The Daily Mail newspaper.

[hampsteadclaret]

The Daily Mail seems popular with some people on here so I thought I would enlighten myself and discover exactly what it's qualities are....I looked at WIKI [first], but I'm happy to read info from anywhere.

The WIKI piece goes on a bit so I haven't included everything...happy reading.


''The Daily Mail is a British daily middle-market[2][3] tabloid newspaper owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust and published in London. First published in 1896 by Alfred Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Northcliffe, and his brother Harold Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere, it is the United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily'.

'The Daily Mail has been accused of racism, even of supporting fascism in the 1930s, and of printing sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories'.

--------------------------------

Support of fascism:

The "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" article by Lord Rothermere..

Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Mail's editorial stance towards them in the early 1930s. Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them. In it, Rothermere predicted that "The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany". Journalist John Simpson, in a book on journalism, suggested that Rothermere was referring to the violence against Jews and Communists rather than the detention of political prisoners.

Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. Rothermere wrote an article titled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine", and pointing out that: "Young men may join the British Union of Fascists by writing to the Headquarters, King's Road, Chelsea, London, S.W."

The Spectator condemned Rothermere's article commenting that, "... the Blackshirts, like the Daily Mail, appeal to people unaccustomed to thinking. The average Daily Mail reader is a potential Blackshirt ready made. When Lord Rothermere tells his clientele to go and join the Fascists some of them pretty certainly will."


------------------------------------

Editorial stance:

'The Mail has traditionally been a supporter of the Conservatives and has endorsed this party in all recent general elections. While the paper retained its support for the Conservative Party at the 2015 general election, the paper urged conservatively inclined voters to support UKIP in the constituencies of Heywood and Middleton, Dudley North and Great Grimsby where UKIP was the main challenger to the Labour Party.

The paper is generally critical of the BBC, which it says is biased to the left'. END.
-----------------------------------------

Brilliant...I didn't know what I'd been missing.

I'm off up the paper-shop right now to ask the bloke to get one of his lads to drop me a copy off every morning.

[Imploding Turtle]

In other news, President Kennedy has been shot and killed in Dallas.

[South West Claret.]

Substitute "newspaper" with "gutter" press is nearer to the point on this thread I'm lMHO.

[tim_noone]

In other news, President Kennedy has been shot and killed in Dallas.

Allegedly by lee Harvey Oswald.

[aggi]

Although it can no longer be cited as a source on Wikipedia as it is deemed too unreliable (source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... or-website" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

[South West Claret.]

Brilliant I like WP a lot.

[Chobulous]

So what is your point?

[conyoviejo]

Robin Goodfellow rules

[claretdom]

Someone is trying too hard

[dsr]

You do know that Lord Rothermere doesn't write for them any more?

[Damo]

For every daily mail, there is a guardian. Ying/yang

[Lancasterclaret]

Its a tabloid for people who think the Sun is beneath them and say things like "I don't mind immigrants...but"

[hampsteadclaret]

Thanks dsr for the Lord Rothermere information..you're very funny..


What did you think though about the Hitler and Mussolini stuff, and support for fascists?

[SammyBoy]

For every daily mail, there is a guardian. Ying/yang

Really? The Daily Mail's circulation is almost ten times greater than The Guardian's. I'm pretty sure their website is also one of, if not the most visited as well.

[hampsteadclaret]

Last time I looked the Guardian wasn't backing Hitler, and generally had a downer on fascists..

[dsr]

Thanks dsr for the Lord Rothermere information..you're very funny..


What did you think though about the Hitler and Mussolini stuff, and support for fascists?

I think they were wrong. I understand the editorial policy has changed, though - if you look at the paper's record in the early 1940's, I think you'll find they were suitably opposed.

[mikeS]

The Mail's editor Paul Michael Dacre, and his style of management can be found on Wikipedia and is well worth a read if you want to know why he is loved and hated in equal amounts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dacre" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hipper]

You should read the paper itself to get a good impression.

