You can think right-wing nationalism a valid view if you want to. I shall beg to differ, and have no compunction in arguing against such views vociferously.
As to your other points, for sure it’s more complicated. Media manipulation is subtle. In certain ways it acts along similar lines to the way the fairy tale has operated since pre-literate societies: it holds up often didactic paradigms of ‘desired’ femininity, and in doing so manipulates females into desiring conformity with these. Of course, from that end, the Northcliffe groups would have aimed their publications at a female readership (not least for the advertising revenue this would bring). But I remain unconvinced that catering fully to women’s interests was the publishing outcome, even if this was the original intention.
If you want the TV guide or the crossword, fine. These observations don’t apply. If you read past their content with a very critical lens, they don’t apply there, either. But the way they write their articles – particularly those written by the female ‘confessional’ journalists – particularly as regards the evils of feminism and the security and safety of the patriarchy, is where you find the problem.
Cf. the reams of articles by women who remained in the workplace and became convinced it harmed their children and that it was all THEIR fault – no mention of dad. These are the ones who in Mailspeak have ‘reformed’ their evil, feminist ways: who have remained in the workplace or decided not to have children but later, and with wisdom, decided that The Law of the Father really did know best all along.
The idea that women want men simply to siphon off their bank accounts is common mail fodder. There are hideous accounts of Amber Heard, Meghan Markle, and various other women that are like sticking up a board for readers to throw darts at (which, in the comments, they frequently do). The coverage of race days is shocking – terrible pictures of women behaving drunkenly whilst the men are left alone. There are women journalists who proclaim they are beautiful (ok) but with the full intention of proving how females are utterly hideous to one another and are claw-jostling, handbag-wielding, jealous antagonists to each other (not ok), to wives who let their husbands dress them. Most weeks have articles that are variations on these themes.
I could go on. But the above represents a reasonably holistic picture.
I don’t buy that this is simply catering to the validity of all women’s views. It’s media manipulation and practically every other line drips with misogyny.
Which moves aside from the point as to whether its coverage of the recent state of women’s rights isn’t courageous or desirable. It’s both, and it’s very welcome. This doesn’t negate the above.