To ditch the Daily Mail

[Morag72]

Realised that reading all the crap in DM was just depressing me. Finally ditched it. Will use Sky news for factual updates. Feel so much better already. A few years ago I ditched East Enders - similarly depressing.

Keep reading it, it is one of the few newspapers that calls out woke behaviour and sticks up for women’s rights to women only spaces and sport. Unlike the Guardian (apart from its very good sports journalists) it doesn’t sideline or sack its journalists for daring to say that sex is binary and JKR isn’t transphobic. Unlike the Telegraph ,Independent and Times (Murdoch,spit) it doesn’t hide online content behind paywalls. You can scroll past Vine and Morgan if they raise your blood pressure.

@WorraLiberty. I know. How can that be? Of course it's entirely possible that some people read it with tongs for research purposes and feel soiled for days afterwards.

I particularly like the Daily Mail's Saturday edition. Not just for the best TV guide bar none but because of the features and news investigations in the main paper.

On Saturday I was chatting to someone (a taxi driver, as it happens) when I realised the time. "I've got to go. It's their Christmas TV guide. They'll sell out," I said.

He told me he sometimes reads it if someone leaves it in the back of his cab.

Sainsbury's had no copies despite always ordering about twice as many Daily Mails as any other paper. Luckily I managed to get one in Waitrose.

They also pushed the 'vaccines cause autism' Andrew Wakefield stuff. If they hadn't pushed it, Wakefield's actions would probably have led to much less harm.

[quote LadyWithLapdog]@WorraLiberty I see what you mean. I think it's that I don't see myself as a DM reader as I don't identify with anything that's in that paper. I'm really, really not their demographic. [/quote]
Said by every Daily Mail reading Mumsnetter ever

Honestly, just own it. I'm sure in some way it might be liberating (honestly not being snarky with this comment).

1) Most of the posts are by people who won't pay for a newspaper but complain about the quality.

I was just about to say the same! The DM that you pay for in either print or subscription form his higher quality than the free online version. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Times and the Telegraph are the most consistent in terms of the standard and quality of the journalism. They are both behind paywalls. I think they are the only two daily newspapers that are not available AT ALL in a free online form.

@limitedperiodonly

He told me he sometimes reads it if someone leaves it in the back of his cab.

He's a Mumsnetter!!

I usually check DM for information such as : value of house of victim/criminal, number of cars at said household, what the neighbours had to say spread over 5 paragraphs

That was the last time I looked at that and wondered why a murder victims family house value and bedrooms was important.

It's vile, and the comments aren't much better. Most articles are a complete waffle, and it seems they have a rule of minimum number of words per article (the repetition is mind boggling).

I now read the Telegraph, maybe 4 days a week. 10 years ago I read the Guardian and the Independent. I stopped reading the Times about 3 years ago (India Knight was the nail in the coffin). Never bought a copy of the Daily Mail but have looked at it online.

"My nan told me when I was kid: 'Today's headlines are tomorrow's chip wrappings'...and she was right."

Up to a point, Lord Copper, I mean @Fontella.

They are all corrupt though , Piers Morgan receives a lot of anger on Twitter over the phone hacking the mirror was involved in historically and the photos they released during the war in Iraq early 00s which turned out to be false and caused a lot of harm too. Rightly so, but it shows people have long memories.
Newspapers were much worse years ago , the news of the world were pretty much sued monthly by the celebs over sensational stories from dubious 'sources ' .
They all have agendas.

@WorraLiberty you're right and I didn't read it as you being snarky. It was a good exchange. I'm LwLD and I read the DM 🤮😂 Not for long, though.

I disagree about the Times or Telegraph being better as you pay for them. I get them on Saturday or Sunday with my £10 shop at Waitrose and IMO they aren't great, regardless of political stance.

@RoastedParsnips

YANBU. It's dreadful, half the articles contradict themselves! Should be shut down I'd rather read the sun and that says a lot.

