|
Post by racingteatray on Oct 27, 2017 13:46:30 GMT
I'm sure my view on this comes as no surprise to anyone (although I consider myself right-wing), but I'm curious to see how wide the readership of the Daily Mail is.
I'm genuinely not trying to start a tiresome argument. Just curious. The Mail styles itself a champion of the people and is supposed to be one of Britain's most widely read papers, so given we are quite a random collection of people, where do we all stand on it? I mean it was always quite right-wing (if perhaps not quite as foamingly so as today) but equally apparently a staple of middle class homes across the country when I was a child.
|
|
|
Post by Roadrunner on Oct 27, 2017 13:55:13 GMT
Not for me.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Oct 27, 2017 14:20:32 GMT
I don't read newspapers, I get my news off the internet. However my parents used to get papers every day and The Mail was one. Even when seriously ill, dad used to manage to read part of at east one newspaper every day almost until his end... it does amuse me now that my mum still buys the Daily Mail a few times a week for the Fred Bassett cartoon strip, which she cuts out and keeps for me ! I have told her that she need not bother with such trivia, but she insists
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Oct 27, 2017 14:41:39 GMT
By "read", I mean the website as well as the actual print newspaper.
Yes, my mother still occasionally sends me newspaper cuttings in the post. In fact she sent me one yesterday about someone I used to know.
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Oct 27, 2017 15:12:11 GMT
I’ll read it occasionally. I like a bit of balance, so try to get news from a number of sources and it’s interesting to see the different spin a certain paper puts on things. I have noticed that the Independent isn’t any more, for example!
I did subscribe to The Times, but have just cancelled it as I didn’t think it was really worth it, despite being just right of centre which is where I am at.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2017 15:15:45 GMT
I think it tries desperately hard to keep its readership enraged enough to keep buying it, and in so doing does ill to the world.
But gradually the readership will die, and I don't see it having enough about it to cultivate an online life thereafter. I will not be sad.
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Oct 27, 2017 15:25:54 GMT
I don’t read it
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Oct 27, 2017 16:10:36 GMT
I haven't read one for 5 years however one of the older generation in the office purchases the Express each day and whilst I consume whichever shite ping meal I have the displeasure of eating, I do find myself thumbing through it.
One would class me as rather right of centre but its so far off the mark even for me I can't read it. How they fill 100 pages everyday on Brexit, Immigration, the Royal Family and the weather is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 27, 2017 16:56:08 GMT
I don’t tend to buy newspapers and it’s not my publication of choice but one of my friends is an editor there and I do get forwarded content. It takes a certain approach but there are plenty counter options from the left press. I think if you believe everything you read in the papers you’re an idiot
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Oct 27, 2017 17:08:14 GMT
Fascist rag, won't have it in the house.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Oct 27, 2017 19:03:48 GMT
Fascist rag, won't have it in the house. About my viewpoint. Housewives and pensioners rag of choice in Surrey. Does this mean I'll end up reading it if I don't retire in a different postcode, for whilst we are a London Borough we are decidedly in Surrey.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Oct 27, 2017 20:21:58 GMT
Like most millennials I've not actually paid for a newspaper in years but I do frequent the Mail online site but my bookmark is actually the sports tab rather than the homepage but that's not to say I don't also look at the main news section. I agree the editorial view can be one of rage at times but if you avoid the opinion led pieces the rest does a reasonable job of just putting out the facts or at least stating what people have said. There is of course also the stories of the angry people who put on their best Daily Mail sad face because they found a hair in their soup and the waiter said "well don't shout about it or everyone will want one".
I like some of their sports columnists, especially Martin Keown, who I find reasonably insightful and gets the right balance between stating what he thinks whilst being clear that it's merely his humble opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2017 7:31:43 GMT
I think it tries desperately hard to keep its readership enraged enough to keep buying it, and in so doing does ill to the world. But gradually the readership will die, and I don't see it having enough about it to cultivate an online life thereafter. I will not be sad. I rest my case:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5025461/NHS-flu-panic-strain-kill-thousands-elderly.html
Shit website too. If I want to look at Disney stuff I'll do so - don't plaster it literally all over the top of your content.
Read the comments at the bottom if you can bear it - it's a predictable as you would fear.
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Oct 28, 2017 8:01:02 GMT
I think they run a rehashed version of that story every year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2017 8:59:30 GMT
The continual propaganda style twisting of news from all news media really bugs me, beyond my comprehension tbh. The television news is also warped for what I see as "interest enhancement" reasons. Also, when there is severe weather, the reporters just HAVE to go out in it on a high building or right to the see front. Do we not know what waves look like? Or rivers? Etc etc, et al. Pointless and just sensationalising the news for the directors etc feeling good about themselves or something or whatever I do not know. I am becoming the characters from "Grumpy old gits the series". Also sad.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 28, 2017 15:06:18 GMT
I’m no fan of the Daily Mail but I find the hate towards it little different to that it'saccused of peddling. For now we have a free press and for that reason I’m happy for them to do what they do for as long as they have readers.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Oct 28, 2017 16:25:07 GMT
I have read the Daily Mail at times when there is little choice or the choice is even worse. For example, I used to stay in one hotel (in London) where the free paper choice at breakfast was The Financial Times, the Independent or the Daily Mail. Perhaps they hated their guests secretly!
