h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Mandragora...what was that post about skin colour about? Er. I think that makes sense. I had no idea what you were trying to get at.
As for the Daily Mail. I read it, I like it, and I don't care.

Bowling for Columbine is included in today's Oscar gongs for Best Documentary.

I for one hope it wins!

NO WAY!!!



It better win. What a kick in the teeth for mainstream society if it did.

No word of a lie.

Empire' got a list up somewhere.

http://www.empireonline.co.uk

The correct page in full (typically it's right down at the very bottom)

http://www.empireonline.co.uk/news/news.asp?4523
Hell even if it doesn't win "oscar nominated" will give it some extra ballast - I'm just hoping I can get to see it some time this side of 2005.

'twas a little random... I was on about how gypped I get by newspapers, maybe I am oversensitive but the implication that 'nothing's more alluring than pale, white English skin' was a tad disturbing, especially in the context of a paper which dumps on asylum seekers/refugees/foreigners (Germans in particular) daily.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

Michael Moore's website isn't making a big thing out of this oh no!

Which one's that?

And there's nothing wrong with being white, may I add. I quite *like* being white.

it was the 'Xpress. Crap newspaper. (not its attitude but its content, sheer dross.)
Nowt wrong with white, no. I am white too btw... however I do not have, nor wish to have, nor find attractive, 'pale English rose skin'. I like being naturally-tanned. (I am perceived to be non-white by a lot of folk but no one can agree exactly what I am s'posed to be.) I'd find it just as irritating if they'd said nothing's as sexy as a blue-eyed blonde , implying all others are inferior... although hair colour is of course not so touchy as skin colour.

Yeh I was tired last night when posting that. Would like to point out though that *I* have pale "English Rose" style skin...fair enough for the bad-ness of the paper; but don't demonise classic English looks (which aren't really classic, but you catch me drift) because they aren't as PC as being racially indistinct...

"sadly they do have an agenda... don't know any UK newspaper that doesn't. That is, they have an editorial opinion to push."


All newspapers have an agenda: to sell papers. That can best be achieved by writing stories that people *like* to read rather then stories people *should* read.


BTW, Bowling for Columbine is kicking butt in the IMDB poll. www.imdb.com

I'm not demonising them. It pissed me off that some editorial opinion can state they are superior to all others (which would be just as bad if they said they were worst) and it is creepy in context of the paper's other apparent attitudes.
I don't care the proverbial fig for PC either; and if everyone were racially indistinct there'd be no variety. Like I say I'd be similarly unimpressed if they said blondes were best of all.

But isn't an editorial the opinion of one person IN a newspaper...? Or was it a quote from a nameless piece?

It was in some stupid Valentine's Day daft underwear feature. Lots of English Roses lounging about in overpriced fluff.
and may have had an adverse effect on sales, implying 'Unless you have the same complexion as the lass in the photo, you won't look half as good, so don't bother.' It was naff underwear, though.

Ah. I reckon you're overreacting...

...and too often with most newspapers, the editorial bias is apparent throughout all news items, when ideally it should be for editorial comment pieces and recognisably opinion columns. I want to know the news, not what someone *thinks* of the news; however it is so widespread that it will affect what news they pick. Although I don't reckon it was ever different in the past; was there ever a more or less unslanted newspaper?

Yeah, that was my point. They have driven me to madness. ...

Ah woman. Chill with me while I wait for the peroxide to work on my hair.

Ohhhhhm

I want my bones to look their whitest, see.