Jump to content

Sneaky trick in Daily mail


Recommended Posts

Big article in yesterdays Daily Mail (UK Newspaper) featuring a nutty religious order and abuse of under-age children. It had a sub-article likening it to Aleister Crowley that went on to say Crowley had many fans and followers, which THEN featured a passage Jimmy said years ago about Crowley being ahead of his time and being mis-understood.

So, an article on abuse of children that was bad enough, but to throw in sub-articles that had NO merit no worthy of inclusion in the original article featuring Jimmy page, was just a snide trick if you ask me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Daily Mail is a self-righteous pile of crap!

I totally agree with you, never read so much right wing tosh in my life.

However, I NEVER buy it...........I read it for free as its delivered to my workplace, along with Times, Telegraph, Express and Daily Mirror.

Oh, I DON'T work at McDonalds, but an Officers Mess

Link to post
Share on other sites

Big article in yesterdays Daily Mail (UK Newspaper) featuring a nutty religious order and abuse of under-age children. It had a sub-article likening it to Aleister Crowley that went on to say Crowley had many fans and followers, which THEN featured a passage Jimmy said years ago about Crowley being ahead of his time and being mis-understood.

So, an article on abuse of children that was bad enough, but to throw in sub-articles that had NO merit no worthy of inclusion in the original article featuring Jimmy page, was just a snide trick if you ask me.

Eh? How did have no merit or reason for inclusion??? I thought it was totally relevant to discuss Crowley and mention his famous supporters - Jimmy being possibly the most well-known.

They didn't just LIKEN it to Crowley - the guy jailed was a follower of Crowley - that was the reason he was discussed - they had to explain Crowley to people who hadn't heard of him before. Nothing they said was untrue and there was NO suggestion that Jimmy would ever have had any connection with/support of the activities that the bloke was jailed for. And they only quoted ONE LINE from Jimmy - not a whole passage. I cannot for the life of me see what you found to be a snide trick. Jimmy has never EVER hidden his interest in Crowley.

Edited by Knebby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh? How did have no merit or reason for inclusion??? I thought it was totally relevant to discuss Crowley and mention his famous supporters - Jimmy being possibly the most well-known.

They didn't just LIKEN it to Crowley - the guy jailed was a follower of Crowley - that was the reason he was discussed - they had to explain Crowley to people who hadn't heard of him before. Nothing they said was untrue and there was NO suggestion that Jimmy would ever have had any connection with/support of the activities that the bloke was jailed for. And they only quoted ONE LINE from Jimmy - not a whole passage. I cannot for the life of me see what you found to be a snide trick. Jimmy has never EVER hidden his interest in Crowley.

Because the article wasn't at all relevant to the story. The bloke who's been done probably had MANY subjects that he held in high esteem, but none news-worthy as they are not relevant.

As the journalist found the Crowley connection 'news-worthy' he went with it. As the new generation of readers probably haven't heard of Crowley, he thought he'd throw in the Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin connection in for maximum effect.

Put it this way, if I was an avid devotee of Crowley and my friends and family knew it, and THAT story with the inclusion of the Crowley article was published, hinting 'followers of Crowley MUST be nonces........I'd be VERY unhappy.

Edited by Ace5150
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the article wasn't at all relevant to the story. The bloke who's been done probably had MANY subjects that he held in high esteem, but none news-worthy as they are not relevant.

As the journalist found the Crowley connection 'news-worthy' he went with it. As the new generation of readers probably haven't heard of Crowley, he thought he'd throw in the Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin connection in for maximum effect.

Put it this way, if I was an avid devotee of Crowley and my friends and family knew it, and THAT story with the inclusion of the Crowley article was published, hinting 'followers of Crowley MUST be nonces........I'd be VERY unhappy.

I guess "hinting" is in the eyes of the reader, as I didn't see that hint at all. How do you know that the bloke held "many subjects in high esteem"?? The ONLY person that they say he followed was Crowley - making the explanation of Crowley completely relevant. If there was anyone else he followed, it would have been brought up in court, and if it was, why would the paper not mention it? Turning this into some kind of Jimmy Page witch-hunt is taking fan paranoia to the extreme if you ask me - and before it is called into question, Jimmy Page is my favourite musician ever and a great bloke too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the article wasn't at all relevant to the story. The bloke who's been done probably had MANY subjects that he held in high esteem, but none news-worthy as they are not relevant.

As the journalist found the Crowley connection 'news-worthy' he went with it. As the new generation of readers probably haven't heard of Crowley, he thought he'd throw in the Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin connection in for maximum effect.

Put it this way, if I was an avid devotee of Crowley and my friends and family knew it, and THAT story with the inclusion of the Crowley article was published, hinting 'followers of Crowley MUST be nonces........I'd be VERY unhappy.

Followers of Crowley are nonces in my opinion... I have to forget that part of Jimmy manually. He is still my favorite musician and from what I can tell a good all around person, hopefully he is less a fan of Crowley in his older age.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the Daily Mail isn't in the same category as, say, the Sun or the Daily Star (is that what it's called?). Not that I'm claiming it's a great newspaper, but there are degrees of these things.

The Daily Mail is still basically a tabloid, but not nearly as bad as the other two you mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot stand people being judged for the paper they read - most people I know are intelligent enough to form their own opinions and not be led by obvious bias. I'd rather read the Daily Mail than The Sun any day - what they said after the Hillsborough disaster was unforgivable, not to mention John Blake's infamous ramblings about Jimmy and Black Magic - and The Mirror is just gossip. The Guardian is shite, I actually think The Times - which I avoided for years thinking it was unreadable snobbery - and the Observer are some of the better papers these days. But if I want a paper of the size ( I mean physical size - the "serious" papers for some reason mostly hang onto their broadsheet unreadable size) I can read on the tube, I'll pick The Daily Mail every time - and I am not in the slightest part ashamed of that. I can form my own judgements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...