Ahem.... FWR headlines in the Mail

Identity politics seems like an easy win for politicians. What a great way to distract voters from socio-economic disparity. Let's convince Millenials that they can't buy a house because a Boomer grandparent wants a spare bedroom, not because they have been shafted by a kleptocracy of billionaires. Let's get voters to argue about anything, as long as it isn't socio-economic class.

I meant to say. This is amazing news. And congratulations on being famous in the press!

We are a world away from the 1970s and 80s being a much more mobile and secular population. With advent of cheap package holidays, many people have ventured out of their back yard.

America now a massive influence on us due to social media. American cultural values seem endemic within the U.K. and American views are often more polarised. Trans people over there are fighting for their rights, therefore they must be here and so forth with younger generations assimilating American lexicon.

With these polarised views and enough people saying it, older generations are being influenced too. We live much longer nowadays with decent nutrition and heat. There isn’t the big cut off between the older and younger generations that we used to see, where people started to be both regarded and saw themselves as older and rigid thinkers in their 50s and retired by 60 with their pipe and slippers or blue rinses… ok that last bit is perhaps an exaggeration. But there is definitely a different vibe to being 50/60 these days.

Somehow Liberal and Libertarian got confused?

Keep plugging away on the BTL comments.

Which is, as all us ex or current readers/subscribers know, is nigh-on-impossible on the Guardian. You will be zapped in a second by the mods, and possibly kicked off altogether. Women really, really don’t matter there.

It is the polar opposite of the pro-natural, anti-big-business, suspicious-of-big-pharma, wary of American politics and influence Left that I grew up in. It tells children and young people who are autistic, neurodiverse, homosexual or simply going through the usual anxieties and pressures of adolescence that they are wrong and need fixing, c/o a billion dollar industry with White House backing that will keep mining their bodies and minds for life. And all based around the reintroduction and enforcement of the sort of regressive gender stereotypes we thought we'd seen the back of in the1960s. And it has given carte blanche to the worst public and institutional misogyny in the West in recent memory. Left wing, my arse.

Yes, that's what I can't get my head around. Why are adults who know what leftwing means going along with this? I can understand that blue-haired teens have fallen for the latest fad, and know nothing about leftwing politics because they've never encountered it. But why didn't the adults explain, early on, before this pernicious creed took hold?

Or does it only matter with people you like

Shit , I dont like anyone. Now what?

Good luck with the Telegraph, peonyred. I tried it for Suzanne Moore and their excellent women's sport coverage, but I couldn't take the relentless NHS bashing (not that I think the NHS is perfect, by a long shot, but the Telegraph push to privatise isn't in anyone's interests).

Keep plugging away on the BTL comments. When I first subscribed to the Times, about 5 years, ago, virtually no one got the importance of GC issues. Articles about TRAs got two types of response: incredulity or blaming the women. It was either "It reminds me of that sketch in Life of Brian" (Really? What an original observation) or "Serves you feminists right, for demanding equality". But a few posters kept plugging away, backing up the wonderful, brave Janice Turner and her colleagues and, gradually, the tide turned. Between us, the GC journalists and commentators have peaked almost the entire Times readership 💪

Newspaper's gonna news.

The only ways to handle a wedge issue are either to double-down on it (e.g. Labour and hunting in the 90s - they were happy to lose some rural voters, in the knowledge they would gain metropolitan ones), or to eradicate the policy difference between you and your rivals, so voters can no longer differentiate you on the issue. Labour seems to be making some feeble attempt to do that latter. More power to the DM, if it keeps up the pressure on them.

Suggesting a paper is pro-Tory is also a bit simplistic. The Telegraph appears to be more pro-Boris than the Mail. (Boris used to write for them.) Both though will criticise the government if they feel they are getting something wrong. At the moment Rishi seems to be coming in for criticism from the Mail over the cost of living crisis. And it is not unknown for "balance" to be achieved by publishing articles outlining opposing points of view.

Sometimes being more Establishment can allow a paper to push things further than their rivals. The DM did that with the Stephen Lawrence case and it was the Telegraph that broke the MP’s expenses.

I used to have a Guardian subscription but ditched it during the first lockdown. I now have a digital telegraph subscription and since Suzanne Moore joined it is a rare day now when there isn't one or more articles on these issues by a range of authors.

The DM prints a lot of poisonous shit. So does every other paper in this country. Remember the Sun and Hillsborough? Remember the NOTW and hacking Millie Dowler's phone? Remember the Mirror hacking phones and faking stories? The Times is currently gender critical, but does anyone seriously believe that Murdoch won't turn on women in a heartbeat, if it boosted sales? The Guardian has run a sustained campaign to undermine women's rights, and has allowed women journalists to be bullied out of their jobs. The Telegraph is more hateful towards immigrants than the DM, yet somehow gets a pass because it's posher. I've never seen anyone on MN clutch their pearls at a Telegraph article, yet I recently saw someone claim that clicking on a DM article (a bit of good news trivia) had 'ruined her whole day'. Half-wit.

MattDillonsEyebrows Absolutely correct. People tie themselves in knots about the DM, but it basically boils down to snobbery because many of those 'troublesome' working class people who voted Brexit and drive white vans read it.

The Guardian is for the intelligent and cultured people....🙄

Only it's rarely that simple.

I long ago stopped giving a flying fuck about the guilt by association culture. The Mail is supporting a MASSIVE push for protecting Womens rights. The Guardian and others have not only consistently ignored women for many years but have actively bullied female journalists who speak out and have even LIED in published articles (the WiSpa incident being just one).
I'm disgusted with the so-called 'left wing' platforms. They've totally, utterly and massively not only dropped the ball, they've stolen the ball, popped it and thrown it away.

So the mean DM might be using this stories to sell papers and tell a story to their readers??
Well fuck me sideways.

And obviously lots more links now, as the Mail has gone overboard with GC stories.

Presumably lots of clicks tell them that their readers want more. Or more and more brave people are willing to stand up and be counted, and the Mail is willing to publish.

There is the added advantage that the Mail has relatively deep pockets so can be braver than others. Especially back in the day when Stonewall tentacles appeared everywhere, and sites like this had to perform complete gymnastics in order to stay open. It is astonishing how many left wing writers: Julie Bindel, Prof Stock, Suzanne Moore etc are now able to have their voices heard in the Mail...but not the Guardian. Critics have it the wrong way round. The Guardian needs to examine its approach, rather than people criticising the Mail for jumping in to cover a major issue of our time.

It's basically intellectual snobbery @Georgeskitchen.

The Mail has found itself on the wrong end of Big Tech in recent times. They had a story on Hunter Biden and his laptop which was removed by Facebook and Twitter in the runup to the last US election for example.

In the UK, we know the press has been muzzled over accurate crime reporting. Crime is a big area for the DM. I expect some of why they might have wanted to cover the campaign is to do with freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

Dunno. Some sort of mystery.

Georgeskitchen, simples....

It is not behind a paywall. Times share tokens run out after a day whilst the Mail, who often cover similar stories, stay accessible.

I used to read both the Guardian and Mail online, and liked the compare and contrast. I then got irritated by the way the Guardian tries to tell you what you should be thinking. I am intelligent enough to make up my own mind. The Mail often has an angle, but no one is telling me I have to agree with them. And it is interesting to read the comments, which are overwhelmingly positive on GC issues, but can be depressing on others.

Can anyone explain the mumsnet phenomenon of the Daily Mail? They all call it a filthy rag but seem to post links on an almost hourly basis. So somebody reads it, Don they!!