Some of my neighbours get it. I think it's awful in it's general tone on politics, notably promoting a certain position.

However, all papers do this, including the Guardian/Observer. They all have there own agenda and it's only if you constantly remind yourself of this that you can hope to get any useful information from them. In some ways that keeps you a bit sharp, but mostly I find it very irritating.

[groove]

So which newspaper should I read then? Is the Sun okay?

[SammyBoy]

So which newspaper should I read then? Is the Sun okay?

Whichever you want it's your choice. However, I personally tend to avoid the Sun due to it's tacit racism, Murdoch's political agenda and Kelvin Mackenzie's disgraceful coverage of the Hillsborough disaster (among other things).

[Rowls]

The country's leading tabloid newspaper and has consistently been so for several years now.

Wins award after award in press circles (awarded by journalists who know what they're talking about).

Criticism of it is sometimes justified but is more often just people on the internet attempting to make themselves appear liberal or intelligent by "dissing" a tabloid newspaper.

Here are what I consider common mistakes by the hoards of approval-seekers who criticize the Mail:

1. "Lazy Journalism". No it isn't. The Mail has the finest journalists in the land. It's normally a piece of journalism designed to evoke an emotional response. When liberals get agitated by a classic piece of agit-journalism by the Mail it doesn't show "lazy journalism" - it shows the the article is doing exactly what it was intended to do. If it were "lazy journalism" it wouldn't elicit a response and you wouldn't care.
2. "Misogyny!" The Mail is the ONLY paper in the UK with a higher female proportion of its readership. Articles discussing fashion may be bothersome to trendy metros and feminists but evidently appeal to a lot of women. Articles discussing women's appearance (recent example - the silly "Legs-xit" article) are deliberately designed to be tongue in cheek and wind up hardcore feminists. See above for explanation of that.
3. "Racist!" The Mail hasn't been anywhere near what would be classed as "racist!" for years. People can harp on about the views of Lord Whatshisface in the 1930s all they like but the Mail campaigned harder against the murderers of Stephen Lawrence than any other outlet. Anything the Mail has to say on immigration or race is far more likely to be in tune with the views of the general population than you imagine. And far more likely to be reflective of the general population than your views. Wonder why Leave vote won even though all your twitter pals had pledged for Remain? Well read the country's leading tabloid and find out what the man on the street thinks!
4. "OMG! It's soooooo simplistic!" Yeah. It's a tabloid. You'd have to be even simpler than the Mail not to understand this.
5. "They're saying this here, then something else here!". You think they don't know that? You think you discovered a yawning chasm in the ideological purity of the Daily Mail? No. You didn't. They know that X contradicts Y. They know that Y undermines X. They don't care. And you've just entered the clickbait circle and become a Daily Mail Puppet (see below). Congratulations! Now dance for your intellectual masters and do their bidding!
6. "Just look at this Mail Headline!". A common tweet amongst people eager to display their liberal credentials. The intent of the tweeter is to criticise the Mail but the Mail are one step ahead. Stories and headlines are designed to pull you in with an emotional response. Once you've sent that tweet you've created a clickbait trap for all your followers. Congratulations! You've done the Mail's job for them and have advertized their site to everybody. You are now a fully fledged puppet of the Daily Mail.

So there you have it.

Criticism of the Mail is as valid as criticism of any other newspaper, it's just that criticizing the Mail has become an internet shortcut for unintelligent unimaginative people to show how 'liberal' or 'intelligent' they are. As a result well over 99% of criticism of the Mail is 100% guff.

I'd wager that 99% of journalists at the Mail are cleverer than 99% of the people who criticize the paper.

So if you're going to do the Daily Mail Thing at least have a think before you try your hand.

[SammyBoy]

The country's leading tabloid newspaper and has consistently been so for several years now.

Wins award after award in press circles (awarded by journalists who know what they're talking about).

