"The Daily Mail largely drives the broadcasting and political agenda in this country" - does it?

[croftscrumpty]

Surely this is just the Daily Mail's own propaganda?

I know bringing up kids has turned my brains to mush, but I can't believe this has become the case while my back was turned.

H-e-e-e-e-l-l-l-p...

I don't think that's true.

Unfortunately I think The Sun does. They have successfully backed the winning party in every election since 1979. Or you could say due to their backing, the successful party won.

Oh dear lord not the Daily Mail again.

Mn is obsessed with the blimmin DM.

Backing a winner is one thing. Driving the country's political agenda is quite another!

no it doesn't and nor does the sun. the bbc is hugely more influential and spread across tv radio online mobile. thank god.

No I don't think its true at all. Really I don't. I'm sure it doesn't. Surprised at that particular argument being put forward.

That's the point, I think that the Sun does drive the political agenda. Politicians are far more scared of the Sun's political editor than they are of the Guardian's, believe me.

The BBC is supposed to be apolitical, gatheringstones. Clearly it isn't, but it is supposed to be. Glad someone admits this.

The DM does a really great job of dividing and allowing others to conquer (if they choose).

I do wonder if the Mail has taken over from the Sun in terms of influence. Political parties do seem to clamber over each other to appease middle England.

I'm waking up now. The more I wake up, the more daft it seems. It always used to be that the Today programme set the news agenda because it was first thing in the morning, but then 24 hour news channels altered that. Hard to see how the DM could take the place of rolling news channels. I suppose we're talking about features and as you say the voice of middle England, the Little Englander, etc.

Jeez, I still feel depressed though.

er, i did no such thing. i said nothing about the bbc's editorial agenda - which is impartial. so i didn't 'admit' anything. i merely said it was bigger, spread over more outlets and therefore more influential. the reason i thank god is that it doesn't have a political agenda.

what's worse, lazy jounalists or lazy readers? they deserve each other really don't they?

croftscrumpty, don't be depressed, there are still some good publications out there. You just have to accept that a national daily isn't going to do it for you, and go niche.

I can't imagine anyone reading DM and taking it seriously.
I don;t know anyone who deos either (not that I only mix with Grauniad types). Who does read it? Southerners?

My mother, moondog

I suppose it depends on which circles you move, the size of those circles and the influence you have.

As a teacher for me and most of the people I know our source of information is Today and then to a slightly lesser degree left of centre papers such as the Guardian and increasingly the Independant. I am not sure of our political influence but the fact that we are educating children and putting government policy into practice. Although we cannot and should not try to pursuade children on political manners, the general left of centre ethos affects what we do, how the school is run etc.

If the Mail is that powerful it is rather embaressing.

my dad too - he also watches bbc parliament so i don't think he's too blinkered

the today prog is still influential when it comes to the news agenda as it is most likely to get a good news line out an interview with a minister.

i hate to introduce a note of complexity but i'd say no one outlet, person or party dictates the political agenda. it's a complex tussle between media, public, politicians all interacting with and on each other. with the internet become more influential (anyone see the piece in guardian yesterday about a road safety film made by welsh police which became a viral hit and is now news in its own right? interesting)

I know people who read it and take it seriously, I know one or two female teachers who read it and take it seriously which amuses me no end.

There are a few posters on here who seem to devour the daily mail and regurgitate it a ever chance.

I'm properly surprised that anyone who follows politics doesn't realise how hugely influential the Mail has been for the last ten years or so.

Digby Jones gives evidence to a Commons committee on the baleful influence of the Mail in Westminster

scroll down to the bottom for politicians' assessments of the Mail's power

Britain's most influential newspaper, according to the BMJ

Roy Greenslade on the Mail's influence on 'the establishment'

The BBC impartial.. I don't think so, they took a dislike to Mrs T and bacame the voice of the Labour party and have continued in that stance ever since.

The Guardian and the Mirror are Labour rags.

The DM and Express are now Conservative and UKIP supporters and the scum Sun flip plops about as it sees fit.

I remember the sun winning the last Conservative election for them with the headline ; ' will the last person in Britain turn off the lights' or some such thing and after that they flopped over to Blair, couldn't tell you what they are doing now as I wont read them.

But the question was does the DM drive the political agenda in this country? I think this paper says what a great majority of the country are thinking and therefore they tailor their stories to what the people want to read and are feeling, in a way they have become the voice of this masses digging out stories of government spending, corruption, bad practise etc, they are reader lead, give the people what they want and they will keep coming back, or in the words of a certain film "if you build it they will come".

That's why the political masses are so scared of the Mail, because they say what's on a lot of peoples minds.

But you say "the political masses are scared of the Mail" as if that's a fact. I would dispute that.

I think people despise the Mail, certainly, and are worried by the fact that it not only represents what some people think very accurately, but also stokes their fires unchecked (never explain, never apologise being their attitude to massaging facts). It's not the same as being scared of it.

PW, haven't read all your links but there's a huge, HUGE difference between saying the DM is very influential and saying it

"largely drives the broadcasting and political agenda in this country"

All national papers are influential, of course they are. But none are that important surely.

We might as well have Simon Cowell as PM, and Syco productions as the cabinet.

Paul Dacre and Gordon Brown are very good friends. Strange but true.

The Mail wields a huge amount of influence. The recent BBC/Joanathan Ross/Sachs episode is a fine example of this.