Should We Be Grateful To Such Newspapers As The Daily Mail?

[anotheoldgit]

Is it advantageous for national newspapers such as the Daily Mail to report on various stories which for some strange reason other papers fail to report on?

[naomi24]

I'm not sure 'grateful' is the right word, but if they report news that other papers prefer to ignore, then good for them.

[Peter Pedant]

and good for you nigh

The daily mail as a paper carrying all the news that is fit to print and alot that isnt ....
interesting AB alternative fact

whilst we are at it - why dont we put it forward for canonisation ?
Lord Thomson's immaculate conception or something

[naomi24]

Peter Pedant, thank you.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

Do you know sp that I have never looked at any of those things, such as 'teenage girls who are (allegedly) 'all grown up' or even 'Kim Kashadian and their brood'. whoever they are.

So I bow to your experience and knowledge of such things, which seems to say more about your choice of articles that you must read in the Daily Mail than those of mine.

[Tilly2]

I don't know how you can select articles without seeing other articles, AOG. If you're only reading the front page then you are wasting your money. You can do that in Sainsbury's.

[anotheoldgit]

Tilly2

I don't buy the Daily Mail I only read it's web page along with the other newspaper's web pages that I read.

[Tilly2]

Oh, I see. I apologise, AOG.

[anotheoldgit]

mikey4444
There you go with your unhealthy obsession regarding Muslims.

You are prepared to congratulate the DM for it's campaign at getting some of the the killers of Stephen Lawrence behind bars, him being a black lad and his killers white, but you think that if he had been a Muslim, they would have ignored it?

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.

Still haven't answered my question, are you a closeted Muslim?

[anotheoldgit]

Apology accepted Tilly.

[ummmm]

Why is it pathetic?

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// Why do feel the need to defend the Daily Mail? ///

Simply because the liberal left would like it closed down, and if they are against anything then a 'right' minded person has to defend it.

And why would they wish to censor it, (well we are now back to the reason for my thread) because they are prepared to inform the masses of what is really happening, not some PC doctoring of certain facts, which the left would wish to see swept under the carpet.

[anotheoldgit]

ummmm

/// Why is it pathetic? ///

Well if one needs to ask such an question on a matter with such an obvious answer, then one is wasting one's time in explaining.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - Whether the Mail has a mission to 'inform the masses' or not - I suggest that 'the masses' don't actually read it!

I know that it is the most popular daily paper, but in an era of declining print media, that really isn't saying that much.

I think the Mail has its demographic, to which it successfully appeals, but they are not 'the masses' by a very long way.

[sp1814]

AOG

Unfortunately, these stories are right there in front of you.

I've just thought - are you talking about the newspaper?

If so, I can understand your point, but with the website, it's right there in front of you on the front page.

Also, there's the issue of churnalism and clickbait.

[sp1814]

AOG

"Simply because the liberal left would like it closed down"

Not true.

And with regards to censorship - it's absolutely right that occasionally the DM should be censored.

Why, only recently it had to pay out an undisclosed sum for printing a story telling its readers that the First Lady of the United States used to be a hooker.

So, in some respects, censorship should be encouraged, don't you think?

Otherwise, it can be expensive.

Your defence of the Daily Mail is really quite odd. Again - the Guardian is slated all the time on this site, but you never get any of the (sigh) 'liberal left' crying about it.

If we did, we'd be called snowflakes.

[sp1814]

But to your earlier point regarding the DM's obsession with teenage girls and the Kardashian clan. I accept you have never read any of those stories.

I think you're lucky, because you have a very well developed selection ability, which allows you to focus on some stories, whilst others are invisible to you.

I assume that when you read the Mail, instead of seeing a full webpage, you just see stories with the rest of your screen being out of focus.

It must be like having news glaucoma.

[andy-hughes]

I confess that I m surprised that you don't read the print edition of the Mail AOG - how on earth you manage to ignore that appalling sexist tripe that makes up their side-bar is beyond me. Even if you occasionally flick your eyes to the right, you are greeted with 'side-boobs' and 'rippling abs' and 'pert bottoms' and similar sub-1974 sexist guff.

[andy-hughes]

sp and I have cross-posted, I see he points out the same aspect of on-line browsing as I have - the avoidance of the idea that women are still to be objectified for the titillation of men.

It has no place in a modern news outlet.

[ummmm]

AOG - I'm not stupid....explain.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// It must be like having news glaucoma. ///

It is not about having 'news glaucoma' as you put it, but about focusing on the 'NEWS' not the very small side-bars that are of no interest to me.