Website members obsession with the Daily Mail

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Correct.

I refer you the comments that I made on posting # 27 on this thread.

 

[charley_17/7]

FWIW, I'd rather be regarded as a 'Daily Mail reader' than not, even with the likes of Katie Hopkins and Littlejohn writing for them. Both of whom's opinions I do not like, but respect the way they aren't shy in putting their POV across.

 

[ExRes]

FWIW, I'd rather be regarded as a 'Daily Mail reader' than not, even with the likes of Katie Hopkins and Littlejohn writing for them. Both of whom's opinions I do not like, but respect the way they aren't shy in putting their POV across.

Crikey, you're brave admitting to that on this forum, you obviously haven't ever seen the stoning scene from Life of Brian .............

 

[Bevan Price]

I have not bought any newspaper for over 30 years. Apart from being fed up with politically biased comments, I decided that there were more interesting things to read. I have a quick look through the Metro if there is a copy on a bus, but that rarely takes more than 5 minutes.

One thing I cannot understand is why a lot of people in Liverpool boycott Murdoch's Sun (due to its Hillsborough reporting) -- but subscribe to Sky, in which the Murdoch family has a sizeable (but not majority) share.

 

[muddythefish]

Newspapers have changed over the years to compete with the rise of the internet and have become more politically polarised, but I love them - I need my daily fix and I need it in quantity. I cannot understand people who do not read them - they're full of vast amounts of news, analysis and information. People who don't read them are missing so much.

 

[90019]

just as calling someone a "Guardian Reader" is more nuanced than saying they are left-of-centre.

Grolies!

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Mail columnists routinely claim that Climate Change doesn't exist,

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.

Why, having not bought the Daily Mail in 70 years are you seemingly so concerned about its perception on this forum?

My reading of the OP is that it's a veiled dig at those with political views different to your own.

Paul Sidorczuk must be Nigel Farrarge in disguise...!

 

[bnm]

Only trolls deliberately choose to flame other forum members and if that final paragraph of your posting was a veiled attempt to slur me, then be it on your own shoulders.

See as I find. And if you seriously think my response was either flaming or trolling then you know where the report button is. No great loss to me (or my shoulders) if the post is pulled. I've little time for those who throw accusations of trolling or flaming around when it is unmerited.

I've also no time for any pseudo insults as you call them. The explicit ones or the veiled ones. Whilst not as prevalent on this forum, there are many instances of digs at people's perceived left leaning politics.

And I can't stand the Daily Mail. For it's journalism far more than its political leaning.

As for the papers' target audiences, Jim Hacker was largely spot on way back in 1987. As was Sir Humphrey Appleby when he said that the papers pander to their reader's prejudices. Although Bernard Woolley got the best line.

[youtube]DGscoaUWW2M[/youtube]

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

See as I find. And if you seriously think my response was either flaming or trolling then you know where the report button is. No great loss to me (or my shoulders) if the post is pulled. I've little time for those who throw accusations of trolling or flaming around when it is unmerited.

I've also no time for any pseudo insults as you call them. The explicit ones or the veiled ones. Whilst not as prevalent on this forum, there are many instances of digs at people's perceived left leaning politics.

It was in your final paragraph of the post that I responded to which seemed to imply that I had deliberately caused this thread to so appear in order to air views that could be accused of causing angst to other forum members for my own personal gratification. There lies the implication that it was I, NOT YOU, who could be accused of trolling for trolling sake. You, unfortunately, got hold of the wrong end of the proverbial "flame" stick.

You again have chosen to deliberately misconstrue what I originally said about this thread only being as a comparative statistical comparison of the current top-selling daily newspapers, despite the very careful and precise wording of the very first posting on this thread.

I have no intention whatsoever to use the report button about the comments that you expressed in your last posting and indeed, I do believe you should feel free to post whatsoever that you wish, as long at it so complies with the rules of this website.

 

[AM9]

I have not bought any newspaper for over 30 years. Apart from being fed up with politically biased comments, I decided that there were more interesting things to read. I have a quick look through the Metro if there is a copy on a bus, but that rarely takes more than 5 minutes.

One thing I cannot understand is why a lot of people in Liverpool boycott Murdoch's Sun (due to its Hillsborough reporting) -- but subscribe to Sky, in which the Murdoch family has a sizeable (but not majority) share.

