Do you only ever read the bits you want to?
A throwaway line on a passage about the problems of the American ratings system has taken on a life of its own
As this is very off thread I will make this my last post on this topic but will read with great interest any replies.
No I read it all so that I can carefully choose which points to quote.
You must admit that your quote left itself open to my comment. A paper that has consistently sympathised with the most extreme left is just "left of centre" whereas the Mail which has strongly denounced the BNP is "rabid right". What would the Guardian which has consistently praised Castro and Chavez have to do to become the "rabid left".
There have been many more serious issues but for me the most personally offensive this year was the case of Charlie Gilmour. I was strongly in favour of the anti student fees demonstration. This was hi-jacked by a History student swinging from a flag on the Cenotaph (he said he did not know what it was - repeat that he is a History student) giving the right wing press the headline they wanted. As someone who knew people who had gone through hell in the war this touched a nerve. It was so inevitable that The Guardian should have articles supporting Charlie Gilmour. If I give this more words than it deserves it is because for me war memorials are a particularly sensitve nerve.
You say that The Guardian is good on environmental issues and I have heard the same from an environmental scientist. I am not qualified to judge but even I get the feeling that The Mail is silly on the environment.
On an issue where I can judge the Mail is far better than The Guardian on heritage matters.
A great deal depends on the readerrship. I would guess that more Guardian readers than Daily Mail are members of GreenPeace and Friends of the Earth. On the other hand I would guess that more Mail readers are members of the National Trust. Perhaps the answer is to read both newspapers.
.
Sorry DG, I tried to let it go but I can't move on and not give a "what the..." at that. There are few actors I can think of with less talent than Statham. Kiera Knightly and Orlando Bloom spring to mind, but it's a close call.
Sir Ralph Richardson and Dame Sybel Thorndyke were superb actors. I mean no disrepect to their memory when I say it would be hard to believe either of them "kicking ass".
Jason Statham plays action superbly as does a favourite actress Angelina Jolie in SALT("old men dream dreams") - I like Dame Judy Dench but how good is her Krav Maga .
I don't expect Jason Statham to play Shakespeare or Angelina Jolie to play Noel Coward.
I get irritated by the current wimpish set of male heroes whose only virtue is being slightly less sissy than Tom Cruise. There seem to be few successors to John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson and a personal favourite Lee Van Cleef. In real life Jason Statham for all I know may be a "luvvie" but on screen he gives the impression of being in the same mould as those four.
