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

Claig - both of those articles advice staying out of the sun.

The alzheimers one says "We don't have any evidence of a link, but want to some research to try and find one. Isn't our research grant well justified?"

The second one says "Put suncream on properly"

What does this contribute to the readers understanding? In the case of the first, nothing, it's not clear why anyone outside research in the field would be interested, in the second, it's certainly good advice, but the spin is "Suncream doesn't work" rather than "Improperly applied suncream doesn't work"

Alzheimers story was covered in The Mirror, The Telegraph and the Daily Record amongst others (that's just the first page of Google). Rubbing in Suncream gives me BBC, Irish Examiner, Runners world amongst others.

And an article from the Mail 2 years after the sunscreen one.

Oops didn't finish the sentance article is reviewing suncreams for children saying british children have the highest rate of skin cancer in europe.

It's an idea

Notice how the DM article opens with the typically sensationalist "frightening possibility of Alzheimer's disease" and the
"millions of British holidaymakers use sunblock to protect their skin from the sun every year."

Compare it to the BBC version, which provides the same facts, but without the claptrap:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/foyle_and_west/8218124.stm

I know which version I would rely on!

So WHY does the Daily Mail publish these stories? I think it is because it is cheap and feeds a distrust of scientific and medical authorities that in turn feeds the appetite for these articles, while giving the Daily Mail a spurious authority and reputation for challenging orthodoxy. When they are just pushing the agendas they are fed by PR companies.

This is not exclusively an issue with the Mail - they just produce the largest volume of health articles in this way.

Most papers, media outlets and politicians have a vested interest in maintaining a level of anxiety so they can sell solutions to it. The same way politicians need high crime rates so they can tell you what they will do to reduce them. So whatever the rate IS and what it was it will always be presented as frighteningly high.

Agreed Ooojimaflip. It's not just the DM.
The sun cream articles are a good example of how journos put a spin on an otherwise fairly boring press release. But the DM's tone is so patronising ("wow, I never realised millions of Britons wore suncream. Now we are all going to get alzheimers") Clearly the DM editors think their readers are highly suggestible. So they exploit that.

This isn't STRICTLY relevant, but it does speak to the Daily Mail view of the world in general, in provide an example of what I consider to be good, fairly neutral analysis:-
Broken Britain

And I'm just posting it everywhere I can to be honest

yes you're right, I really must start reading the articles that I quote wink

I don't agree with the Mail about putting suncream on. As I say they are not right a lot of the time, but they are still useful in sowing a seed of doubt, which you can then follow up elsewhere on the net if you are interested in those issues.

The Ben Goldacre article is interesting. His whole article is really responding to 2 recent press campaigns. The first is over a scare about the safety of generic drugs. He unearths that the scare was instigated by big pharma, who want to make more profit. This could be the case and there may be nothing in the scare about the safety of generics and their associated quality control etc., or alternatively he may be trying to reassure us not to worry about safety issues, which would suit government who want to save money by introducing generics. Either way he has still unearthed some useful info, which builds up credibility.

But his second case is a bit unbelievable, and this is the main point of his article "Do Nothing" i.e. stay at home if you are ill, don't go and see the doctor, you'll be better off just doing nothing rather than bothering the doctor for medicine, because for minor issues it won't have any effect. He drives the point home with his final sentence
"Sometimes the most helpful consultations involve no pill at all."

I think the reason that he has written this article becomes clear when he states
"Meanwhile this week you might have noticed the ?stay at home? campaign, covered in the Times, Telegraph, Mail, and BBC, encouraging people not to go to their GP with mild self-limiting conditions. This campaign was organised by the Proprietary Association of Great Britain, which represents the manufacturers of over-the-counter medicines and food supplements in the United Kingdom."

there had been a massive campaign in the media, which also involved the BBC, telling people not to bother doctors with colds and coughs etc. Being the Guardian, the villain of the peace, has to be some sort of evil profit-making business outfit, in this case
the "Proprietary Association of Great Britain", something we have been fortunate enough never to hear about up to this point in time. I find it hard to believe that this outfit has managed to rope in the BBC, a government organisation which doesn't rely on advertising funding, to take part in a conspiracy to help the outfit's members sell more over-the-counter cough mixture. Anyway Goldacre is generally agreeing with the advice not to go to the doctor, so he is helping this outfit.

I think he is being disingenuous and is also part of the media campaign which is intended to take the pressure off doctors during the winter to stop them being overloaded. He is selling the same message as the Mail and the BBC (i.e. don't bother your doctor) but this time to the sophisticated Guardian readers, so he throws them a bone of the big bad wolf of business to get their teeth into.