I have hardly bought any newspapers ever. I learnt about the many ways that facts could be presented in my teens, when I did a paper round.
These days I take a free paper 3-4 days per week, sometimes the Telegraph, others the Times/Sunday Times and when I get fed up with the me, me, me lines of those two where everything boils down to first-person intrerest in money, I get the Guardian to recalibrate my moral compass.

 

[EssexGonzo]

All of the papers have an agenda and one should always remember when buying one that their #1 priority is to sell newspapers, advertising space and make a profit - not to report news.

At one end of the spectrum is the so-called "quality papers which are a little cleverer at trying to hide their agenda and political leanings. And they do tend to have more depth and are a little more serious. The quality of the journalism tends to be more to my taste and I'd trust them more than the others.

At the other end comes the honesty - the Sun and Mirror who make no effort to disguise their agenda or their proposition - it's pretty clear that they're short-attention-span comics, but they make no effort to pretend that they're anything else. I respect that and that the readers of the Sun that I know don't expect it to be anything else. It deserves to be the top seller.

Then comes the poisonous middle of the spectrum. The Mail and Express. They pretend to be serious newspapers, something they're not. It still astounds me that 1.5m people - some of them intelligent and educated - every day are taken in by the assumption that they are reporting "news" rather than taking base facts and twisting them severely. Or even digging around for negative stories. They peddle fear and negativity and seek, as another poster has mentioned, the click-bait headline to suck you in and increase their advertising revenue.

But, unfortunately, that persona tends to resonate with a proportion of society that values and exhibits similar behaviour.

 

[Johnuk123]

I get the Guardian to recalibrate my moral compass.

Funny thing is I believe you're being serious.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't take a newspaper now, mainly as they are all full of whatever line the owner wants you to swallow.

The last one I read with any regularity was the Northern Echo, although that is of little use where I live now. I don't even read the Metro as it is simply an even more simplified and free version of the Mail.

I find that the Mail does not represent my view of the world or how I would like the world to look. I also find the extreme credulity of their readership worrying. They are , of course, free to believe what they like, just as i am free to criticise them for it!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Paul Sidorczuk must be Nigel Farrarge in disguise...!

I am aware who Nigel Farage is and I totally disagree with all that he stands for, but who on earth is the Nigel Farrage to who your posting refers...:roll:

 

[Johnuk123]

I am aware who Nigel Farage is and I totally disagree with all that he stands for, but who on earth is the Nigel Farrage to who your posting refers...:roll:

It's worse than that as it's Nigel Farrarge.

 

[AM9]

Funny thing is I believe you're being serious.

The comment was not entirely untrue.
Taking a more positive view of newspapers:

The Telegraph is patently a paper of those who regard money and property as the be-all and end-all of life. The financial pages are probably the best available and politically non-controversial news seems well reported, anything mildly political seems to be aimed at the reader's grey matter through their wallets. There is a tendency to focus on the avoidance of paying tax with no moral commitment to how society works, i.e. how we should all pay a contribution which broadly is proportional to ability.

The Times ranges between a less money-obsessed version of the Telegraph, right down to a sensationalist, trivia-laden rag just like the Sun, but with slightly better english grammar and less overtly racist/sexist language.

The Grauniad, can be rather dull, given that it these days give a lot of inches over to how the social structure of the UK is being eroded by the almost exclusive worship of mammon that the current administration engenders. I do need to be reminded that there are many far worse than me and I need to consider their lot in the context of what I contribute to society both financially and by 'waiting my turn', - rather than paying to jump queues of people with greater genuine need than me.
Their arts reporting is also quite interesting being not exclusively geared to mainstream blockbuster returns as a priority.

As far as the Mail goes, I think that it's consumer campaigns are OK, but the rest of it's negative outlook on the World is just a joke.
​

p.s. I have never bought, nor taken a free copy of the Mail. (there, that's got that off my chest!)

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Looking at the Daily Mail on line is a vice - (I cannot resist it) - just to get the sense of "outrage" over their carefully targeted obsessions on students , immigrant issues , the demonisation of cannabis (at least one rant a week on this) - and their total and utter concentration on property values - linked to almost every story.

Their take on railways is hilariuous.(if not tragic)

Many of the comments on line are so "little Englander" - it defied belief - especailly when a large percentage comes from "expats" in Malaga or the Dordogne - yet seem to be really on the ball about life in inner city Bradford or the East End.


Last but not least - their love" of the victim culture - especially those who get done for parking on yellow lines - or who have been let down that their "dream" kitchen / holiday / meal out did not happen to their anticipated perfect expectations.

