**kers. Pretending to be on Joanna Lumley and veterans side one minute, then stabing them in the back the next, like they have over last month or so.

Like I said never been so agry with a journalist in my life as was Lumley and the people from the charity and even her fellow journalist started to turn on the Mail journalis toward the end even telling her to shut up.

Though it my experinece that journalists will rarely do a report on how corrupt their own proffession is.

Still Angry walker

Edited March 29, 2010 by walker

[dm 9]

The Daily Mail is a cesspool of racist idiocy and scaremongering lunacy dressed up as journalism

Fix'd:

The modern media is a cesspool of racist idiocy and scaremongering lunacy dressed up as journalism

[das attorney 858]

The Daily Mail is a complete filth-fest.

The 'articles' are always variations on the same theme - <Non-Christian, black, benefit seeking gays, coming to Britain to steal your jobs, homes and heritage. Now here's Nigella Lawson with some cooking porn.>

[Pathy 0]

The 'articles' are always variations on the same theme

Don't forget Cancer.

http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/

"Help to make sense of the Daily Mail’s ongoing effort to classify every inanimate object into those that cause cancer and those that prevent it."

The newspaper is literally a laughing stock. I feel sorry for anyone who reads it as a serious newspaper.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Pathy

[Flash Thunder 10]

Fix'd:

Listen to this Man!

Much wisdom

[Sad Git 10]

The Daily Mail used to support Hitler and Oswald Mosley.

And they claimed that Microsoft Flight Sim was used for training the 9/11 bombers.

[Flash Thunder 10]

The Daily Mail used to support Hitler and Oswald Mosley.

And they claimed that Microsoft Flight Sim was used for training the 9/11 bombers.

Oh noes its a CONSPIRACY! ;)

[HyperU2 11]

It's hip to be anti military, if you're against the wars you just claim you're for the troops. It's like supporting a soccer team and hoping they never play.

[Bulldogs 10]

It's too much freedom of information and not enough classified. Prior to everyone seeing on TV what was happening, prior to everyone learning about the effects of casualties of war, friendly fire, innocent bistanders, war was considered heroic.

I've always stood against collateral damage. That's why I was happy when the Australian Airforce told the US forces during Afgan/Iraq that if there was any chance of civilian casulties that our hornets would not bomb the targets. Each pilot had a standing order to pull out if there was any chance of collateral damage to cilvilian life, and that pissed off the American commanders but they couldn't argue against it.

But I'm going a little off topic, my point is that there is too much collateral damage and too much publicized collateral damage which as a result brought on outrage by the general public, and as such the media circus thought, "hooray, people are getting really pissed off, let's use that to smear the name of every person who serves and gain public approval, 'cause public approval sells papers"

And it just keeps getting worse. One of my friends is a reporter who knows my stance on the military and he and I got into a heavy arguement one night about the merits of conflicts. In the end his stand was that no one should ever go to war for any reason and that the US and NATO forces should leave countries alone to their own merits.

I said that if Australia was run by a dictator who constantly focused on greed and personal gains, if my friends family was killed in front of him, if he was put in jail and tortured, and if the US offered him assistance would he tell them to stay in their own country where they belong?

He never did give me a straight answer.

[belgerot 33]

I personally don't care for it. They only want benefits, so was it the benefits they fought for?

[dmarkwick 261]

I personally don't care for it. They only want benefits, so was it the benefits they fought for?

No, but they're the ones they earned.

[echo1 0]

It's too much freedom of information and not enough classified. Prior to everyone seeing on TV what was happening, prior to everyone learning about the effects of casualties of war, friendly fire, innocent bistanders, war was considered heroic.

I've always stood against collateral damage. That's why I was happy when the Australian Airforce told the US forces during Afgan/Iraq that if there was any chance of civilian casulties that our hornets would not bomb the targets. Each pilot had a standing order to pull out if there was any chance of collateral damage to cilvilian life, and that pissed off the American commanders but they couldn't argue against it.

But I'm going a little off topic, my point is that there is too much collateral damage and too much publicized collateral damage which as a result brought on outrage by the general public, and as such the media circus thought, "hooray, people are getting really pissed off, let's use that to smear the name of every person who serves and gain public approval, 'cause public approval sells papers"

And it just keeps getting worse. One of my friends is a reporter who knows my stance on the military and he and I got into a heavy arguement one night about the merits of conflicts. In the end his stand was that no one should ever go to war for any reason and that the US and NATO forces should leave countries alone to their own merits.

I said that if Australia was run by a dictator who constantly focused on greed and personal gains, if my friends family was killed in front of him, if he was put in jail and tortured, and if the US offered him assistance would he tell them to stay in their own country where they belong?

He never did give me a straight answer.

I think the publicizing wars probably does more good than harm - do you think that WW1 would have happened like it did if it was covered live on CNN? That's what happens when people get caught up in 'hero frenzy' - they think that their army is invisible and stand by, detached from reality, and send the boys off into messes like the Somme or Galipoli. Dulce et decorum, the old lie...

War is ultimately a political matter. Politicians are elected by us, the ignorant masses, to make certain decisions on our behalf. We have a right to know what mess our votes have landed us. Obviously there's times when journalists get too eager and they damage the success of military operations, but that is something that has to be dealt with by itself.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

I personally don't care for it. They only want benefits, so was it the benefits they fought for?

Who is "they"?

[maturin 12]

It's hip to be anti military, if you're against the wars you just claim you're for the troops. It's like supporting a soccer team and hoping they never play.

Same fallacy applies to the DoD. Unless it's hip to be anti-self defense and I never noticed.

[HyperU2 11]

If you love a defense where you sit back and wait, I'm sorry. Al Quaida isn't doing a lot of planning with Hellfires falling on their heads.

[Archamedes 10]

This my friends is the joys of newspapers. They are the the real people who control the country and what people think. Forget the government and all the rest, the newspapers tell you who to like, who to hate and pretty much who to vote for in an election. a prime exampe of this was jade goody. First they took the piss out of her, then they got everyone to hate her by dishing out the dirt and when she got cancer and died they then got everyone to feel sorry for her and forgive her, pretty much making her out to be a hero. They do this with everyone and everything, the papers have a way of making people agree with a lot of the stuff they write wether it be true or not is another story.

[maturin 12]

If you love a defense where you sit back and wait, I'm sorry. Al Quaida isn't doing a lot of planning with Hellfires falling on their heads.

I don't know what you thought my point was.