The Daily Mail - the great divide

M0nica

foxie48

I certainly don't think Daily Mail readers are contemptible, just poorly informed.

foxie48 You have achieved a first, and even a medal.

I have been accused of many things in my life, some of them quite opprobrious, but you are the first to classify me as poorly informed.

MOnica
One can only assume that foxie48 missed your informative posts. Of which there have been many over the years.

I would say Nanna8 has a better grasp on politics than some posters on here, and having seen many derogatory quotes about a British newspaper is curious to learn more about it.

The Daily Mail was founded in 1896 and is a newspaper of longstanding, originally a broadsheet,now tabloid. It is described as being middle-market conservative (with a small'c') and right-wing leaning from the days when that wasn't a term of abuse.
It is a popular put-down to describe opinions as 'Daily Mail speak', usually from Guardian readers who then have to admit that they read the DM on line, just to see it is saying, so they can abuse it.
There appears to be a tremendous amount of snobbery attached to newspapers here. At one time libraries, schools, colleges, hotels, waiting rooms used to provide a range of newspapers, and it was interesting to compare the different takes on headlines, but since they have become so expensive they have become fewer and fewer.
I hate to be without my daily newspaper, which I read on line, but I enjoy seeing different presentations of the same stories and particularly enjoy What The Papers Say type programmes comparing different articles.
But the condemnation of the Daily Mail on here is not as widespread in the country as a whole as you would think from the comments on here.
What is sad is that newspaper reading is declining as more people seem to get their news (if at all) from their phone and some rather strange websites. Reading a range of articles can help you clarify your opinion, for or against, whereas headlines and leading paragraphs give you the briefest of facts because they are designed to be attention grabbing.

Mollygo

foxie48

I certainly don't think Daily Mail readers are contemptible, just poorly informed.

That can only be true if that’s all they read. Don’t forget the posters who claim they read the DM headlines! They would be most upset if you said they were poorly informed.

It's just that! "poorly informed" a conjecture, if ever there was one.

One COULD, but not necessarily, assume the average Guardian reader may be classified as a well heeled, superior minded, bon viveur, whilst enjoying multiple overseas holidays but are nevertheless fully aware of global warming, as they recycle their mung bean containers. Yes they're on the right side of history and they balance their desire to fight the good fight, by not only pointing out what a scurrilous piece of filth the DM is to the poorly informed but making sure they shuffle off to plant a tree somewhere or other to mitigate the ill effects of any air travel. One has to balance overseas cultural appreciations, anyone who's been to Benidorm as I did in my teen years will know what I'm talking about. It's so intrinsically crucial to one's mental health, as is not having the dark underbelly of society creeping into one's idyll.

I mean how fair would that conjecture be for heaven's sake. I'd wager there are probably more than half a dozen avid Guardian supporters who don't fit that profile, maybe that number would even run into double figures, but that would be pushing the boat out a tad.

Anyway, posters don't come much better informed or erudite than MOnica on GN so there you are, there are those with more than half a brain cell who read the Mail and don't turn into a human version of a turnip. There's hope for us all!

FriedGreenTomatoes2

My Yorkshire Lass (eldest daughter) shudders at the mere mention of the DM. My gentle and kind 94 year old Scottish stepfather has it delivered every day (for years) except for Sundays when he takes the Sunday Post. Mind you, he’s not interested in politics nor celebrities, nor sport really, so apart from the daily crossword and code word I’m not sure how much flipping if the pages he actually does!

I look at it on line occasionally. 🤷‍♀️

Now you are taking me way back.
The Sunday post was a staple in our house on a Sunday.
Loved The Broons, Francis Gay.
We always did the quiz after our Sunday dinner 😊

TerriBull

Mollygo

foxie48

I certainly don't think Daily Mail readers are contemptible, just poorly informed.

That can only be true if that’s all they read. Don’t forget the posters who claim they read the DM headlines! They would be most upset if you said they were poorly informed.

It's just that! "poorly informed" a conjecture, if ever there was one.

One COULD, but not necessarily, assume the average Guardian reader may be classified as a well heeled, superior minded, bon viveur, whilst enjoying multiple overseas holidays but are nevertheless fully aware of global warming, as they recycle their mung bean containers. Yes they're on the right side of history and they balance their desire to fight the good fight, by not only pointing out what a scurrilous piece of filth the DM is to the poorly informed but making sure they shuffle off to plant a tree somewhere or other to mitigate the ill effects of any air travel. One has to balance overseas cultural appreciations, anyone who's been to Benidorm as I did in my teen years will know what I'm talking about. It's so intrinsically crucial to one's mental health, as is not having the dark underbelly of society creeping into one's idyll.

