How to watch iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus launch live: What to expect from Apple's 9 September 2015…
Being a relative newcomer to Speakers Corner and having now read many of the posts I am surprised at the number of negative remarks regarding the Mail newspaper and it's staff. I invite those who feel that way to give their reasons.
What irritates me more than anything else about the Daily Mail is its hypocrisy.
The paper likes to adopt a stance of decency and integrity, and champions family values at every opportunity, yet the entire right-hand panel on its website is constantly filled with images of women in bikinis and revealing outfits, linking to 'stories' that consist of more, similar images.
At least The Sun has the honesty to nail its colours to the masthead.
What gets me most about The Mail is the way the truth is frequently misrepresented to make a "good story"
A case in point was this week where they ran a story about how Bill Gates is going to make the world polio free by using money he doesn't need.
Of course there is an element of truth to this story but it chooses to completely overlook the fact that global eradication of polio is a project run by Rotary International ongoing since 1979 and Gates has indeed weighed in with substantial funds to match those raised by Rotarians worldwide in recent years.
It would have been nice is the full picture had been painted.
I wouldn't put much faith in the veracity of much of their reporting.
Polio was almost eradicated even before Gates thought about providing funds.
Makes a good story, though
You might as well ask if the sun rises in the east.
Personally I think all papers have their own personal bias to push and a little twist of salt like we used to get with crisps should come with them.
I don't read any of the dailys. If one comes across my path I might remove the crossword and soduko.
I believe that all newspapers have their own agenda and political persuasion so I'd rather opt out.
If I want the news I'll go to the BBC thanks, TV Or website. OK, I appreciate the BBC may shuffle towards the right, but their website is excellent in that it is advert free and each page loads in seconds without fail. That's what you want in a website - for it just to be there, and quickly.
"Polio was almost eradicated even before Gates thought about providing funds."
No it wasn't, which is why Bill Gates is getting involved.
Polio is still endemic in Afghanistan, Nigeria and Pakistan, and it has re-established transmission in three countries which were previously polio-free (Angola, Chad and Democratic Republic of the Congo).
Several more countries had ongoing outbreaks in 2011 due to importations of poliovirus.
Even after eradication there is a need for money to be spent on minimising the risks of poliovirus re-introduction and the emergence of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus.
SillBill is correct to a degree although "almost eradicated" goes too far in terms of achievement.
When Rotary started the PolioPlus program, more than 350,000 children worldwide were infected annually by this crippling and sometimes fatal disease. In 2008, fewer than 2,000 children were infected, a reduction of more than 99 percent which was a massive reduction prior to Gates involvement. Rotary members have helped immunize more than 2 billion children in 122 countries.
As FE states, the relentless push to complete the job must be sustained otherwise it will re establish which is where the funding from Gates Foundation will impact.
The challenges are much more than financial, in December 2012 five aid workers were shot dead by Islamic militants in Pakistan which resulted in a temporary suspension of the vaccination programme. Taliban insurgents have repeatedly denounced the anti-polio campaign as a western plot.
I like the "Daily Mail"..
I find it interesting that here at least the right wing media outlet(s) seem to attract far more criticism that the left wing ones.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.