There - feel better already.

 

[Greenback]

What would be their position if a student or an immigrant got done for parking on yellow lines, just out of interest?

 

[Senex]

The comment was not entirely untrue.
Taking a more positive view of newspapers:

The Telegraph is patently a paper of those who regard money and property as the be-all and end-all of life. The financial pages are probably the best available and politically non-controversial news seems well reported, anything mildly political seems to be aimed at the reader's grey matter through their wallets. There is a tendency to focus on the avoidance of paying tax with no moral commitment to how society works, i.e. how we should all pay a contribution which broadly is proportional to ability.

The Times ranges between a less money-obsessed version of the Telegraph, right down to a sensationalist, trivia-laden rag just like the Sun, but with slightly better english grammar and less overtly racist/sexist language.

The Grauniad, can be rather dull, given that it these days give a lot of inches over to how the social structure of the UK is being eroded by the almost exclusive worship of mammon that the current administration engenders. I do need to be reminded that there are many far worse than me and I need to consider their lot in the context of what I contribute to society both financially and by 'waiting my turn', - rather than paying to jump queues of people with greater genuine need than me.
Their arts reporting is also quite interesting being not exclusively geared to mainstream blockbuster returns as a priority.

As far as the Mail goes, I think that it's consumer campaigns are OK, but the rest of it's negative outlook on the World is just a joke.
​

p.s. I have never bought, nor taken a free copy of the Mail. (there, that's got that off my chest!)

Don't the comments I've emboldened shew that you're coming to your judgement of these newspapers from an avowedly left-leaning perspective? Nothing at all wrong with that, but doesn't it need declaring as an interest before judgement is passed?

(To declare my own newspaper "interests". I don't read any of them in hard copy -- far too expensive nowadays -- but routinely see the Guardian, Mail, and Telegraph web-sites.)

 

[Oswyntail]

... there are many far worse than me ...

No, no! Surely not!

 

[BlythPower]

I'm surprised no-one's used the the Mail's favourite phrase 'All grown up' yet...

 

[me123]

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

And herein lies the problem. With no disrespect intended, it doesn't matter what you believe. Scientific facts are what matters, and the facts do demonstrate consistent rise in temperatures. The evidence suggests that this is most likely attributable to human CO2 activity and here's an excellent page from NASA giving just some of the facts in an easy-to-read format.

The Mail's track record on scientific articles is generally pretty poor. It likes to cherry pick articles that give them a good headline (such as this recent effort - orgasms prevent cancer), and frequently misunderstand basic scientific facts (The Daily Mail and the Time Traveling Tube Train). I don't expect that the Mail's scientific team have taken the time and effort to actually look at the whole body of evidence before coming to their conclusion.

Belief simply doesn't come into the equation. There are people who believe in literal creationism, there are people who believe that the earth is flat, but none of that matters because we have good evidence that this is not the case. This is true with climate change. There is a strong body of evidence that climate change is a real phenomenon, and to counteract that evidence to the contrary should be presented. Otherwise, it's just someone's belief and that doesn't really cut it in the scientific world.

 

[deltic]

The comment was not entirely untrue.
Taking a more positive view of newspapers:

The Telegraph is patently a paper of those who regard money and property as the be-all and end-all of life. The financial pages are probably the best available and politically non-controversial news seems well reported, anything mildly political seems to be aimed at the reader's grey matter through their wallets. There is a tendency to focus on the avoidance of paying tax with no moral commitment to how society works, i.e. how we should all pay a contribution which broadly is proportional to ability.

The Times ranges between a less money-obsessed version of the Telegraph, right down to a sensationalist, trivia-laden rag just like the Sun, but with slightly better english grammar and less overtly racist/sexist language.

The Grauniad, can be rather dull, given that it these days give a lot of inches over to how the social structure of the UK is being eroded by the almost exclusive worship of mammon that the current administration engenders. I do need to be reminded that there are many far worse than me and I need to consider their lot in the context of what I contribute to society both financially and by 'waiting my turn', - rather than paying to jump queues of people with greater genuine need than me.
Their arts reporting is also quite interesting being not exclusively geared to mainstream blockbuster returns as a priority.

As far as the Mail goes, I think that it's consumer campaigns are OK, but the rest of it's negative outlook on the World is just a joke.
​

p.s. I have never bought, nor taken a free copy of the Mail. (there, that's got that off my chest!)

