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!

The Mail already sells millions of copies to loyal readers. It doesn't need to put shock headlines up to get new readers. It believes in what it does and stood practically alone against New Labour. Unlike the Sun, it didn't court power and invite Jack Straw, Campbell and all the rest to write articles for it. It is not just interested in money. It is interested in the people and the country, which is why it far outsells many of its competitors.

The Mail has an angle. It is a conservative newspaper. It is against PC loony councils, bin police and bureaucrats. It has hundreds of stories like this about the regulators. It stands shoulder to shoulder with the public who buy it in droves, for that veruy reason. Yes, its headline is provactive and misleading, but if you read the article closely, you will see that there is much more to the story and it is really about the non-Muslim neighbour and the council.

But, I agree, that many readers may not read between the lines about the neighbour and his case, and may get the wrong impression. I would prefer it if they made it clearer, who the real target is.

The Mail is implying that it is PC gorn mad. It doesn't say it outright. It knows that most of its readers will believe that, because that is what they think and say in every cab and pub up and down the land.

Tabloid Watch, which is most probably left wing, has chosen to intrepret it as teh council being in the right and following regulations, but most Mail readers will probably see it as bureaucrats following regulations and doing a "hard working" family down. That is the difference in perspective between Mail readers and the people who produce Tabloid Watch. It is probably a difference of perspective between many conservatives, who are anti Big State and the bin police, and left wingers and greens who want more bin and recycling regulation.

The Mail caters to its millions of readers and gives them stories that they discuss down the pub about 'PC gorn mad' and the loony councils. Their readers want to gripe as they pay their taxes and know that their FPTP vote counts for sweet FA anyway.

Exactly claig-panders to people's prejudices! It allows them to be blinkered from the truth as 'the DM said so'-whatever 'other' truth do you need?!

"I would prefer it if they made it clearer, who the real target is."

And there you have most people's objection to the DM in a nutshell. They have targets (immigrants, benefit claimants, single parents, muslims, administrators) and they deliberately fudge stories so that the targets are repeatedly attacked, whether they deserve it or not. The DM is therefore underhand in its objectives, preferring rumour, suspicion and exaggeration to clear, unambiguous journalism. When the Telegraph got the MPs expenses story they ran it extremely well, could defend their position 100% and the rest is history. The credibility of the Telegraph was enhanced as a result.

By contrast, the Mail's fondness for invention and spin means their credibility is extremely poor. Their next story about 'bin police' might be accurate but who's going to take it seriously? The fact that there are so many people in the UK who find the DM agenda chimes with their own opinions is depressing.

Gooseberry, have a read of this book and you will find example after example of the Daily Mail's racist and hateful agenda.

(The rest of the press doesn't come out of it glowingly either)

Do you really think that no other newspaper has known for years about the expenses situation. MPs have been claiming such expenses for years. The Telegraph eventually chose to tell the public. Why?

If the Mail writes an investigative story about the bin police, millions will take it seriously, but they know that their opinions don't count anyway, so they just grumble about it. But at least they know that there is one paper that tells it like it is and stands shoulder to shoulder with them. But, they are under no delusions, that a fat lot of good that will do them.

'The fact that there are so many people in the UK who find the DM agenda chimes with their own opinions is depressing.'

It is certainly depressing for Gordon Brown and the progressives, which is why they pour such vitriol on the paper that tells it like it is.

"The Telegraph eventually chose to tell the public. Why?" Because the Telegraph had inside access to chapter and verse on shocking details like duck islands and moat clearing which other newspapers had not had. If you're trying to tell me that the DM had this information 'for years' and suppressed it... that would be more proof that they aren't a very good newspaper.

And save me your sob story about the poor benighted Mail reader, knowing (because he read it in his favourite newspaper and they 'tell it like it is') that its only a matter of time before the 'bin police' (gay, anti-christian bin police no doubt) deprive him of his civil liberties... and being unable to do a thing about it bar grumble because no-one takes him seriously. Bollocks, old son. Boll-ocks.

A DM Classic

What a lovely eulogy.

I'm genuinely surprised that I have never noticed claig on MN before.

'If you're trying to tell me that the DM had this information 'for years' and suppressed it... that would be more proof that they aren't a very good newspaper.'

I think all the papers knew about it. I am not saying the Mail is great. I think it knows lots more about big pharma, swine flu etc. than it tells us. It only gives us a glimpse, but that is more than the others do.

So you don't think that people were losing their civil liberties? You seem out of touch with most Tory voters, old son. The Telegraph ran a huge campaign about saving civil liberties and the Mail also writes articles about it. One of the first things the Coalition did was to scrap hundreds of socialist regulations and restore many of our civil liberties. You should stop listening to the BBC, which the Director-General said used to have "a massive left wing bias" and start reading some good old Tory newspapers such as the Daily Mail.

