Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:In the UK you’ve got papers that are identified with one political view or another. Ignoring the tabloids and looking at just the broadsheets you’ve got The Guardian and The Times.

I’m not sure you can then make the conclusion that Englishmen only want to hear their own side, can you?

I could quite happily come to the conclusion that Englishmen want to read their own side, both the 'news'papers you mention have a strong bias. The lauded status given to The Guardian by left leaning Americans perplexes me, as it has a very strong political bias. The Times is owned by Murdoch, 'nuff said.

Television seems to have a less editorial bias here. Although the BBC's apron string pulling is pretty apparent.

Railguns wrote:They ruined so much for you.... :(

I might be going to Ireland this April, anyone got a recommendation of a drink to look out for in Dublin mayhaps?

Sadly, the selection in dublin is piss poor. In most pubs, it's Guinness or Beamish for stout, Smithwicks for ale, and then a boatload of crappy foreign lagers.

I however, am coming to your rescue.
There is a pub called the porterhouse in Dublin. It's only problem may be that it is too popular. It does 3 kinds of stout on tap, all of them much more flavoursome than guinness. Their own plain porter is delicious and I could drink it all night. The oyster stout is interesting, especially if you don't mind the briny aftertaste. Wrasslers XXXX is very strong and very bitter, but I've developed a taste for it. Haven't had occaision to drink it for an entire night though, so I don't know what it would do to me.

For ales, they have a wide selection of bottle english ales, and 3 they brew themselves. The Red is decent ale, with a lot of flavour and it's very easy drinking. My favourite though is An Brain Blásta (Irish for "the tasty drop") which is a delicious but very strong red ale.

They also do a wide selection of excellent beers from around the world. And they do decent trad music, though it can be a little loud. Also nice food, and attractive barmaids. The porterhouse rules.

Another good pub if you like ale is The Gingerman near trinity college. It does pitchers of it's own ale (and lager, but who drinks lager) which is quite nice, very drinkable and has the wonderful combination of being cheap and nice. The gingerman is a fairly lively pub with a young crowd, not your traditional irish pub experience but it's where I go on fridays after a game of D'n'D and to celebrate birthdays and stuff. Can't say no to a 13 euro four pint pitcher.

Another pub that does their own ales is the...damnit...the Bull and the Crown? Or something. I'll find it out. I've not been there, but apparently it's nice.
The nicest pint of guinness I've had in Dublin was in the Stag's Head. It's also noteworthy for being one of the oldest pubs in the city.

If I think of anymore I'll post them.
If you see O'Hara's Stout or Ale on sale anywhere in Dublin, post it up here! Both are delicious but not commonly sold. Diageo uses the popularity of the guinness brand to maintain a bit of a stranglehold on beer in dublin.
Oh, and if you like, give me a shout when you're in Dublin and I'll show you around a bit.

Da Boss wrote:...

My favourite though is An Brain Blásta (Irish for "the tasty drop") which is a delicious but very strong red ale.

...

You're pulling our legs.

George Spiggott wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:20oz of Boddington’s and 20 oz of Holy Grail Ale. Yum.

What have you colonials done with our beautiful measuring system we gave you? "I'm off down the pub for a few 20oz's" just doesn't work. Are you drinking beer or eating cake?
The correct terminology for beer measurment is of course 'a large one'.

I was just trying to be clear. Apologies for the lack of poetry in the language.

George Spiggott wrote:In all seriousness this sounds like a great place run by people with an eye for the authentic, I think I'd feel right at home there.

It was pretty nice; we went around 6pm on a Monday night and there were quite a few people there; it's clearly popular. It was actually a little bit bright for my tastes; the interior color is a mix of dark wood and yellow-painted walls, and the lighting was brighter than I expect in a pub, but I think that may have been catering to an older dinner crowd. I'll have to get out there on a Friday or Saturday night when they have musicians in.

CaptainCommunsism wrote:oh, riddles! here's one:
What does one man need, but not know he needs it,
what does one man buy, but not for himself
and what does one man make, but not need for himself?

A coffin!

And for you: What word can be written forward, backward or upside down, and can still be read from left to right?

Thanks Da Boss. I'll give you a shout if I end up going.

George Spiggott wrote:

sebster wrote:In the UK you’ve got papers that are identified with one political view or another. Ignoring the tabloids and looking at just the broadsheets you’ve got The Guardian and The Times.

I’m not sure you can then make the conclusion that Englishmen only want to hear their own side, can you?

I could quite happily come to the conclusion that Englishmen want to read their own side, both the 'news'papers you mention have a strong bias. The lauded status given to The Guardian by left leaning Americans perplexes me, as it has a very strong political bias. The Times is owned by Murdoch, 'nuff said.

Television seems to have a less editorial bias here. Although the BBC's apron string pulling is pretty apparent.

