They have gone off the deep end though. Some good coverage of The Telegraph's fall in standards is Peter Oborne's resignation letter: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/why-i-have-...
For example, I read the guardian pretty much everyday, and various other papers, even though although culturally I am a proper grauniad-reader type, politically I am not - but by virtue of actually reading the articles text you can actually (believe it or not?) determine both the facts and the flavour separately.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-...
It shocks me that people believe manufacturer denials on this particular issue but still claim to be immune to commercial propaganda.
It's unlikely there will ever be undeniable proof available to the general public one way or the other on this. But the story was well sourced, was definitely technical credible and the parts that could be checked all checked out. Literally the only thing against it was manufacturer statements saying "nah".
But follow up articles have expanded that, and are starting to name people who say they have seen evidence now: https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/12/supermicro_bloomberg_...
In particular, check out page 71 of [1], where a former US Marine testifies under oath in a federal case about a similar things happening with Lenovo laptops in 2008 in Iraq. Quote:
A large amount of Lenovo laptops were sold to the US military that had a chip encrypted on the motherboard that would record all the data that was being inputted into that laptop and send it back to China.
[1] https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/r9dKMMM0...
If it's real, it really shouldn't be that hard to prove conclusively - find the chip, scan it, dump what's in it. The technical parts are possible but not that plausible - not just the manufacturer but large internet companies with the right expertise were sceptical, and most of the people who thought it was genuine seemed to be non-technical. E.g. "had a chip encrypted on the motherboard" does not inspire confidence that this is someone who knows what they're talking about.
I'm curious, how does it work in reality? A boardroom meetings where landlord's representative decide what to publish in the next issue to get people into commercial property? A weekly reviews of editors where they have their KPI tied to how well they lure people into buildings? Phone calls from commercial union leaders to publishing houses asking for specific results? Do we have some good articles which would describe mechanics of that or is it all successful clandestine operations?
For a journalism job at the Telegraph you're going to need to have a resume where you've written the right kinds of articles with the right kind of tone. Have a bunch of articles that you've written sympathetic to Corbyn and those around him and you ain't getting the job.
They won't even need to police you that hard once you've gotten the job, because you've spent 20+ years being brought up a certain way and you're probably not going to massively deviate from your past all of a sudden, particularly not if you're clearly getting paid well based on your current trajectory. Once you get vetted in the interview process they know what they're getting based on the way you present yourself, the way you talk, your background, where you grew up, the schools you went to, etc. And when you've been there long enough you'll vet other candidates the same way.
And its largely the same kind of interpersonal mechanics that govern the formation of cliques in high school, enforced by interviews and performance reviews, with large incentives where if you conform you climb the ladder and gain more wealth and power. Nobody needs to write it all down just like there's no written rules that he art nerds tend to hang out with the art nerds (and I'm sure there's examples of people who you think you can point to who broke the molds there, but they're notable precisely because they broke the molds).
In the olden days the only way to get an education was through privately tutoring.
So establishments where everyone was educated together were “public” - even though you paid to attend.
Nowadays “public meaning paid” implies one of these original public schools (Harrow, Eton and the like).
I went to a paid school, founded in 1513, but it wouldn’t be called “public” because it’s not one of those original schools and therefore not high enough in the class system. It would be called “private”.
“Public as in free to attend” schools are known as state schools.
Mine wasn’t a boarding school though which probably counts for something.
"Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky explains how this work with a very large number of examples.
1. https://youtu.be/9RPKH6BVcoM
2. https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Econo...
Internet commenters love to think their enemy's minions are stupid.
In reality they're just as smart as you are and don't need to be specifically told what the people in charge do and don't want published and/or what tone they should take.
the same way gravity works, you don't start floating through the room even if you don't actively believe in it. The financiers of these papers know the editors and managers they hire, they set the tone, they dine in the same circles, their kids go to the same schools, they live in the same neighborhoods, for ideology to proliferate there are no 'mechanics' required.
It used to be - many years ago - a stodgy and conservative yet reputable newspaper (they fired Boris Johnson for lying, now he moonlights as a columnist). As with other newspapers (e.g. WSJ) it went off the deep end a long time ago.