A typical DM 'story'.

But don't you find that, whatever the story, every paper puts their own slant on it depending on their political allegience. So you would get the same story, same facts, but the emphasis is completely different when written by different journalists.

It's an "Outraged and indignant of Acacia Avenue" paper. I'm only surprised that they haven't invented some sort of punctuation mark to show "tutting".

The DM really enjoys these subtle digs at what they call benefit scroungers and foreigners. Never mind what the facts might be.

The bold headlines says Unemployed single mother on benefits who spends £2,000 on Christmas with 20 presents for each of her children.

The small print text underneath says... "Mother-of-two Leanna Broderick plans to buy 20 presents for each of her children.

That is "plans to". Dreams of perhaps?

The DM is being plainly dishonest in "spinning" this article.
They do not tell a story without adding some irrelevant and innacurate facts designed to rake up predjudices. They seem to be relying on their audience to read the more memorable large headlines and nothing else.

I have just looked at the headline that sits further along on the DM online page.

"£93,000, the price of peace of mind: Amount would leave most people feeling 'financially safe and comfortable'
I cant help feeling they have rather shot themselves in the foot with those two on one page."*

So if anyone out there wonders why I and others rant about the DM, here is my reason.

Designer clothes? Most of her generation shop at Primark. If they manage to have designer gear, it's usually because they diligently comb the charity shops.

Implausible in the extreme.

Jodi . Having just glanced the DM headlines, I came up with the same sums as Greatnan for this family. I can see how this young woman can manage on her benefits from week to week, but the way they describe her £250 a month savings implies she is well off, whereas that money isn't surplus - it will be her budgeted money that covers school uniforms, shoes, any emergencies, replacement appliances, furnishings in the house etc. For a 20 year old to report that she is able to have foreign holidays and spend £2,000 a year on Christmas, as well as have designer clothes, implies she does this year in, year out. She's 20! I suspect she has said this is what she would like to do if se could ring-fence every penny that she sets aside. I would like to see the evidence that she has done it consistently for 2 or 3 years to be able to make such a claim.

I can do a budget that shows I would have £400 a month to save out of my modest pension. I have to ignore all the other expenditure that is not included week to week, though! What a silly story!

It's interesting, isn't it, how the paper that one reads is, for some people, an instant indicator of one's views.

My father, who, for most of his life read The Guardian, (like me) switched to The Telegraph in his 60s. Why? Because it was cheaper. He didn't change his views and wasn't influenced by its political stance, but he was much better informed about court reports.

My husband gets apoplectic about the DM while never reading it, but I read it online, and I can see the attraction. It's very well designed and, actually, engagingly written. The bias seems to come from two aspects. Firstly, the choice of some non-stories such as the one highlighted above, and secondly the provocative headlines and sub heads. When I compare the actual information between the the G and DM there really isn't very much. (I'm ignoring the nonsense down the right hand bar.)

And, reading it does make it easier to pick up on some of the scandals that the others are too high minded to report but refer to in oblique terms.

I have on occasion written to the Guardian complaining about the number of their articles which use DM articles as a hook for one of their responses. They don't respond.

I'll revise that when to dedicated DM readers but I suspect you know what I mean in general terms. Your sample reader sounds fairly typical

I suppose I could be called a DM reader, but don't fit that stereotype. Like Greatnan and many others, I read a few different papers online (I won't waste my money on newspapers these days), including the DM. I don't internalise its views, though, nor do I internalse the views of the broadsheets whose political stance does not accord with mine. I find that the DM does make some awful mistakes, and interprets the news in a prejudiced way - more so than other papers. None of them are 100% reliable, though.

So, if I'm a DM reader who does pass what I read through a reality filter, I don't fit your stereotype Jodi. I know someone who does, and we agree to disagree with each other when we occasionally have to be in the same room on social occasions. He holds racist views and only reads the DM because he says it reinforces the views he has about a wide variety of issues.

Being relatively new I don't know if there has been a thread purely about the DM before, though I have caught hints that readers feel their paper is being demonised on other threads. But all topics are up for discussion on GN and the press is a valid subject.
What annoys me about the DM is that it holds itself up as something it's not, a quality paper. It lulls the unsuspecting reader into believing its point of view. I can always tell a DM reader within a few minutes of any discussion as they seem to accept and internalise the paper's philosophy without passing it through a reality filter.
Readers will argue that this is not the case.
Back to the OP. What is the DM's motive? Very obvious I'd say.