3 ms·

Do I have to be mad to prefer text over audio when trying to get the news on a computer?

OJFord 9y ago
I'm not saying it's a mad preference, but I don't think it's reasonable to be mad that radio-broadcast content was later published online for your convenience, but not transcribed for you.
- Kluny 9y ago
  Sometimes when people say "mad" they mean crazy. That's usually what brits mean. Other times, "mad" means angry. That's usually what Americans means. However, based on the context of my parent and grandparent comments, I have no idea what either of them meant, and I don't think they do either. It's late at night though.
  - dmix 9y ago
    The good thing about having no pretension (or feigning class) is that you can focus purely on user functionality over some preconceived ideas of what a newspaper should be. As much as it's obvious that DailyMail is low brow, and personally not being from the UK, I have still found myself on a number of occasions spending time on the site and getting lost in various random articles. They've certainly done a good job with the site. Mastering how to tease stories and communicate the juicy bits. Likewise you could praise the Nazi's for their warfighting ability even if their cause is detestable :p
    - falsedan 9y ago
      > DailyMail is low brow That's not why people avoid the Mail, nor its poor/working-class associations. They publish poorly-researched scientific stories, have institutional racism, sexism, & homophobia, & rewrite stories from other news outlets with minimal credit. They also support & push the agenda of the right-aligned political parties (fascists in the 40s, Conservatives, now UKIP). > Likewise you could praise the Nazi's for their warfighting ability So this was a fiction put up by the British post-war historians, since many Wehrmacht officers relocated to the UK after WW2, and the military historians fawned over them + the fiction "small force of exceptional warriors attacked and held off the Communist hordes" went down well with the general reading public in the midst of the Cold War. Liddell Hart disputed this. You can learn from their battlefield doctrines and copy their battlefield arms, but their inability to hold strategic oil resources & coming second in the technology races meant that, despite their fighting, they lost the war.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      UK newspapers are uniquely awful, and the Daily Mail is among the worst. It's not the "lowbrow" that's the problem. It's privacy invasion stuff like this: https://twitter.com/MalwareTechBlog/status/865937835643285506 https://twitter.com/MalwareTechBlog/status/86593783564328550... Or the amount of successful complaints to the regulator: http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-liberal-britain http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-libe... > In the files of the Press Complaints Commission, you will find records of 687 complaints against the Mail which led either to a PCC adjudication or to a resolution negotiated, at least partially, after the PCC’s intervention. The number far exceeds that for any other British newspaper: the files show 394 complaints against the Sun, 221 against the Daily Telegraph, 115 against the Guardian. Or, as the UN said, the unique and hateful focus on immigrants: http://www.unhcr.org/uk/protection/operations/56bb369c9/press-coverage-refugee-migrant-crisis-eu-content-analysis-five-european.html http://www.unhcr.org/uk/protection/operations/56bb369c9/pres... > Overall, the Swedish press was the most positive towards refugees and migrants, while coverage in the United Kingdom was the most negative, and the most polarised. Amongst those countries surveyed, Britain’s right-wing media was uniquely aggressively in its campaigns against refugees and migrants [...] > In contrast, coverage in the United Kingdom was the most negative. Despite the presence of newspapers such as the Guardian and Daily Mirror, both of which were sympathetic to refugees, the right-wing press in the United Kingdom expressed a hostility towards refugees and migrants which was unique. Whilst newspapers in all countries featured anti-refugee and anti-migrant perspectives, what distinguished the right of centre press in the UK was the degree to which that section of the press campaigned aggressively against refugees and migrants. This could be seen in the preponderance of negative frames and the editorialising in favour of Fortress Europe approaches. Or the really creepy sexualisation of children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dqNTTdYKY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dqNTTdYKY The printed paper is different to the website too. It's possible to use the website without seeing all the worst bits of the DM. All of this just makes it really worrying that they're so popular.
  - OJFord 9y ago
    > Sometimes when people say "mad" they mean crazy. That's usually what brits mean. I'm British; that's not what I meant here. I'm sorry if anyone annoyed that the BBC chose to publish a radio broadcast instead of text misunderstood me, but I would note that if one took me to mean 'crazy' then my sentence was ungrammatical. If one instead charitably assumes grammatical correctness on my part, 'mad' reads as it was intended, and no offence should be caused.
    - Kluny 9y ago
      No offence was taken in any case, it was just a bit confusing.

