Daily Mail fail

[Gooseberrybushes]

Have just done the usual check around the papers and wanted mners to respond to a query if you can.

Re Daily Mail: the most important story of the day is not the lead, unsurprisingly, nor anywhere near it. It seems an average day for the Mail. There is the usual celebrity bilge down the right column.

So I was wondering, in terms of news choices and news coverage, what kind of thing is being objected to and on what grounds.

For eg: there's a story about school heads being paid over 100,000 a year. If you really hate the Mail, can you explain why in terms of specific stories.

Thanks. I'm neutral, I read all the papers (well not cover to cover but I get across them all online to get a rounded view.

In case this counts: my chosen paper would be the Telegraph, favoured media the BBC and out of the Guardian and the Indie, I'd take the Indie.

I wonder if anyone will respond!

Apparently he does. He references all major British newspapers including the Times and the Guardian as well as international news media, according to one of the many reviews on amazon.

It sounds good.

Actually, re Guardian/Mail/vaccines.

The Guardian should be at the forefront of investigating this sort of corporate shenanigans. But it's taken the "calm down dear" approach. The Mail said, cor blimey what's going on here then.

This is the sort of massive corporate-government collusion affecting ordinary people that ought to be probed and poked and kept in the public eye, not ignored and put down.

Reading all the left wing intolerance being spewed out here it can't be too long before the Labour Party becomes the New BNP.

After all both the BNP (Nationalise Industry, Nationalise Railways, Workers Councils. Read the BNP manifesto if you don't believe me) and the Looney left aren't exactly poles apart.

You won't see too many "right wingers" (which the BNP aren't) supporting their aims.

Plus immigration the political right are in favour of mass immigration (cheap labour) whilst the left wing are anti because of the dilution of the workers wages.

Curbish, your post is so ridiculous as to have made me actually laugh out loud.
Yes Claig, Dalrymple has written for the Telegraph and Spectator.
It all makes for gripping reading, a a clearsighted swathe through the claptrap spouted by people who consider themselves to be 'thinkers' but who are, in reality, lemmings.

eh??? Curbishly - the political right are in favour of mass immigration?

Did you mean to type that? Are you serious? Genuine question, I must add....

"Plus immigration the political right are in favour of mass immigration (cheap labour) whilst the left wing are anti because of the dilution of the workers wages."

Did I miss the memo about it being "Let's all talk complete bollocks day" today?

I hate the mail (read it online) but it lures the reader in just to see how bad it is - like a car crash. Plus it's online format is easy to navigate and read and like to read the comments though they scare me if this is what much of the british public truly believe - either that or all the far right and BNP supporters flock there to try and make it seem that that is the mood of the public.

It's headlines are inflammatory and totally misleading always including 'exclamation" marks which people take as fact rather then hearsay - they know exactly what they are doing. They know that many readers skim and don't actually read the whole article but get the gist from the headline. I always end up totally frustrated and angry at it's stories - it is a god awful racist and sexist and every 'ist' little newspaper - but i still read it so don't think that every reader is a fan.

I would honestly be ashamed to write for this paper and many of the writers probably have totally opposing vies to what they write - but hey that's what the paper demands and what they get paid for.

So why do you read it if you hate it so much?
It's obviously doing something right.
Every bugger and their mum on MN seem intimately acquainted with it.

Would that the virtuous deathly dull left wing publications had such a circulation eh?

also, the amount of times I've read a story about anorexia and the pressure on young girls to slim and be thin and how we have to fight this. Then turn a page and there is a huge story on Princess Bea's horrendous wobbly bits and cellulite - let's everyone joke and laugh at the fatty. Horrible hypocritical paper. Though lately i've wondered if they are doing a sort of reverse phsycology (sp?) where they slate some poor woman's body and the outraged public get together in support of poor bint.

I read it as it's a kind of fascination - and I like to see what spin they put on stories. It's also interesting to see the public's reaction to whatever slant. i never believe or take anything at face value in the Mail though.

You are right in that they must be doing something right as so many read it whether they hate it or love it. The editorial team are very clever - fair play to them for that.

It's all about markets not news.

An editor's job is to sell newspapers

They have a target market

The DM's is Surrey woman, in garden with her dahlias. What she really cares about is rubbish collection, council tax, immigration and dropping standards at the BBC. She doesn't care what Syria does as long as they don't do it on her lawn.

Bingo, the DM does its job very well. It is an excellent product.

One of my favourite features was 'match the turkey gizzard neck to the celebrity face,'

loved that one

Who featured?
(As in people we know, not turkeys. Obv.)

It was a while ago but Madonna (obviously) Nigella, Fern Britton were among them.

Also enjoyed: 'What is your body's real age?'

"Oh dear, credit controller, Anne, 37, of Droitwich has an estimated body age of 73! Remember Anne, 'a second on the lips, a lifetime on the hips!'"

For me This article is Daily Mail Gold.

It has celebrity (Elle McPherson), family (on the school run), fashion (in high waist jeans) style (looking amazing at 46) and nostalga (dressed as a Charlie's Angles).

Ticks so many boxes.......

Charlie Angel obviously .

Have read the whole thread.

Of course every paper is biased. I read the Times, Guardian Telegraph and Independent.

Now I want to clarify claig, did you vote Labour in 1997???? If so PMSL.

"looking amazing at 46" is classic DM, isn't it

Also "after giving birth just 3 days ago, look who's back in her skinny jeans!"

And

"baby misery for 40 year old career girl ....- didn't she realise her biological clock was ticking?"

Yes to my eternal shame, I did vote labour in 1997. I was so sick of the Tory sleaze and arrogance that I fell for Blair. The whole country did the same. But I soon grew out of that.

Just checking!

But didn't you carry on voting for him? For that there is no excuse

I didn't vote in 1997. Too young! Next two elections, didn't vote in first, voted labour in second. Last one just gone I voted green.

I don't vote for the man, I vote for the policies. I could not stand Blair but when I did vote Labour, I looked past his (smug) face.

"looking amazing at 46" is classic DM"

True - but it's got me seriously considering dieting.