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!

Okay will go and look.. the home opage is about the human cannon ball which is hardly important interesting news so it immediately gives an impression it is for people who have a fairly low IQ. (I get the Times and FT delivered each day and also the Telegraph at the weekends).

It';s taking me quite a way down that first page to find real news rather than trivia but there has always been a market for that kindo f thing from the Victorian age and earlier. If people buy it they will keep putting it out.

It has become a sort of kneejerk reaction by MNers, desperate to be seen as 'doing and saying the right thing' to respond to the Daily Mail with visceral hatred.

That alone has encouraged me to take a closer look at it and to realise that it makes a refreshing change from the crap peddled by the Guardian. That union official one is a cracker.

That appalling woman is representative of stupid selfish lazy greedy Britain, full of people who think everyone owes them. God she makes me shudder with disgust.

'it is for people who have a fairly low IQ'

Have you read the comments section? That disproves the low IQ. A sharper, more switched-on reader would be hard to find anywhere. But yes, Mail readers not only have one of the highest average IQs among newspaper readers in the UK, but they also have a very high EQ and are interested in human interest stories such as the human cannonball, crime, and celebrities. Some people have said all life is in the Daily Mail, and others have said if you are bored of the Daily Mail, you are bored of life. I wouldn't disagree.

more switched-on readership

Thank you to everyone who has posted.

I have an affection for the Daily Mail because of its two fingers journalism on issues important to me. Plus it has a great columnist I used to enjoy as an erstwhile Guardian reader, Melanie Phillips.

The venom here on mn was puzzling but I now understand it better. I think it's partly because people haven't realised it does do some absolutely stonking journalism.

I don't really care that much about the slant because slant is everywhere, one way or the other, omission, smudging, blurriness, left and right, newspapers and the BBC are branded with it. It's swings and roundabouts.

What has struck home is the very strong sense of mysogyny people have. (spelt wrong, I always do that, like with rythm) Anyway, I haven't read (literally, have seen strapline and haven't read) the lifestyle articles which generate this view so I will take the word of posters here that it's worse than old fashioned and actively regressive.

I was surprised by the description of the hypothetical generic reader. I always thought of it as female.

Now I think of it as mn - but with a different slant. The slant on homelife, childcare, return to work etc is different (slash extreme) but these are the things we are interested in: what we feed our children, affairs, working mums, politics at a certain level, picnicware, disposable income, house prices, public spending. I still would see its demographic as largely female.

Thank you again.

'I think it's partly because people haven't realised it does do some absolutely stonking journalism'

Oh how that made me laugh. You are clearly doing pr for the DM, brave but ultimately a complete waste of time until they stop hating anyone who is in any way 'other'.

And yes I, for one, spend all my waking life thinking about 'picnicware'

Do we have a name for a PR troll if we have had politrolls before? Is it a proll?

Another of the DM 'other' groups are (bailed out) bankers and wealthy tax avoiders. This put them on the same side as both UKUncut and the Guardian, earlier in the year .

No, I'm not doing PR for the DM. Please don't accuse me of lying. They have done some very good journalism, a few examples have been noted on the thread. It will inevitably be hard to concede if you don't like the paper.

I don't think people think about picnicware all the time, that was just a throwaway. Many people who post on mn do have an dilletante interest in the fripperies of life, it doesn't mean they take it seriously.

Tis true strawb.

starb erk

"complaining about a lack of moral standards one minute then illustrating a story with a picture with a celeb in a bikini."

yes this is bizarre

all the tabloids do it - but yes I agree

Do you just not notice the insiduous nature of the language though gooseberry? That cancels out the few stories a year they might break that are worthwhile.

And dont tell me that we are interested in 'politics at a certain level' either - what level is that? women's level?

I think you're stirring - I'd stand behind that - you're either stirring or you're involved in some way.

Well, your accusation of mendacity really deserves for your whole post to be ignored but I'll take pity on your lack of imagination.

No, it really doesn't cancel it out. Maybe I'm immune to the slant - I read all the papers and I'm so used to reading "through" the slants of all of them, and going to another paper for their take on a story, that I just assume it's part of the deal. I also think there's truth in a slant: in the Guardian, the "slant" does not just work on the reader: it's mutual, a relationship: so I don't feel the readers are victims somehow of the slant. Same with the Telegraph, the Mail, the Indie, even the BBC. I don't think it's a mysterious thing.

It's a big miss that I have not read the articles that have been mentioned that are unpleasantly mysoginistic.

Politics at a certain level: I mean you would certainly not be a Daily Mail reader if you were interested in politics beyond a certain level. You would just read something else.

I think they exploit the the creeping and irrational phobias of their ignorant readers.

Misogyny isnt a 'slant' like a political bias or an agenda - its completely different.

You dont find The Guardian taking against anyone just because they wohm or are travellers or single parents or in fact retired brigadeers or Hertfordshire sahms.

That's the difference.

if you havent noticed it then you are so used to it that it doesnt even register - scary.

Have we had a falling out before - am getting a certain sense of deja vu.

Is the OP for real? Anything to declare OP? Like perhaps you work for the DM??

I wasn't talking about mysogyny as a slant. Not at all. I said I haven't read those articles and I accept the words of the posters on this thread who have.

I didn't say I don't notice - I said I'm immune. They all do it. Quite often you can read a story in one paper and look immediately for the oppositive view and tbh it's only by marrying them together that you get half way there. Neither one will do the full job. You probably notice the slant in the paper you read? And do the same thing? It's so easy with them all being online.

I read the Mail and Telegraph reports today on the sad case of the teenage girl who dies at a party. Both were speculative and used the reported death as a vehicle of commenting about drugs (even though the quoted source said different things in both papers).
The Guardian report, however, said that cause of death had not been confirmed and quoted 'Tony Ryan, headteacher of Chiswick Community School, where the teenager attended, described her as an extremely popular girl. "Her tragically early death is devastating news to everyone associated with the school and all our thoughts are with her family at this time," he said.'
They also said that the family called for privacy at this sad time.

The reporting was totally different. A child had died and two papers, at least were using her death to make a point about the youth of today (booze, drugs... oh and social networking sites had a look-in too). I thought it was appalling.

Hi Lady - anything to declare? Like reading the thread?

If you really think this is some media survey, or PR research, report it. They know I'm just a ropy old hasbeen who spends too much time here.

Indeed, eggsit, it was reported on the BBC that they not yet know the cause of death - nor will they for several days yet. But the Daily Mail and Telegraph seem to know more than the pathologists.