Criticism of it is sometimes justified but is more often just people on the internet attempting to make themselves appear liberal or intelligent by "dissing" a tabloid newspaper.

Here are what I consider common mistakes by the hoards of approval-seekers who criticize the Mail:

1. "Lazy Journalism". No it isn't. The Mail has the finest journalists in the land. It's normally a piece of journalism designed to evoke an emotional response. When liberals get agitated by a classic piece of agit-journalism by the Mail it doesn't show "lazy journalism" - it shows the the article is doing exactly what it was intended to do. If it were "lazy journalism" it wouldn't elicit a response and you wouldn't care.
2. "Misogyny!" The Mail is the ONLY paper in the UK with a higher female proportion of its readership. Articles discussing fashion may be bothersome to trendy metros and feminists but evidently appeal to a lot of women. Articles discussing women's appearance (recent example - the silly "Legs-xit" article are deliberately designed to be tongue in cheek and wind up hardcore feminists. See above for explanation of that.
3. "Racist!" The Mail hasn't been anywhere near what would be classed as "racist!" for years. People can harp on about the views of Lord Whatshisface in the 1930s all they like but the Mail campaigned harder against the murderers of Stephen Lawrence than any other outlet. Anything the Mail has to say on immigration is far more likely to be in tune with the views of the general population than you imagine. Wonder why Leave vote won even though all your twitter pals had pledged for Remain? Well read the country's leading tabloid and find out what the man on the street thinks!
4. "OMG! It's soooooo simplistic!" Yeah. It's a tabloid. You'd have to be even simpler than the Mail not to understand this.
5. "They're saying this here, then something else here!". You think they don't know that? You think you discovered a yawning chasm in the ideological purity of the Daily Mail? No. You didn't. They know that X contradicts Y. They know that Y undermines X. They don't care. And you've just entered the clickbait circle and become a Daily Mail Puppet (see below). Congratulations! Now dance for your intellectual masters and do their bidding!
6. "Just look at this Mail Headline!". A common tweet amongst people eager to display their liberal credentials. The intent of the tweeter is to criticise the Mail but the Mail are one step ahead. Stories and headlines are designed to pull you in with an emotional response. Once you've sent that tweet you've created a clickbait trap for all your followers. Congratulations! You've done the Mail's job for them and have advertized their site to everybody. You are now a fully fledged puppet of the Daily Mail.

So there you have it.

Criticism of the Mail is as valid as criticism of any other newspaper, it's just that criticizing the Mail has become an internet shortcut for unintelligent unimaginative people to show how 'liberal' or 'intelligent' they are. As a result well over 99% of criticism of the Mail is 100% guff.

I'd wager that 99% of journalists at the Mail are cleverer than 99% of the people who criticize the paper.

So if you're going to do the Daily Mail Thing at least have a think before you try your hand.

"It's arguably the best newspaper in the world" - Alan Partridge.

[Rowls]

PS: Looking forward to a report from Hampstead later on to hear about how he got on with the paper.

My favourite features were always the editorial ("Britain needs to start fighting and asserting its own inviolable national sovereignty..."), the letters pages ("Has anyone else noticed the increase in pre-watershed swearing on the BBC...."), the poems submitted by readers (Often too hilarious to parody), the incomparable puzzles section, the "Fe-Mail" pullout ("Are Toxic Chemicals on you commute to work causing the bloated feeling in your stomach?") and the Quick-Crossword on the back.

Sadly I am too thick for the cryptic crossword but I gather it's a corker too.

Tell us how you get on Hampstead!

[Rowls]

"It's arguably the best newspaper in the world" - Alan Partridge.

Precisely!!!!

Show off your knowledge of obscure Partridge quotes!

Win! - Instant respect from your friends and peers!

Gain Followers and Likes on the internet!!!!!

Guaranteed coolness - OR YOUR MONEY BACK!!!!

Just do as Steve Coogan does and mercilessly diss the Daily Mail!

