News0 min ago
Isn't This Hypocrisy At It's Very Best?
40 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Gromit
Talk about the Daily Mail digging a deeper hole.
/// This man needed a job. The Daily Mail were offering a job. He would be a fool not to apply for it and make a good attempt at getting it. ///
Would sp for instance, work for what he presumed was a far right, racist and homophobic newspaper and what he had previously accused earlier of being anti black and anti gay, no matter how much he needed a job.
Please tell me if I am wrong sp1814.
"Hypocrisy At It's Very Best" is proven beyond all doubt,
Talk about the Daily Mail digging a deeper hole.
/// This man needed a job. The Daily Mail were offering a job. He would be a fool not to apply for it and make a good attempt at getting it. ///
Would sp for instance, work for what he presumed was a far right, racist and homophobic newspaper and what he had previously accused earlier of being anti black and anti gay, no matter how much he needed a job.
Please tell me if I am wrong sp1814.
"Hypocrisy At It's Very Best" is proven beyond all doubt,
Jim
\\\\\He has either changed his mind (which we all do at some time) OR he is a hypocrite.\\\\
That is what i said in my post above.
Yes, he could have changed his mind, most of the above posters would support that, but I don't........a matter of opinion.
Neither side can provide evidence to support their claim, so it relies on opinion.
We differ.
\\\\\He has either changed his mind (which we all do at some time) OR he is a hypocrite.\\\\
That is what i said in my post above.
Yes, he could have changed his mind, most of the above posters would support that, but I don't........a matter of opinion.
Neither side can provide evidence to support their claim, so it relies on opinion.
We differ.
Again, though, there are three years between the two events! That is not hypocrisy, that's called changing your mind. And there has certainly been a lot recently to change your mind about, no? We've had Leveson, and this, and many other things besides. Might it not be just as possible that his opinion of the paper has changed from "I'm comfortable with working there although I don't agree with everything it stands for, but I'll still sell myself as that's what you have to do to try and get a job", to what it is now?
It's said that a week is a long time in Politics. In which case three years is almost an eternity.
It's said that a week is a long time in Politics. In which case three years is almost an eternity.
You keep accusing anyone who does not agree with you of diversion tactics. A counter argument is not diversionary. It is stating an oppsing view. As long as the counter argument is relevent then it is not an attempt to change the subject.
Example:
Q: Do you agree with the NHS pay freeze?
A: No, MPs have just given themselves a pay rise.
The answer gives an example of another pay settlement to back up why the do not agree. But in your view that is trying to change the subject. It isn't.
People are expanding their answers to your narrow question because nothing is black and white, Yes or No.
Example:
Q: Do you agree with the NHS pay freeze?
A: No, MPs have just given themselves a pay rise.
The answer gives an example of another pay settlement to back up why the do not agree. But in your view that is trying to change the subject. It isn't.
People are expanding their answers to your narrow question because nothing is black and white, Yes or No.
Jim...we are going round in circles.
Let us go back 3 yrs when he was extolling the virtues of the Daily Mail..................now, was he telling the truth? If he was, then he has changed his mind as you suggest.
However....if he was "lying" just to get the job....then he is a HYPOCRITE..........it will be his word against ours......and hence the truth,will be a matter of opinion.
Let us go back 3 yrs when he was extolling the virtues of the Daily Mail..................now, was he telling the truth? If he was, then he has changed his mind as you suggest.
However....if he was "lying" just to get the job....then he is a HYPOCRITE..........it will be his word against ours......and hence the truth,will be a matter of opinion.
Once again - Its only hypocrisy if you can demonstrate that mehdi hasan himself has indulged in the same kind of vicious innuendo and smear tactics that the DM has allowed itself over Miliband.
The flattering comments made regarding the values of the paper written in a letter of support for a job application is no more relevant than the diary scribblings of a 17 year old are to extrapolating hatred for an adopted country.