'Bollocks, old son. Boll-ocks.'

By that are you referring to New Labour and the bin police or to that major conservative newspaper, the Daily Mail?

I vote conservative and I think the DM is a nasty little rag. And so do most of my Tory voting friends.

The DM appeals to a very specific demographic - I'm not saying people outside of this demographic don't like it, but the typical (male) reader they have in mind is white, aged about 48-62, probably now more likely to vote UKIP than conservative. His wife doesn't work and never has. He's very proud of this and he thinks feminists are basically evil. He's not comfortable with the number of brown faces he sees on his local streets (particularly not the ones who seem to have good jobs and nicer cars than him) and hasn't been for years, but has enough social intelligence to be vaguely ashamed of these feelings. The stories he reads in the DM reassure him that he is just a proper, proud red blood John Bull who loves his country. He always planned when he retired to up sticks and live in Alicante in an enclave with hundreds of similar thinking Brits (where they could ironically moan about bloody foreigners together without ever learning a word of Spanish themselves) but due to the current financial climate he can no longer afford to do so.

But the Daily Mail has a higher female readership. Where I live, lots of people read it. We aren't snob Tories, we don't look down on people who read tabloids. We know that there is often more truth in the Mail than in the broadsheets. What paper do you think the majority of Tory voters read? It's not the Telegraph and the Times. Get a train to London and you will see who reads the Daily Mail. It sells far more than the Guardian, the Independent, the Times and the Telegraph. After the Sun, I think it is the highest selling paper. Do you think there are that many UKIP voters? Do you think all the people reading the Mail on commuter trains are bigots? I bet some New Labour types do, but some of them also thought that Mrs. Duffy was, but then apologised profusely.

The editorial tone of the DM is bigoted, sexist and mildly racist. Gordon Brown's mistake with the "bigot" woman was in not sticking to his guns and saying to her "actually I think you are wrong about x because y".

I am not a snob and do not look down on people because of the size of the paper their newspaper is printed on.

Exactly Georgimama. You can be conservative and against excessive regulation, a big state and wheelie bins without putting a small minded and hateful slant on it.

And claig I quite specifically said I was describing what I imagine the DM to consider their core typical reader, rather than who actually reads the thing. I read it (online). Not because I love it but because I don't.

I'm not much of a Daily Mail reader - but they do occasionally break stories that the other papers appear to ignore.

I've heard that Andrew Marr only talked to them (in today's Mail) when the Mail threatened to publish his 'super injunction' details anyway.

Another story on Sunday was The Nurse who called Lansley a liar is Full Time Union Official. The Mail are the only paper to run with this story, despite it being on Twitter for days.

The Daily Mail is also the second largest online newspaper in the world (after the New York Times). The Guardian is the third, I believe.

I think most online readers are looking on between parted fingers in horror and disbelief that it's real and not a spoof, like me.

The Daily Mail is only the second largest in the world because of the celeb tat that people insist on linking to I'd like to see the stats for click throughs to actual news of time spent on the site generally.

actually I think the celeb tat stories give a real snap shot of their agenda - titillating pictures of Rhianna whilst pretending to be appalled by her (ditto cast of Skins in lingerie), OMG style article about a Kardashian sister who was still BFing her baby at the extreme age of nine months etc etc.

femail is even worse.

I fin the DM very confusing as well - am in a blended family so thats bad but I'm working so thats good yet I'm using a nursery so thats bad but at least I'm married now so thats good...argh

If you want the DM to approve of you (Christ knows why you would) as a woman you need to be:

Married
A mother (preferably at least two but no more than four children, ideally boys and girls)
not working until they are all school age (when your job will miraculously accommodate your wish to work 9.30 to 3, term time only)
Husband must be in employment
White
Live in SE England in house worth circa £300,000

I vote conservative and detest the daily mail, whereas my extremely biggoted fil votes labour and reads it religiously. Only he isnt intelligent enough to see through the stories and thats how they keep their readers. He is forever phoning DH to complain about immigrants (which is ironic as he emigrated to South Africa when DH was a kid), people being on the dole (again his DD has been on the dole for YEARS) and how Margaret Thatcher is to blame for everything. Seriously, he even blames her for being made redundant 10 years before she came into power.

Having said that I also get wholly irritated by the BBC as they are so biased and very obvious with it. I am not one of those people who thinks everyone should have the same opinion as me, I love a lively debate but I think if you are a news channel paid for by everyone you should just stick to the facts and stop being so negative.