The Daily Mail

[batman]

Originally Posted by Dave Rattigan The Daily Mail is a disgrace. Just ugly, and unconcerned with real journalism. As others have said, it prints virtual fiction at times, as long as it can be pressed into service of its right-wing agenda. Its agenda goes far beyond bias, which no media is free from. It is pure propaganda. The Guardian has a liberal bias, yes, but I would hesitate to call it propaganda. Like any professional media, it holds to accepted journalistic standards, and inevitably falls short of those from time to time; but there is a vast difference between being imperfect and simply being propaganda. For example, I read daily and rate highly The Daily Telegraph, despite not sharing most of its opinions. So it's not simply a case of disliking anything that's conservative. It is obvious to me that the Telegraph's journalism is of a high standard, where the Daily Mail is full of sensationalist muck, twisted to justify whatever their latest pet hate is, usually immigration or supposed political correctness.

Thanks Dave. I have always assumed that the Telegraph and The Mail were of the same ilk and it's interesting to get a different persepctive on the 'Torygraph'.

[Fellwanderer]

Originally Posted by batman Thanks Dave. I have always assumed that the Telegraph and The Mail were of the same ilk and it's interesting to get a different persepctive on the 'Torygraph'.

Got to agree with Dave. While the Torygraph may broadly share the political views of the rag, I would trust it not to print outright lies.

Of course, I accept that all papers have their own agenda and bias.

[Moor Larkin]

This newspaper has put out old British movies on dvd, in vast quantities...... and this is the thanks it gets?
FREE great British films DVD collection | the Daily Mail

You should all be ashamed of yourselves, you bunch of pinko ingrates.

.......... Line 'em up...... shoot 'em down!

[Gazza]

Just another thought for the pot - doesn't every newspaper have its ideological/sociological brand stereotype? Sun readers, the Torygraph, Guardian lefties and so on?

I use the Eurostar quite a bit and the Mail is often available on the train - it's the style of language I notice most; phrasing and vocabulary that plants negative or biased emotions in the reader. If you're not aware of it, it works like subliminal advertising.

The Mail, in my opinion, does deserve its reputation despite giving away some good DVDs

[batman]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin This newspaper has put out old British movies on dvd, in vast quantities...... and this is the thanks it gets? FREE great British films DVD collection | the Daily Mail You should all be ashamed of yourselves, you bunch of pinko ingrates. .......... Line 'em up...... shoot 'em down!

[DB7]

Recently I think the Express has easily been outdoing the Mail in the euroseptic/immigrants/we're all doomed stakes. All papers have an audience they must pander to and most get lampooned at one time or another (think Fletch's 'something to read' Sun comment).

[batman]

Originally Posted by DB7 Recently I think the Express has easily been outdoing the Mail in the euroseptic/immigrants/we're all doomed stakes. All papers have an audience they must pander to and most get lampooned at one time or another (think Fletch's 'something to read' Sun comment).

Perhaps The Express should have a turn as Satan's Handbook.

[GRAEME]

Originally Posted by batman No, I have not missed the point, you have. That point being that it has, in a democracy, as much right to exist as The Guardian. I stated quite categorically in my post that I think they are ALL trash (inc The Daily Mail), and you have just given a prime example of the point I was trying to make. I make a statement and you shout me down without really thinking about what it is you have said. You jumped to the conclusion that I am pro-Daily Mail. I am not. I was simply passing comment on how there seems to be one rule for readers of left wing papers, and another for right wing papers. Your response to my post is as reactionary and vicious as a Daily Mail leader story, simply because you do not agree with me. You are having a pop at me for simply making a observation and passing it over for discussion.

Sorry Bats but you've lost it on this one! Just where do I shout you down? How dare you!

I didn't mention quality. Or right to print. I was referring to your implication that there is a moral equivalence between left and right propaganda.

I do not believe there is.

I also fail to see what was personal about my reply. If you don't want a debate don't start one.

I'm personally hurt by your attack on me.

[Rob Compton]

Interesting debate, which I've only just caught up on. I have a great deal of sympathy for Bats' first post. This country has always had room for all shades of opinion, and those that don't agree with any one, left or right, or centre or whatever, should be mature enough to ignore it.

I do rather wonder whether some of the contributors to this thread have actually read some of the newspapers they are commenting on, at least recently. For the record, I regularly read both the Mail and the Telegraph, sometimes the Times and the Independent. It is often the case that the Mail and Telegraph will report the same stories in a nearly identical manner, with very few variations from each other. This is increasingly the case. Many of the pictures printed are completely identical.

By the by, the traditional view of the Telegraph as being an old Colonel from Tunbridge Wells' newspaper (with great respect for old colonels!) has been wrong for at least 20 years.

