The first 17 pages devoted to the Royal Baby. Sick to the back teeth of hearing about the Royals and this wedding in particular. I want to read about real issues such as crime, immigration, social and judicial injustice.

Blackrod wrote:The first 17 pages devoted to the Royal Baby. Sick to the back teeth of hearing about the Royals and this wedding in particular. I want to read about real issues such as crime, immigration, social and judicial injustice.

Agreed.

You should be proud of our royals. If you're not then you should get out.

Buy another paper/go on another site.
Simples.

And the ******* Royal wedding to come!

At least the NHS is spared another bashing

Daily Mails knows its readership doesn't it?

bedfords wrote:You should be proud of our royals. If you're not then you should get out.

I'm guessing from the way these things have worked in the past that the royal parasite bursting from its host was splashed all across the front page with banner headlines. Also on the front page was probably something indicating that, inside, there would be a 17 page special on the royal spawning. The Daily Mail is a populist newspaper, printing what, from past experience, it thinks will sell copy. Faced with that why did you buy it? What did you think you were going to get?

Blackrod wrote:The first 17 pages devoted to the Royal Baby. Sick to the back teeth of hearing about the Royals and this wedding in particular. I want to read about real issues such as crime, immigration, social and judicial injustice.

Do you really need to start a thread asking for advice on how not to read the Daily Mail? OK, page 1 might be a bit obvious as you walk past a newsagent, but pages 2 to 17 shouldn't be too hard to avoid. Just Say No!

I absolutely cannot stand the Daily mail, but it prints the stories that its readers want to see. And it will continue to do so, because that is how it survives.

Follow the various Daily Mail parody accounts on twitter for a good giggle, but also to see what sort of people read it and what they want to read.

I knew this thread would be too tempting for Lancaster !

Leave the country if Im not proud of our Royal Family. Idiotic comment.

A token Royal Family in the background and keep the buildings for tourists. All the public expenditure on them and estate income to be redirected to the NHS, education, supporting elderly, wounded ex forces,victims of crime and the ill. A much better scenario for me.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Daily Mails knows its readership doesn't it?

It's got one.

The Guardian?

And the independent. It's not actually a paper!

Blackrod wrote:I knew this thread would be too tempting for Lancaster !

Leave the country if Im not proud of our Royal Family. Idiotic comment.

A token Royal Family in the background and keep the buildings for tourists. All the public expenditure on them and estate income to be redirected to the NHS, education, supporting elderly, wounded ex forces,victims of crime and the ill. A much better scenario for me.

And bus passes for 62 year olds

Every paper has to pander to its readership base to a greater or lesser extent.

The Daily Mail tells you what you want to hear, it tells you that you are not alone, that you are right to be afraid, and that if you just listen to them it will all get better, but you have to be afraid first.

Blackrod wrote:I knew this thread would be too tempting for Lancaster !

Leave the country if Im not proud of our Royal Family. Idiotic comment.

A token Royal Family in the background and keep the buildings for tourists. All the public expenditure on them and estate income to be redirected to the NHS, education, supporting elderly, wounded ex forces,victims of crime and the ill. A much better scenario for me.

Ah the ideal world again.
Yes get rid of the Royal Family and then they would be replaced by someone with delusions of grandeur who would become President and then there would be no corruption in the hierarchy and of course all the money would be redirected into the sources which you champion.
There would be no change to the us and them situation and anyone who has worked or been involved with those sort of people will realise that that is the case.
They have it and we don't.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Every paper has to pander to its readership base to a greater or lesser extent.

The Daily Mail tells you what you want to hear, it tells you that you are not alone, that you are right to be afraid, and that if you just listen to them it will all get better, but you have to be afraid first.

FWIW I browse several newspapers. They too "tell" me what to think.

But the "othering" that you're implying the Mail does, is not exclusive to it. The Mirror and Guardian are 2 that spring to mind.

I seldom buy the Mail but glance through it if lying around. I looked through the Mirror afterwards today which had about 12 pages on the 'baby'. After that page after page of scathing attacks on The Tories.

They do, but the Mail specialises in plying on your fears.

Its not specifically aimed at you Ringo, but a large majority of the Mails readership are those who are elderly and are worried about change. The Mail reinforces their fears shamelessly, which is why I can't stand it.

Get rid of the Royal Family and then ARISE President May. Second thoughts lets stick with the Royal Family

Don't all papers ply on your fears?
It is what sells afterall.

Red tops are reknown for it, along with switching to the winning sides in elections when they've got a better view.

Papers are also known for favouring one political party over the other to suit whoever is running the place, or whichever agende they're currently pushing.

Lancasterclaret wrote:They do, but the Mail specialises in plying on your fears.

Its not specifically aimed at you Ringo, but a large majority of the Mails readership are those who are elderly and are worried about change. The Mail reinforces their fears shamelessly, which is why I can't stand it.

And the guardian obsesses about "white male privilege" and victimhood of every demographic there is. Yet each month I go to my front door to see if I've finally recieved my pay cheque from the "patriarchy" , only to be disappointed once again.

Lancasterclaret wrote:They do, but the Mail specialises in plying on your fears.

It's extremely myopic to think that the Mail specializes in this but that other papers somehow do not.

Mail reader's main fears might be crime, plastic straws, uncontrolled immigration and the prospect of ruinous Marxist government devaluing pensions and assets.

But the Guardian equivalent is Tories (or "Tory Scum" as is often the case for the readership), Brexit, Donald Trump, "Privitization", "Global Climate Breakdown" and Capitalism. Oh, and the Daily Mail too.

