The Mail - Peaking the Public

[BrokenFridgeDrawer]

I reallly feel The Mail should be given some credit for coverage of the issues discussed on this board.

Today, they have SEVEN stories on their homepage relating to Sex & Gender issues.

That is quite remarkable.

Since friday they have covered:

The LGB Alliance Conference
Kathleen Stock
The Tavistock
James Eses legal case
Rachael Mead legal case
Caroline Noakes support for gender neutral toilets in British Schools
Cambridge University no platforming
The woman refused treatment for requesting Female staff

Day in, day out, they are covering stories that the captured liberal media across the western world, from the BBC in the UK, to RTE in Ireland, won't touch, yet ordianary people are having their rights and liberties and liveliehoods affected.

On a daily basis they are covering important stories

www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?sel=site&searchPhrase=trans

It would b e worth a cursory glance every day to see how they are getting the story out there to people like us, who were once ignorant, and now understand. I think they are providing a useful service

Also the same newspaper that finally got some justice for Stephen Lawrence. I believe they printed photos of the killers on their front page saying 'these are the killers. If you disagree then SUE US'

The daily mail has a very poor reputation, not just for being very very biased and appealing to a certain type of reader but for not having any integrity. So I think the editorial position is 'fuck it. Say whatever. We have no reputation to lose anyway.'

So they can be utterly blatant and report the unpopular opinions.

Remember, the mail may have an extreme views on immigration and refugees many of us find abhorrent, but on the flip side, fear of being seen as racist or anti Muslim meant that the Rotherham sex abuse ring was allowed to go unchecked for so long.

Our more benevolent, altruistic views are strong enough, surely, to withstand a bit of biased reporting as long as we are stopping kids getting sterilised and vulnerable females in prison getting raped?

Fair enough Judith, I didn’t know until I knew! Now you can get busy being peaked about all the annoying things going on!

I'm sad that the Guardian (and the BBC) took a side and unthinkingly supported the transitioning of children and removal of women's rights with a side dose of silencing women. I still miss what I thought was ethical journalism until they demonstrated what a captured news source looks like.

The Mail's coverage of this issue has improved dramatically with clear informative articles . If they weren't writing about this (along with the Times, Telegraph & numerous other sources), these countless unwanted social changes being forced on an unwilling public would pass unnoticed.

They still insist on calling men 'she' but I agree with you, it is good that they are highlighting issues.

This is a really interesting take on what and how the DM report on subjects, I’d not really considered it before but that makes a lot of sense, thank you.

To be blunt, it won't be until the scandal rags are screaming about what's likely to happen to your granny in a women's ward, that you can be refused health care for refusing to let a male treat you in the pretense of being a female hcp if said male wants to, and women raped by male prisoners who have been granted access to the female estate that enough of the voters will be aware and angry enough for politicians to start listening.

We're getting there.

The Guardian could have taken a more balance approach- they didn’t have to go the route of “anyone against TRA demands are bigots” but they have consistently refused to see this as anything other than “anything trans related good” even if it has damaged their integrity.

they don’t have to keep letting twats like Owen Jones spout off and they didn’t have to bullshit about the Wi Spa incident. They could have listened to women and stood their ground when Twitter nobheads cried transphobia (which they haven’t even managed to avoid) but presumably there’s some money or support they need that’s led their choices.

It’s left a gaping hole for left wing women who are concerned about safeguarding of children and vulnerable women. It isn’t that old Lefty Feminists necessarily support the Mail (or the Times or Telegraph for that matter), but our paper of choice has slammed the door in our faces- now there’s nowhere left to go.

so women have the choice of saying nothing or using media they otherwise wouldn’t touch with a barge pole- bit like having to go to the leg breakers cos the banks won’t touch you.

The American Guardian is the worst.

Nothing encapsulated the American Guardian better than when that “journalist” covering the Wi Spa Indecent Exposure Case complained in a tweet about “anti-paedophile protestors”. Talk about own goal.

Yes- and because the these conversations have not taken place between adults actually wanting to find solutions that accommodate everyone (and involve compromise from those who dislike the word no- which should have taken place years ago instead of simply pushing “shut up, be nice”) they will be sensational and inflammatory because the papers that run these tales will milk the sensationalist aspect more than the women’s right issues because that’s what sells their papers.

Here are some articles of comment, analysis and opinion, written by JULIE BINDELL and published in The Mail

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10955299/JULIE-BINDEL-says-going-sue-council-banned-giving-talk-library.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10806353/JULIE-BINDEL-explains-female-students-bullied-hearing-feminists.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10700875/JULIE-BINDEL-week-Britain-finally-came-senses-trans-extremists-cried-ENOUGH.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10249631/Women-sold-river-charities-terrified-trans-mob-writes-JULIE-BINDEL.html

Plenty more articles written by and featuring comment by Julie here, incluind many feminist issues.

www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?sel=site&searchPhrase=Julie+Bindel

Here are some articles of comment analysis and opinion written by MAYA FORSTATER

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10985825/MAYA-FORSTATER-fears-future-Scouting-UK.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10674135/Three-women-launch-significant-female-movement-Suffragettes.html

Plenty more articles where Maya gives comment and opinion here:

www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?offset=0&size=50&sel=site&searchPhrase=Maya+Forstater&sort=recent&type=article&type=video&days=all

Here are a couple or artiles of comment, opinion and analyis wtitten by HELEN JOYCE

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9775491/HELEN-JOYCE-Letting-athletes-grew-men-compete-womens-sports-cause-public-backlash.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9775491/HELEN-JOYCE-Letting-athletes-grew-men-compete-womens-sports-cause-public-backlash.html

Plenty more articles where Helen is referenced, reported on or gives comment here

www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?offset=0&size=50&sel=site&searchPhrase=HELEN+JOYCE+TRANS&sort=recent&type=article&days=all

Here is PROFESSOR KATHLEEN STOCK, writing opinion, analysis and comment pieces for The Mail

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10682091/Professor-KATHLEEN-STOCK-Sorry-dont-woman-just-saying-one.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9155659/I-refuse-bullied-silence-PROFESSOR-KATHLEEN-STOCK.html

Plenty more here

www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?offset=0&size=50&sel=site&searchPhrase=kathleen+stock&sort=relevant&type=article&days=all

Here is JOSEPHINE BARTOSCH writing for the Mail

www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?offset=0&size=50&sel=site&searchPhrase=bartosch&sort=recent&type=article&authornamef=Josephine+Bartosch+For+The+Mail+On+Sunday&days=all

Here is ABIGAIL SHRIER writing for the Mail

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9106895/ABIGAIL-SHRIERS-investigation-exploding-numbers-girls-wanting-change-sex.html

more here

www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?offset=0&size=50&sel=site&searchPhrase=abigail+shrier&sort=relevant&type=article&days=all

I attended a Women's Place meeting a few years ago and the number of times a speaker would begin a statement with "Now, I know this was the Daily Mail..." or "I'm not Right Wing, but...". As a Right-Winger myself it was grimly amusing though more sad than anything. Take what support can be gotten. The DM, like any media institution, is wrong on some things and right on others. Tribalism is what lets TPTB get away with this nonsense for so long. And remember that the Guardian was pro-Slavery back in the day (you'll find some very watered down admissions of this here and there that attempt to shade their position as not that bad).

The Guardian affects to be working class but it's primarily read by students, academics and Left Wing members of the laptop / managerial class. These are the groups that are MOST on board with the trans lobby.

Tangent: "Peak" in this case comes from "Peak Oil" as in passing the point of no return. It's first use in this context that I'm aware of is a thread on KiwiFarms titled "When did you hit peak trans?" which is filled with horrifying realisations of what the trans movement actually contains by people who formerly were very live and let live. But there were probably uses before that.

Nothing encapsulated the American Guardian better than when that “journalist” covering the Wi Spa Indecent Exposure Case complained in a tweet about “anti-paedophile protestors”. Talk about own goal.

That was awful. So was this where they presumed to slap down the U.K. Guardian office for having the temerity to present a balanced view on our own law:

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/02/guardian-editorial-response-transgender-rights-uk

Out of proportion to what? If this stuff is happening all the time, all over the place, should there be a limit on the number of stories covered? If there are five murders, are you going to say that covering them all is ‘out of proportion? Let’s just mention two because we don’t want to bore people…..

The Guardian is absolutely not working class and probably wouldn’t let a working class person near them (unless they’re cleaning the offices.)

The fact that the mail is allowing feminist writers to be published is hugely significant.

Is the mail publishing unhinged fantasy pieces that are made up and untrue?

Or is the mail publishing stories that were being ignored and also professional feminist journalists filling a niche. Not one that they created, but one they are taking advantage of.

If other media outlets were not so wedded to this doctrine of not publishing these articles, or only publishing positive spins, the mail would have no interest.

If the news is happening, it needs to be reported. Should they have a quota?

By the way, a lot of this weekends articles is from the LGB Alliance. So of course there will be articles covering it. Hopefully articles will be published from Filia where they can as well.

I find the idea of choosing just one media source and then defending its output a bit bizarre. The newspaper you read is not you.

I read the headlines in the Mail, Spiked, The Guardian and Breitbart pretty much everyday, whole article if it’s interesting. Generally look at Unherd, Quillette , and Spectator ( DH subscribes) a few times a week. Telegraph and Times not really worth the subscription for us. Even the Babylon Bee has its place , the Shark in the swimming pool was one of the best parodies of Lia I’ve seen. Hopefully the truth lives somewhere along that shifting spectrum.

The medium is NOT the message .

If anything were to make me give up completely and say TWAW it would be the Mail's use of this issue.

So you will be basing your decision on what is morally right and whether women' should have equal rights in law and children should be safeguarded not on evidence or facts, but whether the right people have talked about it and given you permission to think it?

Ok Mrs Bucket. You do you.

Was it not also the Mail and Times that did not let go of the Post Office computer catastrophe which led to suicide and prison for some.
Where were you Grauniad?

I agree, OP

This board is an echo chamber for those " in the know " and familiar with the issues.

" Maya ", " Alison ", " Helen ", " Graham ", " Rosie ", mean nothing to the man and woman in the street.

My interest was piqued by a succession of newspaper articles in varous broadsheets and the BBC I simply could not understand. It took years, till finally JKR's support of Maya Forstater and the resulting schreeching pushed me to do my research. I found Substack and this particular Mumsnet board.

I read various Substacks, Unherd, Spiked, The Critic, Mediuam, numerous newspapers and news outlets and forums.

But the point is the man and woman in the street rely on a very limited number of media outlets.

Many people I work with don't get it. They are very much still of the opinion that Trans means surgery. And that it is something to do with homsexuality.

The Mail is providing a valuable outlet for sunshine.

I don't take anybody seriously when they state they do not read sush and suuch a newspaper and tnen characterise its coverage and its readers. If they don't read it or allow it into their homes, how can they know what it is actually publishing ?

The Mail is not simply printing sensationalist stories about freaks and perverts with blue hair. They are publshing in depth, nuanced, explanatory sotries, and they are giving writers and opinion formers like Julie Bindell, Kathleen Stock, Helen Joyce, Maya Forstater and many others a platform to pubish.

Meanwhile the BBC allows activists to hide in the murk and confuse the public.

People might read The Mail, and then come here, or to other places of information.

Everybody has to start their journey of understanding and discovery somewhere.

The Mails spread of coverage is to be applauded for the useful work it is doing.

I don't care which papers are publishing articles. The more the merrier IMO.
The coverage of so-called trans hate crime and completely false statistics on the BBC yesterday had me shouting at the TV again. I don't know how they get away with such mendacity.

The Telegraph has been all out on this issue as well. Today's Sunday Telegraph has articles about the cross party politicians Rosie Duffield, Joanna Cherry and Baroness Jenkin launching a biology policy unit to stop gender identity compromising women's rights; NHS doctors being taught about "gender unicorns" and other non-binary identities; a detransitioning man left in lifelong pain from surgery because he was convinced by doctors and psychiatrists he was trans when he was in fact in denial about being gay; and a Tory peer wanting the Care Quality Commission to investigate a private hospital in London accused of refusing to treat a patient who asked for an all-female nursing team.

The Mail has its biases - BUT it is good at what it is does.

Want the details of a Royal / Celebrity scandal.
Details on a shocking crime.
Internal Tory infighting.
Sports reporting - usually solid.

You will get as good as if not better reporting from the Mail as broadsheets and in an accessible style.

The Mail became one of the most successful newspapers in the UK by focused reporting on its readership's interests. Obviously it also shapes those interests, but it can't do it out of thin air.

A key to its success is its knowledge of its women readers. The celebrity fashion gossip stories the Mail loves - they are not for its male audience. Lots of ordinary women love that stuff though - it is a guilty pleasure.

The Mail has an ambivalent relationship with women - celebrating women's triumphs with in depth articles, but also relishing in kicking them down. It loves drama and controversy.

So the gender crisis is a classic Mail story. British women are not happy, the Mail is encouraging them to get more so. It also taps into crime drama another beloved topic. Nothing gets the Mail more readers than tapping into all this. It is one of the most powerful media sources in the UK.

The Daily Mail can be like a dog with a bone - which can be both good and bad. It is going for media clicks but there is, I think, still a solid core of investigative journalism there though possibly not as strong as before. Sometimes it is hard to know if it has new investigations or just picked up stories from paywalled sites which I don't subscribe to.

It is often over obsessed with celebrities but reports tenaciously about issues such as Stephen Lawrence, the post office scandal and now the women's right issues. It's also quite happy to wade into politics and mock politicians as it sees fit.

I'm all for the DM reporting in detail - it reaches a different audience to the Times/Telegraph - so I say, don't knock it.