Website members obsession with the Daily Mail

[charley_17/7]

I personally don't like The Sun (or its former sister The News of the World) for many reasons, but mainly because of their blind support of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan....

 

[Johnuk123]

I remember the despicable Daily Mirror having a headline of "Vile" which was about a story and pictures which were made up about our troops abusing Iraqi prisoners.

Piers Morgan got the sack and the pictures which the Mirror admitted were faked were said to have been the best recruiting agent for Islamic terrorism that had ever been printed at the time.

The Mirror of course is firmly left wing and also firmly anti-armed-forces so perhaps that's why the ususal suspects have had a memory lapse when frothing at the mouth about the Sun and Mail.

 

[DarloRich]

I remember the despicable Daily Mirror having a headline of "Vile" which was about a story and pictures which were made up about our troops abusing Iraqi prisoners.

Piers Morgan got the sack and the pictures which the Mirror admitted were faked were said to have been the best recruiting agent for Islamic terrorism that had ever been printed at the time.

The Mirror of course is firmly left wing and also firmly anti-armed-forces so perhaps that's why the ususal suspects have had a memory lapse when frothing at the mouth about the Sun and Mail.

oh i will happily criticise Penis Moron - the man is a clown - although Private Eye and seemingly Bradley Wiggins are better at it than most!

I personally don't like The Sun (or its former sister The News of the World) for many reasons, but mainly because of their blind support of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan....

They have done much worse than that.

 

[90019]

Thank god I read the North Korean news papers - much more readable

Their version of The News Quiz is a little bit dry, though.

 

[me123]

To take an example from today, this is another kind of article that I really cannot stand.

Snow on the line? No problem! Thrilling video shows daredevil tie himself to back of speeding train and SKI down track

It's the tone of the article that I really am quite annoyed by. To take some selected quotes

This heart-stopping video captures a daredevil skiing down a railway line while attached to a speeding train before crashing to the ground.

His friend hopped on to the back of the train and was on hand to film as it set off from the station, pulling the thrill-seeking skier along the snow-covered sleepers.

But the stunt came to a painful end when the skier took a tumble. It later emerged he suffered a fractured finger, a knee injury and a number of bruises.
The video, which was filmed on Monday, was uploaded to a Russian website and has since gone viral.

Although it does point out that the skier sustained injuries, nowhere in the article does it comment on the sheer stupidity of this man's actions. He's actually very lucky to walk out of that with a finger fracture and soft tissue injuries.

I find this very irresponsible reporting. There's no mention of the stupidity of his actions (above a basic statement of fact about his injuries - which is trivialised by the phrase "took a tumble"); in fact the words used by the paper (daredevil, thrill-seeker etc) almost glorify this moron.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Although it does point out that the skier sustained injuries, nowhere in the article does it comment on the sheer stupidity of this man's actions. He's actually very lucky to walk out of that with a finger fracture and soft tissue injuries.

I find this very irresponsible reporting. There's no mention of the stupidity of his actions (above a basic statement of fact about his injuries - which is trivialised by the phrase "took a tumble"); in fact the words used by the paper (daredevil, thrill-seeker etc) almost glorify this moron.

I feel that anyone with a modicum of intelligence does not need any guidance from a journalist to confirm the stupidity of the actions of that individual and to say that the article should find the need to pass comment on that matter would only be stating the obvious and not giving credit for the logic and intelligence of the reader.

Is it not the case when such comments of condemnation are in fact made as part of such reporting that there are those with "axes to grind" as a heaven-sent opportunity to decry such journalistic comment made in the paper and its website.

 

[Busaholic]

I have noticed a perceived need from some of the more left-wing oriented website members to use the Daily Mail as something to use in terms of their perceived dislike of that particular newspaper. Never having bought a copy of that newspaper in all my 70 years, I wondered as to how it would be performing in actuality in terms of daily sales and was quite surprised to find the following 2015 daily statistics:-

The Sun.......1,978,702
Daily Mail.....1,688,727
Daily Mirror.....992,235

Statistical returns for the 1950 to 1999 period show that in those days, the Daily Mirror sold many more daily copies than the Daily Mail, so is there any reason why the Daily Mirror readership fell so alarmingly from the start of the 21st century?

I believe the Daily Mail readership has held up because of the number of women readers, also the social class classification means they have a lot more Bs than The Sun or the Mirror, though probably not many As.

