The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We have this paper delivered to work to leave in reception, and at lunchtimes it gets read in the kitchen. And I always try to have a flick through, purely to remind myself of just how laughable that paper is. Full of outdated, right-wing reporting designed to whip the nation into a righteous fury about immigrants, The Middle East and any number of issues.
And one of my favourites today was the reporting on the autopsy shown on Channel 4 last night.
Here are extracts from the column written by Quentin Letts.
Remember, a newspaper is supposed to report the facts in a partisan manner to allow the reader to make up their own minds on a subject.
So with that in mind, enjoy what is quite possibly one of the most manipulative, jingoistic journalists writing today:
-----
“What a carve up! In an East London stew last night, watched by a crowd of gawping ghouls and media liggers, the disgusting Professor Gunther von Hagens ripped the dignity from a dead man”
Ok, first of all…’a crowd of gawping ghouls and media liggers’, including Mr Letts. But he was there for a different reason right? And then we have the 1st personal attack ‘the disgusting Professor’. Disgusting? On what basis? Already you can see the slant this article will take by the 1st paragraph. Instead of merely reporting what went on, Letts feels the need to tell you that anybody watching this is a ghoul and should be ashamed, and that the Professor is a disgusting man for daring to do such a thing, and how dare he “rip the dignity from a dead man”.
A dead man that consented and left his body for exactly this procedure, and a dead man who’s family respected his wishes and had zero problem with allowing this.
“Von Hagens – let’s spare ourselves the professorship – smirked as he snipped. What an odd and unpleasant little man. The lips of his lean skeletal face parted for the occasional lizard lick as he wielded the scalpel, knife and path-lab loppers”
Right then, so Letts has dismissed von Hagens clinical qualifications and medical expertise because he doesn’t think it’s worth it? Again, on what basis? ‘smirked as he snipped’ – nice one Letts, take another potshot at a professional simply because you don’t agree with what he’s doing. That’s professional journalism in action, yeah right. ‘what an odd and unpleasant little man/lean skeletal face/lizard lick’ – boy, we’re really trying to ensure you get the point across aren’t we Letts? I don’t understand what the appearance of von Hagens has to do with anything, except to serve as a method of convincing the morally outraged that this man is evil and morally corrupt and blah blah blah.
“as the carving continued, and the flashbulbs popped, no one seemed to cast a thought for the soul of the deceased. With God’s mercy it was by now far, far away – away from this creep and the smell of formalin, away from a cynical stunt that told us little about pathology but much about the anatomy of thrill-seeking modern Europe”
Bwahahahahaha…so in this paragraph, Letts has managed to imply this was against God and that some terrible crime had been committed (with full consent from the deceased). ‘away from this creep”, once more Letts feels the need to launch personal attack without justification, simply because he has an axe to grind.
And my favourite bit, “told us little about pathology but much of the anatomy of thrill-seeking modern Europe”.
Little about Pathology? So we didn’t learn about the cause of death? The methods use to identify disease using organs, how to determine lifestyle through stomach condition? There wasn’t an English dude explaining why each step was being taken, the methods used and why?
And the lovely, sublime little dig at “modern Europe”, the enemy of The Daily Mail, who labeled Greece as “thieves” during the plane-spotters debacle, campaign against The Euro and consistent screams at Labour for even considering losing the pound?
This article tells you nothing about why von Hagens did this, it offers no explanation of the event, doesn’t mention his connection to the Bodyworks exhibition that has been praised by English Educational Authorities?
Nope, Quentin Letts decides to launch personal attack after attack on the doctor, actively dismiss his qualifications, suggest that the autopsy was against God and manage to cram in a dig at Europe.
All in one article.
THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why The Daily Mail is a laughable, purile tabloid that rarely presents anything approaching news and, instead, prefers to settle for rhetoric, poisonous opinion in place of fact and scant regard to the actual details of what they report on.
And one of my favourites today was the reporting on the autopsy shown on Channel 4 last night.
Here are extracts from the column written by Quentin Letts.
Remember, a newspaper is supposed to report the facts in a partisan manner to allow the reader to make up their own minds on a subject.
So with that in mind, enjoy what is quite possibly one of the most manipulative, jingoistic journalists writing today:
-----
“What a carve up! In an East London stew last night, watched by a crowd of gawping ghouls and media liggers, the disgusting Professor Gunther von Hagens ripped the dignity from a dead man”
Ok, first of all…’a crowd of gawping ghouls and media liggers’, including Mr Letts. But he was there for a different reason right? And then we have the 1st personal attack ‘the disgusting Professor’. Disgusting? On what basis? Already you can see the slant this article will take by the 1st paragraph. Instead of merely reporting what went on, Letts feels the need to tell you that anybody watching this is a ghoul and should be ashamed, and that the Professor is a disgusting man for daring to do such a thing, and how dare he “rip the dignity from a dead man”.
A dead man that consented and left his body for exactly this procedure, and a dead man who’s family respected his wishes and had zero problem with allowing this.
