Talk:Daily Record (Scotland)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does someone know stuff about the daily record because i'm trying to find some since a few hours and i haven't found anything interesting ! Thx !

You're very unlikely to find anything "interesting" about the Daily Retard for two reasons, (1) it's a boring, tabloid rag, and (2) you sound like an idiot. In fact, you sound like a Daily Retard reader.

What possible use does this article serve to someone wanting to know about the Daily Record? This is just political axe-grinding and serves no possible use to the reader. The Record's own contribution may have been slanted and overtly self-written but at least it informed readers. This article, as it stands, does not in the slightest. Where is the history of the newspaper? Where is the reference to its Golden Age? Its battle against the Scottish Daily Express which it won? Its later battle against the Scottish Sun and the other English papers launching Scottish editions (which it lost)? It doesn't even mention that it pre-dated Today by a couple of decades as the only UK national paper to have run-of-paper colour pictures. This article as it stands - and the discussion it has sparked - is a symbol of everything that is bad about wikipedia. Remember who you are serving and what you are trying to achieve.

1 Weasel words etc.
2 Some people have lost sight of what wikipedia should be about.
3 The Worst Page on Wikipedia
4 Glasgow-centric?
5 Race panic and The Daily Record: Sighthill, Glasgow, 2001

[edit] Weasel words etc.

This article uses weasel words to state an opinion without citing sources:

It is seen by many to be no more than a mouthpiece for the Scottish Labour Party.

Also I have removed the following:

(ironically, many of its journalists are from middle class backgrounds & public school educated — eg. columnists Johnny McKie & Joan Burnie both went to Glasgow's Hutchesons' Grammar)

Stating that tabloid journalists are better educated than their target readers seems as pointless to me as stating that Rupert Murdoch does not live on the minimum wage. I believe that phrases such as "crude sensationalistic journalism" and "gullibility of its readership" mean that this article violates the NPOV policy of the wikipedia. I'm no fan of the Daily Record, but this article definately needs a rewrite.

IslaySolomon 03:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said it was just "Weasel Words" that make this article biased. Just look at this section:

This, combined with its crude sensationalistic journalism (the paper has a particular fascination with Glasgow gangsters), 'moral crusades' (which tend to involve the threat of constant negative publicity to inflame the public against their target) & gullibility of its readership (likened to comedian Jasper Carrott's lampooning of "Sun readers") has earned it the unflattering nickname of "the Daily Retard"

If that's neutral, then I'd hate to see bias against it! Marks87 23:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. I've changed my 'weasel words' tag to an { {NPOV} } tag. --IslaySolomon 02:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Come off it! The Daily Record's dripslobber support of Labour is legend within Scotland, as is it's "lowest common denominator" approach to stories. Strange that the individuals (if they are indeed that & not the same person "agreeing" with himself (look at the posting times above & smell the rat) made no objection or ask for citations about the part regarding comedian Jasper Carrott's lampooning of "Sun readers"! Restored to the original format, and citations provided as to the "Daily Retard" nickname. Revert it back all you like boys, 'coz the previous versions will still survive in the history section for others to recheck!

I find it very ironic that someone who drips so much venom and tries to sound so self superior doesn't even have the guts to sign their own name in Wiki besides their comments. Douglasnicol 00:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi anonymous ip. You seriously need to read our policy on verifiability and neutral point of view if you think that sort of thing is going to fly here. This type of uncited, unsourced criticsm is no more acceptable than the hagiography the Record themselves keep pasting in. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for anyone, anti-Record or pro-Record. Morwen - Talk 11:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It DOES have close/incestuous ties to the Labour party (not to mention STV), and exchanges employees with it, and their spouses/family members. Helen Liddell is one classic example of this "in job", and another is the way that the Labour Executive gave them around a million pounds in advertising revenue, while the Sun with a similar circulation got around 50K!!! Not to mention the disgusting political campaign they ran against the SNP on the day of the Scottish election. They deserve to be exposed, and I have included links to back up these claims.--MacRusgail 20:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that does not excuse the petty small minded vandalism of this page that has happened in the past, plus the barely literate posts above. You at least have put your contributions in in a proper way without resorting to childish name calling and mudslinging. Douglasnicol 20:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, Douglas, I do believe that they are biased towards the Old Firm, but I think that there's probably much bigger issues at stake here, such as their Scottish election day front page. And believe me, I would love to sling mud at the Record. LOL! --MacRusgail 18:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh no doubt, but I'm just saying that at least you can put that there is a bias without making the main article appear childish. Those that do that don't do their arguments any favours. :) Douglasnicol 18:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some people have lost sight of what wikipedia should be about.

[edit] The Worst Page on Wikipedia

It really does make me shudder.

Also note the supreme irony of the loyalty to the Labour Party comments... followed immediately by a paragraph on its support for Section 28 which it was a Labour manifesto promise to repeal.

So some content, please. Until someone sensible can come along and give measured commentary on its politics and opinions, perhaps those sections should be removed altogether.

