Five bins

[noseall]

It astonishes me how people respond to sensationalist drivel when being spoon fed obviously biassed stories, oblivious to the fact that they are being roped in.

Dumb masses is an understatement.

It's not so much the story but the language used and how it is presented.
They are enough to make anyone with a modicum of intelligence cringe, because they are so shamelessly biassed towards roping in the gullible.

 

[JBR]

It astonishes me how people respond to sensationalist drivel when being spoon fed obviously biassed stories, oblivious to the fact that they are being roped in.

Dumb masses is an understatement.

It's not so much the story but the language used and how it is presented.
They are enough to make anyone with a modicum of intelligence cringe, because they are so shamelessly biassed towards roping in the gullible.

Well I've just gone back and read the article again.

Perhaps you can point out some specific exaggerations or sensationalist language, because I can't see them.

 

[Dextraneous]

Use of bias and leading language is there alright. However, the whole article misses the point. The question is why we have so much refuse that needs separating. Indeed, why do we create so many throw away things?

 

[JBR]

Use of bias and leading language is there alright. However, the whole article misses the point. The question is why we have so much refuse that needs separating. Indeed, why do we create so many throw away things?

Because we don't need them.

 

[LargeWrench]

It astonishes me how people respond to sensationalist drivel when being spoon fed obviously biassed stories, oblivious to the fact that they are being roped in.

Dumb masses is an understatement.

It's not so much the story but the language used and how it is presented.
They are enough to make anyone with a modicum of intelligence cringe, because they are so shamelessly biassed towards roping in the gullible.

Well I've just gone back and read the article again.

Perhaps you can point out some specific exaggerations or sensationalist language, because I can't see them.

Try looking at the headline. Writing EVERY in capital letters, a serious newspaper or article simply doesn't do that. Why does it need to emphasise the word 'every' if it isn't trying to be sensationalist? Not to mention blaming everything on Europe or the e.u is classic daily mail. If you dig a bit deeper you'd find, as with most things in the mail, that it either simply isn't true or has been extremely exaggerated. Telling the truth and not exaggerating doesn't sell as many papers though does it?

What is worrying is the millions of people who happily buy the daily mail without realising most of the stuff has an extreme bias and/or simply isn't true. There used to be a website that debunked the vast majority of Mail articles that blamed stuff on the e.u, but once it's been printed and read by millions it's assumed to be true so it's a pretty frivolous task. Another trick to find out how much the mail has spun a story is to read the comments at the bottom on the website and click on the ones with the worst ratings. The ones with the most red arrows usually talk the most sense, but talking sense and with reason isn't as interesting in mail land is it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

 

[JBR]

Try looking at the headline. Writing EVERY in capital letters, a serious newspaper or article simply doesn't do that. Why does it need to emphasise the word 'every' if it isn't trying to be sensationalist? Not to mention blaming everything on Europe or the e.u is classic daily mail. If you dig a bit deeper you'd find, as with most things in the mail, that it either simply isn't true or has been extremely exaggerated. Telling the truth and not exaggerating doesn't sell as many papers though does it?

I presume they did that to emphasise that EVERY council will have to comply, including those who presently do not.

Can I take it, then, that the EU did NOT issue a directive that we must recycle more?

In fact, what they failed to report is that our government follows Brussels' directives to the letter, unlike other EU countries who tend to ignore what they don't like.

As far as I'm concerned, they have told no lies and have not exaggerated the situation. I remain to be convinced otherwise.

 

[noseall]

JBR, you are the type of reader the mail dreams about.

Give your glasses a clean and have a go at reading between the lines.

I could be more convincing telling lies than they do spouting the so-called 'truth'.

Jeepers man, you are gullible.

 

[LargeWrench]

Try looking at the headline. Writing EVERY in capital letters, a serious newspaper or article simply doesn't do that. Why does it need to emphasise the word 'every' if it isn't trying to be sensationalist? Not to mention blaming everything on Europe or the e.u is classic daily mail. If you dig a bit deeper you'd find, as with most things in the mail, that it either simply isn't true or has been extremely exaggerated. Telling the truth and not exaggerating doesn't sell as many papers though does it?

