Why do people read the Daily Mail or Daily Express ?

[LeMaquis 10]

Daily Mail...Left Wing? Really?

 

Irony; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

[truman 10]

Irony; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

 

Sorry , my detector is switched off today

[Berberis 10]

No, the Independent arose because left-wing writers jumped ship from The Times.

 

No, it was created to be a centrist paper. Later it stopped calling itself centrist (in terms of left or right wing) and preferred to call itself Liberal, which you must know is neither left nor right wing.

 

Others tried to label it left or right, but most of the time this was other media organisations or people with a grudge against it for one reason or another.

[Magilla 510]

It is no more or less biased than the Guardian or Independent (or for that matter, the Times). It also employs some good writers.

 

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.

 

There's always spin based on underlying facts, sure, but I don't recall the Guardian or Independent just making up news without any basis in fact like the DM has been caught doing over and over again.

[NigelFargate 10]

Im sorry but to put the Independant in the same context as the Guardian is nonsensical. The Independent was never considered to be anything other than centrist, in much the same as The FT is.

 

Have you read the independent recently? It is now far to the left of the Guardian, in my opinion.

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2017 at 17:37 ----------

 

I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.

 

There's always spin based on underlying facts, sure, but I don't recall the Guardian or Independent just making up news without any basis in fact like the DM has been caught doing over and over again.

 

It happens to be true. Your phrase 'spin based on underlying facts' is the key here. who chooses the 'underlying facts'? It is the journalists who select 'facts' on which to base stories, thereby setting the news agenda.

[melthebell 862]

Have you read the independent recently? It is now far to the left of the Guardian, in my opinion.

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2017 at 17:37 ----------

 

 

It happens to be true. Your phrase 'spin based on underlying facts' is the key here. who chooses the 'underlying facts'? It is the journalists who select 'facts' on which to base stories, thereby setting the news agenda.

did you read the post youre replying to? he admitted its spins to a political sphere but he said they DONT out and out lie like the daily mail has and been caught out on numerous times

[Magilla 510]

Your phrase 'spin based on underlying facts' is the key here. who chooses the 'underlying facts'?

 

It doesn't matter, as long as the "underlying fact" actually exists. That is not always the case with the Daily Mail.

 

It is the journalists who select 'facts' on which to base stories, thereby setting the news agenda.

 

Quite, and Daily Mail journalists are known to have a habbit of basing stories on what happened in their imagination, there is no "underlying fact" in the first place.

 

Rather than inform their readership, the Daily Mail has often actively set out to lie to theirs.

 

They've been caught out so many times it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

[NigelFargate 10]

It doesn't matter, as long as the "underlying fact" actually exists. That is not always the case with the Daily Mail.

 

 

 

Quite, and Daily Mail journalists are known to have a habbit of basing stories on what happened in their imagination, there is no "underlying fact" in the first place.

 

Rather than inform their readership, the Daily Mail has often actively set out to lie to theirs.

 

They've been caught out so many times it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

 

but you have not provided any evidence of this.

[Mister M 1,609]

Have you read the independent recently? It is now far to the left of the Guardian, in my opinion.

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2017 at 17:37 ----------

 

 

It happens to be true. Your phrase 'spin based on underlying facts' is the key here. who chooses the 'underlying facts'? It is the journalists who select 'facts' on which to base stories, thereby setting the news agenda.

 

But the Independent backed a Conservative - Lib Dem Coalition in the 2015 election - that doesn't sound very left wing to me ....Unless you yourself are so far to the right, that anything seems left wing

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32585930

Edited March 9, 2017 by Mister M

[Magilla 510]

but you have not provided any evidence of this.

 

I have already earlier in the thread, but here it is again:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/rorycellanjones/2010/03/facebook_v_daily_mail.html

http://www.globaldashboard.org/2010/03/10/daily-mail-facebook/

 

 

A concerted effort to mislead their readers even when they knew it wasn't remotely true. There's plenty more like that if you choose to look.

 

The Daily Mail is considered an unreliable source for news for obvious reasons:-

 

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/02/09/generally-unreliable-daily-mail-culled-wikipedia-news-sources

 

TBH, you only have to read the paper a few times to realise that something ain't right (IMV).

 

This comment from the BBC piece pretty accurately sums it up:-

 

"I rate its stories on a par with the Sport and the National Enquirer - Entertaining in a prurient and mean-spirited sort of way, but nothing on which I would base any real analysis or understanding of a story. Just a shame some people seem to mistake it for a serious newspaper..."