As a bit of a Leftie I have no particular dislike of the Mail or disdain for it: actually I get fed up with people assuming I must be a Guardian reader, when I've never really got on with the paper, finding some of the regular columnists smug or predictable, Polly Toynbee in particular.

 

[backontrack]

Their version of The News Quiz is a little bit dry, though.

Mind you, the North Korean version of 'An Unbelievable Truth' is informative...

I don't like the Daily Mail or the Sun, and I'm not too fond of the Times, either.

 

[Bevan Price]

To be fair, me123, I also do not believe in Climate Change. The original "big report" into climate change used a student's calculations that he later, years after graduating, agreed were incorrect and did the same figures again and came up with a different result. It is my belief that, in fact, the Earth is cooling down somewhat and it has been for some time.

You are entitled to your belief. The climate has changed continuously throughout the history of earth - sometimes warm, sometimes cold. In my opinion, global warming is superimposed upon the natural cyclic changes of climate. So, yes, there will be periods when the earth gets colder - there could even be a new ice age, but it will be less severe than it might have been in the absence of global warming.

Increasing the amounts of CO2, plus methane & some other greenhouse gases tends to increase the temperature of the atmosphere. That causes increased evaporation of water from the oceans - and more evaporation means more rain (and worse storms..).
Also, water expands as the temperature increases, so sea level rises - more flooding, and some low height islands will be swallowed under the sea.

In other locations, there could be longer, hotter periods of drought. Forest fires, started by lightning, or by idiotic people, will become more common, further accelerating the amounts of CO2 entering the atmosphere, and there could eventually be a situation of uncontrolled runaway temperature increase.

A lot of the criticism of global warming comes from those with vested interests in selling lots of oil, coal, etc., - and from those politicians (or newspapers) who get money from such organisations - they are afraid that they will lose money if we reduce consumption of oil & coal, and some of them are willing to ignore the facts (or even lie) to protect their own interests.


The very long term danger is that if the atmosphere gets too hot, all the water could gradually evaporate into space (over thousands of years), and that would be the end of most life.

 

[fowler9]

You are entitled to your belief. The climate has changed continuously throughout the history of earth - sometimes warm, sometimes cold. In my opinion, global warming is superimposed upon the natural cyclic changes of climate. So, yes, there will be periods when the earth gets colder - there could even be a new ice age, but it will be less severe than it might have been in the absence of global warming.

Increasing the amounts of CO2, plus methane & some other greenhouse gases tends to increase the temperature of the atmosphere. That causes increased evaporation of water from the oceans - and more evaporation means more rain (and worse storms..).
Also, water expands as the temperature increases, so sea level rises - more flooding, and some low height islands will be swallowed under the sea.

In other locations, there could be longer, hotter periods of drought. Forest fires, started by lightning, or by idiotic people, will become more common, further accelerating the amounts of CO2 entering the atmosphere, and there could eventually be a situation of uncontrolled runaway temperature increase.

A lot of the criticism of global warming comes from those with vested interests in selling lots of oil, coal, etc., - and from those politicians (or newspapers) who get money from such organisations - they are afraid that they will lose money if we reduce consumption of oil & coal, and some of them are willing to ignore the facts (or even lie) to protect their own interests.


The very long term danger is that if the atmosphere gets too hot, all the water could gradually evaporate into space (over thousands of years), and that would be the end of most life.

A friend of mine is doing a PhD related to climate change and he says his research has brought up no evidence of climate change being man made. At the same time he is a Tory and I have no idea where his or his university departments funding comes from. He is a nice lad though. For me though using up all the worlds resources really quickly in the hope that scientists will come up with something else and that man made climate change is not happening is naive.

Back on subject, I find the Mail quite amusing most of the time. The Guardian can be almost as laughable. I quite like the Independent at the mo.

 

[backontrack]

How about the 40p i?

 

[fowler9]

How about the 40p i?

It isn't bad for 40p.

 

[me123]

How about the 40p i?

It's probably the paper I'd be most likely to read if they had a Scottish version.

 

[Butts]

It's probably the paper I'd be most likely to read if they had a Scottish version.

Are you having a giraffe

The Main Independent had a short lived "Scottish Edition" with a saltire on the front - lasted less than a year.

