Jezza said he pressumed the News Paper of the Year was voted on by Journalists.
It isn't.
It's a mix of people in the very broad spectrum of 'media' who are primarily senior editors and policy makers from a list of 400 members of the Society.
But again, that is a tangential discussion.
Gentlemen, I give you "The Realm of Pedantry..." as show cased last night between me and ghrh  
I think there might be a correlation between journalism and becoming an editor. Maybe, surely, certainly, is there, wow, who'd of thunk it. 
Hence my attempt to steer it back towards the actual topic with:
Do you or others actually believe the Daily Mail is equal or superior in terms of journalistic quality not just to the Guardian but also to the Times, The Independent, the FT etc ?
If you do, then fine.
However, if that doesn't seem plausible or sensible, then the argument that the Daily Mail winning News Paper of the Year makes it superior(or equal) to the Guardian in terms of quality of journalism .... or anything else for that matter is riddiculous.
The main point I am trying to make that is directly relevent to the main discussion is:
An actual good comparison would be the post modernist ideologues and the cultural conservatives.
The Mary Whitehouse types who blame the fall of modern society on a lack of religious moral values and seek to ban and censor films, books, plays etc by campaigning, letter writing and demonstrating - mirrored almost identically by the post modernist social justice warriors campaigning, letter writing and demonstrating against businesses advertising in 'Hate promoting' News papers.
In other words, the anti-Daily Mail advertising campaign is simply another example of the 'morality police' - those groups and individuals in society that want to dictate the moral rules that everyone else should live by.
well, it clearly is. "Senior editors" would be journalists then.
Even though you aren't reading this 
A panel of journalists would be a panel of journalists.
A mix of editors, policy makers, heads of journalism departments at Universities, directors of media companies etc.
It's like saying the Footballer of the year is voted on by Footballers, even if it's actually a broad mix of people associated with football, some of who are or were players, but many that are not nor ever have been.
It's not pedantic to point out that to infer or imply that something is based on the opinions of a select group, when in fact it contains the opinions of people not in that group is wrong/misrepresentative.
It is pedantic to make that particular minor point the focus of the discussion.... so back to the main topic .....
I think IG got it spot on
A useful summary, thanks.
I think the audience is clapping. //static.avforums.com/styles/avf/smilies/clap.gifIts just like question time in here.
I've got a headache- still trying to work out how a senior newspaper editor is not a journalist 