Being doing some complaining!

[adamthemieleman]

So as we all know about the poop storm created by the media about the new EU regs, I thought enough was enough, so I've done some complaining.

I have complained to the head of the Daily Mail, Rachel Straus and Simon Lambert of ThisIsMoney, also to the head of Which (who could have set the story straight and are the biggest con merchants going) and finally, I have complained to OFCOM for the scaremongering and false information given by the media.

Anyone want email adresses, to do the same? I can post them. Be nice to see these idiots taken down and proper expert information given instead of a bunch of no-nothings meddling with things they have no clue about.

 

[turbo500]

Good luck getting a response from the Daily Fail. I've complained to them before and got nowhere.

 

[parwaz786]

Good job complaining to OFCOM.

 

[anthony]

i agree

entirely with you .did anyone hear the discussion on radio 2 i have never heard such a load of twaddle in my life .there was one woman on who cleaned for a living and she was distraught at the thought of not being able to buy a powerull enough vac she said she had a 1600 watt at home but for work she had a 3500 watt vac [dont think so]i tried to ring in to put her straight but couldnt get through .Then there was another doll head on almost in tears because she thought she would have to throw out her current vac and buy a lower powered one talk about thick should people like that really be allowed to breed ?

 

[vintagerepairer]

Do you really think anyone outside of this forum really cares though? Why would the Daily Mail give two-hoots about the accuracy of what they print? They write what the paying reader is wanting to see. I do recall that a good deal of years ago Harry Enfield did a sketch where he and another man played the part of the Self Righteous Brothers. They hunted down opportunities to be offended at, whether real or imagined. That is your Daily Mail reader.

 

[spiraclean]

The Daily Heil isn't in the business of informing or educating its readers. They exist solely to provide a populist viewpoint, conveniently packaged so that it can be parroted by morons who see no need to go to the trouble of thinking or forming their own opinions. Nobody buys a paper for the sake of one article, rather they generally stick to whichever rag courts their existing worldview and spoon-feeds them what they what to hear.

This is indeed sloppy journalism, but it was never intended to pass on knowledge to readers. It was seized upon because the DM knew it would fuel anti-EU sentiment, and therefore imply that they "get" what their readers are thinking and feeling. Job done, so why would they feel any need to backtrack or change their story if it has already accomplished what they had set out to do in the first place?

In the interests of even handedness, the Guardian doesn't get off lightly here either. They ran a very similar story, quoting the Which? panic buying mantra, and much to my surprise, many of the reader comments were similar to those in the DM. Maybe not quite as vitriolic, but still woefully misinformed and stubborn.

I've already mentioned in the other thread my feelings with regard to Which? They used to take a more cynical tone, asking readers if they really needed product X, whether it lived up to its promises and was it worth the money. Now it's very rapidly becoming a product showcase, reporting on the latest and greatest must-haves with nowhere near the in-depth testing they used to carry out. Take a look at some issues from 10-20 years ago and compare with today's, and you'll see what I mean. Not so much consumer advocacy as all-out consumerism.

The old saying is true, you'll never go far wrong by appealing to the lowest common denominator. Everything is becoming so mediocre, and if it isn't light and fluffy nobody seems interested anymore. Could just be age setting in though...