I think it certainly needs adding to. The article most definitely does not reflect the fact that a large number of working Scots buy the paper and the influence it has (whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is another question) or indeed the paper's clear political allegiance. It is very blatantly a pro-Labour party paper, though of course this is not absolute support as has been highlighted above with the Clause 28 saga. I don't think I have ever read anything positive written about the SNP in the Daily Record (not that I am an avid reader) and I think the paper certainly has much to answer for when it comes to scaremongering on the matter of Scottish independence. -- SCL 82.26.21.12 15:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted two childish and immature edits to the paper already, this is getting ridiculous, the ones making these entries are only making themselves look childish. I certainly have never heard it referred to as the 'Daily Retard' and I live in Scotland, yet at the same time I have heard "The Sun" sometimes referred to as "The Scum", you would think if the "Daily Retard" label was so popular that it would be far better known.

Also, there is an entry saying the Record is well known for its bias towards Rangers FC. I think either some sources or some additional info is required for this. I'm not saying it's correct or incorrect as I have no interest in football, but some additional info would be nice. Douglasnicol 14:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's true, i was gonna add a bit about that myself, I doubt we could find a source to attribute it to though, I have heard it referred to as the Daily Ranger, personally as neither a Celtic or Rangers fan i've never noticed this bias but Celtic fans seem to think its there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.153.1.136 (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Another comment citing the 'Daily Retard' nickname. I have certainly never heard it, if it is true provide a source. Douglasnicol 17:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Douglas, I have heard the "Daily Retard" used in speech, often by independence supporters. "Daily Reptile" is another nickname, though less common. It needs references though. --MacRusgail 18:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC) p.s. If you think this is the worst page on wikipedia, I suggest pressing the "random article" button a few times - there's far worse than this!

Oh I don't think it is, I just used this section that someone else started rather than start a new one. Regarding the views of Independence supporters, it's a bit OTT to nickname a paper because it is against independence, because lets face it, every newspaper whether its a crappy tabloid or a broadsheet has its agendas and biases. I've heard the Telegraph called 'Torygraph', and the Guardians left wing views are well known. Every publication will have it's bias. Even if references are put in, it's best to put in the nickname and explanation in a NPOV manner as the vandalism this page has suffered in the past is moronic. Douglasnicol 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Torygraph and Spellygraph (because of the typos) are two nicknames I've heard for the Telegraph. I don't think it is just the independence issue with the Record though, it is also the level it is pitched at, the perceived moral double standards of a typical tabloid, and some of the smear stories that tabloids often contain. The Record and the Sun (and other red tops) have been particularly vicious to various people, so it's no wonder that they get derogatory nicknames. --MacRusgail 14:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Though to be honest, I'm starting to wonder if the nickname is suitable. I get the Saturday edition for the TV magazine, and a letter in it complained about this weeks "Still Game" episode, saying it should have been cancelled because the character of Navid wanted to burn down his competitor and it was too close to the airport bombings. I watched that episode and it never even crossed my mind, it says more about the letters author (who chose to remain anonymous) than the programme in my opinion..... Douglasnicol 15:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glasgow-centric?

Does anyone think the Daily Record is Glasgow-centric? To add this to the article would be WP:OR, but does anyone have a cite that could possibly suggest this?

I would say its slanted towards Glasgow, and to the west coast a bit. If you ask me (though I may be wrong) the Record used to be regarded as 'the working mans paper', perhaps before it became just another tabloid, and the industrialised areas of Scotland were largely Glasgow and the Clyde Valleys as well as places like Greenock etc. As to cites....well thats more difficult. Douglasnicol 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"West coast"? Aye, that's the problem. The West Coast takes in Sutherland, the Hebrides, Argyll, and Galloway. If you're from Glasgow, it's only the tiny bit of country round about, most of which isn't even on the coast!!! --MacRusgail 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well okay I may have made a mistake there, but by West Coast I meant areas like Greenock and further down to places like the three towns, Largs, Ayr, Irvine, Troon etc. Douglasnicol 19:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's very common usage in the central belt, but in the north, "west coast" tends to imply the Highlands. Stranraer I suppose counts as well (although it faces north). --MacRusgail 14:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a statistic - somewhere - which tells us that the DR sells very few copies north of Stirling (compared that is with the Central Belt). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.25.194.76 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race panic and The Daily Record: Sighthill, Glasgow, 2001

It's striking that there is no mention of the race panic The Daily Record fostered in 2001. As well as being probably one of the Record's most notorious moments, it became a spectacular incident that reached the UK news media.

Is there anyone qualified enough to knock out a decent entry on it?

New Statesman Lost in translation (Daily Record reference third paragraph from the bottom).

Searchlight Media whip up Glasgow racism

Guardian Sighthill: Asylum crisis special 'Racism has turned the good people here bad'

Independent Sighthill: 'These people will kill again. Is it really any better here than Iran?' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irritant (talk • contribs) 05:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)