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

TheHeathenofSuburbia, thanks for that info. I think the Mail article gives a lot more info than either the Independent or New Scientist, including talking to people who suffered the side effects. Also the Mail's comment section is great because you get views of real people without the intermediation of the editor. The New Scientist gives the usual story that there is nothing to worry about, everything that worries people is a myth. The Mail is braver in that it dares to show you that there are risks. You can then decide to look into it further if you want to.

The Nick Davies book is interesting, but I've just looked him up. He is yet another Guardian columnist
www.nickdavies.net/

I'm sure he makes a lot of interesting points but it is predictable that he will agree with the Stern report and will not deviate from the official line. I would guess that his message is similar to what you would hear on Channel 4 News or the BBC. He won't mention the other side of the story, so you won't be able to make a true judgement.

Your mum may have been influenced in a negative way by some of the stories, but there may be other stories where she is right and you yourself may be making the wrong judgement. It's important to read all sides.

I thought we'd agreed that the Mail does what is good for the Mail. So no bravery in printing controversy, just increased revenues.

ooojimaflip the Mail does what's good for its owner, in order to gain influence and serve the interests of its backers. It does no more than that.

So not brave then. Just self interested.

yes self-interested definitely, but as probonbon said way back in the thread, brave enough in some limited cases not to "bend the neck" and take on other interests. When that happens is when you see stories that do not appear in the Guardian, for example.

I don't understand what interests the Guardian is meant to be supporting, nor why the Guardian is singled out. I don't really understand "bend the neck" - is this a reference to deferring to some authority?

It suits the Mails end to be seen as challenging authority - it is a fantasy.

Claig, you're not suggesting that the New Scientist and the Mail are on an equal footing when it comes to reporting science news or analysis?

As probonbon said
"it exposed links between govt advisers and firms supplying MMR and the pharmaceutical shareholdings of committee members involved in MMR decisions. Not bad."

it put a few people's necks out of joint, it was brave and took a stand. We have all heard about how Mandelson and Campbell are straight on the phone complaining. The Mail is not great but it is braver than pussycats like the Guardian that roll over to have their tummies tickled.

The only reason I mention the Guardian is that a lot of self-satisfied people think they are being very intelligent by reading the Guardian and that it is a fount of truth. They look down on those poor ignorant deluded Mail readers with a sense of pity. I read the Guardian as well but I know where it's coming from. If you don't understand what interests the Guardian supports you will not be able to make an accurate judgement as to whether the stories that you read are at all biased.

undercoverelephant, the Mail is not a science journal like the New Scientist. I would recommend reading both the New Scientist and the Mail. The Mail will tell you things that the New Scientist chooses to leave out. If you read them both you will get a better picture.

What are the interests the Guardian supports then?

they support socialist policies such as big government, global warming, increased regulation etc.

Yes it has a political bias - I don't think Global Warming is a socialist policy though and increased regulation and big government are more or less the same thing.

But yes, it is broadly social democratic with all the things that go with that. But in encompasses a range of views inside that remit.

What does the Mail support? It seems to be mainly AGAINST stuff.

the Mail is pro business, pro freedom, pro the individual over the state, anti-regulation. It is very slightly sceptical about global warming. It warns the public about health risks that the rest know about but refuse to mention e.g. the mercury in the new green light bulbs and how these bulbs may affect epilepsy sufferers. It is prepared to tell you a bit more than the others.

The Guardian also has good aspects, but it follows a more restrictive line. The Mail also has left-wing contributors such as Suzanne Moore and Lauren Booth, who both do a very good job and put out alternative viewpoints. I find Lauren Booth brave, she is another one not prepared to "bend the neck".

Flat Earth News is about the influence of PR etc on the media, how stories get chosen or dropped, inflated or distorted, that sort of thing. Nothing to do with climate change...

no but I read a review about it on Amazon and one of his targets is Melanie Phillips of the Daily Mail on the subject of global warming, bringing up PR agencies etc. I bet he doesn't mention how the government funds many of the scientists who support their position, how they appoint people to draw up reports like the Stern report. I doubt he will do much of an expose on Climategate. I am sure that he will bring up good examples of the influence of PR on the media but I am guessing that these won't involve any of his sacred cows. However, it still sounds interesting and I will check it out.

Er... ... found the Phillips bit.
The page before that is pulling apart a Greenpeace press release, so that all seems reasonably equitable.

And I know hindsight is a wonderful thing and all, but New Scientist assessed the threat from swine flu fairly accurately. Neither the Mail's "OMG we're all going to die of swine flu!!!!!!" or "OMG the vaccine's going to kill us all!!!" articles were correct. So one up to the world of non-hysterical reporting?

read Lauren Booth on swine flu, very brave. The Guardian won't warn you. But you pays your money you makes your choice. I am just glad that your mum reads the Mail. One day you may find that she was proved to be right all along.

It is very inconsistent though - you say it is anti-regulation, but will be down like a ton of bricks on someone who disregards them. It's pro-individuals over the state but evicerates those whose personal choices it doesn't agree with. Most of the health stuff is nonsense, and a lot of the things you think only the Mail covers are actually widely reported - just less hysterically.

The Guardian is an OK newspaper.
The Mail is a bad newspaper.
The Economist is a good newspaper.

IWBNFA.

"One day you may find that she was proved to be right all along."

Well, it's been thirty+ years, and it's been consistently inaccurate all that time, so forgive me if I don't hold my breath

one simple answer to the original question...yes [but not death, maybe just a couple of matchsticks to open their eyes a bit wider ].

I don't know what IWBNFA means.

The Guardian and Economist are OK, they tell you what you will find everywhere else. The Mail is good because it tells you things you won't find elsewhere. It contains some rubbish but it is worth it for the gems that it does contain.

In the past the Mail has broken important political stories that even the Telegraph steered clear of. The Mail is prepared to be daring and that is why the Guardianistas and Islingtonistas don't like it and take every possible opportunity to denigrate it. When everyone is firing at that target, you know it's doing something right.

War reporters are brave. Investigative reporters are brave. Journalists writing under repressive regiemes are brave. Columnists living in the UK writing in UK newspapers are not brave. Controversy adds to their notoriety. They are keyboard warriors, just like us but with better contacts.

And better agents.

TheHeathenOfSuburbia
You've forgotten the fact that mum always knows best, and it is never more true than in this case.