The Daily Mail

I was brought up in a household where the Daily Mirror and Daily Herald were delivered daily and the Sunday Mirror and Reynold News on a Sunday.
That was the golden age of the Daily Mirror when Hugh Cudlip was the editor and Cassandra contributed every week. Sadly, like so many other things, it has gone down market very much since then.
As an adult, I bought the Observer on a Sunday, in those days Kathryn Whitehorn and Nigella Lawson (before she became famous for her cooking) wrote articles very week. Sadly, after about 40 years,I stopped buying it as there was'nt much in it that I wished to read. Possibly I have become more right wing the older I get.
Nowadays I buy the Sunday Times, it costs £3.50 but there is enough reading material to last the week. Hadley Freeman has lately joined, supposedly because of misogyny at the Guardian. So even that paper is not squeaky clean.
I do buy the Daily Mail on a Saturday for the T.V. listings, but I am considering giving it up as most of my television watching now comes from the streaming services.
I watch Sky News Press Preview every evening at 10.30 and it is interesting to see the different stance that the national newspapers take on the same subject.
To sum up, I think that all papers whether right or left wing have their own agenda and it is up to us to discriminate between them.

I think it can be honestly said that many newspapers have run good campaigns for very good causes over the years.Papers of all political bias.

Primrose53

Yesterday I mentioned the massive campaigns that the DM fought for but the DM haters chose to ignore them.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9543629/The-Mail-campaigns-changed-world.html

They have been involved with everything from rescuing Vietnamese orphans to abolishing plastic bags.

On a local level they were the only paper that continued fighting for a little family who had their 3 children forcibly removed from them and put up for adoption. Afterwards the High Court ruled that this should never have happened and the parents were cleared but since the children had all been adopted they could not remove them. They have to wait until the children are old enough to trace them.

I can’t understand this absolute hatred for a newspaper that some people have. I read several and decide for myself which reports I approve of and which I don’t. Reading comments from people who think they are superior just makes me laugh. 🤣

If I tell you all about the campaigns the Guardian has mounted will that persuade you of anything?
Seriously, that’s like saying an institution is good because it supports fluffy puppies, whilst also behind the scenes condoning the shooting of cats.
I think you are confusing superiority with despair too. I don’t think most of us find it funny in any respect.

Hang on, I'll just let Steve Martin know that Oreo doesn't like his humour. I'm sure he'll be devastated.

No, and never was tbh.

I know.

Good though, isn't it?

volver3

And if they told you that wolverines made good house pets, would you believe them?

That’s getting old now

Ladyleftfieldlover

I used to work with someone who brought a Daily Fail to work every day. I tried to explain that it was a fascist and racist publication but she simply smiled.

You’re lucky she just smiled after a patronising explanation to a work colleague on why she shouldn’t read the paper she likes.

And if they told you that wolverines made good house pets, would you believe them?

Yesterday I mentioned the massive campaigns that the DM fought for but the DM haters chose to ignore them.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9543629/The-Mail-campaigns-changed-world.html

They have been involved with everything from rescuing Vietnamese orphans to abolishing plastic bags.

On a local level they were the only paper that continued fighting for a little family who had their 3 children forcibly removed from them and put up for adoption. Afterwards the High Court ruled that this should never have happened and the parents were cleared but since the children had all been adopted they could not remove them. They have to wait until the children are old enough to trace them.

I can’t understand this absolute hatred for a newspaper that some people have. I read several and decide for myself which reports I approve of and which I don’t. Reading comments from people who think they are superior just makes me laugh. 🤣

Anniel

Tenko
I have sympathy with your opinion, but then former owners of The Guardian were engaged in the slave trade. Very stupid people all of them. But we can blame people no longer living for collaborating with the Nazis. It is a matter of history, which we should learn from. I don’t even know if Lord Rothermere’s descendent owns the DM but blaming whoever owns it currently cannot be blamed for the past owners beliefs.

