Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

In agreeing with The Guardian about the Daily Mail?

24 replies

playnicely · 30/03/2012 00:18

here

I will confess that I am one of those hypocrites that will not buy the Daily Mail but will absolutely be sucked in by the the Daily Mail online and waste many hours a half hour reading it!

I definitely think they have "sunk" to new lows since the demise of the NOTW and have taken up the baton of gratuitous salaciousness. I seem to remember a time when I could browse their online site without being assaulted with so much flesh and gore. I definitely delete my history after browsing now!

Am I alone in thinking that they are sinking to new lows and have employed a few too many redundant journos (?) from NOTW?

OP posts:
Jinsei · 30/03/2012 00:22

I haven't read anything in the DM for years, can they really sink any lower than they were before? Confused I did love their headline the other day though. Petrol, pasties and the politics of panic. Genius Grin

TheCraicDealer · 30/03/2012 01:05

I agree, seems to have got more lurid over the past year. Makes sense that maybe they've taken on staff from NOTW. I also think some of the recent articles have been very poorly written, with typos, inconsistencies and they just generally don't make sense. I don't care much for the DM's politics, but it's the best laid out (and most comprehensive) free newspaper website I know of. Used to be The Times, but then the bastards starting charging...[shakes fist] That's why you get so many Americans posting comments, it's pretty well thought of abroad (poor writing aside!)

I also like the celebrity gossip bit, even if it is a bit Pippa/Kate/TOWIE/Snooki Weekly.

SodoffBaldrick · 30/03/2012 01:14

I do not understand how you can complain about the Daily Mail and feel that they have suck to new lows, whilst continuing to read their outpourings, nd contribute to their click-count via the website... Confused Confused

Clearly they haven't actually sunk low enough for you not to patronise them...?

I have no idea how low they're going, because I think they're vile and have nothing to do with them.

What is with the threads on here at the moment, complaining aout the Daily Mail, by people who read the Daily Mail?

What exactly are you hoping to achieve, if you won't even stop reading them and supporting them yourself?

SodoffBaldrick · 30/03/2012 01:21

Sorry, I don't mean that to sound as arsey as it comes across, but I genuinely don't get it.

Yes, they're bad. And?

Not bad enough, obviously...

TheCraicDealer · 30/03/2012 01:27

You're right; I do still read it, for the reasons I posted above. I'm not complaining really, just commenting on how I feel the writing hasn't been fantastic recently. The only real options you have online now are The DM, The Tellie and The Guardian. I don't think there's as much content on the other two, but I will dip in occasionally.

I think of the DM as current affairs junk food. If I want hard hitting, insightful journalism I'll go to The Telegraph or Guardian. If I want a brief overview and then a nice story about the world's smallest puppy or a pair of twins who've celebrated their 100th birthday, I'll go to the Mail.

Original poster
playnicely · 30/03/2012 01:28

Oh SodoffBaldrick who are YOU to complain about the people who complain about the Daily Mail? What exactly are you hoping to achieve if you won't stop reading posts about people who are complaining about the Daily Mail.

I think I've admitted my own hypocrisy. Care to step off your high horse and admit your own?

Am not "hoping to achieve anything" just seeking some debate. Sod off if you like.

OP posts:
SodoffBaldrick · 30/03/2012 01:30

Which is fair enough - but as along as people are buying the paper and contributing to the click-count, then they're doing something 'right'. And they'll keep doing it.

It's just oddly futile to complain about how bad they've got, whilst at the same time supporting them.

SodoffBaldrick · 30/03/2012 01:31

So stop supporting them, playnicely. Problem solved.

wildswans · 30/03/2012 05:51

Yawn - not another of these threads!

SaraBellumHertz · 30/03/2012 06:11

sodoff makes a fair point.

Do people not realise that by reading their website they are as actively supportive of the paper as if they paid actual cash for paper.

Whatmeworry · 30/03/2012 07:32

I love the MN habit of complaining about the DM while avidly reading it :)

Longtalljosie · 30/03/2012 07:57

Well I get the DM at work along with all the other papers (except the Star which is deemed by my newsroom not to be worth the money!) I would point out that the DM and the DM online are becoming very different beasts. The DM online is very squarely aimed at the US market (which is why there are so many showbiz stories about the Kardashians etc) and runs as few UK stories as they can get away with.