I'm not saying it's a mad preference, but I don't think it's reasonable to be mad that radio-broadcast content was later published online for your convenience, but not transcribed for you.

Kluny 9y ago
Sometimes when people say "mad" they mean crazy. That's usually what brits mean. Other times, "mad" means angry. That's usually what Americans means. However, based on the context of my parent and grandparent comments, I have no idea what either of them meant, and I don't think they do either. It's late at night though.
- dmix 9y ago
  The good thing about having no pretension (or feigning class) is that you can focus purely on user functionality over some preconceived ideas of what a newspaper should be. As much as it's obvious that DailyMail is low brow, and personally not being from the UK, I have still found myself on a number of occasions spending time on the site and getting lost in various random articles. They've certainly done a good job with the site. Mastering how to tease stories and communicate the juicy bits. Likewise you could praise the Nazi's for their warfighting ability even if their cause is detestable :p
  - falsedan 9y ago
    > DailyMail is low brow That's not why people avoid the Mail, nor its poor/working-class associations. They publish poorly-researched scientific stories, have institutional racism, sexism, & homophobia, & rewrite stories from other news outlets with minimal credit. They also support & push the agenda of the right-aligned political parties (fascists in the 40s, Conservatives, now UKIP). > Likewise you could praise the Nazi's for their warfighting ability So this was a fiction put up by the British post-war historians, since many Wehrmacht officers relocated to the UK after WW2, and the military historians fawned over them + the fiction "small force of exceptional warriors attacked and held off the Communist hordes" went down well with the general reading public in the midst of the Cold War. Liddell Hart disputed this. You can learn from their battlefield doctrines and copy their battlefield arms, but their inability to hold strategic oil resources & coming second in the technology races meant that, despite their fighting, they lost the war.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    UK newspapers are uniquely awful, and the Daily Mail is among the worst. It's not the "lowbrow" that's the problem. It's privacy invasion stuff like this: https://twitter.com/MalwareTechBlog/status/865937835643285506 https://twitter.com/MalwareTechBlog/status/86593783564328550... Or the amount of successful complaints to the regulator: http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-liberal-britain http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-libe... > In the files of the Press Complaints Commission, you will find records of 687 complaints against the Mail which led either to a PCC adjudication or to a resolution negotiated, at least partially, after the PCC’s intervention. The number far exceeds that for any other British newspaper: the files show 394 complaints against the Sun, 221 against the Daily Telegraph, 115 against the Guardian. Or, as the UN said, the unique and hateful focus on immigrants: http://www.unhcr.org/uk/protection/operations/56bb369c9/press-coverage-refugee-migrant-crisis-eu-content-analysis-five-european.html http://www.unhcr.org/uk/protection/operations/56bb369c9/pres... > Overall, the Swedish press was the most positive towards refugees and migrants, while coverage in the United Kingdom was the most negative, and the most polarised. Amongst those countries surveyed, Britain’s right-wing media was uniquely aggressively in its campaigns against refugees and migrants [...] > In contrast, coverage in the United Kingdom was the most negative. Despite the presence of newspapers such as the Guardian and Daily Mirror, both of which were sympathetic to refugees, the right-wing press in the United Kingdom expressed a hostility towards refugees and migrants which was unique. Whilst newspapers in all countries featured anti-refugee and anti-migrant perspectives, what distinguished the right of centre press in the UK was the degree to which that section of the press campaigned aggressively against refugees and migrants. This could be seen in the preponderance of negative frames and the editorialising in favour of Fortress Europe approaches. Or the really creepy sexualisation of children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dqNTTdYKY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dqNTTdYKY The printed paper is different to the website too. It's possible to use the website without seeing all the worst bits of the DM. All of this just makes it really worrying that they're so popular.
- OJFord 9y ago
  > Sometimes when people say "mad" they mean crazy. That's usually what brits mean. I'm British; that's not what I meant here. I'm sorry if anyone annoyed that the BBC chose to publish a radio broadcast instead of text misunderstood me, but I would note that if one took me to mean 'crazy' then my sentence was ungrammatical. If one instead charitably assumes grammatical correctness on my part, 'mad' reads as it was intended, and no offence should be caused.
  - Kluny 9y ago
    No offence was taken in any case, it was just a bit confusing.