It's owned by theDaily Mail and General Trust. Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, a great-grandson of one of the original co-founders, is the current chairman and controlling shareholder of the Daily Mail and General Trust.
In 2021, Rothermere Continuation Limited (RCL), a Bermuda registered company bought Daily Mail and General Trust for £2.7bn
www.lexisnexis.co.uk/blog/research-legal-analysis/rothermeres-to-bring-daily-mail-under-family-control-in-27bn-deal
4th Viscount 'hasnon-domicile (non-dom) tax statusand owns his media businesses through a complex structure of offshore holdings and trusts' says his Wikipedia profile
So, all in all, it appears that DM and its chair pay very little, if any, UK tax.

The Daily Mail's long campaign to demonise migrants

www.theneweuropean.co.uk/daily-mail-century-long-quest-to-demonise-migrants/

Lilyflower: a good collection of mostly right wing views. May I suggest you add the Morning Star on line too.

I used to work with someone who brought a Daily Fail to work every day. I tried to explain that it was a fascist and racist publication but she simply smiled.

By buying the DM you are contributing to a right wing fascist family who own it! Enough said!!!!

Well there does appear to be some rationality deficit when it comes to stats.

I've seen the stats and "facts" that the Mail publishes. They are selective and biased towards making someone believe what the Mail wants them to believe. It takes a bit of work to understand the difference between a survey in Statista and a very colourful and misleading graph in the Mail.

And no snide comments about me not reading the Mail please, it's getting old.

I buy the Telegraph and Spectator and read the Mail and Guardian online. Additionally, I real the Guido and Politico websites and anything else of interest that pops up. I used to teach English and Media and come from a family comprising of a journalist and writer, a politician and a communications manager and writer. We happily agree to disagree about politics.

The Mail has some daft items like horoscopes and ‘pictures of ghosts’ with a voracious coverage of celebrity nonsense. However, it covers many stories ignored and even hidden by the left wing press and it will cover important issues at length and in detail. Quite often I see a new story in the Mail which the Telegraph will then follow up on. It frequently publishes the facts, evidence and statistics behind stories which allow the reader a more independent and informed assessment of that issue.

If you can evaluate news and be objective, reading the Mail in conjunction with other news sources is very useful in having an overview of events. Compared with the fact-lite left wing drumbeat of the Guardian and BBC, the Mail is a very useful extra source of information.

And I don’t recommend hating and reviling something you reject ideologically and do not read at all. There’s a bit of a rationality deficit in such conduct.

I recommend everyone reads widely, checks facts and sources and subjects their reading to clear, reasoned thought.

I read the Mailonline for the latest gossip/covid virus about to hit our shores and the Guardian online to balance out any rubbish the MOL might be peddling. Sometimes there is common ground...

I read it every day, mainly because I like the puzzles and the Femail items. They once printed a lovely item about my granddaughter and also printed a letter which helped us raise money for her life changing operation. They aren’t all bad and you need to use your own intelligence to decide what’s good and what’s bad.

We get the print and digital version of the Times and the print version of the Torygraph on Sundays. Sometimes look at the Mail if someone refers to a particular story.

Casdon
My favourite line.
I put on women’s clothing
And hang around in bars. 😂

Tenko
I have sympathy with your opinion, but then former owners of The Guardian were engaged in the slave trade. Very stupid people all of them. But we can blame people no longer living for collaborating with the Nazis. It is a matter of history, which we should learn from. I don’t even know if Lord Rothermere’s descendent owns the DM but blaming whoever owns it currently cannot be blamed for the past owners beliefs.

Good God Tenko. That was 80 years ago!

I never read the DM but that doesn’t make me virtuous in any way😂
I never read TG either.
As already said all newspapers have some bias, so what!

I read books,
I drink tea
And I know things 😁

I haven’t read the DM for decades, when I discovered Lord Rothermere was a Nazi sympathiser and a supporter of Hitler