I presume they did that to emphasise that EVERY council will have to comply, including those who presently do not.

Can I take it, then, that the EU did NOT issue a directive that we must recycle more?

In fact, what they failed to report is that our government follows Brussels' directives to the letter, unlike other EU countries who tend to ignore what they don't like.

As far as I'm concerned, they have told no lies and have not exaggerated the situation. I remain to be convinced otherwise.

Yes but a serious newspaper doesn't need to SHOUT to emphasise a point. We're not kids, you don't need to shout to get a point across. Although saying that they probably do judging by the intelligence of many of its readers.

The EU has set targets to recycle more, but they haven't made the government get rid of weekly bin collections or the use of up to 5 recycling bins as the Mail is suggesting. You've answered it yourself, "our government follows Brussels' directives to the letter, unlike other EU countries who tend to ignore what they don't like." Why then is it the fault of the EU that the government is getting rid of weekly bin collections? It isn't, but saying it is fits in with their anti EU bias which the readers lap up. We could still have weekly bin collections if they wanted them.

What exactly is the problem in increased recycling anyway? You seem to be well tuned into the Mail way of thinking so perhaps you could answer that? To me and most reasoned people recycling more is a good thing.

 

[JBR]

JBR, you are the type of reader the mail dreams about.

Give your glasses a clean and have a go at reading between the lines.

I could be more convincing telling lies than they do spouting the so-called 'truth'.

Jeepers man, you are gullible.

You know what they say about people who resort to name-calling in a discussion.

 

[Dextraneous]

You know what they say about people who resort to name-calling in a discussion.

What, ALWAYS?

 

[JBR]

Yes but a serious newspaper doesn't need to SHOUT to emphasise a point. We're not kids, you don't need to shout to get a point across. Although saying that they probably do judging by the intelligence of many of its readers.

Use of capitals on discussion fora such as this is considered to be shouting. I wasn't aware that applied to newspapers. Don't they all do it for headlines?

The EU has set targets to recycle more, but they haven't made the government get rid of weekly bin collections or the use of up to 5 recycling bins as the Mail is suggesting. You've answered it yourself, "our government follows Brussels' directives to the letter, unlike other EU countries who tend to ignore what they don't like." Why then is it the fault of the EU that the government is getting rid of weekly bin collections? It isn't, but saying it is fits in with their anti EU bias which the readers lap up. We could still have weekly bin collections if they wanted them.

Yes, as I said, I know it is as a result of our own government's/local authorities' decision, but isn't it a bit of a coincidence that they made those decisions after the EU mandarins 'suggested' that they should?

What exactly is the problem in increased recycling anyway? You seem to be well tuned into the Mail way of thinking so perhaps you could answer that? To me and most reasoned people recycling more is a good thing.

I'm not against recycling if:

- we were provided with bins of sufficient size (I speak only of my own part of the country here, though). We have three large bins for various recyclable things which are usually nowhere near full, yet a much smaller one for non-recyclable things (including food packaging) which is collected fortnightly and is invariably crammed full;

- I could be sure that things weren't all sent to land fill anyway.

 

[JBR]

I often wonder why so many people on internet fora tend to ridicule the Daily Mail, yet isn't it one of the most popular newspapers in Britain?

I'm trying to work out what that actually means!

 

[noseall]

You know what they say about people who resort to name-calling in a discussion.

No I don't.

Who has been name calling?

 

[noseall]

I often wonder why so many people on internet fora tend to ridicule the Daily Mail, yet isn't it one of the most popular newspapers in Britain?

I'm trying to work out what that actually means!

The mail is popular in the same way that Jeremy Kyle is popular.

...and in the same way big bruvver is popular.

...and in the same way calf tatoos are popular.

...and in the same way calling your son and daughter Tyler And Chantelle is popular.

 

[JBR]

You know what they say about people who resort to name-calling in a discussion.

No I don't.

Who has been name calling?

"Give your glasses a clean"

"Jeepers man, you are gullible."

Perhaps it's just your way and you talk to everyone like that.