I am an Independent subscriber which effectively means it is half price - I would not pay £1.60 for it or £2/£2.20 at the weekend. The most annoying thing about the ones on sale in Scotland is the lack of "late results/reports" on sporting events that have taken place the previous evening.

I'm not sure what it's audited circulation in Scotland is but is often the most diffilcult mainstream title to get hold of, 1 or 2 copies in a lot of outlets.

Someone wants to conduct an enquiry into the inflation busting price rises quality papers have indulged in the last few years - one area of price increases they don't tend to report in much detail

With regard to the Daily Mail I would not buy one but if I found one on a Train or at an Airport I would read it as I would any other title. How can you condemn it if you have never read it. I'm sure not all it's readers agree with the stance it adopts on contentious issues just as plenty of Conservative voters read The Independent and Guardian.

I love newspapers , but then I grew up in a pre-computer age

 

[Oswyntail]

A friend of mine is doing a PhD related to climate change and he says his research has brought up no evidence of climate change being man made. At the same time he is a Tory and I have no idea where his or his university departments funding comes from. He is a nice lad though. ....

One of the "beauties" of the scientific method is that one is allowed to run up dead ends, even when researching for a PhD. So the passages I have highlighted are even more irrelevant than usual. The political leanings of individuals do not determine their attitude to climate change (unless you subscribe to the fatuous "All Tories are *******s" school of thought so beloved of the keyboard warriors here); funding sources do not determine research outcomes (unless you subscribe to the fatuous "Anyone with more money than me is a ******* - and probably Tory" school of thought so beloved of the keyboard warriors here). You have managed to besmirch and patronise the entire universities community. I am sure you are a nice lad, though

 

[me123]

Are you having a giraffe

The Main Independent had a short lived "Scottish Edition" with a saltire on the front - lasted less than a year.

Yes, the chances of them actually launching a Scottish edition are next to nil. They sell very few copies of the independent and the i North of the border (a combined total of less than 20,000 copies daily - less than 5% of its overall UK circulation).

As much as I like the i as a newspaper, it does lack the Scottish content that I want and need to know about (for example, devolved matters being dealt with in Holyrood), whilst focussing on issues in England that are less relevant to me. It's of course understandable why this is the case, but it does mean that important stories in Scotland are often simply not covered.

 

[Butts]

Yes, the chances of them actually launching a Scottish edition are next to nil. They sell very few copies of the independent and the i North of the border (a combined total of less than 20,000 copies daily - less than 5% of its overall UK circulation).

As much as I like the i as a newspaper, it does lack the Scottish content that I want and need to know about (for example, devolved matters being dealt with in Holyrood), whilst focussing on issues in England that are less relevant to me. It's of course understandable why this is the case, but it does mean that important stories in Scotland are often simply not covered.

I have never forgiven them for letting Owen Jones go to The Guardian (traitor). Your only source of "quality news" in Scotland would be The Scotsman or The Herald. I do like latter as it is one of the few broadsheets in the proper sense left. What about that "National" I notice it's a tabloid but is it more like The DM or a broadsheet? - one I've not read !!!

 

[me123]

One of the "beauties" of the scientific method is that one is allowed to run up dead ends, even when researching for a PhD. So the passages I have highlighted are even more irrelevant than usual. The political leanings of individuals do not determine their attitude to climate change (unless you subscribe to the fatuous "All Tories are *******s" school of thought so beloved of the keyboard warriors here); funding sources do not determine research outcomes (unless you subscribe to the fatuous "Anyone with more money than me is a ******* - and probably Tory" school of thought so beloved of the keyboard warriors here). You have managed to besmirch and patronise the entire universities community. I am sure you are a nice lad, though

Of course, it's not entirely true that the scientific method is perfect. There are very well understood and researched biases in the scientific process, probably the most relevant here being confirmation bias. They may misinterpret the data, they may select the data that they're putting in, they may simply prejudice themselves towards the evidence that supports their biased opinions. This isn't (necessarily) deliberate - it's subconscious. That's why it's important for research to come from a large number of independent researchers; so that the effect of any such bias is overcome.

In confirmation bias, the researcher(s) can interpret information to confirm their own ideas or their own previous research. I hasten to add that this is true across the scientific community and political spectrum, and is not unique to Tories/climate change deniers/Daily Mail readers etc. It's simple human nature that we don't want to be proven wrong - I know I don't.

