to want HATE campaigns against foreigners in the popular Press to stop...

No; that front page was just a misinterpretation of the truth. Quite mild by their standards therefore probably not needing a minute apology buried in the depths of the paper several days later.

Someone else posted the same picture but used photoshop to change the side in the lorry and the switch view from the window - very simple to do btw.

As said, one explanation was that they were taken in the large lay-bys on the M20 - where they stop to sleep or eat their sandwich, etc- and phone their boss and family before they set off again. Which is NOT saying that they do NOT use the phone when driving- but on the M20, it is not surprising that, out of the 1000s of drivers, including HGV drivers- who phone at the wheel, there were many foreign drivers on that route- as it is the Mway from Dover and Folkestone.

It is bloody arrogant to make an assumption that YOU are superior intellectually because of the paper you read.

It is bloody arrogant to assume that everybody has no right to read a paper YOU personally hate with avengence.

It is bloody arrogant to belittle, name call others who do not agree with YOUR interpretations of what a paper is saying.

It is bloody arrogant to believe YOUR view has to be the ONLY VIEW permissible.

It is bloody arrogant to assume those who read the paper YOU hate do not have enough of a brain to decide for themselves if they too find a particular article obnoxious, ill thought out also.

It is bloody arrogant to think YOU are not being arrogant.

well THAT was bloody arrogant POGS

No one is telling people what paper they should/shouldn't read. The argument is 'do newspapers have the right to print lies disguised as fact'? Can you honestly say that the freedom of the press means carte blanche to print lies as fact? POGS; why are you defending these publications? Please explain? . I really don't understand .

Because, for ages now on Gransnet, there are a small number of posters who constantly denigrate both newspapers and what they think of other posters who read certain newspapers.There have been thread after thread in the last few years like this.
These posters demonstrate how holier than thou they themselves are, and it is quite apparent that they think that they personally are a cut above in every way.This IS arrogance, although they themselves will never see it.

That doesn't answer my question. Do you agree that it is acceptable for the press to print lies as fact. All I want is a yes/no answer please.

If those papers endorse and support and constantly encourage rascism, sexism and every 'ism' imaginable- and people buy the papers because this is what they want to read - then yes- why are you so surprised but some want to strongly distance themselves from those views and wish others would do too.

This is not arrogant, or hollier than though - it is being human and having empathy. But you won't see it because you don't want to see it ...

I am about to blow my top and get quite rude- so will sign off for a while. Just can't do this anymore. And yes, I do feel I live on another planet- I certainly wish I could move to one right now.

All newspapers sometimes carry news that turns out to be lies/ misinformation, so hard to tell if it is actually on purpose, but statements are given and info passed to journalists which then gets printed, are sometimes just wrong.You cannot just believe all that you read in any paper.

So why do some newspapers make a habit of putting such things on their front page [in colour/capital letters]to the extent that they are constantly having to apologise for them? Does anyone have the statistics with regards which papers do this more often that others?

It is amazingly rude on a forum like this to diss posters who choose to read a certain newspaper, so that a chosen few ( who presumably only read The Guardian) can congratulate each other on their 'empathy'.All eagerly agreeing with each other that the plebs are beneath contempt.This IS arrogance, whether you like it or not.
I have no axe to grind, as I don't read any newspapers.

All I can say , is that if you hate these Headlines, don't read those papers.But don't make a big deal out if it on here, upsetting posters who do read them.

There are more important things to worry about.

When I said I had sympathy for those who read these papers and believe the lies and misinformaton they present as news I was criticised. It isn't the people who read them I am getting at it is the people who actually realise what is going on but turn away or refuse to acknowledge the racism and hatred they are pedalling. It isn't having contempt for anyone but realising that a free press should be accountable and should provide real honest news rather than propaganda that distorts the truth.

Yes, and at least 'Brexiteers are not the biggest idiots on the planet any more', which is another arrogant statement made on another thread today!

If you read the Guardian, detest the DM (and the Sun, but it doesn't get mentioned as much) and voted to Remain, you're one of the Gransnet Chosen Fews.

'There are more important things to worry about.' Maybe a lot of the 'more important things to worry about' are a result of the lies/misinformation that these newspapers peddle on a daily basis.

