The Grauniad seems to be dying - hurrah!

I don't think Grimma's mother in law is stupid. I think she had never been previously exposed to the arguments and opinions in the Daily Mail. She has now started to read it and has found that she agrees with it.

The Daily Mail, the people's paper with the second highest sales in the country, is derided by the progressives, just as Sarah Palin is. They make jokes songs on youtube about the Mail and Palin. They call Palin stupid and think Mail readers have low intelligence. The reason they do this is because they want to discourage people from listening to Palin and reading the Mail, because they know that if they do, then just like Grimma's mother-in-law, they will find that they agree with Palin and the Mail, they will find that they agree with the majority of the people who buy the best selling newspaper, and disagree with the progressives.

The Guardian is a good newspaper, there is good news, opinion and comment in it, and it is written by clever journalists. We need the Guardian to do well, even if some of us think that some of it is propaganda. We need a broad spectrum of views. We need Grimma's mother-in-law to read all papers and decide for herself which views she agrees with. We don't want one side of the story, we don't want people to be put off listening to Sarah Palin or reading the Daily Mail because the progressives mock them. That is what the progressives want, not what the people want.

Slating the Beeb and The Guardian in one post? Run to the hills, people, LFN has learned to multitask.

Your mother in law must have always had these opinions, but kept them to herself
Nope. Really not.

If you rely on one source of information too much, its highly probable that your views will get distorted. Which is why I agree with Jack's last post that reading a variety is good. Its why I think the demise of the Guardian would be on the whole a pity, even though I don't personally agree with a lot of what it says any more than I do the DM.

Moondog, I've not exactly analysed it but I think you're being deliberately obtuse. I simply doubt that most people would qualitatively find it easier to pick up the G and scan a piece in the same way you can with the DM.

Gimmathenome. Your mother in law must have always had these opinions, but kept them to herself. It's like saying that I have read the Guardian and would change my views on Iraq, mass Immigration or otherwise. I won't. I should imagine your dear MIL is not that young, and for her to suddenly change her views IMO just does not happen. People do indeed become more outright in their views as they get older (and more Conservative) as they become less idealistic. I have read the Guardian, but it too has quite extreme views out of the norm, such as supporting the building of a mosque at ground zero, and wanting more troop involvement in Libya. It seems controversal for the sake of it, and many including me just 'turn off'. This 'turing off' is reflected in the low readership and it nearly going bust.
In saying that the Mail often carries some depressing stories, so I try to read the Times,Telegraph and the Mail on Tuesdays. The Mail does IMO say
what many think people think, that's why it sells so well, not as well as the 'Sun' being the biggest seller in the country though. Jack I agree with you. I find interesting articles on politics posted here on mumsnet.
Longfingernails. I sometimes agree with what she posts, and they normally create debate, so I hope she keeps posting.

"Jack- yes, you're right ... up to a point, I think reading the DM fosters and normalises some of those attitudes which may otherwise not have been particularly strong"

Grimma - True, but you could say the same about the Guardian.

When I was a child my parents bought the daily Telegraph all week & the Observer on Sunday (to provide an alternative view point). I've always thought that a sensible approach. I tend to read the FT and Guardian. But, lately, thanks to Twitter (and Mumsnet) I find myself reading interesting articles from all newspapers.

But then I find all 'points of view' interesting and worth consideration.

How do you define 'readable'

Are you talking font size and style=picture to taxt ration and so on?

In that case Take a Break is 'readable' but in terms of it being readable....
I'd be happier and more fulfilled reading the small print on my lavatory cleaner.

can't they just go like the mirror but with a blue top
and ads nicked from the mail on sunday

You seem to be implying that only people of a certain level of intelligence read the Guardian.
Are you?

not exactly. Its more that the DM is simplt more readable. I don't read either often, but the G is harder work to get into than the DM - and tbh I'm not that motivated to get into it. DM headlines draw you in better. In that sense its a better paper. In other ways - you can keep the pair of them.

Jack- yes, you're right ... up to a point, I think reading the DM fosters and normalises some of those attitudes which may otherwise not have been particularly strong (or in the case of my MIL, non-existant)

I am incensed by their dogged determination to turn all their journalists into personalities.
They're so bloody dull anyway.
Nigel Slater only saving grace of G/O.

And all those columns written people archly describing their domestic routines are excruciatingly bad.

Yes quite.

The noble ideals and aims of Labour in the last century have somehow mutated into an hysterical accusatory hounding as a racist/fascist/sexist anyone who doesn''t kowtow to their bilge.

Very Salem-esque

I think you're right moondog - but difficult for Labour to address their needs & to continue with a more Guardian reader style 'progressive agenda'.

I think that's a hugely underestimated and much neglected group of people Jack.

Grimma - Many left wingers read the DM. These have recently been classified as Blue Labour. Politically left but socially small 'c' conservative. They may be anti-immigration, pro-family and cynical about benefit claimants. As such, they will possibly feel more comfortable with the DM, than the Guardian.

Bonkers thread.

Tra, the Guardian forces a message of state interference and learned helplessness down the thorats of all who peruse it.

Of course I do.
How does that merit a 'Fair play' comment?

Ah, so you want to keep away everyone that doesn't do Guardinanthink/speak do yuo then Salme?

How very liberal of you.

moondog...seriously you think the guardian is any more full of propoganda than any of the other papers, come on.

How is it 'less accessible'?
You seem to be implying that only people of a certain level of intelligence read the Guardian.
Are you?

I read it regularly and I'm about as 'off message' as thy come with regards to the propoganda views expressed within.

The FT is a quite left of centre paper in my opinion

Really? With its 'How to Spend It' saturday supplement?

And the Guardian doesn't??

Not so much, I think, because its less accessible - I'm not sure many people who weren't already pretty much on-message with it would bother starting to read it.

And the Guardian doesn't??

I buy it every Saturday for a laugh.
The job adverts are beyond parody.

The FT is a quite left of centre paper in my opinion.

My objection to the Daily Mail is not that it reflects the opinions of 'the people' but that it shapes them in its own image. I've seen it happen. My MIL was a lifelong old-fashioned Labour type - not a trendy leftie. She started taking the Mail when it went to tabloid size but most of the other papers were broadsheet just because it was physically easier - and she found it very readable and entertaining.

Since which time she has started coming out with right wing, racist statements. Direct quotes from DM. DH (he's a Times/FT reading Conservative, definitely not a leftie!) is quite aghast.