If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Jack Campin - bogus address writes:
what are the "good" UK newspapers? Which ones do our UK readers recommend? The Herald (Glasgow), particularly its Sunday edition. The Independent (London). Ooh, Schottland, I forgot about them. Which is odd, because I quite like their RSS feed. I think Earl might enjoy this one: """ Stewart Kirkpatrick skirkpatrick at scotsman dot com [...] Am I alone in not finding great comfort in this story? Tony Blair has apparently persuaded his "good friend" (aka Sith master) George Dubya Bush to embrace the threat of climate change by ¡Ä err ¡Ä never signing up to the Kyoto treaty. Instead, Mr Poodle has recognised "US efforts to fight global warming in its own way, with extensive investment in new fuel technology" such as, say, even bigger 4x4s, more shopping malls and really cool new oil wells. Well, well, well, Tony. That concession was really worth unquestioningly following Dubya into Eyeraq for, wasn't it? You've forced the US -- nay, bullied them -- into adopting an environmental policy based on mindless homage to the oil lobby and the unthinking consumer. Well played. """ http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=634952005 But you don't even see the Scotsman in England, at least not with my eyes. Des |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 18:27:14 +0200, Martin wrote:
I like the Economist too. It's a weekly magazine. It styles itself a newspaper, I'm prepared to believe them, I also don't really see why it's not? It carries news... Jim. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Earl Evleth wrote:
The following item indicates that the UK newspapers are now doing a better job than the now terrorized American press. But what are the "good" UK newspapers? Which ones do our UK readers recommend? The Daily (& Sunday) Telegraph, The Times, and the Financial Times (I particularly like the Saturday edition). Forget the rest, they're comics! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Mike O'Sullivan wrote:
Earl Evleth wrote: The following item indicates that the UK newspapers are now doing a better job than the now terrorized American press. But what are the "good" UK newspapers? Which ones do our UK readers recommend? The Daily (& Sunday) Telegraph, The Times, and the Financial Times (I particularly like the Saturday edition). Forget the rest, they're comics! Does you choice reveal a need for affirmation or does it indicate a liking for challenge? The Telegraph used to be (I haven't looked at it much recently) about as unreflective as a wall painted in matt black. -- PB The return address has been MUNGED |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
* The Independent is pro-Europe and was vigorously against the Iraq
war. It is my preferred choice, since it concentrates on news and does it fairly well. * The Telegraph is an old-fashioned social conservative quality paper, and good for sports. * The Times has never recovered from Murdoch buying it. The rest of the dailies are strictly bogroll. I disagree. They are not even good as bogroll. I know, too shiny, it just tends to smear it about rather than absorb anything. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Earl Evleth" wrote in message ... The following item indicates that the UK newspapers are now doing a better job than the now terrorized American press. But what are the "good" UK newspapers? Which ones do our UK readers recommend? Are they usually available on the continent?? Being exposed to a different English language press is possibly a broadening experience for traveling Americans. Earl **** 'Downing Street Memo' Gets Fresh Attention By Mark Memmott USA Today Wednesday 08 June 2005 A simmering controversy over whether American media have ignored a secret British memo about how President Bush built his case for war with Iraq bubbled over into the White House on Tuesday. At a late afternoon news conference, Reuters correspondent Steve Holland asked Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair about a memo that's been widely written about and discussed in Europe but less so in the USA. It was the most attention paid by the media in the USA so far to the "Downing Street memo," first reported on May 1 by The Sunday Times of London. The memo is said by some of the president's sharpest critics, such as Democratic Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, to be strong evidence that Bush decided to go to war and then looked for evidence to support his decision. The Sunday Times said the memo is the minutes of a meeting that British Prime Minister Tony Blair had with some of his top intelligence and foreign policy aides on July 23, 2002, at 10 Downing Street, the prime minister's official residence. The story said the memo indicates that Blair was told by the head of Britain's MI6 intelligence service that in 2002, the Bush administration was selectively choosing evidence that supported its case for going to war and ignoring anything to the contrary. The war began in March 2003. "Intelligence and facts were being fixed" by the Bush administration "around" a policy that saw military action "as inevitable," the newspaper quoted from the memo. "There's nothing farther from the truth," Bush told reporters as Blair stood at his side. