Does Anyone Feel Uneasy When We Find Out That Political Parties And Newspapers Collude To Lie To The Voting Public?

[sp1814]

Are we happy that this is just part of the election process...

...or should we be concerned that what is dressed up as a news story is in fact (for want of a better phrase) - party political cobblers?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/27/how-the-conservatives-orchestrate-letters-from-business-leaders

[naomi24]

By the way, in my experience people who run funeral parlours are very worthy of the title 'consultant'. They are experts in dealing with what for many people are the most difficult circumstances they will ever have to face.

[naomi24]

TWR, //Don't they all SP? //

I don't understand SP when he says to icecreamicecream "you're coming across as a bit...well, you know... " - and I don't know who "they all" are. Could you explain please?

[sp1814]

naomi24

Don't get me wrong - my criticism is directed more towards the Telegraph than the Conservative Party.

A newspaper should be performing due diligence on source data before publishing.

[sp1814]

naomi24

I have a policy of not being rude to other AB News members, and I've been able to keep to this all year. Therefore, I couldn't really be explicit in my response to icecreamicecream.

Basically, I am trying to keep to the subject without allowing my responses to get personal. When someone posts a personal dig, then I tend to trail off...

But like you, I'm not sure what TWR was referring to either.

[TWR]

I do not believe one half of what the papers come out with Naomi, do you?

[naomi24]

SP, have you checked the list the Telegraph has published for the discrepancies and duplicates your man claims it contains? (See my link). I really can't imagine that they would knowingly publish anything that would expose them to the sort of criticism he is throwing at them. On the other hand, when he says the list isn't available he does have it wrong. mmmm .....

[naomi24]

TWR, no, I don't believe everything newspapers print .... but would you please answer my question?

[bhg481]

A colleague of mine used to say "Don't believe anything you read in a newspaper except the date ........... and check that against the calendar".

If you've ever read a newspaper story about an event you have personal knowledge about you'll know how true that is.

[douglas9401]

The investigative reporter is all but dead and stuffed. Journalists take what they're fed and print or not as it suits the agenda, and more importantly, the advertisers of their particular rag.
All because what the majority seem to have been programmed for over many years, scandal, *** and football.

[naomi24]

bhg481, this is rather more than that, SP is accusing the newspaper and the Conservative Party of colluding to lie to the voting public. An embellished story is one thing – collusion to purposefully deceive quite another.

[douglas9401]

Jugs then?

[TWR]

"Don't they all" the daily papers.

[naomi24]

TWR, that one doesn't work.

Douglas, //Jugs then?//

I don't know what that means.

[sp1814]

naomi24

No - the blogger wasn't wrong about the list being taken down.

The list was removed and now it's back up (see his latest post):

https://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/small-business-letter-to-the-telegraph-an-attempt-to-defraud-the-electorate/

And have I checked the list? No. I'm not a newspaper - that's not my responsibility, and besides - it's already been checked. Here are the initial set of duplicates:

https://sturdyblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/20150427-164455.jpg

[TWR]

SP, Did you understand my answer?

[douglas9401]

The asterisked word, Naomi, was a shortened version of teats.
I suppose I could have just put that but the moment's passed.

Nice day for it. :-)

[sp1814]

naomi24

You very well might be right. Perhaps 'collude' is too strong a word.

The Conservatives attempted to fool the Telegraph readers with a PR stunt and the Telegraph at best, ignored the basic principles of good journalism.

This might be be down to the fact that so much 'news' we read in the papers now, is actually churnalism (marketing and PR output, dressed up to look like news stories).

This falls into that category.

[sp1814]

Thanks TWR...I do now (it was a bit tricky working out who 'they all' were).

[naomi24]

SP, there are just twenty-one names on that list out of over 5000. I suspect the Telegraph realised that some of the names were duplicated, took the list down to remove them, and replaced it when editing was complete - but let's not spoil a good conspiracy theory with a rational explanation. No fun in that.

[naomi24]

Ha ha! Thank you Douglas. It didn't occur to me that you'd had a word asterisked out.

TWR, SP wasn't referring to newspapers when you agreed with him, but never mind.