...preparing for a flaming......aibu to not understand why everyone hates The Daily Mail?

[mameulah]

That's it.

I don't get what the problem is?

[softlysoftly]

Ok I may have gone a leeetle overboard. But there are many many times on here The readers not the paper are attacked.

It's not right.

[squoosh]

Yup, the side bar of shame sums it up. A list of 50 or 60 celeb stories, 99% of them discussing a female celebrity's body, too fat, too thin, too much cellulite, no makeup, too much makeup, divorced, flaunting her curves. And they're not beyond salacious articles about under ages girls in bikinis.

Plus they're racist and I hate ALL their columnists. A lot.

I try hard not to read it but sometimes I crumble.

[Didactylos]

Currently - Melanie Phillips, Liz Jones, Samantha Brick and the sidebar of shame plus
the daily mail oncological ontology project

Historically - facism, hitler and the blackshirts, Lord Rothmere and the publication of the Zinoviev letters

Its a source of continued outrage that just keeps on giving

[Didactylos]

I havent said a word about the mouth breathing knuckledraggers that read it either.....

[TooOldForGlitter]

It is a bile inducing hate filled woman hating almost EDL like rag of the worst order. I can't formulate highly intelligent educated sentences like most here but by god I LOATHE the DM.

[TooOldForGlitter]

oh, and the "sidebar of shame". It is always, always women.

[FutureNannyOgg]

This might help

[x2boys]

I actually read the daily mail but they are very right winged and i believe they think their readership consists of upper middle class people who believe having to resort to austerity measures means yikes taking there children out of private school and sending them to some shock horror comprehensive probably some nice leafy comprehensive with educated working parents,and down grading there house from some large 4/5 bedroom detached house to a nice semi on a good estate but then again I think the BBC is very biased towards the labour party horse for courses

[fanjoforthemammaries7850]

TooOLd, loathing the DM is a very intelligent position to hold

[PasswordProtected]

It is a tabloid. It is sensationalist, or so it thinks. The writing is poor, from a language point of view. It appears to cater for the American market.

[ExcuseTypos]

TooOldForGlitter
It is a bile inducing hate filled woman hating almost EDL like rag of the worst order. I can't formulate highly intelligent educated sentences like most here but by god I LOATHE the DM.


You've hit the nail right on the head there TooOld.

[squoosh]

The print version of the Daily Mail and the DM website are very different things (although both equally awful). The print version is still very much about Mighty England whereas the website is completely geared to a more American market, I've never heard of half the 'celebs' they mention.

[ExitPursuedByABear]

I read the Mail 30 odd years ago, during the Falklands War as my landlord took the Telegraph at home. The Mail would make me cry over my lunch, but I would get home and read the same story in the telegraph without crying.

I realised I was being manipulated.

Clever me.

[mameulah]

Well, I don't know enough to either agree or disagree with the vast majority of your feedback.

All I can add, that hasn't already been mentioned...I really like their WEEKEND supplement thingy. In particular their 'soap saga' bit and the recipes at the back.

And, for the record, I am DEFINITELY NOT from 'middle money' England.

[Dominodonkey]

The DM (in some ways) is no worse than many other papers. It does distort stories but so do others. The Mirror distorts to the left. And the Express is a sensationalist joke but neither gets the flack that the Mail does.

I think it is because The Mail has delusions of grandeur, it thinks it's for the intelligent middle classes but is actually read by aspirational working classes for the most part. It is also very factually inaccurate to the extent of making me seriously question the intelligence and knowledge of those who edit the website.

[Undertone]

Thy publish and stand by e.g. Samantha Brick's column today which belittled rape threats. Apparently women just need to man up and get back in the kitchen.

They publish articles like this to cause outrage and drive click rates which boost their advertising revenue.

Thus not only are they airing extreme views in mass media, therefore removing a layer of critical skepticism about whether the view is legitimate, but they are also trivialising the issue itself (as a driver of income and not something that is affecting real people).

Most defences ("oh i don't read the trashy bits, or the columnists with which you take issue") don't address that selecting to ignore the damaging parts doesn't make the damnedest bit of difference to the whole.

If you love someone who is gay, and you're a DM reader, and you can look your friend in the eye and say you're ok with what Jan Moir said about Stephen Gateley... no sorry that would never happen.

I read Daily Mail articles so I know what the enemy is. People who say "meeeeeeeegh you're a DM reader because YOU READ AN ARTICLE on the website"... do i even have to explain my line of reasoning?

[quesadilla]

The Daily Mail is bigoted, sexist and uses some very unethical tactics to get stories. It also appeals to a nasty, small minded type of person. I consider it on balance a force for bad.

And yet... There is something in the foaming at the mouth hysteria it generates in a certain sort of person which I think is almost as bad. There's a particular section of the smug liberal left for whom obsessing about the Mail is a type of blood sport and its faintly unhealthy. It is only a newspaper and there are others out there if you don't like it.

[Undertone]

Oh FFS this is just a trolling thread. It wasn't about our opinions at all it was a plant to promote their fucking magazine.

[Undertone]

OP doesn't care about what we actually think because it's a marketing ploy to bring attention to their WEEKEND supplement thingy. In particular their 'soap saga' bit and the recipes at the back

FUCK OFF. I do stuff like this for a living and at least i don't have the indecency to do it here.

And this is doubly offensive because you're effectively saying "yeah who cares about morals and stuff but AT LEAST YOU CAN READ ABOUT SOAPS AND TUCKING RECIPES because that's all we're good for isn't it, Daily Mail? Let's keep us in our place, eh?

[ExcuseTypos]

Well I hope they have got the message loud and clear that's it a crop of shite. Especially the weekend supplement. It's like the Express only even more boring.

[MacaYoniandCheese]

OFGS. The Daily Mail doesn't really count as a 'newspaper' does it? . It's absolutely farcical and you'd have to be brain dead to take anything in there seriously. It's silly entertainment and some of the commenters are hilarious. I enjoy it immensely but get my legitimate news elsewhere.

[Xiaoxiong]

Because I know people who write for both the DM and Mail Online (they're actually not the same, Paul Dacre is the DM editor, Martin Clarke is the Mail Online publisher, and most of the online content is never published in the print edition) who openly admit that they are pressured to take contrarian positions with no evidence, make things up, exaggerate, or find ways to sex things up. And if they don't they find that someone else has done it for them between filing a story and seeing it online or in print.

Mail Online in particular is basically a troll site masquerading as news.

[LovelyMarchHare]

Wasn't there also a story about them running a story about Stephen Lawrence (eg not such an innocent victim after all type of shit) shortly after his death and then Paul Dacre realising that Neville Lawrence had done some decorating round at his house and, wow, he was actually alright and so the murdered son might not actually be a criminal after all?

Ironically the only good thing the Daily Mail has ever done is push for justice for Stephen Lawrence but the way in which they got to the true story is typical of their knee jerk right wing reactions to everything.