Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

the long-awaited 'why the telegraph is going downhill' thread

Pickman's model

Starry Wisdom
from today's headline story on the front page:

HRH Prince George of Cambridge, as he will be known, was named after the Queen's father, George VI, meaning he will one day become King George VII.

this is a load of nonsense for a start as it's widely known that should he ascend the throne prince charles will take the name george, becoming the seventh of that name: see for example http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110220061444AAf2BSy

in addition, the new royal parasite may decide to be eg king david i: he will not necessarily be a king george

but it gets worse!

George had been the most heavily backed boy's name with bookmakers almost from the moment the Duchess announced she was pregnant, and follows a line that began with George I, the first Hanoverian king, in 1660.

but, er, it didn't!

for a monarchist paper this is particularly shabby.
The Torygraph welcomed Helmet Head back with open arms after he was cut loose from Murdoch's Sun on Sunday.

As I blogged last May, David Cameron is on track to victory in 2015. Strategically, he's in the right place on the economy, Europe, welfare, education and immigration and, thanks to Lynton Crosby, he's beginning to get the tactics right, too. My biggest worry isn't that things won't continue to go well for the Conservatives, but they'll go too well. Earlier this year, it looked as if the Prime Minister had timed his run to perfection, with everything beginning to go right over the next 18 months, culminating in a barn-storming general election campaign. But things are beginning to go right earlier than expected – and I'm not just talking about the Q2 figures. Who would have thought that crime would be down by more than 10 per cent since the election? Or that Abu Qatada would be gone? Or that UKIP's bubble would burst so soon? As for Len McCluskey, he's the gift that keeps on giving.

Does this publication still carry, (in between the brave chequebook journalism exposing our moneygrubbing public servants?), either the world's most barking mad obituaries ("Jock 'Jockstrap' Duff was renowned for his batting average of 247 but famed in his regiment for his exploits during the Siege of Arnhem, where he managed to detonate an entire cellar of brandy while dressed as a nun...."etc) and/or the classic "marmalade droppers" of page 3 ("Provincial dentist killed mother in law over golf dispute - with arsenic") ?
I very occasionally buy it if there's a long train journey or something. Last time they were slagging off NHS because it was nationalised and therefore inherently evil, or summat.

No matter what the topic, the comments always seem to end up in a rant about single mums on benefits.
I used to read the Telegraph (among other periodicals) in the local library when I was on the dole in the 80s for something to do - one thing that sticks in my head about it was that their TV Reviewer Ronald Hastings appeared to completely hate the medium of television and never gave anything a good review.
FIL reads it and if I'm over there I'll read it in preference to the Mail (MIL's organ of choice) - best thing I can say about it is that I like the typeface.
I like the Alex cartoon. I also like to read varying points of view. Something in addition to the Guardian.
Isn't it traditional to mention the cricket and football writing as being worth it? Not that I've read any of it for ages.
Its been nicknamed the Maily Telegraph for sometime now. Although their politics are not to everyones taste its has traditionally been a paper of record with high standards of journalistic rigour when it came to reporting. It has always been a mouthpiece for reactionary fringe odd balls but they seem to have taken over the asylum now.
And as Gingerman stated its readers' comments go far beyond Sir Bufton Tufton and now compete with Yahoo News as a platform for the nastiest elements of the British far right.
A lot of UKIP types are retired and seem to have plenty of time on thier hands to froth all over the comments section. You couldn't even parody half that shit, it's all there, the cheap shitty 'Zanu liebour' type puns used at every opportunity. These people aren't well.
A lot of UKIP types are retired and seem to have plenty of time on thier hands to froth all over the comments section. You couldn't even parody half that shit, it's all there, the cheap shitty 'Zanu liebour' type puns used at every opportunity. These people aren't well.
Exactly. I've said it before, but these people suffer from some form of psychopathy. It isn't healthy
Telegraph comments are genuinely disturbing, some deeply weird shit down there. Their bloggers mostly follow the same formula, which is braying, bumptious partisans who have constructed their own reality and are very happy to live in it (Young, Delingpole) or Eton debating club shits who delight in counterfactuals and silly, reductive point scoring, which come together in columns called things like 'why Hitler was really a Lefty' (Brendan thingy, Harry Mount). Today, Mount says people in the north of England have a shorter life expectancy than people in the south cos geology: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/cultur...why-southerners-live-longer-than-northerners/ ... which is pisspoor by anyone's standards, frankly.
They have cunts like professional wanker James Delingpole, Nile Gardner,NeoCon Coughlan,Christine Odious,Brendan Bollox O'Neill and Tim Stanley writing for them.When it comes to all things Royal the DT has to be the most sycophantic of the broadsheets,on the other hand their Sports coverage is pretty decent.
My parents wouldn't dream of getting another paper, so I give it a look when I go and visit them. It's mainly the comments section I read, if nothing else to confirm and strengthen my preconceptions of its staff and readership, including those with ridiculous names like Bufton Tufton, Herbert Gussett and Simon Heffer.
Top Bottom