The flattering comments made regarding the values of the paper written in a letter of support for a job application is no more relevant than the diary scribblings of a 17 year old are to extrapolating hatred for an adopted country.
In that Daily Mail link it says
// He worked for the New Statesman magazine which was forced to apologise for an anti-simitic cover in 2002. //
I decided to look that apology up, and here it is.
http://
First thing to note, they volunteered the apology themselves, they were not forced to. Secondly, they were contrite and admitted the error but explained what the cover was trying to convey.
As an apology, it was very good and mostly satisfied both sides. The Mail have obviously read it or they wouldn't have mentioned it. But they should learn from it. That is how to properly apologise. Not begrudgingly print a Right to Reply and then repeat your error with an even bigger headline.
// He worked for the New Statesman magazine which was forced to apologise for an anti-simitic cover in 2002. //
I decided to look that apology up, and here it is.
http://
First thing to note, they volunteered the apology themselves, they were not forced to. Secondly, they were contrite and admitted the error but explained what the cover was trying to convey.
As an apology, it was very good and mostly satisfied both sides. The Mail have obviously read it or they wouldn't have mentioned it. But they should learn from it. That is how to properly apologise. Not begrudgingly print a Right to Reply and then repeat your error with an even bigger headline.
sp1814
/// AOG - you're a regular reader...///
First let me make it clear I am no more a regular reader of the DM as almost anyone else on this website, since those who criticise the paper are not averse from reading it and then using it's link, if it happens to be convenient to their own agenda.
I read almost all the newspapers, but mainly use the DM site as subject mater for my news posts, since like me they are not afraid to approach subjects that obviously touch very raw nerves of those who would wish certain controversial and sensitive issues where not approached.
Unlike the left-wing press, who only have good to say regarding their side of politics, the DM are not slow in criticising members of the Tory party or its actions if the need arises.
Now to get back on track:
My question has nothing to do with the recent Daily Mail/David Milliband affair, goodness knows that has been done over and over again, so much so that it is has now become all rather boring.
What it is about though is the fact that Mehdi Hasan is shown to be, without doubt a total hypocrite.
/// If the level of bile is roughly the same, then you make a good point, and Mr Hasan is a hypocrite. ///
It is not that the DM has changed but that Mehdi Hasan's viewpoint of the paper seems to have.
Incidentally by introducing such words as "Bile" does not make me stand back in sheer horror, no more than words such as racist and homophobic do, they are all getting rather overused, so much so that they have now lost all their previous strength as a weapon of attack.
/// AOG - you're a regular reader...///
First let me make it clear I am no more a regular reader of the DM as almost anyone else on this website, since those who criticise the paper are not averse from reading it and then using it's link, if it happens to be convenient to their own agenda.
I read almost all the newspapers, but mainly use the DM site as subject mater for my news posts, since like me they are not afraid to approach subjects that obviously touch very raw nerves of those who would wish certain controversial and sensitive issues where not approached.
Unlike the left-wing press, who only have good to say regarding their side of politics, the DM are not slow in criticising members of the Tory party or its actions if the need arises.
Now to get back on track:
My question has nothing to do with the recent Daily Mail/David Milliband affair, goodness knows that has been done over and over again, so much so that it is has now become all rather boring.
What it is about though is the fact that Mehdi Hasan is shown to be, without doubt a total hypocrite.
/// If the level of bile is roughly the same, then you make a good point, and Mr Hasan is a hypocrite. ///
It is not that the DM has changed but that Mehdi Hasan's viewpoint of the paper seems to have.
Incidentally by introducing such words as "Bile" does not make me stand back in sheer horror, no more than words such as racist and homophobic do, they are all getting rather overused, so much so that they have now lost all their previous strength as a weapon of attack.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Crosswords1 min ago
Religion & Spirituality10 mins ago
A Late Good Morning Monday Birds!
ChatterBank45 mins ago
Crosswords47 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.