Simple

Main Menu

Latest Comments

Comments

Crayfish issue not as bad as Canada.

Yes. Absolutely. What you said.

There is no debate here when people argue from false premises

Popular All Time

Search this site

Daily Mail Related Links

Fun Links

Writers / Thinkers

Tags

amanda platell daily mail liz jones melanie philips peter hitchens richard littlejohn about advertiser affair again anger angry another asylum attack barack being best blame body boob boyle brain brigade britain british broken campaign candidate cant cause change character children column comment compassion consequence conservative continue criminal dacre daily dale dead death defend deserve despair destroy difference different disabled disaster dont editor elf 'n' safety even ever evidence face facebook favour fear freak free friday from fury georgina gervai going gone good griffin hate hatred have having headline health hitchen holiday homophobia hypocrisy iain idea ignoring immigrant immigration intolerance irony jone journalism journalism just kill killer killing liberal like link littlejohn love mail make marriage media mistake moir more muslim mythical nazi nick obama outcome outrage over part paul peter place please police poll pres racism racist rape real really report reveal richard ricky right safety same scare shit shock show slack some spot statistic stop story strike support susan swine tabloid tabloid take talk terrible terror than that they think thinking through today torture trigger utter very victorian want week white will with without work world worse wrong year your yourself

Your Ad Here

Stats since 7/04/09

View blog authority

Notice

Guest user account is not properly configured. Please set 'Username of Guest' option to the Username of registered user. guest_username="guest"

--
yvComment solution, version="1.24.0"

Simple

Saturday, 24 April 2010 01:05

Because this blog and its reader don't simply assume that they're rightfully angry, they actively try to prove it through research and evidence. Any article on this site, or on any reputable blog, will include at least one link, often several, to back up its claims. When your work is on the internet, there is no excuse for not linking to your sources (especially since so much makes its way online; just check out Google Scholar). Go to the Mail's site; where are the links, the traceable citations? Hell, where are the citations full stop? Absolutely nowhere. Unless you dig deep you have nothing but their word to trust that this person said that, and that that report said this. Richard Littlejohn is paid £700,000+ a year to spout out whatever reheated old drivel he chooses, and do I see a single link? Nope. So why the fuck should I trust even a word he says? Especially given that dozens of blogs rip him to shreds every time he commits pen to paper, and even if you disagree with them it wouldn't change the fact that they cite their research with instantly traceable links, something that should be standard nowadays and that the tabloids fail to do in absolutely everything they publish, and that makes amateur bloggers working for nothing far, far more trustworthy than well-paid 'journalists' because penniless nobodies are proving to be better journalists than the journalists themselves. That's why this blog, and many others like it, are different to that tabloid trash.

This is a comment on "The Angry Mob"

ANGRY MOB

We read the papers everyday