Why is the Daily Mail showing awful ISIS pictures?

My new year resolution was not to read DM in links, coffee shops anywhere. I think you can read Independent and Guardian online for free.

For some reason, the Guardian never loads properly.
I find the Independent a bit too indepth for me.

I like the way the Daily Mail writes. It used to be discreet about pictures, but not anymore.
I dont want to see the pictures . I dont think I need to see the pictures.

I have tried the Express but cant get on with it.

I suspect that there isnt an answer for me.

soon if it's just basic facts you're after, why don't you leave off the newspaper and read up about it on Wikipedia (or somewhere else):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

Thanks. I have read a bit about basic facts now.
I would like to read recent news stuff about it.

Does everyone ignore the pictures?

These pictures have to be shown. Resolve to destroy this evil must be built up. Sooner or later other nations will realise that doing practically nothing is not a feasible option.

It's just a shame we squandered so much on wars that were less necessary than this one.

Anyone who has grandchildren and longs for a safe world for them to live their lives in, must take all this on board. It may well affect us all one day.

I did think that pictures should be shown. Now I am not so sure.
And certainly not as many and so graphic.

I have this idea that men like to see graphic pictures, and women not so much. I could be wrong.

I think the simple answer is "because it's the Daily Mail". I agree with Leticia in avoiding it.

I think any sort of propaganda eventually effects you and at least papers like the Independent and Guardian and for balance the Times and Telegraph do at least attempt to balance a little from their chosen stance.

I very much enjoy the Economist and am lucky enough to get a subscription as a Christmas present although, if you find the Indy too in depth I should avoid it.

Have you tried the "I" soontobe. It's a concise version of the Indy and is cheaper too

jingle It's probably largely because we squandered money on wars that were "less necessary than this one" that we've got this one.

The Daily Mail is just doing what it does best - being vile.

I did used to read the Times online and quite enjoyed it. But the paywall makes it expensive so I dont subscribe.
One of my children used to have The Economist, and I did read parts of that when they were here. But it is not daily.

I will look up the Telegraph. I tend to forget about that one.

I didnt know that the I was online. That sounds worth looking at, thanks.

Aka the Daily Hate Mail, it sells copy, plain & simple.

It's no good bashing the Daily Mail. Somebody has to report this evil stuff or do we prefer to live in 'head in the sand' Utopia.

How many people said they had no idea what was happening to the Jews in WW2?

Thepictures do make it vile now Eloethan. That and all the pictures of women in bikinis and women doing selfies, and women in revealing clothing..
It now feels like a paper that is well and truly run by males.

I think that in this day and age, we already have the message of what they are doing. We are in the age of 2015 technology. Not 1930's technology.

The only newspaper that I buy regularly, apart from my local one, is the i. Occasionally I buy the Independent if I'm going on a journey by train and will have the time to read it and I sometimes pick up a Guardian or Observer as a freebie from Waitrose - I then use them to light my woodburner after I've glanced through them.

www.independent.co.uk/i/

Does anyone else prefer watching Al Jazeera for the World News? I find it gives a far more comprehensive picture of what's actually going on in the world.

So people who are not computer literate do not deserve to be informed, soontobe?

Many people prefer to read a newspaper.

Eloethan I quite agree with you about the wars.

Good point merlotgran.

I mean about the jews during WW2.

I get the I.
You can only read a few articles in online Telegraph before you have to pay.
I do bash the Daily Mail. I am all for truth- but not 'the truth' Daily Mail style.

I don't think the pictures in the Mail are sensationalist.

You dont jingl?
I think that they are now. I didnt used to.

A few Telegraph articles may be enough. Thanks.

Who owns Al Jazeera? I will look into that.

Sounds like the i may be what I am looking for. I am going out soon. I will buy one.
I have decided to buy about 4 different sorts if I can, and compare them.

merlotgran. I would have thought that everyone who reads newspapers, also watches the news on tv.
I dont actually get your point. Sorry.

It's no good bashing the Daily Mail. Somebody has to report this evil stuff or do we prefer to live in 'head in the sand' Utopia.

All the newspapers will report these things merlotgran. It is how you report them that matters.

How many people said they had no idea what was happening to the Jews in WW2?

Didn't the DM support the Nazis for at least some of the war?

soontobe I meant the pictures in the DM today. The awful IS ones. They are not sensationalist. They just show the evil of these people.