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Oct 29, 2017 0:17:50 GMT
I’m no fan of the Daily Mail but I find the hate towards it little different to that it'saccused of peddling. For now we have a free press and for that reason I’m happy for them to do what they do for as long as they have readers. Accused of peddling?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Oct 30, 2017 8:43:25 GMT
I’m no fan of the Daily Mail but I find the hate towards it little different to that it'saccused of peddling. For now we have a free press and for that reason I’m happy for them to do what they do for as long as they have readers. It's not a case of them being accused of peddling racism and misogyny, they do peddle racism and misogyny - every day in both the paper and the Mail Online. A deeply unpleasant narrative runs right through their output. Mind you it's touch and go whether that annoys me more or the Daily Express with their fixation on Princess Diana and house prices.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Oct 30, 2017 13:13:01 GMT
Don't read it (or any other newspaper). When my parents still got the Express I would scan through that quickly for a laugh and I would treat the Mail the same way (in fact, I think most of the newspapers should be read like that as they all appear to have one agenda or another).
|
|
|
Post by franki68 on Oct 31, 2017 9:40:08 GMT
Haven’t wiki declared it an unreliable source and will not allow it to be used as source material for entries ? Or is that fake news?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 31, 2017 9:46:55 GMT
I’m no fan of the Daily Mail but I find the hate towards it little different to that it'saccused of peddling. For now we have a free press and for that reason I’m happy for them to do what they do for as long as they have readers. It's not a case of them being accused of peddling racism and misogyny, they do peddle racism and misogyny - every day in both the paper and the Mail Online. A deeply unpleasant narrative runs right through their output. Mind you it's touch and go whether that annoys me more or the Daily Express with their fixation on Princess Diana and house prices. There are obviously problems around press regulation but that's the answer. I feel uncomfortable with this move to ban the Daily Mail when the simple answer is if you don't like it don't read it. They are very successful simply because they do go full-froth and the reasons for that are complicated but in an online world the algorithms that power news feeds do tend to steer readers along a more an more focussed/ extreme narrative from where they started and the Daily Mail has successfully exploited that.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Oct 31, 2017 10:32:32 GMT
It's not a case of them being accused of peddling racism and misogyny, they do peddle racism and misogyny - every day in both the paper and the Mail Online. A deeply unpleasant narrative runs right through their output. Mind you it's touch and go whether that annoys me more or the Daily Express with their fixation on Princess Diana and house prices. There are obviously problems around press regulation but that's the answer. I feel uncomfortable with this move to ban the Daily Mail when the simple answer is if you don't like it don't read it. They are very successful simply because they do go full-froth and the reasons for that are complicated but in an online world the algorithms that power news feeds do tend to steer readers along a more an more focussed/ extreme narrative from where they started and the Daily Mail has successfully exploited that.
I agree with Michael (!), the Mail is fulfilling a need but I think the problem is more that its views (and the views of all the papers) are given credibility in the wider media as if they were still a reasonably restrained source.
If you look try to take the middle ground and, say, watch a mix of BBC and Sky news then at some point you'll get a review of the papers and they include the 'mainstream' titles. I think in the fast-evolving world of online social media, etc the papers have changed quicker than the establishment realise and so should be excluded as they're all targeting relative minorities nowadays.
In addition the ownership of all the titles by a relative few media barons appears to limit the spread of views.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Oct 31, 2017 10:45:51 GMT
I would suggest the main problem is that The Mail exists because it has a readership that share its viewpoint, ergo the section of the public that takes this (very popular) paper seriously are the issue.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 31, 2017 10:46:36 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 10:50:35 GMT
I would suggest the main problem is that The Mail exists because it has a readership that share its viewpoint, ergo the section of the public that takes this (very popular) paper seriously are the issue. And that their symbiosis is a vicious circle - it stokes them up - they want more - it obliges - they get stoked up further, etc etc.
It's not desperately democratic, but if it were up to me I'd view it as an old dog that's lost its marbles and was turning nasty* - trip to the vets in order.
* In the case of the Mail, this clearly happened long ago.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Oct 31, 2017 11:12:22 GMT
I've had a word with myself
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Oct 31, 2017 11:15:22 GMT
Is it the Daily Mail whose editor is staunchly anti-Europe yet owns an estate in Scotland (where I assume he/his newspaper thinks the locals should keep quiet and accept the input of Westminster) that receives vast subsidies from the EU while, presumably also whingeing about absentee foreign landlords, something thats been a particular issue up here?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 31, 2017 12:22:23 GMT
I would suggest the main problem is that The Mail exists because it has a readership that share its viewpoint, ergo the section of the public that takes this (very popular) paper seriously are the issue. And that their symbiosis is a vicious circle - it stokes them up - they want more - it obliges - they get stoked up further, etc etc. It's not just the Mail that does this, it's all media. The algorithms that generate the code that works out which link, video or whatever to serve up next are now more often than not powered by AI/machine learning and they seem to work on the basis that if they push users down a more and more extreme path (assuming we're talking about a political view here) then you're more likely to stick with that site and consume more content. Take a look at this if you want something to really worry about: www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_we_re_building_a_dystopia_just_to_make_people_click_on_ads/transcript
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 31, 2017 12:24:11 GMT
Is it the Daily Mail whose editor is staunchly anti-Europe yet owns an estate in Scotland (where I assume he/his newspaper thinks the locals should keep quiet and accept the input of Westminster) that receives vast subsidies from the EU while, presumably also whingeing about absentee foreign landlords, something thats been a particular issue up here? Same as James Dyson who is also pro-Brexit but one of, if not the, largest land owner in the UK and collects enormous subsidies for his farms - UK money arguably but an EU mechanism that enables it.
|
|