Yeah, at which point you’ve got to argue that UK newspaper readers only want to read their own side, while television watchers desire balanced reporting. This would be an odd thing to argue.

Or you figure that it isn’t the result of the media giving people exactly what they want, but is the result of historical events and powerful media owners creating news sources for a variety of reasons, which don’t necessarily reflect on the greater audience.

sebster wrote:Yeah, at which point you’ve got to argue that UK newspaper readers only want to read their own side, while television watchers desire balanced reporting.

Ok then. As people who watch TV and people who buy newspapers are not necessarily separate entities, I for example watch TV and buy newspapers, (wierd huh? ) I believe that people will buy something that agrees with them (certainly the opposite seems to be rare) however the easy access, channel hopping nature of TV leads TV news editors to follow a more mainstream agenda to keep as much of the available audience as possible.

Perhaps the US's larger population and TV channel volume allows US television companies to take a particular stance, even if only to stand out from the other material offered.

Also, we have the BBC, which is contractually obligated to remain impartial as much as possible. This is not to say they cannot broadcast a particularly left or right leaning article or opinion, but that they must balance it.

The US, to my knowledge, doesn't have an enforcibly impartial news service.

Do you believe the BBC is impartial?

To be honest, no. I don't think it is possible in this day and age. However, even if they lean one way on a particular subject, they do still present another (often half arsed) opposing view, which is something.

Though having said that, I don't feel they lean one way or the other on purpose, just that they have sadly given in to the same sensationalism that is the bane of modern media the world over. And though they might be right wing on one subject, they are left wing on another, so eventually they are impartial, just in a round about kind of way.

The BBC has been shown by media research pretty consistently to lean towards supporting the government of the day, while publishing enough anti-government stuff that the government of the day keeps complaining that the BBC is anti-government. (Does that make sense.)

It does to me!

I think the best way to sum it up is to say the BBC doesn't seem to have an *agenda* in it's reporting. Unlike the Daily Mail, which exists purely to terrify middle Englanders into voting Tory, regardless or not of whether it's a bad idea.

The other Daily Mail agenda is to classify all substances in the world into things that cause cancer and things that cure cancer.

Which of those catagories does The Daily Mail fall into?

George Spiggott wrote:

sebster wrote:Yeah, at which point you’ve got to argue that UK newspaper readers only want to read their own side, while television watchers desire balanced reporting.

Ok then. As people who watch TV and people who buy newspapers are not necessarily separate entities, I for example watch TV and buy newspapers, (wierd huh? ) I believe that people will buy something that agrees with them (certainly the opposite seems to be rare) however the easy access, channel hopping nature of TV leads TV news editors to follow a more mainstream agenda to keep as much of the available audience as possible.

Perhaps the US's larger population and TV channel volume allows US television companies to take a particular stance, even if only to stand out from the other material offered.

I’m also not really convinced that it’s all about size. But Russian had TV channels closely tied with political parties (until Putin basically won, and now there’s no real opposition for a station to align with) and their economy is a fraction of the UK’s.

I really don’t think it has anything to do with consumer demands or market size. It’s about the people who own media outlets deciding what they want their outlet to cover. In the US there’s a news station that gives overtly favourable coverage to the Republican Party because that’s what Murdoch wanted his news station to do.

sebster wrote:It’s about the people who own media outlets deciding what they want their outlet to cover. In the US there’s a news station that gives overtly favourable coverage to the Republican Party because that’s what Murdoch wanted his news station to do.

There must have been some demand for this because otherwise it wouldn't get any advertising revenue.

George Spiggott wrote:There must have been some demand for this because otherwise it wouldn't get any advertising revenue.

Yeah, people watch FOX news, it's the number one cable news station (which is somewhat like being the best swing band to come out of Lithuania, but anyway). I'm not saying there is no demand for obviously biased news reporting.

I am saying that you can't look at one country and see it has some biased media outlets, and decide that this is a result of that country demanding biased news media. There are a lot of other factors, not least of which are the decisions made by the owners of those media outlets, as to whether they want to run biased media or not.

All privately owned media outlets are liable to be biased -- it's one of the key privileges of ownership.

I'm not saying state owner media is unbiased, a lot of it may be totally biased, of course, you only have to look at Russia or Italy to know that.

There is a difference between bias and falsity, however. From the UK's Press Complaints Commission code of practice:

Accuracy

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

I agree Kilkrazy, there is a difference between bias and irrelevant or unreliable content. I've made the same point on this site a few times.

George Spiggott wrote:Which of those catagories does The Daily Mail fall into?

Sadly, it's impossible to say. The Daily Nazi loves to switch the titles of the lists, just to keep the petrified middle classes completely paranoid about everything!

The joke around here is that you hide your copy of The Daily Mail in a porn mag to avoid embarrasment at the checkout.

I think Viz described it perfectly as a 'hate filled, knee jerk, right wing rag'