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

Whatever anyone's opinion on the Daily Mail the facts are it is has the second biggest readership of any online newspaper globally, only second to the New York Times.

The latest figures were published on 17th October by the Press Gazette - from that article:

"Visits to nytimes.com were up 72% year-on-year to 618.6 million, according to data from digital intelligence platform Similarweb.

Mail Online, the only other top ten site to see double-digit growth, saw visits grow by 11% to 411.6 million."

For any audience of that magnitude to have consistent and regular expose to these stories is important and cannot be underestimated.

"Visits to nytimes.com were up 72% year-on-year to 618.6 million, according to data from digital intelligence platform Similarweb.

It’s a tangent, though related - how on earth did that 72% increase happen? My impression was that the New York Times was rapidly shedding readers and credibility among American news consumers. Was that impression totally wrong, or do they make up for it in the lifestyle section or something?

I'm don't know the reasons for that huge increase TastefulRainbowUnicorn. Maybe an American poster might have some context to offer?

A link to the Press Gazette article for general info though: pressgazette.co.uk/most-popular-websites-news-world-monthly/

The Mail website is totally free and accessible. Anybody from anywhere can find and view every article.

( I have been abroad and not been able to access the BBC. )

The New York Tines allows several free articles, then asks you to subscribe. ( Remember, load / refresh then " Airplane Mode " )

The Sunlight is glorious

The Mail has been covering this subject for years now - at least back to the Man Friday protests.

www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/pique-vs-peak-vs-peek

Why do you think they don't care about women's rights? Lots of women work there.

The reality is not that they don't care about women's rights, but rather that they don't see women's rights in quite the same way the person making the complaint does.

Pretty sure it would be because of Wordle - they purchased the rights to it just under a year ago. And the whole world is addicted to it, which is great news for the NYT.

It's interesting to read this thread, and common MN comments about the DM and the G.

Many seem to see these newspapers as one entity with one single editorial perspective. The truth is that the DM has been two "newspapers" (maybe more, as I don't read the sports section to know how they approach it) for a long time: the main newspaper and the "Femail" section, which has been more liberal for at least the last twenty years. The trans coverage is coming out of the legacy of the "Femail" section.

It's the same with The Guardian, or used to be. Their sales were heavily supported prior to the expansion of the Internet by a certain bracket of Londoners buying the paper for G2 or The Guide, and never bothering with the actual paper itself. There were also key groups who would buy the paper for the weekly sections, so for Society etc, because the Guardian would cover stories that related to their sector. Often these sections would have a very different editorial tone and perspective.

Am a bit bored with the argument that goes: "The Mail is a terrible paper, but at least they're reporting on this stuff." How do you judge a paper if not by the quality of its content? The Mail has probably done more than any other mainstream publication, including the Times and Telegraph, to draw attention to the dark side of trans ideology. It's not just that they publish stories about it, it's that those stories are usually of a high standard - thorough and well-written. By contrast, the Guardian for the most part doesn't write about these stories and when it does, they are often biased and omit crucial details.

NYT bought Wordle. Very smart move for them and almost certainly the key factor in that increase of traffic.

It's like "peak oil" - we've reached the tipping point.

the number of stories they publish is out of any proportion.

Is it?

I assumed for years that transition was something so rare that we could bend a bit to accommodate the very few who couldn't tolerate their birth sex. It would be something we needn't give more than a moment's thought.

In the past few years, FOUR close friends/family have had teenage daughters transition. And honestly, we don't have that wide a social circle. Of the dozen or so teens-to-20s daughters on our Christmas card list, four are transboys. Now that really is out of proportion.

The Mail does quite a lot of decent news reporting, often using FOI requests. See this one, for example:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10508621/Two-NHS-staff-disciplined-day-mishandling-files-snooping-patient-records.html

The Mail found out that more than two NHS workers are sanctioned every day for mishandling patient records. Now you can argue that the Mail has an anti-NHS agenda (and you'd probably be right), but nonetheless they've performed a service in bringing this to public attention. The NHS shouldn't be beyond scrutiny.

This is another similar one - Mail journalists have performed an analysis on the money paid out by the NHS as a result of stillbirth cases:

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11270365/NHS-maternity-failures-leading-avoidable-stillbirths-cost-65m-decade-analysis-shows.html

Uncomfortable as it is, I'd rather know this than not know it. You won't see similar reporting in the Guardian.

I think there is massive snobbery about the Mail, because its readership is perceived as lower middle-class, a group who are looked down on by everyone, whether they are posher or working class.

Yes, the Mail can be awful on some topics, like immigration, but so can the Telegraph and (to a lesser extent) the Times. If you post a link to a Mail article on MN, you'll get a load of theatrics from certain posters (I once posted an innocuous Mail story about an elderly widower finding love, and got told I'd ruined someone's entire day by exposing them to the Mail🙄), yet Telegraph articles get no such reaction.

The Daily Mail and its staff have behaved despicably on occasions (the infamous "Enemies of the People" headline about the judiciary, they doorstepped the mother of someone I knew because he had publicly criticised and embarrassed the newspaper, Dacre swearing his head off in editorial meetings using such misogynistic language that the sessions became known as "the vagina monologues" , etc.).

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the Mail's coverage on this issue has been robust at a time when most other news organisations have been too cowardly to report on it.

The Mail is also the only website that covers cruelty to animals, such as fur trade exposés, canada goose clothes, real rabbit fur passed off as fake fur, etc. Hardly any of the other papers do this now. Although the Sunday Times ran an outstanding campaign about 15 years ago on the appalling cruelty of the greyhound racing industry. But these days, it seems to be only the Mail that cares about animals. So when people say they hate the Mail (and there are many hateable things about it), I always counter with this, because it only fair.

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?

Good point, nilsmousehammer

Dacre swearing his head off in editorial meetings

There was an enormous shift in tone after Dacre left. The Mail used to make my skin crawl, there was something about it that felt malevolent. I would have been one of those people throwing irrational hissyfits about Mail links if I’d been on here while Dacre was around! I noticed a difference soon after he left though. And I think they are very good about raising awareness of VAWG issues. I don’t know if they were good on that subject when Dacre was there, because I couldn’t stand to read it.

NYT bought Wordle.

ohh! Thank you for explaining that - it makes total sense now.

The telegraph is good today, too. I have a deal on the subscription and pay for the Times too, unfortunately no share tokens with the former.

www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2022/10/25/when-question-time-eddie-izzard-woman/

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/25/cambridge-faculty-apologises-distressing-emails-gender-ideology/
Extract from this one which made me actually LOL. Welfare event... my days.

The University of Cambridge’s LGBT network has condemned the talk and Cambridge Students’ Union called for it to be axed.

The college, Cambridge’s fourth oldest, ran a “welfare event” tearoom on campus for distressed students, held at the same time as the talk.

Prof Ahmed said: “Senior figures in the University have expressed regret that this debate is even going ahead. The only response to that is to arrange another, bigger event like it. That is what I intend to do.”

Here are archived copies of those Telegraph articles:

archive.ph/OT6wE

archive.ph/hbaoS