Can anyone take The Daily Mail seriously?

but the thing is: would you want your children or servants to read it?

I read most of the national newspapers from this and other countries online. I don't fail to see what's being communicated, and I am open to recognising the agenda of that publication, but don't think that has to apply to every reader. Each newspaper can be enjoyed for what it brings to the individual reader.

When I did my social work training and psychology studies eons ago, we were always encouraged to read everything that didn't fit with our own political views, otherwise how do you get to understand where the majority of your fellow human beings are coming from?

It can be quite cosy to sit and read the Guardian and Independent and tut about the 'ignoramuses' who read the red tops and the Daily Mail, but you can bet there are just as many of those readers tutting right back at you. When I was working, I would read magazines like Heat and Chat, because the stories in there were what interested the clients I worked with, and some of them were the subjects of the stories! I remember being seen with a copy of the Guardian sticking out of my bag when chatting with a client, who told me 'you people aren't real, with your middle class ways - you don't live in our world, so why would you understand us?' I don't agree that we wouldn't understand - it applies both ways. (I came form a similar background to him, but he wouldn't know that).

Common ways to put down others are to intellectualise, joke, target, or even protest 'poor me' when challenged back about patronising behaviour. The Daily Mail has one of the best formats for online reading, and I get lots of information from that paper. People who have been able to get themselves educated and have a high level of literacy can often look down on those who haven't, but on a level playing field, those intellectuals may find they are way behind in terms of equally important attributes like social and emotional intelligence, survival strategies, speed, strength, spatial awareness and general nous.

I also tut about things I see in the Daily Mail, but their hyprocrisy is more evident, so it doesn't take much intelligence to see what they've done. I'm waiting to see what comes out of the recent hacking enquiries, now we know that pretty well all of the papers have behaved as appallingly, except the more 'respectable' papers get applauded for their investigative journalism. I'll be tutting at them, too!

I am sure none of your post is aimed at me, Carol.
If I really did look down on people who had not had the benefit of my own (free) education, I would hardly have chosen to spend my teaching career as a remedial teacher.
I look down on the publishers of certain newspapers who encourage racism and homophobia. I have found that in the DM but apparently not everybody has. Fair enough.
I am quite willing to admit that I am very deficient in many interpersonal skills. I think I can be absolved of the charge of crying 'Poor me'.

I think the Telegraph and the Daily Mail is a winning combination.

jing

carol

Always enjoy the Morning Star for a non main stream view of the news. Even when I do not always agree with it, it is good in making you realise there is always another perspective and it challenges my 'comfort zone'!

The Huffington Post?
I am afraid my wayward sense of humour is kicking in now - I can see myself being beaten to death by crowds of angry DM readers with rolled up newspapers - good job I am out of the country!
(Oh, I just realised, using humour is a No-No - just put it down to my lack of emotional intelligence).

Greatnan!

The Mail on line has a story about an 18 year old girl jumping to her death from a block of flats when the police 'stormed' the flat. It mentions that she was 'mixed race' (whatever that means) and so was the 17 year old boy who was taken away in a police car. How is their race or colour relevant to this sad story?
They have the usual non-interview with a neighbour who did not know them but had seen them around!

Would it have mentioned their ethnicity if they had been white? Ethnic descriptions annoy me. I am sure I am not the only one on these forums who has an ethnically mixed grandchild -Scottish, Irish, English, African/Caribbean, you name it!

Greatnan, I've just read the report you refer to in The Mail online, and there is no mention of the ethnicity of the girl or her boyfriend. Do you get a different version? It's very odd.

When I read the article a couple of hours ago it mentioned that both the girl and her boyfriend were mixed-race ...... totally irrelevant information in the circumstances. DM has seen sense, or been criticized, and removed the info.

The On line version is updated regularly.

Updated, yes I know. Perhaps they've been reading our posts....

I would just like to make it absolutely clear that I was in no way questioning Greatnan's original account of the report. I was surprised that they had removed any reference to mixed-race, that's all.

My influence is very widespread!

The Telegraph describes the girl as being of "dual heritage".

There's posh for you!

Dual or not, her 'heritage' is still irrelevant!

Grandmother, 60, still says that the Mail is one of the papers that knowingly prints lies.
Along with all the other tabloids. This does not mean that it is all bad. Just don't believe the news stories. If they can't get a story by fair means or foul, they will make stuff up. Same goes for Heat etc. Semi-fiction. And a nasty line in criticising celebrity women for being too fat/ too thin/ unhappy looking/ unmade up/ over made up etc. Doesn't the Mail do similar articles - fashion disasters etc? Or am I thinking of one of the other tabloids? Women can do no right, OK?

Of course I agree with you Greatnan. Was just commenting on different way they can find to print the same thing.

Can we take any of 'em seriously?!

Having done a number on interviews for local and national newspapers when I was still working, I found that the Guardian and Daily Express also printed lies, despite me and senior probation managers phoning the journalists concerned to protest that, if they printed the articles with these 'mistakes' still in them, despite being corrected, we would be complaining to the Press Complaints Commission, which we did. Nothing happened, no lies retracted. There's a lot of concentration on the Daily Mail, of which I am not a particular fan, but they are all the same. We get the press we deserve - there is an appetite for sensationalism and they provide it.

Even Private Eye has lost several libel cases brought against it.

Pivate Eye lost a case brought by Sonia Sutcliffe, wife of Peter Sutcliffe and it was later proved that she had lied. That was when Ian Hislop made his famous remark 'If this is justice, I'm a banana'. I am told that the word 'banana' is sometimes whispered in courts where there is an ovbious miscarriage of justice.They have also successfully defended many libel cases, especially those brought by their favourite solicitors 'Carter Fuck'!
They are now very careful to be sure of their facts because they

simply cannot afford to lose any cases. I, for one, would happily contribute to any fund set up for their defence!

I don't carry a torch for any other publication, except my obvious choices like The Huffington Post and Atheism News, and I agree that most journalists these days (as we have seen) will sink to any depths to get a story.