AutumnSummers · 30/03/2012 07:59

After I was directed to an article by them about children with Autim being better off dead (A 2009 article) I have stopped reading. I won't even click links on here to it and will instead read other news articles with the same story. They are depraved.

AutumnSummers · 30/03/2012 08:03

And now I need a wash for having to go and hunt it out

OldGreyWiffleTest · 30/03/2012 09:29

That article told the bare truth about autistic children. What's the problem Autumn?

AutumnSummers · 30/03/2012 09:43

It wa a biased, sensationalist piece of shite with her friend's child as her support for her conclusions. Life with ANY child puts pressures on your personal life. At what pont of inconvenience do we draw the line? For ADHD? To say that an autistic's life would be better off unlived is not balanced reporting or anything close to "bare trut

I very much understand where the reporter is coming from and I'm very sure taht she has supporters. I amn just not cut from that cloth of thinking and find such virtiolic ranting offensive, embarrassing and uneducated.

And it's one example of many articles that show the paper to be disabilitist at best and dangerous at worst.

I really don't want to debate my feeling on that piece because it makes me all kinds of angry. It's just the straw that broke the Camel's back with regarding the paper again.

AutumnSummers · 30/03/2012 09:47

Sorry for the bad spelling. I was actually shaking when writing the above. That article makes me very upset.

verlainechasedrimbauds · 30/03/2012 09:51

41 (I think) wonderful DM stories in just a few minutes - and I don't think DM will benefit from this link Wink

AutumnSummers · 30/03/2012 09:57

verlaine What a FANTASTIC link! sharing on Fb. Too good not to!

LisasCat · 30/03/2012 10:02

Baldrick is right about the visitor count. The Mail is funded by advertising revenue, not hard copy sales. Advertisers are persuaded to spend by statistics about visitor counts and all the Google Analytics data. Every time you look at that site, and every second you linger on it, you are contributing to this data, which then persuades advertisers, which in turn generates revenue, which pays the salaries for these 'journalists' to write such shite.

Although, I have known several journalists who have written for the DM, and they do not share its politics, but when you've got bills to pay any job's a job. The only people who take responsibility for the drivel and the bias and the racism and homophobia and all the other crap to come out of the tabloids, but especially the DM, are the senior editorial staff, who drive the political leanings. The journalists are merely slanting their work as they are directed, and most of them probably feel as nauseous about it as the rest of us.

Original poster
playnicely · 30/03/2012 12:40

Ok I get the point and it's interesting to hear about the Daily Mail online being aimed at the US market. That explains the Kardashians then.

I think I've heard the DM online site being described as addictive as crack. I do feel sullied after reading it but am drawn to it because it helps me understand the "politics" of huge swathes of people in this country (including many members of my own family) and where they get their "facts" from. So much s**t is spouted on Facebook and a lot of it stems from stuff that's been read in the Daily Mail. Keep your enemies close and all that.

I have a hard time equating my clicking on the site and generating income for the DM - my brain fails to compute this but I know it to be true. I am coming closer to avoiding it mainly because I don't want my kids accidentally reading it. My son who is 8 looked over my shoulder the other day and said "why do all these people think they are so interesting?" (think I was reading about some celebs wedding or new haircut or something as equally riveting)

Apologies to AutumnSummers - I can feel your anger and frustration and am sorry for making you resurrect those feelings!

OP posts:
Sootie · 30/03/2012 12:45

I only ever go onto the Daily Mail website and end up reading the entertainment stories by clicking on a link from mumsnet! I don't even know the web address!!

AutumnSummers · 30/03/2012 14:29

Thank youplaynicely but it was my own stupid fault. I was telling myself off for even posting it. This is the first time I've seen a thread asking for general opinions on the Mail since I decided to stop reading it and that article flew right into my head. Cue instant rage-on. I posted it before I really thought about it.

I said to myself that I was a bit daft for posting a link to something that I don't want to talk about but it was a complete knee-jerk reaction to being asked about the paper.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page