[Osem]

Originally Posted by BBKing

Osem, turning the murder of a 15 year old into a veiled attack on me is so far from classy that you can't see it with a high-powered telescope. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

Anyway, you haven't been paying attention - you can trust murder figures from tabloids for the same reason you can trust them from the police*. The difference is that the police will point out when they reduce, which they have.

One thing - this isn't just another murder in London, it's another murder in Lambeth, which has way higher rates than anywhere else in the capital, 8.64 per 100,000 population in 2007. Next worst was Newham with 5.33, round my way it's 1.41.

* they're impossible to lie about, which is a common argument of mine against the 'you can't trust government crime figures so I'll believe the Daily Mail' line. It's only at the lower end of the seriousness of crime that you can plausibly say that figures can be distorted by under-reporting or official indifference, but murder has a near-100% reporting rate and the police always investigate, so that line of argument is ridiculous and verges on conspiracy theory.

I don't need to veil my 'attacks' on your sad obesession with the tabloids you evidently spend so much time reading and worrying about. You're not the only one but if the cap fits by all means wear it eh! The day you modify your pathetic generalised tone when it comes to 'tabloids' will be the day I won't need to comment on it. Whilst you repeatedly interject threads with exaggerated claims about an entire section of the media I'll feel free to comment!

---------- Post added at 14:57 ---------- Previous post was at 14:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Incognitas

You still fail to see that only telling partial truths is as bad as telling nothing but lies because not everyone has the critical faculties to work out which is truth and which is lie.

I'm sorry but I don't fail to see that at all - I just think we cannot expect the tabloids to be better than everyone else. Would you prevent those with impaired critical facilities from voting because they may have fallen for the political spin in one-sided election broadcasts for example? If so, then who'd decide whose facilities are sufficiently impaired to be deprived of their right? If not then we have to accept that the world and the media aren't perfect and if some folk are taken in by garbage in the media then that's their problem. Expecting the tabloids to operate to higher standards than everyone else is ridiculous.

---------- Post added at 15:03 ---------- Previous post was at 14:57 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

You appear to changing a particular into a general

I (and others) have pointed out misinformation and lies in some tabloids - I don't remember (but could be wrong) anyone stating "that the tabloids tell nothing but lies" - but I suppose making that shift in emphasis from particulars to all-inclusive allows you to make the statement that people who disagree with you on this are "either stupid or disingenuous".

btw, I don't buy tabloids - but what I do, when a poster cites them as a reference, is look up the reference/link online, and then attempt to validate what has been stated (so, not attacking the tabloid in general, just pointing out, if appropriate, misinformation/lies - if that makes me stupid or disingenous, so be it )

And contrary to what you stated in earlier posts, it would appear that some posters on this forum do take what the tabloids print as gospel truth, even when it is wrong - should we allow misinformation and lies to be promulgated unchallenged?

It's not disgareeing with me which makes anyone anything in particlaur it's disagreeing with the fact that NOT all the content of the tabloid media is lies. In fact a tiny proportion of it is and as I've already explained, that's not much different to what we find amongst politicians, police, office workers, TV presenters or anyone else.

There'll always be some who fall for garbage - what do you suggest can be done about that?