scottishmummy - "ok if MN and DM are so alien to each other,why did mnhq acquiesce to a dm column and offer a mn contributor"
MNHQ accepts there are many posters who want nothing to do with the DM. The thread, should you care to read it in Site Stuff, explained how the weekly column received a mixed reception, on the plus side, it would boost recognition for MN if there was a campaign and someone from MN was talking to politician, etc, but on the minus side, knowing the (vociferous) posters were very much against (even if some 20% of MN members are DM readers), would lead to some strife.
One possible solution was to offer to keep editorial control with MNHQ and get people nominated by MNHQ to write material for the column, thereby allowing control over content to be out of the DM's hands.
As the poll (which closed on Monday night) showed, more were against, but even before that, taking account of the negative comments about the DM, MNHQ indicated that collaboration would not be acceptable and would indicate that to the DM.
sm - "oh no i don't believe its odious/racist/offensive content but others do." and "this if the dm prints it,the masses believe it is fatality and simplistic flawed logic"
(I assume the second sentence should start 'Thus')
It's a newspaper, and traditionally, one expects them to 'tell the truth' though clearly they've been shown not to, at all times, sometimes through them reporting too soon, and other times, because there's some hidden agenda.
However, what cannot be denied is that there are aspects where DM, The Sun, and others, do influence people (esp just before elections) so it's true to suggest that "because it was in the paper, the masses believe it".
You can deny it if you wish, but I think you're likely to be on your own. I'm not saying everyone believes everything they read, but a great many do accept what's written and how often does one hear "it was in the paper" as a reason for belief of a so-called "fact".
With the web, one is more likely to see a number of different views, if one wants to check for different views, but some will accept, from their news source of choice, that which they "want to believe".
How do you think the right-wing shock jocks on US radio carry on? They are listened to by people who are already thinking on similar lines. When the US was hit on 9/11, the "we're going to go kick butt" attitude was popular with the media and the public, but while they are in the "Land of the Free" anyone who spoke out against "kicking butt" would be deemed "Anti American" (akin to being sympathetic to the terrorists' cause).
Media claims to 'reflect the people' some of the time, while the media also 'steers' the people, if it can. If someone is already sympathetic to a viewpoint, they might judge a view in the media as being "a little strong" (but be thinking in a similar direction) or agree with it completely.
If they continously disagree with whatever media they read/hear, they will likely change to find a "better fit" with their views.