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," Bush said in response to a question about the memo. "It was our last option." Blair added, "The facts were not being 'fixed' in any shape or form at all." Bush said that at the time the memo was written, no decision had been made about going to war. He pointed out that it was written two months before he went to the United Nations and asked for a Security Council resolution calling on Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction or face "serious consequences." The Sunday Times' May 1 memo story, which broke just four days before Britain's national elections, caused a sensation in Europe. American media reacted more cautiously. The New York Times wrote about the memo May 2, but didn't mention until its 15th paragraph that the memo stated U.S. officials had "fixed" intelligence and facts. Knight Ridder Newspapers distributed a story May 6 that said the memo "claims President Bush ... was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy." The Los Angeles Times wrote about the memo May 12, The Washington Post followed on May 15 and The New York Times revisited the news on May 20. None of the stories appeared on the newspapers' front pages. Several other major media outlets, including the evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC, had not said a word about the document before Tuesday. Today marks USA TODAY's first mention. Some activists who opposed Bush's decision to attack Iraq have been peppering editors with letters and e-mails to push the media into more aggressive coverage. Last week, a group known as Democrats.com offered $1,000 to anyone who can get Bush to answer "yes or no" to this question: Did he or his administration "fix the intelligence" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to terrorism? "We want what the Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton and Star Wars stories have gotten: endless repetition until people have heard about it," says David Swanson, one of Democrats.com's organizers. Robin Niblett of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, says it would be easy for Americans to misunderstand the reference to intelligence being "fixed around" Iraq policy. " 'Fixed around' in British English means 'bolted on' rather than altered to fit the policy," he says. Ombudsmen at both The New York Times and The Washington Post have been critical of their newspapers for not covering the story more aggressively. USA TODAY chose not to publish anything about the memo before today for several reasons, says Jim Cox, the newspaper's senior assignment editor for foreign news. "We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source," Cox says. "There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing." ------- It may be a broadening experience for Americans to read non-American newspapers while travelling. I hope you will find that many of us "underexposed" Americans may access the BBC, Le Monde, NY Times, etc. without going abroard. Although the experience of going abroad to do so is a much nicer experience. Everyone, not just yanks, should explore the press of other nations. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory Morrow wrote: Jim Ley wrote: On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 17:12:23 +0200, Earl Evleth wrote: But what are the "good" UK newspapers? Which ones do our UK readers recommend? Are they usually available on the continent?? The Sun, the Star, the Mirror, the Mail are all absolute crap, in fact almost all the UK newspapers are in my opinion absolute crap. They're also very selective about what they publish, it may well be because they're less politically uniform you'll get one paper that feels it's in their ideological interest to mention a story, but that doesn't mean you can just read one and get any sort of balance or good reporting. The Economist is the only one I read regularly these days. It is excellent, especially since US "news" magazines such as _Time_ and _Newsweek_ are into vapid info - tainment these days...the _Economist_ actually takes a day or two to read... Speaking as a USAin, I like the _Guardian_ and the _Independent_... _The Sun_ is worth the ocassional laugh, I like the "slimming" articles and the "Dear Meg" or whatever agony aunt column... -- Best Greg 'Viz' is funnier and more realistic. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Stephen Ellenson" wrote in message ... It may be a broadening experience for Americans to read non-American newspapers while travelling. I hope you will find that many of us "underexposed" Americans may access the BBC, Le Monde, NY Times, etc. without going abroard. Although the experience of going abroad to do so is a much nicer experience. Everyone, not just yanks, should explore the press of other nations. I have a quick look in the evening at about half a dozen or so on-line papers to get a different slant on what is reported to be happening in the rest of the world. It is quite interesting to see the different slant put on a story by different interest groups. Of course the definition of a good newspaper is one which reflects your own views on the news and which sometimes articulates your own thoughts often more thoroughly than you can yourself. It is comforting to read articles in print reflecting exactly what you have been thinking yourself. Here is a quick list of some of them I like, to save anybody searching. http://www.backhaul.net/best.htm "The worlds best newspaper site" http://www.economist.com/index.html http://observer.guardian.co.uk/ http://www.scotsman.com/ http://www.spectator.co.uk/ http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/ http://www.repubblica.it/ http://www.corriere.it/ http://www.espressonline.it/ http://www.panorama.it/home/index.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
old newspapers | [email protected] | Cruises | 1 | February 10th, 2005 04:03 PM |
Boycott offensive comic strip and newspapers that carry it | NAAFA | Air travel | 86 | May 3rd, 2004 06:26 PM |
Polls show more Americans willing to travel abroad | Earl Evleth | Europe | 22 | April 21st, 2004 10:51 AM |
Boycott offensive comic strip and newspapers that carry it | Mr.Pilcher | Air travel | 3 | April 7th, 2004 08:32 PM |
Toronto Star & Boston Herald on Some Ships! | Ray Goldenberg | Cruises | 0 | February 18th, 2004 02:55 PM |