AIBU in thinking that all readers (and writers) of the Daily Mail should be put to death?

[TiggyD]

Well?

Right-wing, over-reacting, paparazzi funding, health scare loving, minority hating sub-literature for busy bodies, racists and little Englanders who live in the past?

You can assume that the people in the BNP who can read both buy the Daily Mail.

Be nice; you just know that somebody at the Mail will read this

5DollarShake, I read all the papers on the net subject to time constraints. The Mail breaks important stories that the others won't touch, things that could affect your life in very important ways. Try it, take your blinkers off, you may learn something.

What a horrible thread title.

And I wouldn't wipe my arse with the daily mail.

I read it every evening and miss it if dh has not bought one home. I am very left wing but it is soo enjoyable with wine and an episode of House at 9! It is informative in parts as well as endlessly entertaining. Did anyone see new atkins diet featured yesterday? Looks pretty good now off to Amazon.

"Try it, take your blinkers off, you may learn something."

Like how much of a crime it is to be female and have cellulite, for example?

Thanks - but I prefer to get my news from an actual news source, rather than a less-than-glorified celebrity rag.

I didn't say it was all great. gonnabehappy you are exactly right. On health issues it is fantastic and very helpful. On health and the science behind health it is much better than the much vaunted Ben Goldacre.

"You don't have to read a paper to know exactly how insidious and bigoted it is....! "

er I think you do

I think we should just kill everybody.

aye me too

i hate people who say they hate people

YABU

My MIL reads it, and while she is a bit anti immigrant it didn't stop her marrying one.

They've been happily married for 50 years now, despite the fact that she occasionally refers to FIL as 'Idi Amin' and makes jokes about how hard it is to see him in a dark room.....

Agree that it's a shite paper, though I always snaffle it when we go to visit on a Sunday. I like the 'You' supplement, even though I know it's hugely inferior to 'Chat' and 'Take a Break', and has far too many articles in it about ex city lawyers setting up organic cup-cake businesses in the home counties....

claig, a full discussion of the pros and cons of swine flu vaccination wrt GBS and other stuff was covered in New Scientist in their swine flu special. In a much more detailed, less scaremongering and, er, evidence-based way. (I can't link because the articles are subscription-only). A quick search shows the independent also covered it, again in a less hysterical way . I'm sure the other papers did too.

I mean, I'm sorry to break it to you, but the 'health' stuff the DM prints is 90% bullshit. Convincingly-written bullshit, but bullshit none the less. And that's the reason you won't see it in other papers, not because of some vast conspiracy to mask the truth. Oh, and it's generally bullshit lifted straight from press releases from the company selling pomegranate juice, or the latest diet, or anti-wifi crystals, etc, etc....

there goes my (hapless) dad then

Claig - the Daily Mail good on health?

kill-or-cure.heroku.com/

The Daily Mail will print whatever health story it thinks will get the most readers. It does not do any analysis on the stories - it just regurgitates press releases in it's house style.

I dunno -- it exposed links between govt advisers and firms supplying MMR and the pharmaceutical shareholdings of committee members involved in MMR decisions. Not bad.

I met a Mail journalist at a stag do and wedding a few years back - he apologized for his job almost before he told you his name :-/

I have had a job which has meant I have to read all the main natioanl papers first thing every morning - scanning for stories. Not sure if anyone else has doen this - bt is fasicnating to see how the DM covers stories in comparison to other papers and what news they have.

At the time I did this job, the DM was employing far more journalists than any other paper and getting lots more stories - so that they didn't cover the same news as all of the others - and that was definitely evident from looking at the papers... The DM had lots of it's own stories - that no-one else had.

However - in the same job - I also worked with DM journalists and found some of their requests (WRT dress of the people they interview/ photograph - no denim allowed for example) upsetting - they are certainly catering for a very specific audience and have a very clear idea of who they want in their papaer and how they want them to come across...

I still read lots of papers - I don't choose to read the DM as I don't like it - but I think is v. harsh to say they should be put to death... for a journalist the DM is a good job...

I'm finding it hard to work this out... the racism angle vs their extremely voiciferous views anti Nick Griffin and BNP?

If you have half a brain you know it is possible to weed out the mysoginy, anti immigrant and anti benefits slants and pick the actual NEWS out.

I find it's friendlier to read than broadheets, you don't get arm ache.... has much more news in it than the comics - Sun, Mirror et al, I like the health features, financial analysis and they have an awful lot of campaigns on autism awareness which is something I'm quite passionate about.

Yes sometimes it has me rolling my eyes but I think I have enough intelligence to cut the crap out of the pages.

"You don't have to read a paper to know exactly how insidious and bigoted it is....! "

er I think you do "

So - what, I have to keep subjecting myself to it day-in-day out just to keep reassuring myself that it's still bigoted and insidious?

Day 1: Yes, still a load of bigoted old wank

Day 2: Yep, still a load of homophobic horse shite

Day 3: OK yes, still a pile of sexist, racist old tut

Day 73: same old, same old

Day 105: Kills self

I don't think so...

so you have read it?

what are you arguing about?

if you'd killed them there would have been one fewer person on the anti-Iraq war demo

I can't find any mention of Guillem Barre in the Independent article. Do you happen to know the date of the New Scientist Swine Flu Special? Interested to know if it was after the Mail's article. Also unfortunately the New Scientist is not read by the majority of mothers rushing their children to the clinic. Other papers reluctantly discussed it after the Mail broke it. I remember Andrew Marr hastily moving on when it broke on Sunday morning and the BBC hardly giving it any serious air time.

Sifting through the Mail may bring up some dirt, but there is some real gold there that you won't find elsewhere.

"If you have half a brain you know it is possible to weed out the mysoginy, anti immigrant and anti benefits slants and pick the actual NEWS out."

am being lazy today but luckily other people are articulating for me -- well put glitter

oojimaflip I wonder who sponsors a site that looks only at the Daily Mail's health articles, and no other paper's, and seeks to refute them. They seem to have gone to a lot of effort, why are they so bothered? Is it that the Mail might be on to something and the drug companies want to discredit them?

probonbon very good point about the Mail article on MMR. It seems that the Mail is not in their pockets. It's worth giving it a glance, it's potential value to your health and well-being far outweighs the small cost of the paper.

YABU and simplistic.

good point shineoncrazydiamond
"Funny how I never see a thread with the title ' How I wish all Guardian readers would just die ' from DM readers or words to that effect... and they're supposed to be the 'tolerant' ones???"

the reason is that the Guardian is an irrelevance. The Mail is not an irrelevance and that is why it is actively denigrated, with websites specifically created to ridicule it, by those who fear what it exposes.