I don't have a great deal of time or patience for the Guardian's view of the world, but (as we've said before on this forum) I'll defend to the hilt their right to make their points of view, just as I would do the same for other papers. I don't expect everyone else to agree with me, but that's life isn't it?

Thanks for bringing this up Bats, I've been thinking for some time that this needed airing.

rgds to all
Rob

[batman]

Originally Posted by GRAEME But to address your point: you seem to miss the point. Even if there were as much propaganda in the Guardian as in the Mail, there is no equivilance. One is on the side of progress and social justice (however wet and woolly you wish to think that is). The other is a vicious reactionary rag full of racist/sexist/homophobic junk. One is on the side of the angels; the other is not.

I dare because of what you said to me, which I have highlighted above.

Both those comments seem to imply that because you assume I am a Daily Mail reader I am also an ignorant wet.

I found your comments hurtful too.

I did start this debate and have enjoyed reading the posts that have been forthcoming, but if you want to throw comments such as those at me, expect me to return them.

[GRAEME]

Originally Posted by batman I dare because of what you said to me, which I have highlighted above. Both those somments seem to imply that because you assume I am a Daily Mail reader I am also an ignorant wet. I found your comments hurtful too. I did start this debate and have enjoyed reading the posts that have been forthcoming, but if you want to throw comments such as those at me, expect me to return them.

The first of the highlighted points was aimed at your argument, yes. If you are hurt by that, I am sorry. However, it was hardly heavy rate abuse and not anywhere near as personal as your reply to me.

The second comment is clearly aimed at the Guardian. The "you" is general. I am acknowledging that many - including left/liberal readers - consider the old Grauniad to be a bit flabby occassionally.

Again, if you read this as directed at you - and I really don't see how you would have - then again I apologise. And the last thing any DM reader is, is "wet" - I suggest you have another think about that!

Your reply, apart from being nasty, did prove that you had missed the point. Nobody here seriously believes the DM should be banned or that it hasn't got a right to exist. It's simply that many people find it hateful and simply by saying that other papers have bias doesn't stop the DM from being uniquely hateful.

I still think your reply was miles more offensive than it needed to be.

[batman]

Originally Posted by GRAEME The first of the highlighted points was aimed at your argument, yes. If you are hurt by that, I am sorry. However, it was hardly heavy rate abuse and not anywhere near as personal as your reply to me. The second comment is clearly aimed at the Guardian. The "you" is general. I am acknowledging that many - including left/liberal readers - consider the old Grauniad to be a bit flabby occassionally. Again, if you read this as directed at you - and I really don't see how you would have - then again I apologise. Your reply, apart from being nasty, did prove that you had missed the point. Nobody here seriously believes the DM should be banned or that it hasn't got a right to exist. It's simply that many people find it hateful and simply by saying that other papers have bias doesn't stop the DM from being uniquely hateful. I still think your reply was miles more offensive than it needed to be.

If those comments were not directed at me personally then I accept your apology Graeme. Likewise, my reply to you was not intended to be nasty or offensive, but was an attempt to emphasise the point I was trying to make. I apologise to you for any offence you may have felt.

I will say that I don't think I have missed the point. I never for a second felt that members thought it should be banned etc .... my point was that people on the forum are often sneered at for expressing a view or an opinion which other members often do not agree with, and that The Daily Mail was usually brought up at some time to trash that person's argument.

I simply wanted to know why, because it seemed to me to be unfair that these views (and the DM in particular) were ridiculed and that liberal/left views were apparently accepted as the 'norm'.

I have actually found this debate extremely interesting and would appreciate more comments.

[GRAEME]

Ok. Kiss and make up.

But as to this:

Originally Posted by batman I simply wanted to know why, because it seemed to me to be unfair that these views (and the DM in particular) were ridiculed and that liberal/left views were apparently accepted as the 'norm'.

I would say it is because the former are mean spirited and nasty and the latter are inclusive, caring and progessive. (But then that is my bias).

This goes to the core of what I was saying. Not that people don't have the equal right to state their opinion or express their point of view - it's that not all opinions or points of view are equally valid.

Most fair minded people do not hold DM style opinions. Because they are NOT fair minded opinions!

[batman]

Originally Posted by GRAEME I would say it is because the former are mean spirited and nasty and the latter are inclusive, caring and progessive. (But then that is my bias). This goes to the core of what I was saying. Not that people don't have the equal right to state their opinion or express their point of view - it's that not all opinions or points of view are equally valid. Most fair minded people do not hold DM style opinions. Because they are NOT fair minded opinions!

Now why didn't you say that in the first place!

Cheers Graeme.

[rskershaw]

I've always taken The Times (except the Sunday) as I've found it to be fairly level headed, though the thought of its Guv' is not pleasant.