I do think that confirmation bias is also quite relevant to the thread's original topic. If we flip the question around, we can also ask: Why do so many people like the Daily Mail? To their readers (and, no doubt, to the journalists and editors) publishing stories that portray all benefit claimants as work-shy scroungers, all Muslims as terrorists, the BBC as a communist propaganda machine, asylum seekers are like vermin, and so on confirms their own and their readers' views on the subject at hand. Precious little is published showing the other side of these arguments, and I would suggest that its because the staff and their readership don't want to see the other side of the argument, they're much more comfortable having their pre-existing thoughts confirmed rather than being challenged. And, again, I emphasise that the Daily Mail and its readership are not alone in displaying this type of bias.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have never forgiven them for letting Owen Jones go to The Guardian (traitor). Your only source of "quality news" in Scotland would be The Scotsman or The Herald. I do like latter as it is one of the few broadsheets in the proper sense left. What about that "National" I notice it's a tabloid but is it more like The DM or a broadsheet? - one I've not read !!!

I agree. TBH, if I do read a newspaper it is likely to be The National (for those not aware - it's a pro-independence newspaper based in Scotland that was launched following the referendum campaign). It's pretty good, with good quality comment similar IMO to the content in the Herald; and in a country where 45% of people supported independence it is an important addition to the spectrum of journalistic viewpoints in this country.

To those who will undoubtedly say that my reading this newspaper is an example of my own bias - yes, I fully agree. The important thing here is to read widely, not just to pick the articles that support your own viewpoint but also those that challenge your opinions.

 

[AM9]

... I do think that confirmation bias is also quite relevant to the thread's original topic. If we flip the question around, we can also ask: Why do so many people like the Daily Mail? To their readers (and, no doubt, to the journalists and editors) publishing stories that portray all benefit claimants as work-shy scroungers, all Muslims as terrorists, the BBC as a communist propaganda machine, asylum seekers are like vermin, and so on confirms their own and their readers' views on the subject at hand. Precious little is published showing the other side of these arguments, and I would suggest that its because the staff and their readership don't want to see the other side of the argument, they're much more comfortable having their pre-existing thoughts confirmed rather than being challenged. And, again, I emphasise that the Daily Mail and its readership are not alone in displaying this type of bias...

... To those who will undoubtedly say that my reading this newspaper is an example of my own bias - yes, I fully agree. The important thing here is to read widely, not just to pick the articles that support your own viewpoint but also those that challenge your opinions.

I agree absolutely with these sentiments. Confirmation bias is the main cause of the drift of public opinion to positions way beyond what they themselves would consider normal. The 'it must be true because I read it in the (insert favoured newspaper)' mindset is well recognised by newspaper proprietors, their editors and the politicians that they support. A strategy of continually bombarding that readership with pseudo-facts about an issue can change its views, creating the desired political outlook of large numbers of readers, particularly at election/referendum times.
My personal preference is to read a selection of 'versions of the facts', - I my case, the Telegraph, the Times (both of which have declared views well to the right of mine) and the Guardian, which is probably a bit too far to the left for me. All three papers have generally good quality reporting so it is easier to see where they are coming from. What I don't want to do is read stories from sources that merely reinforce whatever irrational prejudices I already harbour. Those that don't recognise their own prejudices or even that they have them, undermine the effectiveness of the democracy that they live in.

 

[Butts]

I agree. TBH, if I do read a newspaper it is likely to be The National (for those not aware - it's a pro-independence newspaper based in Scotland that was launched following the referendum campaign). It's pretty good, with good quality comment similar IMO to the content in the Herald; and in a country where 45% of people supported independence it is an important addition to the spectrum of journalistic viewpoints in this country.

To those who will undoubtedly say that my reading this newspaper is an example of my own bias - yes, I fully agree. The important thing here is to read widely, not just to pick the articles that support your own viewpoint but also those that challenge your opinions.

Is The National not run / owned by The Heralds publisher ?

You didn't answer my question with regard to it's "quality" - ie is it more akin to the Independent end or Mail end of the spectrum - how much is it ? In format it looks a bit like the "I" to me.