[nil_desperandum]

I think you should all stick to reading "The i" or the Independent online.
I would imagine that Rowls considers them to be left-wing, reactionary and dangerous, but they do strive for balance. (IMO of course).

[SammyBoy]

Precisely!!!!

Show off your knowledge of obscure Partridge quotes!

Win! - Instant respect from your friends and peers!

Gain Followers and Likes on the internet!!!!!

Guaranteed coolness - OR YOUR MONEY BACK!!!!

Just do as Steve Coogan does and mercilessly diss the Daily Mail!

Hehehe

[Imploding Turtle]

A problem with tabloids is that they constantly try to tell you how to think. They virtue signal so ******* much, and then ironically their readers will complain when other people virtue signal. I don't need the Sun's help in deciding if a certain person is "sick", thanks. I much prefer news articles that simply describe what has happened and let me decide how I think.

[Rowls]

I think you should all stick to reading "The i" or the Independent online.
I would imagine that Rowls considers them to be left-wing, reactionary and dangerous, but they do strive for balance. (IMO of course).

The i is just utterly useless.

The old Independent was worth a read (although it never found a niche and constantly had to adopt "radical" silly positions in a vain attempt to stand out) but if you're going to read tabloid guff then don't kid yourself and pretend you're reading anything "highbrow".

For lefty tabloidism stick to the Mirror. At least it isn't pretending to be what it isn't. The i is utter crapola. A low-end tabloid masquerading as something more.

It's the Crunchy Nut Cornflakes of tabloid newspapers - Frosties for w&nkers.

[Imploding Turtle]

In what way is 'the I' "utterly useless"?

[Rowls]

See above. The explanation is in the post.

[Imploding Turtle]

No. All you've done is use various different ways to express that you dislike the 'I'. I want you to explain to me what it is that makes you dislike it. What does it do that makes it a "low-end tabloid masquerading as something more".

[RingoMcCartney]

In 2012 Eric Hobsbawm died aged 95.

He hated Britain and excused Stalin's genocide. But was hero of the BBC and the Guardian. He was a regular contributor to the Guardian.

Following his death, the next day, the Left-leaning Guardian filled not only the front page and the whole of an inside page but also devoted almost its entire G2!

Eric Hobsbawm took part in one of the most extraordinary conversations ever on British television. Speaking in 1994 to the author Michael Ignatieff about the fall of the Berlin Wall five years earlier, the historian was asked how he felt about his earlier support for the Soviet Union.

If Communism had achieved its aims, but at the cost of, say, 15 to 20 million people - as opposed to the 100million it actually killed in Russia and China - would Hobsbawm have supported it? His answer was a single word: ‘Yes’.

So has recently as 2012 , the Guardian has prompted the sick views of genocide excusers.

People in glass , communist appeasing, houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Spijed]

The i is just utterly useless.

The old Independent was worth a read (although it never found a niche and constantly had to adopt "radical" silly positions in a vain attempt to stand out) but if you're going to read tabloid guff then don't kid yourself and pretend you're reading anything "highbrow".

For lefty tabloidism stick to the Mirror. At least it isn't pretending to be what it isn't. The i is utter crapola. A low-end tabloid masquerading as something more.

It's the Crunchy Nut Cornflakes of tabloid newspapers - Frosties for w&nkers.

And what about the far-right Sun, Rowls? A newspaper who employed an editor by the name of Kelvin MacKenzie, someone who's helped to destroy the lives of the families of the 96 victims of the Hillsborough disaster with his twisted lies and hatred.

[Imploding Turtle]

In 2012 Eric Hobsbawm died aged 95.

He hated Britain and excused Stalin's genocide. But was hero of the BBC and the Guardian. He was a regular contributor to the Guardian.

Following his death, the next day, the Left-leaning Guardian filled not only the front page and the whole of an inside page but also devoted almost its entire G2!

Eric Hobsbawm took part in one of the most extraordinary conversations ever on British television. Speaking in 1994 to the author Michael Ignatieff about the fall of the Berlin Wall five years earlier, the historian was asked how he felt about his earlier support for the Soviet Union.