Edited March 9, 2017 by Magilla

[chalga 10]

but you have not provided any evidence of this.

http://boingboing.net/2014/01/03/lies-of-the-daily-mail.html

 

 

 

 

Yesterday's New Statesman published a long, nuanced profile of Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief of the despicable Daily Mail. Dacre's a remarkable and contradictory character, profiled with some sympathy but no white-washing by Peter Wilby, but the most striking moment of the piece comes in the first third, when Wilby lays out all the admitted falsehoods and libels published by the Daily Mail -- a list that is incomplete because it only consists of those where retractions, legal action, or other visible signals of falsehood were raised. There's a much longer list of smears and lies about people who couldn't afford to defend themselves from the paper (or couldn't bear to). Still, it's a hell of a list:

 

This year, the Mail reported that disabled people are exempt from the bedroom tax; that asylum-seekers had “targeted” Scotland; that disabled babies were being euthanised under the Liverpool Care Pathway; that a Kenyan asylum-seeker had committed murders in his home country; that 878,000 recipients of Employment Support Allowance had stopped claiming “rather than face a fresh medical”; that a Portsmouth primary school had denied pupils water on the hottest day of the year because it was Ramadan; that wolves would soon return to Britain; that nearly half the electricity produced by windfarms was discarded. All these reports were false.

 

Mail executives argue that it gets more complaints than its rivals because it reaches more readers (particularly online, where the paper’s stories are repeated and others originate), prints more pages and tackles more serious and politically challenging issues. They point out that only six complaints were upheld after going through all the PCC’s stages and that the Sun and Telegraph, despite fewer complaints, had more upheld. But the PCC list, though it contains some of the Mail’s favourite targets such as asylum-seekers and “scroungers”, merely scratches the surface. Other complainants turned to the law. In the past ten years, the Mail has reported that the dean of RAF College Cranwell showed undue favouritism to Muslim students (false); the film producer Steve Bing hired a private investigator to destroy the reputation of his former lover Liz Hurley (false); the actress Sharon Stone left her four-year-old child alone in a car while she dined at a restaurant (false); the actor Rowan Atkinson needed five weeks’ treatment at a clinic for depression (false); a Tamil refugee, on hunger strike in Parliament Square, was secretly eating McDonald’s burgers (false); the actor Kate Winslet lied over her exercise regime (false); the singer Elton John ordered guests at his Aids charity ball to speak to him only if spoken to (false); Amama Mbabazi, the prime minister of Uganda, benefited personally from the theft of £10m in foreign aid (false). In all these cases, the Mail paid damages.

 

Then there are the subjects that the Mail and other right-wing papers will never drop. One is the EU, which, the Mail reported last year, proposed to ban books such as Enid Blyton’s Famous Five series that portray “traditional” families. Another is local authorities, forever plotting to expel Christmas from public life and replace it with the secular festival of Winterval. It does not matter how often these reports are denied and their flimsy provenance exposed; the Mail keeps on running them and its columnists cite them as though they were accepted wisdom.

Edited March 9, 2017 by chalga

[Justin Smith 10]

I was reading my mother-in-law`s copy of the Daily Mail yesterday. it was a painful experience but I thought of it as "research".

The article below caught my eye and I have copied it out exactly, I thought it`d be a good example of how the DM`s bias works :

 

Daily Mail (9 Mar 17)

 

£13bn a year Brexit boost.

 

Britain will bank nearly £13 billion a year from leaving the UU, official estimates suggest.

By the time the UK leaves in 2019, ending payments into the EU budget will boost the Government finances by £12.7 billion, the office for Budget Responsibility said yesterday.

However, the OBR risked further criticism for other more characteristically downbeat forecasts about Brexit.

It warned that leaving will result in a decade of lower growth in exports to the European Union, and that as a result, Britain will have a “lower share of EU markets”.

 

Now, I looked for this £12.7 billion figure on the OBRs website but Google was unable to find it. Maybe the DM is getting mixed up with the infamous and discredited £12.7 billion we pay to the EU which the Leave campaign have trumpeted in the past. This page explains that it may be a figure we pay into the EU, but we get £4 billion back again. There was no mention of that in the DM article.

 

It also says "the OBR risked further criticism", by whom ? I read the Times and the Telegraph before that and they`d never come out with such an unattributed comment, they`d say who was doing the criticising and, if it was a "think tank" whether it was left or right leaning.

 

Lastly the article never mentions the moneys which have been promised to the farmers, Nissan and Gawd knows who else. Nor does it mention any other calls on that £12.7 billion due directly to the EU exit. It`s classic biased journalism.

 

Can anyone else spot any other bias in it which I may have missed ?

 

All in all it really is no wonder that Daily Mail and Daily Express readers have such an inaccurate and biased view of the world around us all. Without wishing to sound too patronising, it`s not all their own fault if they read the DM or DE. The problem is those people vote and those votes affect the rest of us.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Justin Smith