I mean how fair would that conjecture be for heaven's sake. I'd wager there are probably more than half a dozen avid Guardian supporters who don't fit that profile, maybe that number would even run into double figures, but that would be pushing the boat out a tad.

Anyway, posters don't come much better informed or erudite than MOnica on GN so there you are, there are those with more than half a brain cell who read the Mail and don't turn into a human version of a turnip. There's hope for us all!

So funny, love it 🤣🤣.

I love the Daily Mail, enjoy reading the articles by Boris,Richard Littlejohn, Sarah Vine. Was really sorry when Tom Utley laid down his pen. I tend to agree with most of what they write about , very level headed and balanced in my view.

I once looked at a copy of the Daily Mail that was left on a train. I wasn’t tempted to pursue it further.

I look at a variety of newspapers online, because that way I see a spread of opinion. Most of my friends and relations read The Guardian, and I suppose if pushed that is the one I would take, but I wouldn’t be happy with that alone.

I have the Daily Mail every Saturday and that day ( don’t know about others) they have in my opinion interesting articles. It doesn’t seem written for low reading age to me . I don’t read anything about Harry and Meghan as I think they are irrelevant to me and I have no interest in them.

All papers write with some bias you don’t have to believe everything you read, make up your own mind. I find the Guardian very annoying but I’m sure some people like it. I don’t really care what anybody thinks of me for reading a paper

I also read the Telegraph and the Times and loathe Farage so what does that make me?

I enjoy reading the articles by Boris,Richard Littlejohn, Sarah Vine. Was really sorry when Tom Utley laid down his pen

I’ll add Jan Moir to that list. Not keen on the rather bitchy Amanda Platell but hang on… Isn’t she Australian? 😂

ginny

Those who vilify people who read the DM are probably the same ones that declare all migrants are criminals, all those who live on council estates are vandals, and people who go to church are better than those who don’t. Also those who judge a person because of the way they dress ,have tattoos and a hundred other trivial criteria. There are plenty of them unfortunately.

This is ironic, as IME people who 'vilify' (really?) DM readers do so because that is how they assume DM to be . I can't say I know anyone who vilifies others, but I do know a lot who assume DM readers are exactly the narrow-minded snobby types you describe.

Personally, I firmly believe in people having a right to their own views, and have friends across the political spectrum. Sometimes we find it easier not to discuss politics, and others enjoy a debate, but I can still like them as people even though I'd never put a cross in the same box as they do.

The one thing that puts me off someone is when they write off others as 'woke', 'commies' or 'nazis' based on an opinion about something relatively inconsequential. We are lucky to live in a democracy that allows us all to think what we like, and long may that continue, for me.

I can't imagine befriending someone who dresses in black to terrorise asylum seekers, and I don't fancy a communist life, but somewhere in the middle (nearer one end or the other is fine) is interesting, rather than troubling to me.

Newspaper-wise, I am a bit homeless. I stupidly didn't cancel my subscription to the i, which I don't really like, but which I switched to after decades of reading the Guardian. It renewed, and I can't get my money back until AB's legislation comes in.

I left the Graun because of its ridiculous stance on women's versus trans rights, and its preposterous sanctimony on the matter (and others). I'd love to find a more fitting match than the i, which I find is critical of everything. I don't want to read something uncritical. but when something is a good idea, I'd like to see that recognised.

The worst for doom and gloom is the Telegraph, I think. I was gifted a year's subscription to that a while ago and it was awful. Everything was about how we are doomed to WW3, extinction and poverty. Maybe that's the case (life isn't a bed of roses for the UK just now) but I could understand the numerous threads on MN from young mums who were terrified for the future of their babies and children.

Oreo

That’s almost 100 years ago butterandjam are you like your great grandparents?

You need a better history book.

My half brother and sister were born in 1918 and 1920.

I grew up hearing about the 1930s from my parents, siblings, aunts and uncles and grandparents, who were all adults in the 1930's.

I don’t think I’d dirty the bottom of my shoes by wiping them with the DM. It’s a vile rag which displays a strong contempt for truth. It doesn’t even pretend to have integrity, and so it is insulting to journalism to call those who “write” for it journalists.