If Communism had achieved its aims, but at the cost of, say, 15 to 20 million people - as opposed to the 100million it actually killed in Russia and China - would Hobsbawm have supported it? His answer was a single word: ‘Yes’.

So has recently as 2012 , the Guardian has prompted the sick views of genocide excusers.

People in glass , communist appeasing, houses shouldn't throw stones.

Did he really hate Britain, or are you just saying he did? If he really hated Britain then can you provide a source or an example to support this opinion?

[Rowls]

For anyone who reads "The i" here is my advice:

If you want a lefty tabloid newspaper read the Daily Mirror instead.

If you want a lefty tabloid internet news site read Buzzfeed instead.

The advantages of these outlets is that they don't have the pretence of being anything other than what they are - tabloid news. Here are the 3 main advantages:

1. You're not kidding yourself about the quality of the news you're taking in
2. The Mirror has a great racing pull-out to remind you that you're not reading a broadsheet
3. Buzzfeed has links-a-plenty to attractive young people advising you on masturbation strategies, how to pull, what a silly man Donald Trump is etc etc. They vary in usefulness and entertainment value but -again- at least you won't be kidding yourself that you're taking in broadsheet quality journalism.

[SammyBoy]

I think you should all stick to reading "The i" or the Independent online.
I would imagine that Rowls considers them to be left-wing, reactionary and dangerous, but they do strive for balance. (IMO of course).

I used to read the Independent regularly and thought it was a good blend of right and left wing columnists. Not sure what happened but the quality seemed to nose dive, and the website became riddled with clickbait and listicles. I now read the Guardian but it's basically all left wing, and even though I am left wing, I do like to read right wing contributions as well.

[Imploding Turtle]

For anyone who reads "The i" here is my advice:

If you want a lefty tabloid newspaper read the Daily Mirror instead.

If you want a lefty tabloid internet news site read Buzzfeed instead.

The advantages of these outlets is that they don't have the pretence of being anything other than what they are - tabloid news. Here are the 3 main advantages:

1. You're not kidding yourself about the quality of the news you're taking in
2. The Mirror has a great racing pull-out to remind you that you're not reading a broadsheet
3. Buzzfeed has links-a-plenty to attractive young people advising you on masturbation strategies, how to pull, what a silly man Donald Trump is etc etc. They vary in usefulness and entertainment value but -again- at least you won't be kidding yourself that you're taking in broadsheet quality journalism.

OK, but that's still not an explaination as to why you dislike the I so much. That's just advice for people who read it.

What is it the I does that makes you dislike it so much?

[Rowls]

And what about the far-right Sun, Rowls? A newspaper who employed an editor by the name of Kelvin MacKenzie, someone who's helped to destroy the lives of the families of the 96 victims of the Hillsborough disaster with his twisted lies and hatred.

Oh spijed!!!!!

What about?

What about?????

It's a different topic!

It's my day off and i ought to be doing useful, productive things.

[Caballo]

Last time I looked the Guardian wasn't backing Hitler, and generally had a downer on fascists..

Last time I looked Hitler had been dead 70 years, you need to find a different straw to clutch.

[Spijed]

Oh spijed!!!!!

What about?

What about?????

It's a different topic!

It's my day off and i ought to be doing useful, productive things.

Hang-on, this topic was about the Daily Mail and you then mentioned the Mirror. So how come you can change the subject but not me?

[Rowls]

OK, but that's still not an explaination as to why you dislike the I so much. That's just advice for people who read it.
What is it the I does that makes you dislike it so much?

*sigh*

This is why I've stopped engaging with you and attempting to teach you.

It's why I don't particularly like the paper but it's also my explanation as to why I don't favour it - because it's pretending to be something which it isn't.

Have you got that?

That is the reason (a) I do not read it very often and also (b) the reason I don't like it.

It's both reasons.