“Von Hagens – let’s spare ourselves the professorship – smirked as he snipped. What an odd and unpleasant little man. The lips of his lean skeletal face parted for the occasional lizard lick as he wielded the scalpel, knife and path-lab loppers”
Right then, so Letts has dismissed von Hagens clinical qualifications and medical expertise because he doesn’t think it’s worth it? Again, on what basis? ‘smirked as he snipped’ – nice one Letts, take another potshot at a professional simply because you don’t agree with what he’s doing. That’s professional journalism in action, yeah right. ‘what an odd and unpleasant little man/lean skeletal face/lizard lick’ – boy, we’re really trying to ensure you get the point across aren’t we Letts? I don’t understand what the appearance of von Hagens has to do with anything, except to serve as a method of convincing the morally outraged that this man is evil and morally corrupt and blah blah blah.
“as the carving continued, and the flashbulbs popped, no one seemed to cast a thought for the soul of the deceased. With God’s mercy it was by now far, far away – away from this creep and the smell of formalin, away from a cynical stunt that told us little about pathology but much about the anatomy of thrill-seeking modern Europe”
Bwahahahahaha…so in this paragraph, Letts has managed to imply this was against God and that some terrible crime had been committed (with full consent from the deceased). ‘away from this creep”, once more Letts feels the need to launch personal attack without justification, simply because he has an axe to grind.
And my favourite bit, “told us little about pathology but much of the anatomy of thrill-seeking modern Europe”.
Little about Pathology? So we didn’t learn about the cause of death? The methods use to identify disease using organs, how to determine lifestyle through stomach condition? There wasn’t an English dude explaining why each step was being taken, the methods used and why?
And the lovely, sublime little dig at “modern Europe”, the enemy of The Daily Mail, who labeled Greece as “thieves” during the plane-spotters debacle, campaign against The Euro and consistent screams at Labour for even considering losing the pound?
This article tells you nothing about why von Hagens did this, it offers no explanation of the event, doesn’t mention his connection to the Bodyworks exhibition that has been praised by English Educational Authorities?
Nope, Quentin Letts decides to launch personal attack after attack on the doctor, actively dismiss his qualifications, suggest that the autopsy was against God and manage to cram in a dig at Europe.
All in one article.
THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why The Daily Mail is a laughable, purile tabloid that rarely presents anything approaching news and, instead, prefers to settle for rhetoric, poisonous opinion in place of fact and scant regard to the actual details of what they report on.
Page:
" The lips of his lean skeletal face parted for the occasional lizard lick as he wielded the scalpel, knife and path-lab loppers "
Sounds more like a bloody ghost story than an insightful news report.
You need to laugh at this guff
Sounds more like a bloody ghost story than an insightful news report.
You need to laugh at this guff
People sometimes call me close minded.
But that journalist is the personification of close-mindedness.
And stupidity.
But that journalist is the personification of close-mindedness.
And stupidity.
We have this paper delivered to work to leave in reception, and at lunchtimes it gets read in the kitchen. And I always try to have a flick through, purely to remind myself of just how laughable that paper is. Full of outdated, right-wing reporting designed to whip the nation into a righteous fury about immigrants, The Middle East and any number of issues.
And one of my favourites today was the reporting on the autopsy shown on Channel 4 last night.
Here are extracts from the column written by Quentin Letts.
Remember, a newspaper is supposed to report the facts in a partisan manner to allow the reader to make up their own minds on a subject.
So with that in mind, enjoy what is quite possibly one of the most manipulative, jingoistic journalists writing today:
-----
“What a carve up! In an East London stew last night, watched by a crowd of gawping ghouls and media liggers, the disgusting Professor Gunther von Hagens ripped the dignity from a dead man”
Ok, first of all…’a crowd of gawping ghouls and media liggers’, including Mr Letts. But he was there for a different reason right? And then we have the 1st personal attack ‘the disgusting Professor’. Disgusting? On what basis? Already you can see the slant this article will take by the 1st paragraph. Instead of merely reporting what went on, Letts feels the need to tell you that anybody watching this is a ghoul and should be ashamed, and that the Professor is a disgusting man for daring to do such a thing, and how dare he “rip the dignity from a dead man”.
A dead man that consented and left his body for exactly this procedure, and a dead man who’s family respected his wishes and had zero problem with allowing this.
“Von Hagens – let’s spare ourselves the professorship – smirked as he snipped. What an odd and unpleasant little man. The lips of his lean skeletal face parted for the occasional lizard lick as he wielded the scalpel, knife and path-lab loppers”
Right then, so Letts has dismissed von Hagens clinical qualifications and medical expertise because he doesn’t think it’s worth it? Again, on what basis? ‘smirked as he snipped’ – nice one Letts, take another potshot at a professional simply because you don’t agree with what he’s doing. That’s professional journalism in action, yeah right. ‘what an odd and unpleasant little man/lean skeletal face/lizard lick’ – boy, we’re really trying to ensure you get the point across aren’t we Letts? I don’t understand what the appearance of von Hagens has to do with anything, except to serve as a method of convincing the morally outraged that this man is evil and morally corrupt and blah blah blah.
