Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to ask why the Sun and the Mail newspaper are so hated on here?

428 replies

missnamechange · 06/12/2011 11:18

I have name changed for this as i am a regular MNer and i know i really ought to know this Blush but i don't

i read the Sun every most days, i like the vacuous celeb gossip and their easy to understand way of writing (again - Blush ) and the womens section, and the problem pages

what's so bad about it?

OP posts:
alemci · 09/12/2011 22:00

so shouldn't the mail be allowed to report stories like the one mentioned in the link. Is this story a lie? Should we pretend everything is wonderful and everyone is as honest as the day is long?

Tyr · 09/12/2011 22:03

I actually read very widely which is another reason I don't have time to waste on junk like the DM and the Sun.

knittedbreast · 09/12/2011 22:08

There is very little news in the sun newspaper.

The daily mail, well.... where to begin

NeuromanticisedVisionsofXmas · 09/12/2011 22:27

Um, what? I said I don't read the G2 section of the Guardian and that means that I don't read widely or understand media? What on earth are you talking about? Hmm
And which direct question are you referring to exactly? I've answered anything referred personally to me.

You seem to be confused. Perhaps you should eat your dinner, you might perk up a little.

IReallyHateMyCat · 09/12/2011 22:43

The Sun is a pile of ASS. Dh reads it, I occasionally open it when I want to wind myself up.... I don't knwo why.

I want to stab Carol Malone though... or was she the Sunday one?

limitedperiodonly · 09/12/2011 22:53

So neuro you read the Guardian, is that correct? But you've never read the daily supplement or the op ed pages, why on earth would that be?

Can you comment about the abilities or views of any of the people I've mentioned? If not, why not? It's a broad field - Sun, Mail, Mirror, Guardian, Independent, Channel 4 News - surely as someone with a wide understanding of the media you'd be familiar with some of them .

The point of columnists is that newspapers employ people with opposing views to the core values of their readers just to create a debate. So can you tell me which columnists/journalists you admire or dislike and why? I've told you so why don't you say? Or is it that you just don't know?

Can you outline any of your news sources, national or international?

Can you say what you do for a living which brings you into such wide contact with varied media sources? Or is it unique or in such a narrow field that you might blow your cover if you revealed it?

Because despite my patience you're coming over as a rude, evasive blusterer who doesn't know what she's talking about.

NeuromanticisedVisionsofXmas · 09/12/2011 23:11

Actually if you check my posts I made a point of saying I don't in fact read the Guardian. Except when necessary for work purposes. I was most clear on that fact.

Limited, you may be a journo but I am not being interviewed by you. So as flattered as I am by the attention, I do not have to answer all of your questions. Though I would have been happy to if you had clearly addressed them to me a little more politely.

I am familiar with all of those sources and some commentators within them. I'm sure you'll forgive me though for not reading all of the opinions in every UK newspaper, not least because I don't currently live in the UK, but also because I have a life.

You are being very aggressive, quizzing me to a bizarre extent. This is not Newsnight, and you are not Paxman, so chill out a bit. Can I outline my news sources and critique my favourite journalists? Hmm Have I wandered into a critical thinking exam by mistake?

I am in a narrow field actually and would not like to say which. None so interesting that merits your level of attention in my reading habits though. This is a forum, so do you think we could get back to random opinions, or would you like footnotes and a bibliography for all comments?

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere · 09/12/2011 23:21

The Sun is a rag and reports in a way that barely gets round the laws about racism. It also has very young women with their tits out on page three.

The Daily Mail exists for one reason - to wind up Middle England. It wants to keep them in a constant state of fear. The Daily Mail wants you to be terrified of Cancer, Asylum Seekers and anyone who wears a tracksuit who isnt a sports person.

Last year its Christmas message said it all 'We wish our readers a very Happy Christmas..... if we are STILL ALLOWED TO SAY THAT'

It cant even say Happy Christmas without peddling some sort of tossery. It might have made some sort of sense if they had trotted out some crap about Christmas being banned that year. But they hadnt even managed to come up with one that year!

bruffin · 09/12/2011 23:24

The Daily Mail exists for one reason - to wind up Middle England.

The guardian just winds up left wingers about the horrors of the daily mail readers, what's the difference?

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere · 09/12/2011 23:33

No it doesnt.
The guardian doesnt target Daily Mail readers. I read it a couple of times a week and I dont see them talking about Daily Mail readers. Where did you see that?

The Daily Mail is a mean and miserable paper. Whatever your politics. It whinges and complains through pages and pages. It once had a two page spread on a terrible scandal, an awful occourance - what? A middle class family's daughter married a black man and was living on a council estate. Not a tsunami, not a famine, not a child abuse case - no a naice girl living with a darkie amoungst the chavs.

THAT is the sort of paper it is.

If that floats your boat - feel free to read it, its not for me.

limitedperiodonly · 09/12/2011 23:34

Of course you don't have to answer my questions but in the spirit of debate it would be enlightening if you did, seeing as you say you're so interested and knowlegable about the media.

It doesn't matter if I'm a journalist or not. Everyone has an opinion and is entitled to express it. But you've said things that don't stand up and wriggle like a maggot on a hook when questioned.

I haven't been aggressive. On the contrary, I have been scrupulously polite to you, even going so far as to explain that you shouldn't think I was rude if I broke off because I was only having dinner and was pleased at our conversation and respected your views.

Conversely you've been aggressive throughout, not just to me, but pages back to someone who asked an innocent question about Hillsborough. What gives you that right?

I conclude that you don't read or respect opposing arguments or perhaps you don't understand them.

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Glad we cleared that up eventually.

Good night.

