North Korea

Hi Anya
Apart from Obama, who micro-managed his armed forces, then did nothing, Pres. Trump gives his top brass leeway, by allowing them to make military decisions/manoeuvers themselves. Who better? He's
following other Presidents e.g. both Bushs.

Can't wait to find out what that murderous dictator orders his generals to do. I'd enjoy watching the US fleet use his missiles for target practise .

Mazie I'm aware of the political stance of all those papers, though I have virtually no experience of reading the mirror, the sun or the express. Having some experience of the rest I take the view that while they all have a stance, the Mail and the Guardian are significantly stronger in their bias than the others.

and in my view that results in less balanced reporting than in the other papers you mention.

What 'other papers' are you talking about, Fitzy? Rigby mentioned the Times and the Telegraph, both of which are right wing.

The Mirror and The Guardian = left wing
Times, Telegraph, Sun, Express & Daily Mail =right wing

Not quite sure where the Independent sits - left of centre, maybe.

I'm not altogether sure where one would go for 'balanced' reporting.

DJ to take financial services regulation as an example, I would expect an investigation into the apparant limited success in terms of prosecutions to look at matters like the difficulties involved in getting the evidence required to meet the very high standard of proof required in criminal cases, specific deficiencies in the law and reasons for them, problems with juries understanding the complexities, action regulators may have taken behind the scenes etc. There are always two sides to a story.
Rigby I accept all you say. In many ways it's like comparing the Beano with War and Peace. But I stand by the single issue I raised - that both papers are unashamedly and very strongly politically biased in one direction or the other, and in my view that results in less balanced reporting than in the other papers you mention. Nothing wrong with that - just not my cup of tea.

Fitzy it's a complete and utter nonsense to compare the two papers. You can compare the Times, Telegraph and Guardian but the DM is not in that league. This morning's front page - paper 1 lead story about new driving test and sat navs, story two Prince George's uniform at his new school. Paper 2 lead story China, NK etc, story 2 shortage of Aand E doctors and high hourly rate being offered. I wonder which is which?

Except......they are in black and white.

Above post was about newspapers.

Things aren't always solid black or white.

Will you still say you are unconvinced when they end up in jail, or will you say well done, anti-corruption unit?

Weird, Fitzy. What sort of balance do you expect to get from a group looking int organised crime and corruption?
They have a hard enough time of it anyway, without being expected to put balance into their reports.

What sort of balance do you expect from the anti-corruption lawyers in this country?

DJ I'm afraid I found the articles too unbalanced for my taste. Interesting but unconvincing.
WW I wouldn't compare the Mail and the Guardian in terms of their general content, and while I can understand why you are attached to the paper, I can understand how some people are attached to the mail - whether it's because they like celebrity stories or just because it says a lot of things they agree with. But in both cases I do find it difficult to identify a balanced viewpoint. But maybe I'll try again.
Anyway, apologies to Bluebell for another digression - I'll hand back to the NK discussion.

Three narcissistic men. Any advance on three?

Why Putin?

Getting away from news papers you have two mentally narcissistic men leading major nuclear countrys Putin gets involved and goodbye world

That's okay, Fitzy. Just to show I don't just read the Guardian!

Thanks DJ but too much to read for the moment! And will get back to you too Rigby.

www.occrp.org/en/daily/5452-analysis-brexit-uk-upheaval-threatens-anti-corruption-efforts

www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/20/how-dirty-money-from-russia-flooded-into-the-uk-and-where-it-went

www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/20/the-global-laundromat-how-did-it-work-and-who-benefited

State sponsored money laundering. They know it happens but do nothing about it.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/23/the-guardian-view-on-uks-tax-havens-british-laws-or-your-own

Fitzy apart from championing the Lawrence case, what else has the DM done in recent years that is remotely worthy? I read the Guardian every day and there are columnists of all shades of opinion eg Simon Jenkins on the right and many shades from there through to Owen Jones. They don't employ the disgraceful Katie Hopkins, they don't print column inch after column inch of celebrity gossipy, often misogynistic rubbish. Every year they do a huge worthwhile charity appeal at Christmas which the DM do not. I'm fond of the Guardian like I am of an old friend - sometimes infuriating but its heard is in the right place . It has had to cut down on its columnists because like all print media, its struggling financially but is keeping its online free.

Obviously not good at hairdressing judging by the state of Kim Yong Un hair ?

Interesting but a lot of it is supposition and innuendo, and certainly nothing close to state sponsored money laundering.
DJ I can see you like the Guardian, but it's bias leaves me struggling to give it more credibility than the DM (apologies if you find the comparison at all offensive. I do appreciate the differences between the two in terms of the tone of reporting). Both papers are pretty good at rooting out important issues, but I like to see balance in reporting reporting and I don't see much of that in either of those papers. Having said that I can't pretend to have read either to any great extent.
Off topic I know.