“as the carving continued, and the flashbulbs popped, no one seemed to cast a thought for the soul of the deceased. With God’s mercy it was by now far, far away – away from this creep and the smell of formalin, away from a cynical stunt that told us little about pathology but much about the anatomy of thrill-seeking modern Europe”
Bwahahahahaha…so in this paragraph, Letts has managed to imply this was against God and that some terrible crime had been committed (with full consent from the deceased). ‘away from this creep”, once more Letts feels the need to launch personal attack without justification, simply because he has an axe to grind.
And my favourite bit, “told us little about pathology but much of the anatomy of thrill-seeking modern Europe”.
Little about Pathology? So we didn’t learn about the cause of death? The methods use to identify disease using organs, how to determine lifestyle through stomach condition? There wasn’t an English dude explaining why each step was being taken, the methods used and why?
And the lovely, sublime little dig at “modern Europe”, the enemy of The Daily Mail, who labeled Greece as “thieves” during the plane-spotters debacle, campaign against The Euro and consistent screams at Labour for even considering losing the pound?
This article tells you nothing about why von Hagens did this, it offers no explanation of the event, doesn’t mention his connection to the Bodyworks exhibition that has been praised by English Educational Authorities?
Nope, Quentin Letts decides to launch personal attack after attack on the doctor, actively dismiss his qualifications, suggest that the autopsy was against God and manage to cram in a dig at Europe.
All in one article.
THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why The Daily Mail is a laughable, purile tabloid that rarely presents anything approaching news and, instead, prefers to settle for rhetoric, poisonous opinion in place of fact and scant regard to the actual details of what they report on.
And one of my favourites today was the reporting on the autopsy shown on Channel 4 last night.
Here are extracts from the column written by Quentin Letts.
Remember, a newspaper is supposed to report the facts in a partisan manner to allow the reader to make up their own minds on a subject.
So with that in mind, enjoy what is quite possibly one of the most manipulative, jingoistic journalists writing today:
-----
“What a carve up! In an East London stew last night, watched by a crowd of gawping ghouls and media liggers, the disgusting Professor Gunther von Hagens ripped the dignity from a dead man”
Ok, first of all…’a crowd of gawping ghouls and media liggers’, including Mr Letts. But he was there for a different reason right? And then we have the 1st personal attack ‘the disgusting Professor’. Disgusting? On what basis? Already you can see the slant this article will take by the 1st paragraph. Instead of merely reporting what went on, Letts feels the need to tell you that anybody watching this is a ghoul and should be ashamed, and that the Professor is a disgusting man for daring to do such a thing, and how dare he “rip the dignity from a dead man”.
A dead man that consented and left his body for exactly this procedure, and a dead man who’s family respected his wishes and had zero problem with allowing this.
“Von Hagens – let’s spare ourselves the professorship – smirked as he snipped. What an odd and unpleasant little man. The lips of his lean skeletal face parted for the occasional lizard lick as he wielded the scalpel, knife and path-lab loppers”
Right then, so Letts has dismissed von Hagens clinical qualifications and medical expertise because he doesn’t think it’s worth it? Again, on what basis? ‘smirked as he snipped’ – nice one Letts, take another potshot at a professional simply because you don’t agree with what he’s doing. That’s professional journalism in action, yeah right. ‘what an odd and unpleasant little man/lean skeletal face/lizard lick’ – boy, we’re really trying to ensure you get the point across aren’t we Letts? I don’t understand what the appearance of von Hagens has to do with anything, except to serve as a method of convincing the morally outraged that this man is evil and morally corrupt and blah blah blah.
“as the carving continued, and the flashbulbs popped, no one seemed to cast a thought for the soul of the deceased. With God’s mercy it was by now far, far away – away from this creep and the smell of formalin, away from a cynical stunt that told us little about pathology but much about the anatomy of thrill-seeking modern Europe”
Bwahahahahaha…so in this paragraph, Letts has managed to imply this was against God and that some terrible crime had been committed (with full consent from the deceased). ‘away from this creep”, once more Letts feels the need to launch personal attack without justification, simply because he has an axe to grind.
And my favourite bit, “told us little about pathology but much of the anatomy of thrill-seeking modern Europe”.
Little about Pathology? So we didn’t learn about the cause of death? The methods use to identify disease using organs, how to determine lifestyle through stomach condition? There wasn’t an English dude explaining why each step was being taken, the methods used and why?
And the lovely, sublime little dig at “modern Europe”, the enemy of The Daily Mail, who labeled Greece as “thieves” during the plane-spotters debacle, campaign against The Euro and consistent screams at Labour for even considering losing the pound?
This article tells you nothing about why von Hagens did this, it offers no explanation of the event, doesn’t mention his connection to the Bodyworks exhibition that has been praised by English Educational Authorities?
Nope, Quentin Letts decides to launch personal attack after attack on the doctor, actively dismiss his qualifications, suggest that the autopsy was against God and manage to cram in a dig at Europe.
All in one article.
THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why The Daily Mail is a laughable, purile tabloid that rarely presents anything approaching news and, instead, prefers to settle for rhetoric, poisonous opinion in place of fact and scant regard to the actual details of what they report on.
Page: