| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/9/2009 9:14:04 AM | I read their online papaer earlier today... just out of curiosity. And their leading story was a piece ecouraging people to follow suit of large, corporate clients and boycott the royal mail because its staff are planning another strike before christmas.
It was so obviously a piece to promote the interests of other service providers who want the royal mails customer base. Encouraging people to see the royal mail as a dead entity whose workers are being completely irresponsible by engaging in lawful, union activity in efforts to protect their livelehood. The damage an article like that can do is appalling. | |
|
sjxx
|
Joined: 8/27/2009
Msg: 27 | |
| |
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/9/2009 9:21:59 AM | clever kitten,
when gordon brown and alistair darling are in the papers they've all got t!ts in them.
i read the scum ahem.. the sun, i read it mainly for the laugh, and like with all papers, you can pull the information about the stories thats relevent and put the crap where you like.
i hate the idea that people read papers with their political views, every now and then, i buy the scotsman... what does that label me under (apart from w@nk3r haw haw)
and seeing as i don't have a free pair of t!ts to look at it, i have to by the sun.... at least the t!ts that arn't the labour party. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/9/2009 9:29:36 AM | I have to give them credit, how's this for a headline when Celtic were unexpectedly knocked out of the Scottish Cup by Inverness Caledonian Thistle:
"Super Cally go ballistic, Celtic are atrocious"
It's go to put a smile on your face.
| |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/9/2009 9:31:47 AM |
But it should be obvious that the majority of people buy a paper that is in line with their political views.
Why should it be obvious at all? I used to buy the Torygraph for the sports coverage and the crossword, other posters have mentioned the women's issues in the Mail, Sudoko and the weekend supplements ................... no politics there 
 | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/9/2009 2:34:51 PM | | There is always someone being critized for reading one paper or another on here. You may as well ask what is wrong with Sun readers, or Mirror readers, their readers will wonder what is wrong with reading their fave paper just the same as you do. Each to their own. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/9/2009 4:01:29 PM | The choice of daily newspaper a person reads will only manage to reveal their attention span - The Sun newspaper can be read in all it's entirety within about 5 - 10 minutes depending upon which speed you read at, whereas the Daily Mail is a bit more substantive and might require a bit more time to fully peruse.
The Daily Mail and the Sun are fine for eliciting the bare bones of the latest news nationally and internationally from. When putting up a thread for discussion on here and adding a link to the topic's inspiration to the Daily Mail online - I really don't understand why people bother to remark that the subject is a nonentity because of it's source, haven't people got the ability to think beyond what they read and think for themselves ..seems petty to suggest that one source isn't credible because it comes from the Daily Mail instead of just providing your opinion on the subject matter and even contributing other sources you may think people would be interested in to learn more.
I've been accused of worse than being a Daily Mail reader (in fact I'm a big Guardian and Irish Times plus other notable sources on the net reader) - It's very important to keep abreast of the news regardless of where you heard it from first, that discludes needless tattle taling and nasty malicious gossip of course.. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/10/2009 1:07:11 AM | What Newspaper you read doesn't define you but what is evident is that people seem to judge people on insignificant things. The amount of posters that professed to never of heard of Jade Goody was staggering and I would suggest that they had heard of her but didn't want to admit it.
If you read heat magazine then you must be a vacuous moron. Watch Big Brother then you must be Celeb obsessed. It is prejudiced and small minded of people to label and criticise people for the paper they read.
To me it is a poor argument along the lines of what's a normal person? | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/11/2009 6:02:06 AM | Judging the people by the choice of the newspaper they read is very much outdated with the new settings of the media technology and now when going online is a must for every paper, resulting in a huge decline in their profits.
IMO, in these circumstances it will be very hard for the papers:
- to keep on their traditional path of the content they offer
- to keep the valuable writers and profit through few popular columns
In my case, I guess I should be reading the Guardian  but I must admit I do not, my choice of information would be the BBC, individual columnist, comments and opinions from the papers I might be happy to read but I prefer not to follow any of them, | |
|
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/11/2009 1:16:55 PM | I think Msg 39 has it about right.
I hear the London Evening Standard is going to become a freeby newssheet, when it was announced on the news a commentator said, "The job of a newspaper nowadays is not to deliver the news but to deliver readers to advertisers."
The general tenor of his comment was that more newspapers are likely to go freeby - and online content will become pay-to-read.
I don't think it will be whether the Sun or the Mail is read or the Telegraph or the Times - rather it will be, who is going to be able to afford the subscription to read online? In these straitened times, I suspect the paper we read will be the first one to hand at the newsstand, our choice will be made more and more on the non-news content like crosswords and sudokus, and we will rely more and more on TV and radio for our news.
How are we going to URL that to back up our posts? | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/11/2009 1:56:57 PM |
And their leading story was a piece ecouraging people to follow suit of large, corporate clients and boycott the royal mail because its staff are planning another strike before christmas.
I don't need the Daily Mail or any other newspaper to tell me that I'm pretty fed up with my mail (private and business) taking 10 days or longer to get through over the last few weeks. I'm simply going by what I consider not a good service and incidentally have looked at alternative options.
I rarely get to read a daily paper these days as I no longer use public transport but drive to work. Therefore I listen to the radio, any of my 5 pre-set stations. What does that say about me now? | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/13/2009 6:27:27 AM | In the 1930s when Lord Rothermere was the proprietor of the Associated Newspapers group it was a card carrying supporter of Oswald Mosley (British Union Of Fascists), Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, no less. Indeed, there was even personal correspondence between Rothermere and the aforementioned 'leaders' with him calling Hitler a 'Great Man' and the Mail's editorial being sympathetic to the far right's 'struggle', publishing tantalising headlines such as "Hurrah For The Blackshirts" and also making unsympathetic noises towards the amount of Jewish refugees pouring into the UK as a direct result of the policies (holocaust) of these very same regimes they were supporting (sounding familiar?).
Move forward eighty years and we're still being fed our daily dose of immigrant bashing, misogyny and barely concealed racism that was their stock in trade all those years ago. Of course, it can be fun to read if you happen to be mean minded and have petty prejudices that you need catering for. It can also be unintentionally humorous for those of us who don't happen to agree with its neo-conservative and pro-middle class bleating.
Take Liz Jones' cutting critique of the Glastonbury festival as a prime example. Amongst the lofty tut-tutting and pious sneering toward what the mail universally deem the 'Great Unwashed' is a picture of Liz positioned conveniently in front of a huge pile of rubbish, such is the beastliness of the uncivilised animals that attend such events. Well that's game, set and match to the Mail then. One - Nil. Or, it would be if the photo didn't happen to be possibly the worst attempt at photoshopped image manipulation this side of art school. Makes you wonder whether the delicate Ms Jones bothered to venture beyond the threshold of her comfortable Welsh pile in the first place; where, incidentally, she isn't proving too popular with her salt-of-the-earth neighbours due to her publicised witterings. Take a look at the article for yourselves and have your sides squeezed on behalf of investigative journalism.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1030641/So-DID-fashionista-LIZ-JONES-survive-Glastonbury.html
So to summarise: What's wrong with the Daily Mail? A history of being sympathetic towards sub-human regimes and delicate journalists who seemingly don't even bother to roll out of bed to investigate the articles that people readily fritter their hard-earned on. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/13/2009 9:10:14 AM | | Nothing wrong with the Daily Mail, it's a refreshing read from the BBCs leftwing agenda. It's often accused of racism, what a load of over blown bollocks! it's a criminal offence to publish material that which incites racial hatred. Some people need to get a grip. | |
|
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/13/2009 11:15:53 AM | I was interested to read their coverage of the circumstances surrounding Stephen Gately's death online earlier.
There were a number of things they could have exploited about his death were the newspaper homophobic, instead I found that their account was fair and admired how they added extra comment from medical experts about what causes pulmonary oedemas.
There was no room for doubt left, that the young man's death was due to natural causes - I'd call that responsible reporting. | |
|
| |
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/13/2009 12:42:47 PM | While the rest of our media (except the express) has pandered to the PC, liberal left wing ideology, The daily mail is refreshingly right wing. It is not afraid to cover topics like immigration, islamic extremism, crime etc and report the facts, rather than the PC truth that the government would rather we here. For example the attacks by large groups of asians in Birmingham on whites. The guardian for instance would never have posted the pic of the guy with the union jack being attacked
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205263/Police-arrest-31-demonstration-Islamic-fundamentalism.html | |
|
| |
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/17/2009 10:44:17 AM | Thought it was a dreadful article on Gately and in awful taste given that he wasn't even buried. I don't know about the people who read it but I think that the Daily Mail is a homophobic paper. Not everyone who reads it will be homophobic, nor will vote Tory and people have the choice to buy and read exactly what they want but I wouldn't give them the money. Was very very glad to see the backlash after that article. If the woman had wanted to say what she did, she could have picked a better time to say it, not the day before he was due to be laid to rest. However, I thought the entire article was homophobic and totally lacking in sensitivity. I read it online which is just as well as I wouldn't wipe my arse with the Daily Mail.
People also have the right to buy any other paper they choose, I wouldn't buy the Sun nor the Star but I know a lot of people who do, it's entirely their choice and I wouldn't judge them for buying it, people can do what they please, I'd rather not give them my money.
In saying that I think the paper is homophobic and right wing, doesn't mean that I think everyone who reads it is.
So what's wrong with the Daily Mail, nothing if you chose to believe the ethos it subscribes to.
What's wrong with the people who read it, I can't comment because I don't know the readership of the paper.
| |
|
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/17/2009 3:36:50 PM | I read the Mail on line every day as I can easily skim through headlines and read the articals I want to read....
but I do like to buy Mail in the shop at the wkends, especially Sundays. Like to have a paper to read over breakfast or in the afternoon...
Not sure why thou maybe because Ive got more time to read the paper and its got lots supplements with glossy pages....
To me the Mail has got a bit of everything except for the page 3 pic (which I dont need); news, gossip, serious news, news no one is intrested in, cross words etc and the supplements has got that sort of feel of a mag with fashion, recepies, articals for especially women etc etc etc
Ive tried other newspapers with supplements at the wkend but always go back to the Mail....
The rest I can read on line and then there's no recycling to do at the end of the week!! | |
|
Home
login 