Tegan some newspapers have had sensationalist headlines just about forever, it sells papers.I don't know about you, but I have much more important things to worry about than a DMheadline.We are not such sensitive little flowers ( especially at our age, are we?)ALL newspapers will carry misinformation, journalists don't always check everything that is printed, who expects Gospel?Some people may read them for the racing results only, for all I know.What IS objectionable on Gransnet is the assumption of the moral high ground, regarding papers and who reads them, and what kind of person that makes you.We could go on with this theme all night, but I cba.

I'll quite happily repeat the fact that I read the Daily Mail, or the Daily Express on a regular basis. As far as I'm aware, doing so hasn't made me become a racist or a bigot, and any subliminal messaging has gone straight over my head. I make decisions mostly after a lot of thought and research and in general am happy with what I decide. I do object to being classed as lacking in intelligence because of my choice of newspaper - is that unreasonable?

Granjura left before she could answer the question I posed to her in my last post, what a pity.

By the way, Tegan, whose lies, whose facts? I have heard enough interviews between people of opposing views on an issue to realise that A's lies are B's facts, often both are right, it just depends on what side you are looking from.

Tegan

POGS why are you defending these publication. Please explain. Here goes.

I do not agree on several occasions with what they print but I do not find everything printed from the front to back cover is racist/xenophobic/homophobic/anti jewish /anti Muslim as some posters do on every occasion possible.

I am accusing those who repeatedly belittle, sneer , make disparaging remarks at any opportunity against people who read the Daily Mail , The Sun any paper THEY assume beneath their choice of reading material because of their belief they are more intelligent.

I have tried to rationalise my point on the thread concerning the Daily Mail article over the printing of the sexual orientation of one of the judges in the recent Article 50 case.

I am not defending the Mail printing the article I asked why the Daily Mail was called homophobic, anti Jewish when the words it printed were the exact words used in many newspapers when reporting on Etherton being promoted to Lord of the Rolls. The Guardian, which in fact was the article printed in the Mail article in question printed the exact same words as the Mail (because it was from their paper). Why was the Guardian not called homophobic, anti Jewish? The only reply I received was I don't understand what 'context' means. Well I perfectly understand what 'context' means and neither paper mentioned his sexuality 'in context' to their articles but the bile toward the Mail was all anybody is interested in showing .

I think the Daily Mail has been doing a brilliant job in raising the issue of deaths caused by mobile phone use by motorists. It has been running a campaign to highlight the dangers of the many deaths on our roads , printing photos of motorists using mobiles whilst driving and one day it did the travesty of saying there is an issue with foreign lorry drivers. It was perfectly correct to make the affiliation in my opinion and I saw no racist intention as some have.

I actually find it by far more irritating the reason behind the Daily Mail campaign to highlight the problem of mobile phone usage when driving and possible subsequent loss of
life is drowned out by calls of it being a 'hate campaign against foreigners'. I look at 'the context' of the article and did not have an issue whereas others do.

Because of those personal views I would be called homophobic, anti Jewish, a racist by some , even for the mere fact I read the Daily Mail.

It would appear to me that this whole thread has gone waaay off the original post. At least I thought it was about the morality/lack/ of printing articles which promote racism, xenophobia, etc.
I seem to think that the DM was just an example, and this was not a crucifixion of the one paper, more a condemning of the attitude to point the finger at foreigners when nationals do the same things.

With this I agree, and I think that, if those of us who believe this is morally wrong, say nothing, we are condoning this behaviour

Maybe i got it wrong (grabs hard hat and wanders off to get a cuppa)

Threads do wander, fact of life.Since foreign drivers (mainly lorries) are prosecuted regularly ( far, far more than British nationals) it seems reasonable to highlight this.
What has been going on for a long time (on Gransnet) is the condemnation by a few of anybody who dares to admit they read the DM, and who are then treated as a lower species! That is why some of us get tired of that attitude.
No need for a hard hat Lisa

Is DM = Daily Mail

The reason I ask is because my 'phone has app for the Daily Mail, Daily Mirror and the Telegraph.

But I don't read the DM

Or, as DD calls it 'The Daily Moan'

And we all know how the British love a good moan

Disparaging and sarcastic remarks don't just come from Guardian readers - they are also directed at the Guardian and its readers.