It is where many of the feminists went when the guardian and others lost their mind. Those women have certainly shown more integrity than many others. We all have different views on integrity.

The DM isn’t far right, it’s right leaning.

It does sometimes a bit of an obsession with those on benefits.

However, across the years it’s had some extremely good investigative journalists across the years.

However, whilst I’ll happily read some articles online, if they are not behind a paywall.

It’s not a paper I’d read every day from cover to cover.

Didn't Harold Harmsworth, what a name, support the Nazis in the 1930's when he owned The Mail?
Can't get more right wing than that.
😉

Oreo

The Volvo being looked down on is news to me, I thought it was the opposite tbh.

Think nanna8 may have picked that up from Top Gear? Did Clarkson & pals used to mock Volvo's?

Feminist ideals do not reconcile with writing for a right-winged rag that thrives on putting out false content which frequently has women in its crosshairs. Being anti-trans and being a feminist are not interchangeable and journalistic integrity shouldn’t be such a subjective concept. We can all have a lot of ideas about a lot of things but honesty and integrity aren’t at all synonymous with the DM. Salacious, low-level gossip? Sure. Scapegoat “journalism”? Absolutely. Integrity? Not at all.

I'm not going to entertain the debate around the DM as everyone is entitled to read what they like without being mocked or criticised for doing so (I've read most of the popular newspapers at some point in my life).

As for Volvos, I'm in the UK and an ex-motorcyclist. Back in the 80s Volvo drivers were the most hated amongst bikers as they were seen as old, flatcap-wearing unobservant drivers who had a habit of pulling out of junctions into the path of bikes. If one was to encounter a Volvo whilst out on the bike, a wide berth was given as they were seen as a hazard.

The reality was probably nothing like that but many bikers, including myself, did have near misses with Volvos. And not because we were riding badly. So, Volvos were looked down upon but only by bikers.

I should add, Volvos are very good cars and I have considered owning one in years gone by.

BoggledMind

I'm not going to entertain the debate around the DM as everyone is entitled to read what they like without being mocked or criticised for doing so (I've read most of the popular newspapers at some point in my life).

As for Volvos, I'm in the UK and an ex-motorcyclist. Back in the 80s Volvo drivers were the most hated amongst bikers as they were seen as old, flatcap-wearing unobservant drivers who had a habit of pulling out of junctions into the path of bikes. If one was to encounter a Volvo whilst out on the bike, a wide berth was given as they were seen as a hazard.

The reality was probably nothing like that but many bikers, including myself, did have near misses with Volvos. And not because we were riding badly. So, Volvos were looked down upon but only by bikers.

Now us bikers hate the Beemer & Audi drivers. Tear-a__e around like they have stolen the vehicle 🙄

"Back in the 80s Volvo drivers were the most hated amongst bikers as they were seen as old, flatcap-wearing unobservant drivers who had a habit of pulling out of junctions into the path of bikes."

Oh dear. Back in the 80s when I drove a Volvo I was a 30 something Mum with young children. I never wore a flat cap even though it was trendy for women to wear one, nor was I or am I an unobservant driver.

That is really rather judgemental.

Thanks for all your comments about the DM. It really informed me and I am grateful. We don’t get it here though someone told me there is a version of it . It certainly seems to divide .
As to the Volvo drivers I think ,or I know, the comments were not aimed so much at the car as at the drivers who at that time were labelled as bad drivers. I think 1980 s and here . Probably because there had been a number of accidents/ incidents involving them. Not the case now but it really took hold at the time. Not being a ‘car person’ I wouldn’t really know whether it was justified. I just drive cars that are easy and I am very careful so likely I might have been an over cautious Volvo type too though in those days I drove a massive Holden premier because I thought the size was protective in a crash! Probably worse really ..

As I say I know which women will have done more for womens rights in their lifetime, and they certainly wont care about how they are viewed.

foxie48

I certainly don't think Daily Mail readers are contemptible, just poorly informed.

The concern for me is the way in which they are informed by the DM.

Luckygirl3

foxie48

I certainly don't think Daily Mail readers are contemptible, just poorly informed.

The concern for me is the way in which they are informed by the DM.

Exactly, distorted, selective and sometimes completely incorrect headlines or opinions disguised as facts. Do other newspapers do this? Yes but, IMO, nowhere near as blatantly as the DM.