Claig - what Ben Goldacre thinks and what his motivations might be are not really relevant to the point I'm making - which is that the campaign against generics was orchestrated by those with a vested interest to oppose it and that NONE OF THE JOURNALISTS WHO REPORTED ON IT PICKED THAT UP.

In the second case the coverage did mention who was funding it so I don't think it is such an issue, but does illustrate how vested interests can get their agenda in the media. Even with something as weak as 'Don't go to the doctor with a cold' which has been advice for the last 50 years at least.

ooojimaflip you make a good point, which I agree with, that the Mail does sensationalise many of these stories to build on the distrust that already exists and to place the Mail in the role of the people's champion. But, on the other hand, there are papers who do the exact opposite and try to convince the public that there is nothing to worry about.

Claig - I don't think any paper is painting a picture of Utopia. The Daily Mail is particularly prone to picking the worst spin possible though.

I think it's quite interesting actually, that there is a profit-making entity behind that campaign. In my ignorance I thought it was the NHS telling people to stay at home (just goes to show I should read the papers)

Anyway, I'm surprsied the Mail isn't up in arms about hard working tax payers being unable to see their GP because they and their ailments are apparently not worthy.

Sorry, I'm getting cynical...I think I'd better get back to work!

undercoverelephant - I thought the same from the coverage I heard on the radio - didn't realise until I looked up the articles linked from the blog.

undercoverelephant, you have to be even more cynical. Of course it is the NHS behind it, which is why all of the doctors and health care officials are behind it. But they can't make it obvious or the Mail's readers rather than the Mail, which frankly doesn't care, "will be up in arms about hard working tax payers being unable to see their GP because they and their ailments are apparently not worthy."

So a convenient fig leaf business lobby with the suitably Monty Pythonesque name of "Proprietary Association of Great Britain" is the instigator. That way everyone's a winner and Goldacre shares a glass of champagne with the Mail executives to celebrate a job well done.

Claig - the NHS has been saying quite explicitly "Don't go to the doctor for minor ailments" for DECADES.

Anyway, I'm going to eat some eggs

They've been telling us to go and have a chat with a nice friendly pharmacist instead. We'll be able to get cervical smears on the counter in Bots next. Mind you it'll probably be cleaner than most GP surgeries

of course it has and this time is no different. The "Proprietary Association of Great Britain" wasn't behind each annual occurrence over the last x decades.

Goldacre is pretending that the NHS is not behind it, in case some of the Guardian readers start blaming the NHS and switch their votes. Better that they get angry with the "Proprietary Association of Great Britain" and keep voting in their usual way.

enjoy your eggs, add some red meat, dollops of butter and a few glasses of red wine, and you won't go far wrong

Claig I think you ARE Ben Goldacre and this is all a ploy to raise your profile

I wish I had his earnings, I think he's made a few bob off the back of it. You're right I've probably helped raise his profile and inadvertently aided him in his task

Sorry, I was out; to answer your points from this morning, claig:

From the Independent article:
"Q Shouldn't a vaccine be the first priority?

A Previous vaccines against swine flu have turned out to be worse than the disease. An outbreak in the US in 1976 infected 200 people, of whom 12 were hospitalised and one died. But before it was over 40 million people had been vaccinated, 25 of whom died and 500 of whom developed Guillain-Barre syndrome, which can be fatal."
I know it's a long and complex article, but sometimes issues are complex and don't fit neatly into three columns and a snappy shock-horror headline...

The NS special was this I think (30/04/09), linking through to this article which unfortunately cuts off unless you pay for it.

What I really think is a shame, is that people are reading it and thinking they're being informed, but really just being panicked and manipulated. For example, my dear old mum reads it. She was terrified of swine flu, now she's terrified of the vaccine. She's terrified that if she goes outside the house will be burgled or she will be mugged, despite the fact she has never been a victim of crime in her life. She also genuinely believes that anyone from any country in the world can come to this country for free and be instantly provided with a house and benefits (this came out in a conversation about me trying to get a visa for travel to Africa ). I just find it a bit sad that her whole way of looking at the world and living her life has been affected by the Mail, because i know she's a nice person really!

Problem is, in these days of the Internet, newspapers are finding it harder and harder to make money and journalists are having to do more with less - hence the uncritical copying out of PR pieces (such as the egg 'study' above, from the poultry industry), and inflation of non-news items to fill a page. I recommend Flat Earth News by Nick Davies, if you want to find out what's really going on in the newspaper industry these days. It will really open your eyes! (now I sound like the conspiracy theorist )

The Daily Mail is a tabloid for the Middle Classes (or at least those who like to think they're middle class

Read it for a laugh by all means, but I hope that nobody here actually kids themselves that it is any kid of reputable source of news....