AIBU to assume that the majority of posters read The Daily Mail or The Telegraph??

I read neither and hate the flags popping up all over.

I have read the mail and telegraph occasionally as I think it’s always good to try and understand how other think and I don’t believe that reading those papers means you are a bad through and through person

i am basically left wing
i hate flag flying
i am not antitrans
i may be autistic

but i bet you think i am because I don’t believe you can change sex and I can see a reason why sex matters

Totally unreasonable.

I wouldn’t read either of those, and am sick to death of the flags being used as racist dog whistles. I am however, critical of gender ideology and think men need to stay the fuck out of women’s spaces (please note, this does not mean I hate any individual who’s been sucked into trans ideology) HTH.

I do read the DM, but I’m very much not gender critical, very pro-trans and very leftist. I like to read it to know what the racist and transphobic amongst us are scheming about this week. It’s very far from my political persuasion.

From being regular, I now wouldn't piss on the Guardian if it was on fire, as the saying goes.
I can't think of another paper that is so smug, and so careless about Women.

None of us can read the Dandy. It folded, like many other longrunning children's comics of that era.

The Beano is still going though.

I’m GC but completely left wing in pretty much every other way. Women need protecting - not men who wear dresses

Same. I read the Guardian and The Herald for actual journalism.

Oh here we go. Another person who melts at the thought of other people having a different opinion to them. The left are truly trying to turn this county into a dictatorship. They are everything they proclaim not to be.

I do read the Daily Mail, rarely the Telegraph. I also read The Times. If something's interesting to me I'll follow links to practically everything except Pink News. I don't think much of people who diss the Daily Mail, because they obviously haven't read it lately! You'll find among the cringy and awful stuff articles written supporting women's single sex spaces, keeping men out of women's sports, prisons, hospital wards. Ner.

I think the majority read the Guardian/socialistworker/Dandy/cosmo/(insert county) Life/the messages on their husbands phones (by accident)

My sister calls it the Daily Scare. When our mum started reading it she developed fears and anxiety about all sorts of things. That's what I hate about conspiracy people - they have the elderly living in perpetual fear.

I read the guardian and the mail because their both free. I read less of the mail now since theyve put so much on plus.

Maybe the reason that it was the Mail who outed the murderers of Stephen Lawrence years ago, splashing their photos on the front page and inviting them to sue!

Yabvu

I haven't seen much racist ot flagwaving stuff here. What there has been is mostly deliberately goadiness which gets overwhelmingly refuted. There are a vast number of mumsnetters who are neurodiverse themselves or have neurodiverse children, you can't have been here much if you haven't spotted that. People here generally aren't "anti trans" but are robust in pointing out where a proposed additional adjustment intended for the benefit of trans people will have a severe and detrimental effect on female people and if you think that's the same as being "anti trans" then you are "anti women".

I generally read the bbc news and the guardian, but I know there are some topics those news sources prefer not to cover so I will follow links from mumsnet threads to specific articles in the times or telegraph if it's a story I can't find elsewhere (usually because the guardian doesn't want to admit it happened, or has an article so biased it is difficult to discern what they are trying to avoid saying) - I find that using a variety of news sources is beneficial as all media organisations have an agenda. I wouldn't read the Mail if you paid me though.

Probably links are from/to the Grauniad and Torygraph because the G is free to read online, and an annual sub to the DT online can be as cheap as £29 pa. Both offer wide-ranging editorial coverage and can usually be relied on for the basic facts. The editorial spin is a matter of preference.

All popular newspapers cater to the prejudices of their readers. That's why MN interests me, it's a range of views, many from people I would never meet or know anything about. And it's moderated sufficiently well to exclude the more rabid extremes of the political spectrum.

One thing I've noticed on the threads I've read is that the guardian and telegraph seem to get linked a lot when people are using an article from those papers to aid their argument. Very rarely see other newspapers being linked.

🤣
We can only hope!

Guardian and FT. Hope that meets with your approval.

Does anyone still read newspapers? The only person I know who does is reclusive and ND, and walking to the newsagent every morning.is part of her invariable routine.

Gender critical thought isn’t right-wing. That’s a straw man used by trans rights activists - that if you care about female-only spaces you must also be a racist.

This site used to be very Guardian-reader but as it got more popular there are now a range of views, including some views which I consider to be racist. But I think the millennial and younger generation is less generous in its political views, probably because of growing up in a long term economic trough.

I just feel depressed that so many people you encounter are happy to categorise you by the paper the imagine you read. And then arrogantly dismiss you as a lesser being.

I read the Morning Star.

I think a more accurate comparison is the Telegraph and the Guardian. Different political perspectives but both reputable journalism.

The Mail prints shocking misinformation, deliberately tries to jump on bandwagons and get people worked up. It would be despicable whatever its politics.