I'm sure you are aware that The Sunday Herald was the only Scottish title to come out in favour of a Yes Vote in the referendum. What you probably don't remember being to young is that The Glasgow Herald (as it was) used to be a Tory suppoting paper

 

[me123]

I think it lies closer to The Independent in terms of quality, although not quite there - it's got its own political bias of course (I'll leave you to guess where that lies!). It certainly doesn't have the trashy, sensationalist articles that The Sun and The Mail have. The commentary is similar to The Herald in terms of quality, but the paper as a whole is much more concise. I wouldn't say it's quite as concise as the i, but it's certainly more concise than a broadsheet.

I'm well aware that The Glasgow Herald was a conservative paper in years gone by - indeed I know that the Conservatives (or Unionists as they were then) were very popular in Scotland before about 1950. Indeed, I understand that even the Daily Record was Tory-leaning in days gone by.

 

[fowler9]

One of the "beauties" of the scientific method is that one is allowed to run up dead ends, even when researching for a PhD. So the passages I have highlighted are even more irrelevant than usual. The political leanings of individuals do not determine their attitude to climate change (unless you subscribe to the fatuous "All Tories are *******s" school of thought so beloved of the keyboard warriors here); funding sources do not determine research outcomes (unless you subscribe to the fatuous "Anyone with more money than me is a ******* - and probably Tory" school of thought so beloved of the keyboard warriors here). You have managed to besmirch and patronise the entire universities community. I am sure you are a nice lad, though

Relax mate, I didn't intend to besmirch the entire universities community. It was a light hearted comment, hence the daft emoticon at the end. Perhaps it came across badly because you don't know him and you don't know me and much can be lost in translation when posting on a forum. I am also far from an accomplished writer hence my use of the "smiley" to say I'm not being serious. Apologies anyway.

 

[Oswyntail]

I am instantly chilled. Sorry if I alarmed you!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think it lies closer to The Independent in terms of quality, although not quite there - it's got its own political bias of course (I'll leave you to guess where that lies!). It certainly doesn't have the trashy, sensationalist articles that The Sun and The Mail have.

The sad reflection on the tabloids readership of today is the fact that the Sun and the Daily Mail are the biggest selling daily newspapers. I wonder what that tells us...:roll:

 

[Butts]

The sad reflection on the tabloids readership of today is the fact that the Sun and the Daily Mail are the biggest selling daily newspapers. I wonder what that tells us...:roll:

It tells you they exercise their democratic right to purchase the newspaper of their choice - or should that be comic

You will remember when The Daily Express was the biggest selling newspaper in the good old days of Beaverbrook et al.

Things have never been the same since the demise of the broadsheet format

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You will remember when The Daily Express was the biggest selling newspaper in the good old days of Beaverbrook et al.

Those halcyon days when the Rupert Bear illustrated stories were once a part for "nice well brought up children" to read, when I was but a mere gossoon.

 

[Requeststop]

There are of course the Newspaper websites which also follow the same political viewpoint of each paper. Fortunately the Thai government have banned access to the Mail website, so the expat community and the Thai people cannot be exposed to it's fascist viewpoint about railways, the BBC, the Labour Party, the Lib Dems, etc etc,

Before people get on their high horses about my description "facist" about the hack-rag, as far as the Mail was concerned, Hitler was OK until the 1st September 1939!

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Before people get on their high horses about my description "facist" about the hack-rag, as far as the Mail was concerned, Hitler was OK until the 1st September 1939!

Lets not forget that he did kill Hitler

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Before people get on their high horses about my description "facist" about the hack-rag, as far as the Mail was concerned, Hitler was OK until the 1st September 1939!

I see that it appears that we are now playing the game called "Just see how bad the "XXXXX" newspaper" was in days long since past. You have gone back to 1939...some 77 years ago with your example above.

Before the Guardian became what it is today, it was called The Manchester Guardian. One major item in the political arena in the early part of the 19th century was the repeal of the Corn Laws. You will be pleased to note that the Manchester Guardian carried a most forthright article on that matter in their edition of 27th June 1846.

 

[me123]

It does become relevant when the newspaper whose owner famously met with Hitler and supported the fascist movement has the audacity to criticise a man who actually fought for British forces in the 2nd World War.

I agree that their stance in the 1930s is not relevant in general to today's newspaper. But when they go back to WWII to advance their own ideals, suddenly what they were doing at that time does become very relevant.