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

And in pursuing it's own goals as a business (which it has every right to do), it feed's this flip-flopping event driven media/political cycle we have fallen into that prevents any serious debate about most serious issues.

Glitterknickaz it's great that you read the Mail and argue over its points of view. It is others who seek to pigeon-hole you and tell you what you should be reading, they don't want you to think outside the box. It is good to be a free-thinker and not be hoodwinked by the spin doctors.

Probonbon - no, I'd like them to do "Studies have found this: But it's based on a vanishingly small sample so you can ignore it"

and "Studies have found this: Even though the PR Spin says the opposite"

and "Results in: No clear evidence either way"

Consistency in reporting relative risk in absolute and compartive terms, and following up when previous stories are debunked would be good too.

Claig - the GBS story wasn't a secret to anyone though - it's a matter of public record. The letter from the HPA was just telling the Neurologists to be alert. You could certainly make a case that all HPA communication should be published, but there is no reason to suppose this one was different to any other.

How about: studies have said this: but I had lunch today with one of my contacts in the DfH and I don't want to upset her and she says we should write that?

I think you'll find this is what passes for a lot of health journalism elsewhere, to be sure.

I think that it's owners interests are paramount, and that is the same for the Guardian. Circulation is secondary. Our interests are not theirs so we read them all and draw up our understanding of events and look out for our interests. I think there are many serious issues where the Mail tries to open up serious debate but the Guardian wants to close it down. Some of these issues are things like MMR, swine flu, bird flu, global warming etc.

Yes yabu.

Oh, and weird.

ooojimaflip I think when it comes to matters of health we should be given full information about all possible side effects etc. It may be in the pharmaceutical imdustry's interest not to tell us everything. Some of the experts wheeled out on to tea-time news may have conflicts of interest. Make all of the information open so people can make their own judgements. Some of the experts think we are too stupid to make our own decisions, they think they know what's best for us.

Those people lucky enough to be Mail readers were informed, the very clever chatterati were still in ignorant bliss. How these readers reacted to the story was a matter for them, it was their choice.

Claig - The full information about all possible side effects is, generally, out there. If you want to research a particular issue you can find the research out there. Yes, there are cases of unethical behavior and outright fraud in research. But these are not generally the focus of Daily Mail health stories. Those tend to be diet and environment stories that only serve to increase anxious peoples anxiety. The issue of a healthy life style is as close to settled as any health issue can be. Eat a varied diet, biased towards vegetables, don't smoke, drink alcohol in moderation, take exercise, stay out of the sun. You still might get cancer, or you might get run over by a bus.

90% of the coverage could be covered by that rather than pretending that there are massive changes in this field all the time.

Why is the Guardian considered to be at the center of some kind of conspiracy by the way? It's just another newspaper. Global Warming I think is considered uncontroversial by most other newspapers, MMR was treated hysterically by the whole media. I don't know what the Swine/Bird Flu coverage was.

you see I don't agree with keeping out of the sun. I don't go along with the orthodoxy on that. In hot countries people stay out of the midday sun, which only mad dogs and Englishmen venture out into. But the sun is life-giving and has all sorts of benefits. I don't like creams that protect against the sun. They are full of all sorts of chemicals, just read the back of a bottle. I want papers to bring up all angles so that I can think about the implications, look into things further, and then make my judgements.
I want papers that tell me new different information, not bash out the same tired old song. That way I may learn something new, I can decide whether I have missed out on the odd trick or two.

The Guardian, Ben Goldacre and that ilk don't want you to hear the other side of the story. The Mail is not great but it provides the odd shaft of light that illuminates the gloom. While none of the media were good on MMR, the Mail provided a more balanced view than the Guardian's good old Goldacre, at it again.

Calig - you can do what you like, but the advice hasn't changed in years - we know what we need to do to reduce our chances of illness.

None of the stories in the Mail have changed this.

I think at the time The Guardian covered the MMR story the same as everyone else. Ben Goldacre is not the Guardian.

Did the Mail point out that the original trial was to small to draw any conclusions from at the time then?

the advice was that eggs were no good. Recently they wheeled out doctors and told us butter is no good. They say that red meat is no good, oh and also red wine. Sorry I don't believe a word of it. Every decade or so they do a volte face, apologise and tell us they got it all wrong, we should have been doing the opposite all along. I don't care if some of the Mail's health articles turn out to be wrong, I'm trying to look for the ones that may be right and that are not available elsewhere.

the Mail followed the same line as everybody else together with the Guardian's resident expert Goldacre. But occasionally it varied on the theme and allowed a different viewpoint.

Claig - I'm sorry they just DON'T. Eat a varied diet, biased towards vegetables, don't smoke, drink alcohol in moderation, take exercise, stay out of the sun. You still might get cancer, or you might get run over by a bus. If eggs, butter, red wine or red meat are a significant risk factor to you personally then you are having to much of them.

Claig - my understanding of the MMR kerfuffle, is that after the initial press conference this became a big issue with all the papers reporting this as significant when it was actually a study with a sample size of only 12. Five years later Ben Goldacre started writing for the Guardian.

I apologise I was wrong about Goldacre, I must admit I don't pay too much attention to him or his advice.

Just an example to demonstrate the turn aroung in advice on eggs.
Bravo to the Guardian for informing us of the truth
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/10/eggs-diet-health-cholesterol

and an example of the good quality articles from the Mail on health, providing a service and informing ordinary members of the public about health, and including some scientific terms etc. which allows interested individuals to look into it further

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1153061/How-egg-day-blood-pressure-DOWN.html

Claig - there is no discussion in either article of what the relative risk was thought to be. As I say - if your worried about the effects of a particular food stuff on your health, you are probably not eating a varied enough diet.

Actually, the sun is beneficial for us in the right amounts - it allows us to make vitamin D, which helps protect our cells against DNA damage that can cause skin cancer, as well as other useful functions as a pro-hormone. Staying out in the sun until you burn is silly - staying out of the sun entirely/protecting yourself completely from the sun's rays is equally silly.

Probonbon/Claig - apologoes for linking to BG but this www.badscience.net/2010/03/doing-nothing/#more-1570 illustrates precisely my point about the need for journalists to know the bias of their sources instead of just regurgiating press releases.

The Daily Mail is a comic book masquerading as a newspaper for people who like to get themselves nicely angry / livid first thing in the morning.

Misrepresentation of the worst kind seems to be their stock in trade, and they do nothing to harness their popularity to further their supposed concerns with the state of the UK.

If they really did they wouldn't publish such divisive, polarising and misleading rubbish.

Claig - what is the purpose of that Daily Mail article about eggs? It says that an effect was observer in the lab and that no one knows if there would be a similar effect in humans. So there is nothing there to change your behaviour either way. I can see how this information is useful to someone deciding whether to fund future research, but noone else. It is a PR puff piece by the poultry industry.

ooojimaflip you are right there is not enough detail in both articles. There is a bit more in the Mail but I have just noted that they say the studies were part-funded by the poultry industry and that needs to be taken into consideration. But at least they are not covering that up. Not sure whether the Guardian would be prepared to divulge who the backers were in a story on global warming etc.

Agree with thumbwitch about the sun. The interesting question is are suncreams dangerous and are they effective? And for that there is no better source than the good old Mail, letting the public know what you won't find anywhere else

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1208720/Suncream-linked-Alzheimers-disease-say-experts.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-396203/Warning-suncreams-skin-cancer-protection.html