The Daily Mail

[batman]

I am increasingly amused by the constant references to The Daily Mail on the forum. Whenever there is a debate about politics, law and order etc The Daily Mail is hauled out as if it was the Handbook of Satan, particularly if a member makes a comment about something they have read. Those people often get a response like ... 'I bet you read that in The Daily Mail'.

I don't read newspapers (except if I see one at work) and I have very personal reasons for regarding them all as primarily trash.

However, I feel it is unfair to single out The Daily Mail as the purveyor of all things evil. There is just as much political propaganda and social bias in the likes of The Guardian, which seems to be regarded as a kind of oracle of for the 'right kind' of thinking.

Surely to criticise The Daily Mail and it's readers is no different from criticising, for example, Gay News and it's readers. Both publications are entitled to their points of view and their readers entitled to have a place to read about issues in a way that they can relate to.

What is so wrong with that?

[GRAEME]

Originally Posted by batman However, I feel it is unfair to single out The Daily Mail as the purveyor of all things evil. There is just as much political propaganda and social bias in the likes of The Guardian, which seems to be regarded as a kind of oracle of for the 'right kind' of thinking.

I don't agree that there is much "propaganda" in the Guardian - if you mean left/liberal opinion then yes, unapologetically so - but it is hardly covertly intended to convert the uninitiated.

The DM however is full of "common sence" which is just right-wing drivel in disguise - it seems to feed into the general impression that rightwing views are just normal people's opinions, whereas leftwing views are ideology and therefore not to be trusted!

The demographics are also important. The DM is aimed at midlle-ground readers who are general unaware or only slightly interested in current affairs/politics. The Guardian is aimed at a more knowledgeable and educated readership.

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.

[Fellwanderer]

Originally Posted by GRAEME I don't agree that there is much "propaganda" in the Guardian - if you mean left/liberal opinion then yes, unapologetically so - but it is hardly covertly intended to convert the uninitiated. The DM however is full of "common sence" which is just right-wing drivel in disguise - it seems to feed into the general impression that rightwing views are just normal people's opinions, whereas leftwing views are ideology and therefore not to be trusted! The demographics are also important. The DM is aimed at midlle-ground readers who are general unaware or only slightly interested in current affairs/politics. The Guardian is aimed at a more knowledgeable and educated readership. 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.

Fell: I wish I'd said that!

Graeme: Ah, you will, Fell, you will!

[with apologies to Graeme, Wilde and Whistler ]

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by batman Surely to criticise The Daily Mail and it's readers is no different from criticising, for example, Gay News and it's readers. Both publications are entitled to their points of view and their readers entitled to have a place to read about issues in a way that they can relate to. What is so wrong with that?

It's not their stance that makes me single them out. As you say, they are entitled to that even though I disagree strongly with their stance on most things.

What I mainly object to in the Daily Mail and in many other British newspapers is the frequency with which they just make stories up. And when they are found out and forced to apologise they print a tiny apology buried away in the parts of the paper that few people read. The Press Complaints Commission is toothless and can't do anything about it. Hardly surprising as it's funded by the newspaper people themselves.

The only way the parents of Madeleine McCann could stop the papers from printing all the lies and wild speculation about them was to sue them. And when they won, which they did quite easily because the lies and other nonsense were so obviously wrong, the newspapers were made to print a large apology on the front page - as well as paying a large amount into the fund to help find Madeline. It was still a pittance compared to the amounts that these newspapers regularly deal in. Having to print the admission on their front pages hurt them more than the money

Steve

[batman]

Originally Posted by GRAEME I don't agree that there is much "propaganda" in the Guardian - if you mean left/liberal opinion then yes, unapologetically so - but it is hardly covertly intended to convert the uninitiated. 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.

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.

[batman]

Originally Posted by Fellwanderer Fell: I wish I'd said that! Graeme: Ah, you will, Fell, you will! [with apologies to Graeme, Wilde and Whistler ]

Very disappointing response from you Fell ..... you obviously didn't read my post properly either.

[Fellwanderer]

Originally Posted by batman Very disappointing response from you Fell ..... you obviously didn't read my post properly either.

Not having a pop at you at all, Bats old man - simply firing a broadside at that rag.

Still, maybe Oscar won't have much competition from me!

[CaptainWaggett]

I do actually read both of them (the Guardian every day, the Daily Mail I skim fairly frequently). Both have an agenda and obviously I'm more in sympathy with one than the other so I'll just point out that the Guardian (and it's much mocked by Private Eye for doing so) does actually 'fess up when it makes factual errors. Unlike the Mail.

[batman]

Originally Posted by Fellwanderer Not having a pop at you at all, Bats old man - simply firing a broadside at that rag. Still, maybe Oscar won't have much competition from me!

Cheers Fell ...

[batman]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook It's not their stance that makes me single them out. As you say, they are entitled to that even though I disagree strongly with their stance on most things. What I mainly object to in the Daily Mail and in many other British newspapers is the frequency with which they just make stories up. And when they are found out and forced to apologise they print a tiny apology buried away in the parts of the paper that few people read. The Press Complaints Commission is toothless and can't do anything about it. Hardly surprising as it's funded by the newspaper people themselves. The only way the parents of Madeleine McCann could stop the papers from printing all the lies and wild speculation about them was to sue them. And when they won, which they did quite easily because the lies and other nonsense were so obviously wrong, the newspapers were made to print a large apology on the front page - as well as paying a large amount into the fund to help find Madeline. It was still a pittance compared to the amounts that these newspapers regularly deal in. Having to print the admission on their front pages hurt them more than the money Steve

Thanks Steve, that's fair and well informed comment. I wasn't aware of the McCann legal case so good for them.

My main interest in asking the question was to find out why The Daily Mail is so reviled.

If they are guilty of the wholesale printing of fiction posing as news I can understand why those who are far more 'political' than me get upset by it.

[Windthrop]

If people really wanted reporting neutral and free of bias they would rely on the BBC or some other such organisation (despite what various UK Governments have led us to believe). The Mail isn't IMHO a particularly good example of intelligent reporting but then neither is its nearest counterpart the Express, which makes the brave, and improbable, claim of being the 'world's greatest newspaper'.

[batman]

Originally Posted by Windthrop If people really wanted reporting neutral and free of bias they would rely on the BBC or some other such organisation (despite what various UK Governments have led us to believe). The Mail isn't IMHO a particularly good example of intelligent reporting but then neither is its nearest counterpart the Express, which makes the brave claim of being the 'world's greatest newspaper'.

I get virtually all my news from the BBC via the radio or online.

[CaptainWaggett]

This article about the Mail might be of interest.

I was amused by the Express' brief flirtation with New Labour though, since it involved effectively sacking all its readers, it didn't last long. And it's always amusing to read the latest Diana headline ('Prince Philip paid Osama to murder Diana') and see if you can find any trace of the story in any other media outlet. Which, 8 times out of 10, you can't.

[Mark O]

The only reason I tend to avour the Daily Mail is not because of it's Political stance (I've given up on Politics, they're all basically as bad as eachother) but because the the 'sensational' UK tabloids such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Star, are like Comics (all bold headlines, little in actual news) and the Broadsheets are little too technical and 'over my head' shall we say.

I don't buy the Mail that regularly, Fridays for the Entertainment pages, Saturdays for the TV mag and Recipes, occaisonally other days, the Daily Express does little for me, maybe it's just their layout, so, for now, I'll stick with the Mail!

[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.