How Does This Make You Feel, Daily Mail Readers?

[Quizmonster]

At an 'Intelligence Squared' debate on the press, Peter Oborne, the Mail's political columnist...criticised the intelligence of his readers when he said (quote)...

"It's frustrating to write for the Daily Mail. You can't make erudite references to clever books you've read because it's written for the readers."

Next time you read the rag, please try to remember what he...and I have no doubt others of his colleagues...really think of you!

I have no web-page reference to the TMS article on page 15, as I saw it in the actual newspaper yesterday and, in any case, there is a pay-wall on access to The Times.

[anotheoldgit]

hc4361

/// AOG, that is not a direct quote from Peter Osborn. It is a statement made ahead of a debate by an unknown party. ///

It may not be a direct quote from Peter Osborn or even the other member of his team Roger Alton, but they are openly quoted as saying it, why would anyone outlining both sides of a debate lie?

*** On the other side of the argument we have Daily Mail columnist Peter Oborne and Roger Alton, former editor of the left-leaning Observer newspaper. As they will point out, the Mail is the UK’s most popular newspaper in print and on-line. ***

Note these words:

*** As they will point out ***

[anotheoldgit]

hc4361

/// I know QM cannot provide a link because it is from the The Times which is behind a paywall, so I cannot read it. ///

Then it was pointless him putting it up for debate then wasn't it, as I am sure you would have been one of the first to take me to task over it, if I had done likewise.

[Antonio_Danbaras]

I'm not interested in bickering about whether he said this or not, but if he did it is a fair comment in my opinion. Although I consider myself to be quite well read and reasonably intelligent, I would not put myself in the same league intellectually as a chap like Peter Osborne. He is quite correct when he says that "erudite references to clever books" would be lost on me.

As a regular Mail reader I appreciate the right leaning and common sense attitude of the opinions and articals. However, although I would put myself higher up the IQ range than the average Sun or Star reader, I don't consider myself to be as educated as someone who can complete the Times crossword.

[CrapAtCryptics]

Anyone can quote other I`d be more impressed if Mr Oborne had actually written the book.

[Quizmonster]

I didn't "claim" anything other than my suspicion that he was unlikely to be alone in his views. The second paragraph of the OP above was presented
word for word as a quote by The Times. Clearly, anyone who has access, physically or electronically, to yesterday's issue of the paper can verify that.
The fact that I cannot provide on-line access to it for anyone else has nothing to do with me. Consequently, I can see no reason whatsoever why I should not have offered the topic for discussion.

[Tilly2]

I'm not a Daily Mail reader, so I can't comment.

[Zacs-Master]

Pah QM. Your OP STATED 'he said'. Consequently there is no proof anywhere on the internet that that is, in fact, what PO said. Sorry but if you post a Q, at least have authentication to back it up.

[Peter Pedant]

Jesus intelligence not very squared

I thought rule one for hacks was not to insult your readers
( but I am not a hack )

[Peter Pedant]

Give em hell QM

some self-avowed proud Daily Mail readers would otherwise fulfil the brain death criteria .....

[Zacs-Master]

He can't really 'give 'em hell' when no one, including him can verify his source.

[Quizmonster]

Who said the words, Zacs-Master, was also part of the quote from the article referred to!
Here's the whole relevant section...
"It's frustrating to write for the Daily Mail," Oborne said in an Intelligence Squared debate on the press. "You can't make erudite references to clever books you've read because it's written for the readers."
For brevity, I simply omitted the words that were not part of the quote.
In fact, a multitude of people could verify my source...anyone who still has a copy of the paper or internet access to it! Just because I cannot do so does not mean that it didn't happen.
As I've pointed out to others here before, the words 'customary' and 'obligatory' are not synonymous. AnswerBank just says that it's 'customary' to offer a reference and - if it's impossible to do so, as it is here - then there is no possible objection to presenting the material without one.

[Quizmonster]

"Common practice" rather than 'customary' are the words actually used in the AnswerBank instruction about referencing, but these actually are synonymous. Still, I should have checked first. Naughty!

[sp1814]

Zac-Master

That's a little unfair. Anyone with access to the Times site can verify the statement. Just because we can't get to it, doesn't mean it's not there.

I cannot get into the royal enclosure at Ascot...but it doesn't mean it's made up.