Thaaaats the best part😆

Our stunning hero becomes the villain and the horrible villain becomes the heroic white Knight. Boxing all that in the one report takes skill✒🖋

The Times has some good columnists but its news reporting standards are shocking. The Telegraph used to be a good paper - solid reporting and you knew where its columnists’ bias was coming from - but it’s been run into the ground.

The Guardian is the only British paper whose news reporting I trust - a very different kettle of fish from their opinion writers, who seem mainly to be sixth-formers speaking their branes.

Guardian aside, you really need to read US newspapers like the NYT, Washington Post and WSJ for well-researched, unbiased news coverage.

@ddl1

I stopped reading it over 20 years ago, when they nagged my co-authors and myself to identify and give them access to a vulnerable person who had been included in carefully anonymized form as a case study in a scientific article. Which would have totally broken all the rules of professional ethics, as well as common decency. Needless to say, we all refused and they eventually gave up There wouldn't even have been any public benefit from their publishing it - just a 'human interest story'.

I've never nagged any one for a story, I don't have the time or inclination, most journalists don't.

The subjects of human interest stories have to be named and photographed. It's not just a convention of that type of story, it guards against fraud. Think about it. You can't allow people to say anything they like anonymously. Even if you do grant them anonymity you have to know their names and sometimes even if they exist at all. It's shocking but often people are not all they seem.
.
Many times someone like you or your colleagues want to keep details of their case studies confidential. I always say I understand but it will not be possible to use the story in that format. So does everyone else I know. We put down the phone and find someone else.

I don't doubt that the particular Daily Mail journalist nagged you. Nothing surprises me. But it's not usual behaviour. Like I said, most journalists are too busy to waste time twisting someone's arm. Especially when it's likely they'll pull out at the last minute when you've done loads of work on it.

Luckily press officers from respectable organisations including scientific ones understand this and are happy to provide identified case studies always with the full consent of the individual.

I'm looking at a selection of Christmas cards from them now so some of them must like me.

@ThePostWhatIWrote

As long as I'm trying to glean facts it's fine for that purpose imo.

There are no facts in that source!

You have to have a grudging respect for the Mail. They have probably the best website out of any of the papers, and they certainly know how to pitch articles to be as polarising as possible so that all the racist idiots who agree with their stance visit the website to generate ad revenue, and then all the sane people who disagree with it get sent to the website via forum links etc and... generate ad revenue.

Obviously nobody sane would treat it as a primary news source. It's basically a comic.

The DM is a right wing rag and am totally unsurprised to hear that it's gone along with the GC line, and equally unsurprised to hear people here saying 'well they get a lot of stuff wrong but at least they support women' as if the paper is completely right wing fash crap EXCEPT for them getting on board with that stance.

Don't worry, I don't expect any of you to care, and don't feel you have to come at me with your 'genuine questions'.

Actually the DM is a bit like reading MN, maybe that is why they pinch the MN threads

By the way, for everyone saying the DM is the world’s most-read news website, it’s not:

pressgazette.co.uk/top-50-largest-news-websites-in-the-world-right-wing-outlets-see-biggest-growth/

BBC - CNN - Al Jazeera for the best spread of news.

@RoastedParsnips

YANBU. It's dreadful, half the articles contradict themselves! Should be shut down I'd rather read the sun and that says a lot.

Who should it be shut down by?

@ddl1 a journalist from the Daily Mail contacted you about a potential story they noticed? That's what all good journalists do in between waiting for the phone to ring.

You and your colleagues decided not to go with it. Your reasons were valid. Most journalists wouldn't persist or "nag". It doesn't matter who we work for. As I've explained it's not worth our time or yours.

I'd guess the journalist had an unfortunate manner and was keen to get work. That's not unusual in any walk of life. It can usually be dealt with by saying: "Thanks but no thanks."

Maybe the story contained in your scientific paper was compelling. Was it? In my experience most stories never get over Quite Interesting but maybe you were sitting on something of Thalidomide or Watergate proportions. I wouldn't dream of asking you to transgress your professional code by giving me details though so please don't do that.

I am content with my employment but I'll bear your career advice in mind.

The DM website is free, well laid out and updated frequently. Also, the comments are often hilarious.

That’s why is so heavily used.