Mumcentreplus · 09/12/2011 23:37

because they are both crap...

NeuromanticisedVisionsofXmas · 10/12/2011 00:03

I think its been established that I know equally as much as you do though you seem quite intelligent for a DM reporter.

You're very self-righteous. Have you won a pulitzer or something? Perhaps for an article on ad hominem attacks?

Off you flounce. Don't let the door, etc etc.

claig · 10/12/2011 00:07

limited is not a DM reporter, she said that she writes for something else earlier up the thread, but obviously didn't spell it out for privacy etc.

NeuromanticisedVisionsofXmas · 10/12/2011 00:08

she says a lot of things, not all of which make sense, but how or never.

ChattyKa · 10/12/2011 01:55

Sorry just got in from night out and would still like neuro etc to explain that metaphor she never got round to doing and would genuinely appreciate if she could elucidate

demetersdaughter · 10/12/2011 02:02

Page 3 is a big no no for me and I think it's time we moved on as a culture.

The daily mail is just guilty of highlighting the bad stuff or the extreme things that happen....but it's a good read none the less.

ChattyKa · 10/12/2011 02:10

Yes demetersdaughter - what she said

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep · 10/12/2011 12:09

Chattyka, neuro said it was such a leap (of logic) you should watch you don't hurt yourself. Like the expression, 'you're so sharp you might cut yourself'?

D'you see?

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep · 10/12/2011 12:26

"There really was a fraudulent benefits claimant. Why shouldn't the mail cover the story?"

I don't object to them covering stories that have actually happened (!), it's a matter of the huge emphasis and detail they've gone into, and that they continually select this type of story to highlight.

How many Crown Court cases were there that day, I wonder? And the Mail picks that one in particular. Every time.

It would be a lovely gesture if, in the interests of balance, they could mention occasionally that less than 1% of benefit claims are fraudulent. Shame they never have room to fit that in. Hmm

ChattyKa · 10/12/2011 13:36

Thanks I guess I must assume your explanation is right, although Neuro hasn't explained it to me herself. I did get what she meant, I just wanted her to explain in what sense it was a 'metaphor'.

I think it was she who made the leap of logic in response to my comment, I said that there seems to be an attitude that Mail readers are 'vile' which she turned into a supposition that I must therefore believe Guardian readers to be 'vile' - not at all what I think. I have gone to pains to say that surely if millions of people read the Mail and Guardian (although of course many more read the Mail) it surely can't be accurate to characterise them all the same way - we must all know people who read these papers and not all Mail readers are morons and racists etc. Also re the depiction of Sarkozy snubbing Cameron which she cites - if she can see that this is set up to look bad in the photos why does she feel that Mail readers aren't equally discerning? I feel that the attitude towards Mail readers is patronising and dismissive, as though they are all too unintelligent to see for themselves and need those more worthy to point out the faults in that paper.

ChattyKa · 10/12/2011 14:05

Just to say finally that I don't want to get sidetracked into an argument on specific comments made towards me. I guess I feel a bit upset because I like mumsnet and find the talks v interesting sometimes, but the original poster asked why the Sun and Mail were hated on mumsnet and it does seem from the outpouring of contempt and anger about them on this thread that this is the case. Is mumsnet just meant for people who think like this then? The judgments made on people who might read and espouse some of the views of the Sun and Mail has been quite disturbing to me, I don't want to think mumsnet is just another branch of Guardian thinking women, I think all opinions should be expressed without being told they are shite or whatever. As I have tried to say, millions of women read the Mail - is this not the place for them then? And since when?

Anyway, have to go out now so bye

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep · 10/12/2011 18:39

"I think all opinions should be expressed without being told they are shite or whatever"

But look at what we've been saying, for example, about the constant pushing of the 'Disabled People Are Scroungers' message.

There are a lot of MNers with disabilities, or caring for disabled children. Do you really think it's fair to 'express the opinion' that disabled people are faking scroungers on here? Or do you think quite a lot of people might be hurt by that?

And what I struggle with, is if you don't believe that, how can you stand to read a paper that's continually saying it?

It's not even like it's harmless entertainment. There are huge amounts of hate crimes against disabled people. Look at adele's comment under the article linked to by claig. You'll find it under 'worst rated', it had 93 red arrows last time I looked. She pleads for the mail to lay off, because her and her husband are disabled and get abused repeatedly for 'faking'. Do you not think this sort of article plays a part in that?

And that's before we start on how they portray immigrants - again, resulting in actual, real violence and hurt in the actual, real world. Buy the Mail if you wish, if you share its opinions; but just be aware what sort of world you are helping create.

ChattyKa · 10/12/2011 18:55

To revert to my previous point, I believe I and many others are able to read the Guardian and Mail without necessarily signing up blindly to their views. As I have said, I read both online and enjoy some aspects of both. But with regard to your comment, there is no doubt that people who fiddle their benefits do anger many, and many people are struggling to survive in a low paid job who see this as a very real grievance. So should the Mail not report it? By not talking about it will it become a non issue?

Also do you believe everything and subscribe to every viewpoint in your chosen newspaper? Are you capable of forming your own opinion? If you are, why are others not? Do you know better than them all the time?

My real question is that is there therefore no place on mumsnet for Mail readers then? Are they so far beyond help that they should just go elsewhere?

alemci · 10/12/2011 20:33

Chatty Ka you make some valid points. Just because one claimant is doing this doesn't mean there aren't many genuine claimants. Do they want to share their deserved payments with people such as the woman in the article and should she not be exposed for what she appears to be.

The public need to be made aware of how taxes are being spent and not feel they have to turn a blind eye to it and excuse it.