Not a day goes by without me being bored to tears by some barfly wittering on about these things as if they're going to end the world.

If you can't see that the Mail and the Guardian are just different sides of the same coin then you're not looking hard enough or lack sufficient self-awareness. I'd say that the Guardian is far, far less tolerant of different political opinions and its readership likewise. It's the new modern-day prejudice and the worst thing about it is the bearers of this intolerance often think it's a virtue.

People disagree vehemently on both sides but only one side think that persistently calling the others "scum" is in any way acceptable.

The Left-

Claim to love diversity.

Hate diversity of opinion....

Cheers Rowls

As always, i'll take your opinion and put it in my B1N file.

But thanks as always for contribution.

You do that Lancs.

You can imagine you're with the young trendy hipsters full of optimism and fighting the good fight. The other side are old fuddy-duddies who are just "scared about change".

Keep that fantasy in your head and all you will do is reinforce your prejudices. You may as well believe in noble Jedi knights and evil Sith Lords.

Here is the Daily Mash feature on how to build your baby bullshit bunker:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/features/ ... 0423147883" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's always "the other side" who are motivated by fear isn't it?

It's never "us".

Just like adverts don't affect "us", only ever "other people".

You've only got to click on the Guardian opinion page to see the proof that they're peddling fear just the same as the Daily Mail is. They're just scared of different things.

We're ALL primarily motivated by fear. It's inescapable, like breathing air and eating and drinking and laughing and loving and arguing and fighting.

If you're not willing to accept this then welcome to La-La Land.

Rowls wrote:You do that Lancs.

You can imagine you're with the young trendy hipsters full of optimism and fighting the good fight. The other side are old fuddy-duddies who are just "scared about change".

Keep that fantasy in your head and all you will do is reinforce your prejudices. You may as well believe in noble Jedi knights and evil Sith Lords.

To be fair, Teresa May does look like a Sith Lord

Dearth May, evil Lord of the First Order of Brexit

Rowls wrote:Dearth May, evil Lord of the First Order of Brexit

These aren't the trade agreements you're looking for

Rowls wrote: You've only got to click on the Guardian opinion page to see the proof that they're peddling fear just the same as the Daily Mail is. They're just scared of different things.

There's a difference between the Guardian's Comment Is Free opinion pieces tucked away on their website, and the Daily Mail's hysterical front page headlines on show in every supermarket and newsagents in the land, and held up each night on TV.

May Theresa be with you

UpTheBeehole wrote:There's a difference between the Guardian's Comment Is Free opinion pieces tucked away on their website, and the Daily Mail's hysterical front page headlines on show in every supermarket and newsagents in the land, and held up each night on TV.

If you can't see the difference, then you're the one with their head in the sand.

James Obrain has just claimed that the

"propagandists have done more damage to the infrastructure of this country than the Luftwaffe. I'm looking at you the Daily Mail"

LBC approx 11.40 am 24th April 2018



What an hysterical, socialist with starff, dweller of the metropolitan London borough of ivory towers!

And he's paid handsomely for spouting utter garbage like that. Suppose it's just throwing raw meat to his insatiable Far Left rump of listeners!

More damage than the Luftwaffe!!!!

No one other than right wing cranks listen to LBC.

I never voted for a Queen ?

UpTheBeehole wrote:No one other than right wing cranks listen to LBC.

I'm listening to LBC right now!

The heartwarming thing about this thread is that everyone approaches it with an open mind, willing to listen and learn from each other.

UpTheBeehole wrote:No one other than right wing cranks listen to LBC.

"Every news outlet that doesn't specifically cater to my particular ideological core values is for right wing cranks"

Rowls is correct re the Guardian being just the other side of the spectrum to the Mail. I say that as someone who started reading the (Manchester) Guardian whilst at school (c 1965) and buying hard copy mostly daily upto c.10 years ago. I still buy hard copy every Fri & Saturday.
Some good sports & arts coverage & the cryptic crossword is ace (albeit Saturday's had a printing error which screwed me for ages).

However, reading the online BTL comments by Guardianistas (and the readers' letters published) reveals opinions just as (if not more) one-eyed and lacking in balanced judgement as any D Mail BTL comment section.

I'm not sure what affect the paper you read has if you're a vaguely intelligent and worldly person though. My dad read the D Mail from when the News Chronicle folded (late 1950s?) and he was 100% Labour and a very easy going/forgiving character. The only paper I read now is the Guardian but I'm flummoxed by Guardianistas.

ClaretAndJew wrote:I'm listening to LBC right now!

LBC? = RWC!

The Guardian once spoke for the British working class.

Now it's the mouthpiece for the metropolitan sneering class.

Lancasterclaret wrote:I absolutely cannot stand the Daily mail

I would never have guessed.

RingoMcCartney wrote:LBC? = RWC!

I've just detained 4 black people and have successfully tied them up with an England flag.

RingoMcCartney wrote:The Guardian once spoke for the British working class.

Now it's the mouthpiece for the metropolitan sneering class.

Really? Must have been long before my young lifetime that.

When was this?

ClaretAndJew wrote:I've just detained 4 black people and have successfully tied them up with an England flag.

Only 4!?

Get back out and get 4 more you liberal snowflake ****!

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Really? Must have been long before my young lifetime that.

When was this?

I know, I know.

There's several posters on the Guardian who's log in name has reference to Peterloo.

And everyone of them sneers, mocks, uses derogatory and pernicious terms, in a communal character assassination, of anybody that had the audacity to vote Leave.

At Peterloo, they'd have been part of the cavalry!

You still posting on there Ringo?