Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Daily Mail fail

385 replies

Gooseberrybushes · 26/04/2011 06:59

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!

OP posts:
angrymomma · 26/04/2011 22:11

Having read through the whole of this thread, I have one question. Why don't you just NOT read it?

I abhor The Sun. Have flicked through it in the past and realised that I hate their obsession with which celebrity is shagging another, using any opportunity to flash a bikini clad 'babe', actually expecting the reader to believe that the page 3 girl actually has views on the news of the day.

Those who 'hate' the DM seem to be the ones who spend all their time going through it with a fine tooth comb in order to note their grievances.
In fact ,some have admitted to reading the DM "but only online", as if that is any different to reading the actual paper.

If you don't agree with it, don't read it and let those who do want to read it do so.

Problem solved...simples.

smallwhitecat · 26/04/2011 22:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

ivykaty44 · 26/04/2011 22:21

I read this a couple of years ago Intresting read but it really spoiled news for me as it made me aware of what I was missing, which up until then I hadn't noticed. In particular it spoiled BBC television news and I revertted to radio news though BBC radio 4 was ok. I have since got rid of the the tv as my aireal broke and not had it repaired and part of that was the intrusion from the news.

This last month has been interesting as I have friends complaining bitterly about the "wedding" coverage on the television news, I don't see it and can ignore the stories in the online news I see.

I can't say whether I recommend the book or not, it was an eye opener and certainly made me aware of how dangerous the Times is rather than just the DM, though there was a whole chapter dedicated to the DM and how and why it works the way it does.

Original poster
Gooseberrybushes · 26/04/2011 22:31

I think identity's posts indicate that aggressive, vicious prejudice is often attached to the person rather than the paper they read.

OP posts:
eggsit · 26/04/2011 22:40

Love this quote about the book, ivykaty:

Metro
'this timely rallying call is essential reading - for those who write newspapers as well as those who read them'

Metro is a sister paper of the Daily Mail!

angrymomma · 26/04/2011 22:41

I just think it's wrong to pigeonhole someone just because of the paper they read.

omnimminentLizardInvasion · 26/04/2011 22:43

swc - they would be comment/named column pieces though and not the general tone of the paper.

angrymomma - if only it were that simple but cultural bleed means that its actually important to disagree with things that you dont like as misogyny and homophobia, even casually, have real life consequences - indeed violence against certain groups is on the increase.

angrymomma · 26/04/2011 22:47

Well I read DM and, as far as I'm aware, I don't hate anyone.

TBH, if I was forced to read The Sun everyday, I would very soon hate all men, and not just some.

Original poster
Gooseberrybushes · 26/04/2011 23:51

lizard -- you are demonstrating that a reader of a paper can't necessarily identify its slant in news coverage as well as comment

OP posts:
Original poster
Gooseberrybushes · 27/04/2011 07:50

Quick check-in to say: thanks to those on both sides who posted. Very interesting, and I found some of the bitterness especially revealing, for example one of Freudian's posts and there were others. I appreciate that people have tried to articulate their dislike rather than just go "ugh".

swc, am not generally a fawner but tis not the first thread where I have found yr brevity but cogency v v readable

OP posts:
slhilly · 27/04/2011 07:51

Gooseberrybushes - lizard would only be demonstrating this if you or swc had some actual evidence showing the bias swc claims exists in the guardian. It needn't be a high bar, just a link to a couple of news articles that "are very insulting about, for example, people like me [swc]; comfortably off (or would be, if not for my necessary outgoings), prviately educating (in a manner of speaking anyway), right-wing, not keen (or able, frankly) to pay much more by way of tax."

I can't recall ever seeing such articles.

You also have repeatedly said that you think that people are failing to acknowledge that the Mail produces some good journalism, and have cited the story on heads' pay as an example. I think that this is an example of the worst type of journalism:

  • it's not news. Heads have not suddenly had massive pay hikes. The fact that there's been a large increase in the number of heads being paid more than 100k is psychologically important but simply reflects the fact that they used to be paid only just less than 100k and have had payrises. It's a story that could have been written about any senior leaders in the public sector at any time (albeit by picking a different number to get outraged about)
  • it's designed to stoke a furore by focusing on a pointless number. It doesn't show how heads are systematically overpaid (eg showing how head pay has outrun inflation / pay of heads in other countries / pay of peer professions / improvements in pupil attainment [although obviously the Mail will never acknowledge that any systematic improvement in pupil attainment is real, because all such improvements must inevitably be caused by a relaxing of standards]). It relies on people thinking that 100k is automatically "too much". It ignores the obvious question, "what is the appropriate pay for the teachers who run schools, then?"
By doing this, it makes is much tougher for schools to pay their heads 100k+ and attract the best leaders. That matters because research shows that a strong leader is one of the most significant factors driving pupil attainment. And before anyone asks, yes of course pay matters to heads, just as it does to everyone else. What I find personally invidious about this story is knowing that Paul Dacre sanctioned publishing it. Dacre is the best paid editor on Fleet Street, and has earned £1m+ for the last five years. So he has no objection to people earning lots of money, so long as it's him. He just objects to anyone being funded by the taxpayer being paid well to do a good job. Well, if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. And I'd prefer not to have monkeys running the nation's schools, myself.
LostMyIdentityAlongTheWay · 27/04/2011 08:26

Gooseberry, just a tad patronising. If people's opinions are sought, they will be given. They may be revealing or not, but it's not for you to thank graciously with one hand, whilst kicking in the teeth with the other. However, glad to have been of use, however you may have taken the postings.

You can go and pop that spoon of self-righteousness back in your mouth now, my dear...

LostMyIdentityAlongTheWay · 27/04/2011 08:29

and incidentally, learn to distinguish between 'vicious prejudice' and just a 'tad' of irony in a post. Still, if you will judge people by what they read / opinions that they have, rather than try to get to know them without flaming straight back, what can one expect.

Hmmm. Now. Was I being a little self-consciously ironic and self-deprecating then, or not? Jeez. I just don't know. Maybe I'll go find something more interesting to do instead. I am usually a Babycenter frequenter. I am genuinely surprised at the level of viciousness that people seem to post on here. And how right wing MN is. Still. Each to their own, eh?...

(and slhilly - excellent point raised in your last para....)

slhilly · 27/04/2011 08:36

Thanks, LMIATW!

omnimminentLizardInvasion · 27/04/2011 11:47

I dont know why I'm bothering but still..

Yes thank you gooseberry - I can identify bias in news coverage - it comes from the top down obviously and filters through the news outlet. What I was disagreeing about was the difference between bias and inflammatory reporting.

if you need examples of some quantitative research on this I can direct you to some articles in the BJR or MCS that will illuminate issues like this for you.

donnie · 27/04/2011 14:40

www.thepoke/dailymailtubemap.

just in case anyone needs clarification re: the DM's concerns and interests.

claig · 27/04/2011 15:01

Daily Mail fail is an oxymoron. For that reason, I have asked MNHQ to pull the thread at the earliest opportunity.

claig · 27/04/2011 15:11

If anybody starts a "Guardian fail" thread, I shall not be making a similar request.

telsa · 27/04/2011 15:39

Well it is a fail. Has anyone seen how today they have illustrated an article about photographer Bruce Davidson with a picture of the 13-year younger actor of the same name. Does anyone there have research skills?

Nancy66 · 27/04/2011 15:51

Mail Online is a totally different entity to the newspaper - it's very showbiz driven and contains a massive amount of content that does not appear in the newspaper.

And, yes, Online is staffed by a very young, inexperienced team who make loads of cock ups

Original poster
Gooseberrybushes · 27/04/2011 19:09

Lizard: my comment is a response to this:

"swc - they would be comment/named column pieces though and not the general tone of the paper"

I'm sure you don't really imagine that the left-wing papers restrict their bias to the comment pages?

OP posts:
Original poster
Gooseberrybushes · 27/04/2011 19:10

Sl hilly: I have not cited the heads' story as an example of good journalism. I offered it up to be dissected, one of the day's stories.

OP posts:
Original poster
Gooseberrybushes · 27/04/2011 19:12

"Gooseberry, just a tad patronising."

You were tremendously unpleasant. I asked for views, and you gave tremendoulsly unpleasant views. They demonstrated that tremendously unpleasant views are attached to the person rather than the newspaper they read.

OP posts:
Original poster
Gooseberrybushes · 27/04/2011 19:14

Claig: they just rhymed, that's all. I should have put Daily Mail fail? Or Daily Mail?

Still don't you think the responses are interesting?

OP posts:
slhilly · 27/04/2011 19:22

whoops, my bad. you did, though, say that "They have done some very good journalism, a few examples have been noted on the thread."

what examples on this thread and more generally did you have in mind of their good journalism?