I don't actively "dislike" it, I just find it to be very disappointing, sub-standard journalism. That's my opinion. Yours may vary. I've thought about it and come up with the hypothesis that I'm constantly disappointed with its content because the style, layout and format of its site pretends to be high-class broadsheet but the content is actually tabloid. And low-quality tabloid at that.

That's more explanation than you deserve. Toodle-oo for now Turtle.

[Rowls]

Hang-on, this topic was about the Daily Mail and you then mentioned the Mirror. So how come you can change the subject but not me?

Ahhh, good question.

I didn't engage anyone about the Mirror. I merely offered it out there to people who are labouring under the chore of reading "The i". I asked for nothing in response.

You want to engage me. That's the difference.

[nil_desperandum]

For anyone who reads "The i" here is my advice:

If you want a lefty tabloid newspaper read the Daily Mirror instead.

If you want a lefty tabloid internet news site read Buzzfeed instead.

The advantages of these outlets is that they don't have the pretence of being anything other than what they are - tabloid news. Here are the 3 main advantages:

1. You're not kidding yourself about the quality of the news you're taking in
2. The Mirror has a great racing pull-out to remind you that you're not reading a broadsheet
3. Buzzfeed has links-a-plenty to attractive young people advising you on masturbation strategies, how to pull, what a silly man Donald Trump is etc etc. They vary in usefulness and entertainment value but -again- at least you won't be kidding yourself that you're taking in broadsheet quality journalism.

Granted the "I" doesn't cover things in much depth, nor does it claim to, but neither does it preach hatred or seek to indoctrinate.
If you are interested in the items covered in the "I" you can then go online and get more in-depth coverage in either "The Independent" or whichever other sources you choose to seek out, to get a balanced view.

[Imploding Turtle]

It's why I don't particularly like the paper but it's also my explanation as to why I don't favour it - because it's pretending to be something which it isn't.

What's it pretending to be? And what does it do to pretend to be that?

[Rowls]

I used to read the Independent regularly and thought it was a good blend of right and left wing columnists. Not sure what happened but the quality seemed to nose dive, and the website became riddled with clickbait and listicles. I now read the Guardian but it's basically all left wing, and even though I am left wing, I do like to read right wing contributions as well.

Yeah. I liked the Independent.

Although it had that "balance" it always leant much further to the left than the right (perhaps others will disagree, it's all subjective really) but at least it may the effort.

Too often it would come up with an editorial that was muddled or tried too hard to "different" or represent some kind of "radical" thinking.

Coupled with that it was unreasonably expensive but I used to get it at a discount in a student union shop.

The writing was always very high quality though and I do miss it. "The i" is in no way a proper replacement for the Independent and it's a shame.

[Rowls]

What's it pretending to be? And what does it do to pretend to be that?

...

[Blackrod]

Don't mind the Daily Mail at all. There is a lot of lazy unresearched jornslism these days across the board. Journalists often report as an authority on matters they do not fully understand. There's far worse out there such as the Star ( is this really a newspaper) and the Sun. As for the guardian and mirror they are a bit too left wing for my liking.

[Imploding Turtle]

...

You don't know, do you? You've no idea what it is about the 'I' you dislike.

[TheFamilyCat]

I like how some people think it isn't a tabloid as it isn't a red top and that by reading it they are better than tabloid readers.

[Brunlea]

The DM has an agenda and shamelessly sticks to it the same as the Sun,mirror or guardian. It uses its power as a newspaper to shame those people or organisations it doesn't like. It is a sort of journalistic schoolyard bully. It bears grudges and never misses an opportunity to get at those that have upset it. Like all newspapers in the post Leveson era it has lost a lot of its sources as corrupt public servants cannot be as free with tips and stories as they once were. It practices deliberate naivety to print stories they paid £250 quid for from some bitter and twisted individual who has a grievance...I could go on. It would be good sometimes to have a paper that gave an accurate and balanced report of events but would it last?