As any one who reads Private Eye will be aware, the Daily Telegraphs business coverage has been heavily influenced by its advertisers (HSBC) and its Barcley Brother owners' investments.

Personally I'm an FT person myself although never buy a copy!

 

[GatwickDepress]

And herein lies the problem. With no disrespect intended, it doesn't matter what you believe. Scientific facts are what matters, and the facts do demonstrate consistent rise in temperatures. The evidence suggests that this is most likely attributable to human CO2 activity and here's an excellent page from NASA giving just some of the facts in an easy-to-read format.

The Mail's track record on scientific articles is generally pretty poor. It likes to cherry pick articles that give them a good headline (such as this recent effort - orgasms prevent cancer), and frequently misunderstand basic scientific facts (The Daily Mail and the Time Traveling Tube Train). I don't expect that the Mail's scientific team have taken the time and effort to actually look at the whole body of evidence before coming to their conclusion.

Belief simply doesn't come into the equation. There are people who believe in literal creationism, there are people who believe that the earth is flat, but none of that matters because we have good evidence that this is not the case. This is true with climate change. There is a strong body of evidence that climate change is a real phenomenon, and to counteract that evidence to the contrary should be presented. Otherwise, it's just someone's belief and that doesn't really cut it in the scientific world.

To quote Katharine Hayhoe, climatologist and evangelical Christian: "people ask me if I believe in global warming. I tell them, ‘No, I don’t,’ because belief is faith; faith is the evidence of things not seen. Science is evidence of things seen."

 

[DynamicSpirit]

He is not alone! Often, here and elsewhere, if someone strays in their opinion from "centre-left" orthodoxy, they will get tagged as "Daily Mail readers" and vilified as fascists. The "facts" about the NHS as put about in the Independent and the Guardian are as far from the truth as those in the Mail and Express.

Out of interest, in what manner do you believe the Independent and the Guardian are inaccurate in their reporting of the NHS?

 

[bnm]

You again have chosen to deliberately misconstrue what I originally said about this thread only being as a comparative statistical comparison of the current top-selling daily newspapers, despite the very careful and precise wording of the very first posting on this thread.

The thread was started only (my emphesis) "being as a statistical comparison of the current top selling daily newspapers..." ???

The thread title makes no mention of this. The "very careful and precise wording" in the opening sentence of the OP makes no mention of this. That opening sentence refers to some left-wing orientated forum members using the Daily Mail as a pejorative.

If it was your intention to only discuss the circulation figures then the thread title and opening sentence are highly misleading.

Misleading by fault or design I wonder? I'll go with the later.

 

[AM9]

No, no! Surely not!

At the risk of not seeing a joke, I meant that to read:

'... there are many far worse off than me ...'

I know that it is unfashionable thinking of the unfortunates in society but I just can't help it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't the comments I've emboldened shew that you're coming to your judgement of these newspapers from an avowedly left-leaning perspective? Nothing at all wrong with that, but doesn't it need declaring as an interest before judgement is passed?

(To declare my own newspaper "interests". I don't read any of them in hard copy -- far too expensive nowadays -- but routinely see the Guardian, Mail, and Telegraph web-sites.)

Well all political proclivities are relative to a norm, so (apart from the lunatic fringes at the end of the axes) everybody's perspective can appear to be changing but in reality be stable whilst the swell of popular opinion swings back and forth under the influences of economic, scientific, religous, climatic and cultural fashionable thinking. In other words, since about the mid to late '80s, I have always viewed my quality of life as comfortable enough to not want it improved at the expense of those less fortunate than me.
Placing me at a position on a left-right scale doesn't really help as the scale moves up and down much more than my views have. Then there is the 'Overton Window' much loved by political pundits, but that has nothing to do with the newspapers that I might look at.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

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

 

[Clip]

I respect that and that the readers of the Sun that I know don't expect it to be anything else. It deserves to be the top seller.

.

Spot on - it passes the time the sports coverage is quite good too - especially for the football.

I also get it because it annoys the life out of friends who seem to think that by reading it makes me a far right knuckle dragging oaf - not that they have read it of course but making assumptions is the new in thing.

 

[fowler9]

The Sun I will never forgive for its lies about Hillsborough. Yeah it was a long time ago but that doesn't stop the sun being jingoistic about all kinds of stuff. I read the Mail occasionally if I don't have to pay for it as I find it to be a useful idiot when it comes to news papers.