All the disparaging references to Daily Mail

[Abitwobblynow]

Does it not occur to you right-on caring sort, that the Daily Mail is the largest-selling newspaper in this country?

In other words, DM could reflect the views of the silent majority.

And your caring sharing good intentions could be an imposition, not an ideal or a truth.

So who are you with your sneering?

Finally: what is so heinous about a view point that gives importance to the concept of personal responsibility, and the values of the country?

[SeveredEdMcDunnough]

An honest ethos imo is one without the elements of emotional manipulation that the mail employs.

And yes I'll throw the 'values' question straight back at you as you need to clarify what you meant by that term. I didn't use it, you did.

[Lueji]

I think you should be the one to answer what are the values of the country, as you have stated in your OP that you think the DM gives importance to them.

And how the DM shows that it does give importance to them.

[Abitwobblynow]

But at least it has a more honest ethos than the DM or even the Times. - who says?

What constitutes 'an honest ethos'?

Good question about: what are British values. What do you think they are?

[badtime]

The vast majority of people in this country do not buy the Daily Mail. Selling more that other papers is irrelevant - there are many papers.

Furthermore, the sort of people who agree with the Mail (not necessarily the people who read it - where would we all be without stories regarding American celebrities we've only heard of because of the Mail Online?) are not the sort to stay 'silent'.

And as many people have noted up thread, the majority is not always correct, a fact that has been well-known for thousands of years.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy

[tittytittyhanghang]

YANBU, i read the dm and happy to do so. Doesn't mean that i agree with all they write. I admit that i usually put up a dm link warning in my threads, but its not for me, im more than happy to admit reading the dm, its for all the whinging minnies who are guaranteed to complain if they click on a dm link without being forewarned :)

[Lueji]

The telegraph also has two killer cartoonists. :o

Very interesting article, BTW.
It's similar to what produced the MMR scare.
I really hate this type tripe of journalism.

[EdMcDunnough]

Anyway what are the values of the country?

Sorry but your OP is bollocks too.

I only buy the Guardian for the killer sudoku, I don't usually read much of the actual copy. But at least it has a more honest ethos than the DM or even the Times.

Does anyone know where you can get books of really hard sudokus that will take me a week to finish? Might save me a bit of money.

[birdsnotbees]

YANBU. As a work of fiction it is a marvellous thing indeed.

[EdMcDunnough]

And as an aside, OP - I've seen you posting for ages and always assumed you were a normal person.

This thread has made me think you're in fact really odd and a bit unpleasant.

Sorry about that.

[EdMcDunnough]

I've just seen this thread and not read any further than the first post.

'In other words, DM could reflect the views of the silent majority.

And your caring sharing good intentions could be an imposition, not an ideal or a truth.'

Those thingsaren't mutually exclusive. It is possible to be in a minority and still be RIGHT.

The mail is bollocks. I stand by that.

[mommybunny]

The comments in the article (GREAT LINK, ivykaty!) had a link to a site called MailWatch, but when I clicked it the site said it had moved to a different server but didn't direct me there. Does anyone know if there is a new MailWatch?

MrsY, you may be right about why the Times isn't often mentioned. The paywall is worth it to me though.

[MrsY]

That, ivy is a jeffing amazing article!

mommybunny, maybe The Times isn't referenced so much as you have to pay to access it online?

[ivykaty44]

there is something about writing what your readers really want to read even if it is completely untrue

[Lueji]

Personally, and not sure why or how, I got used to reading the online Telegraph (here for The Times), but I find it amusing to argue with bigoted idiots who comment on some articles.
Interestingly, most comments put down the columnists.
It can be as much fun as the DM, without the gossip. And if it is about gossip, half are about why the Telegraph is reporting gossip.

The Times readers probably don't populate parenting message boards, who knows?

[mommybunny]

sixlostmonkeys, Amen. The DM doesn't have a viewpoint, except to sh-t-stir. One day they're screaming in a front-page headline that this country is going to the dogs because schools are requiring kids to wear goggles to play conkers. The next month the front page is taken up with a huge picture of a tearful family whose 6 year-old "cheeky lad" lost an eye playing conkers (without goggles, of course).

The whole point of the DM is "you can't win, so don't even try, we're all doomed". I now dread being with DH's uncle, because every single topic of conversation out of his mouth comes from some stupid headline he read "in the paper" (when we all know he only reads one). I hate it when FIL (and my now-late MIL) rant about immigrants because of "figures" they get from "the paper" and when I ask them to stop because I am one myself they think they are reassuring me by saying "oh, but you're the right kind of immigrant" (meaning I am white, English-speaking and well-educated).

I get just as exasperated with the Guardian and the Telegraph, in their own ways. To my mind, the only newspaper with columnists that ever write any sense is the Times. But I haven't seen anyone mention that publication, so is that taboo?

[sixlostmonkeys]

In other words, DM could reflect the views of the silent majority.

[Lueji]

Indeed, Mertin and it can be addictive.

But I'd never come to its defence.

[mertin]

We don't like the Mail because it's crap.

I'd agree with that one but I do like to have a look now and again so that I can have a good laugh. I mean how can you not sneer about an article like "two people go to a party without wearing a bra". "KJ looks older than her years because she's wearing leather trousers". It's hilarious.

Most of the comments following the articles are usually of the "who cares" variety. There are rarely any saying "well researched article".

[Lueji]

And what are DM's values?

[Lueji]

I don't think a newspaper should have views.

And I particularly dislike newspapers that try to hammer those views down people's my throat.
In that respect, I despair of some most British newspapers.


And it hardly has any important news, it's mostly gossip!

Compare:
DM - Guardian

Again:
Guardian - DM

And so that I'm not biased:
Telegraph - DM

Again:
DM - Telegraph

Do you see the difference and why some people consider the DM trash?

[greeneyed]

Ooh by the way back2 I reckon a daily Daily Mail deconstruction thread could be fun.....

[greeneyed]

Aerial agree - My sneers are mainly because it is frankly just shit - Stories (or non stories) spun to be provocative. and hey look it's sparked a huge thread and this much opinion - I bet they'd love this at DM if they read it - it's obvious some articles/comments in there are written just to make your blood boil - a bit like reality TV - some people watch it because they just love to hate it - either way it's win win for them - people are still watching.

[SuePurblybilt]

Isn't it odd how some posts have a positively manic energy about them? I may do some research, cook up a slightly patronising, half-baked rant of my very own and see if it reads the same way.

Full moon. Just saying

[LadyClariceCannockMonty]

OP, I didn't say 'I don't see the sneering as much as the horror and despair at the views expressed by the Daily Mail.', BigStick did.

I was responding to your comment on it: 'A very good example of emotional rhetoric asserted as fact, a favoured tactic of the Anointed.'

My comment/question was 'I can't see anything being asserted as fact here. Can you explain what and where you believe the fact to be, OP?'

[ArielThePiraticalMermaid]

I think you're overthinking this a bit, wobbly

Personally I think the DM is crap and sneer at it because it's an appallingly written tabloid which generally * relies on scaremongering rather than reporting actual news to promote its agenda. I am not saying that the Guardian is better - I don't buy that either.

Just because someone hates the DM, it doesn't make them a lily-livered, champagne socialist liberal leftie Guardian reader, as many DM readers appear to believe.

And I think I speak for the majority of Mail-disparagers. We don't like the Mail because it's crap.

• the Lawrence case aside.