Daily Mail obsession!

Whoops, no. Wrong comment, total confusion. I was thinking about the Daily Express. Mind you, I think Paul Dacre is a seriously misguided man.

I don't read the Daily Mail, but I profoundly dislike pornography and corruption so I am unlikely to buy it in the near future.

Well said BAnanas!

Not that your post will cut any ice with the majority of DM-bashers, of course...

All roads lead to the DM clearly there is no other paper in the land that is such a conduit of pure evil!

Nanaej can't help thinking you have opened a can of worms a) in saying you ban the DM and The Sun from your staff room because you have to maintain educational standards, sorry I think that just sounds draconian and censorious hence my response when I said "educational standards or Soviet Union standards?", your response was "DM readers would say that", others would think it's a good idea". How do you know what DM readers would say,have you met them all? If it's OK to say you don't agree with their editorials because they skew their headlines to vilify a section of society, are you not vilifying another section of society by saying DM readers believe everything they read in that paper and therefore reflect the undoubted bias that it sometimes presents. In other words they simply can't work anything out for themselves.

Occasionally we buy the DM, more frequently my husband buys The Times, several times a week my younger son buys The Guardian. I read them both, the latter wouldn't be my choice but I'm glad my son does buy a "proper newspaper" from time to time. I wasn't happy when my older son lived at home and bought The Sun and would often tell him so and why, but nevertheless now he is an adult I defend his right to do that even though that paper is still mildly offensive to me.

I often pick up the DM at my health club after a swim. Whilst I appreciate a serious newspaper, sometimes all you want with your flat white is drivel, so whilst I am aware that we are on a knife edge as far as N Korea's plan's to nuke the US are concerned, there are occasions when I am equally happy to read about Victoria Beckham's shoes and whether they are giving her bunions or pictures of famous peoples' dogs and accompanying article along the lines of "Is Jennifer Aniston/Duchess of Cambridge/Geri Halliwell morphing into their dogs?" Because there are times when this is literally all you want! As someone said of A N Wilson, who occasionally writes in the Mail, has the intellect of gnat, that clearly applies to me also. Digressing slightly, if that person had read A N Wilson's excellent acclaimed book on the Victorians they might at least elevate him to the intellect of a gerbil!

So back to the staff room at anonymous infant/primary. I understand why the Sun is banned, because it is indeed sexist in the way it presents women, no argument there. Let me get this right the DM is banned in case a child aged between 4 and 11 should happen upon an article such as "Mick Philipott is an example of "what's wrong with welfare". What about the Express then? Their front page headline seems to veer between Britain is being overrun by immigration and house prices are going up by £1,000 per day. Hardly balanced journalism either, banned! That leaves us with The Times, Murdoch paper banned! Daily Telegraph right of centre, but not quite as puerile as the Mail, insomuch as there are no two page spreads on Victoria's bunions or David's underpants, but nevertheless nasty editorials therefore banned! Then of course there is The Mirror which redeems itself by being left of centre. Keep it or ban it, oh the dilemma, it's a Labour mouthpiece, but it does do a lot of features on Kerry Katona type tittle tattle on latest engagement and plans for another baby. Play safe ban it! So now you are left with the "two proper papers" The Guardian and Independent the preferred choice of that bastion of unbiased reporting the BBC.

I have an issue with the assumption that because you frequently/infrequently read the Daily Mail you must endorse certain opinions such as you cannot distinguish between the Mick Phiipott's of this world and the majority of people on welfare. I said in a previous post that I think the Jeremy Kyle type of show does much more to endorse this perception than the Mail ever could. I think some have mentioned that the coverage papers like the Mail give to these people, is unfair to their children as it propels them into the limelight. Mick Philpott and the woman on another thread with the 11 children both went on the Jeremy Kyle show. If they had kept a low profile then I think it's safe to assume then their children would remain anonymous. Mick Philpott was clearly a type of person who reveled in his own notoriety and you only have to look at the Facebook pages of some today to know from their ramblings that they already see themselves as a star of their own show anyway. This whole tidal wave of non entities was released with the advent of shows like Big Brother and the Genie is well and truly out of the bottle now.

On another thread I think like others I said that I liked Frank Field because he came across as true to his beliefs when so many politicians trotted out the party line. Someone jumped in with a comment "ooooh a love in with Frank Field, bet you wont love him so much when you find out he doesn't support the bedroom tax". Another assumption! I don't support the bedroom tax, I think it's as spurious as the "window tax" in the 18th century. Punitive and pointless I think many of us can work out that there aren't going to be smaller properties with less bedrooms to trade down into. What we all like about Frank Field is that he is true to himself and doesn't just trot out the party line. Week after week on Question Time this is the case right across the political spectrum. The politicians on there are often the least interesting guests because they are so bound by what they can and can't say. Because some of us were glad to see the back of the Labour government, it's automatically assumed that we are over the moon with the trio of smacked arsed faced toffs, we are saddled with at the moment and don't have a problem with the bankers getting away with the appalling damaged they have saddled us with. WRONG! POGS has often said what she is sick of is partisan politics, I agree with her entirely, I'm also sick of career politicians who have had little experience of life. Most of all I'm sick of being judged as a one dimensional person because some days I want to read the Bloody Daily Mail.

But they were left out.

I doubt if they were left out for any particular reason they are another "identifiable group."

Nelliemoser That was an interesting post. So, no mention of gender or sexuality then?

Hate propaganda is the public promotion or incitement of hatred against people and identifiable groups and that is likely to result in harm to those targeted. It is directed at persons or groups based on factors such as color, race, religion, nationality, or ethnic origin.

You can never end a thread on a high note!

Nanaej I'm very surprised that you got away with banning those newspapers from the staffroom.

Did the staff concerned not object to your diktat?

I hate Page 3 and wouldn't want it left open on any work surface where I was employed but surely the teachers could have been instructed not to leave their newspapers lying around.

As for the Daily Mail ...... a loathsome rag as far as its editorial is concerned, but how would a pupil be affected by a glimpse of it?

I think you overstepped your mark.

I agree, a good debate!

Does anybody remember the remark that 'it is a good day to bury bad news'. The Philpotts argument has proved a very useful diversion from the other big stories. The NHS is now in the hands of doctors who will be able to recommend providers, even where they have a financial interest in them. More profit motive in the care of the sick.

Greatnan, yes I have enjoyed it too, I think there may be things we disagree on, but at least we can each express our views without causing any unpleasantness

Has the op contributed anything? Or is another of those strange posts that pop up from time to time, cause much argument, but is never followed up by the original poster. No stress, I have enjoyed myself.

Nellie & when

Yes, nellem the way the right wing press and the government are creating division between ordinary members of society is sinister. They certainly know how to divert attention away from them - they must be rubbing their hands with glee whilst the headlines are not taken up with the Levenson aftermath.

nanaej I can imagine the process you went through that led you to impose tighter boundaries and wholeheartedly agree. Sometimes, being subtle or attempting negotiation doesn't cut it, and your authority has to be used.

My big dislike of the DM and the others of that ilk is the subversive way it promotes its right wing anti foreigner messages.
I quote from the site below who I feel have defined this very well.
www.enotes.com/propaganda-reference/propaganda

Discrimination and its promotion through hate propaganda disturb peace and can pave the way to massive human rights violations such as genocide. Hate propaganda is the public promotion or incitement of hatred against people and identifiable groups and that is likely to result in harm to those targeted. It is directed at persons or groups based on factors such as color, race, religion, nationality, or ethnic origin.

Hate propaganda causes harm to individuals by degrading them, attacking their dignity and sense of self-worth. It also hurts society as a whole, because it destroys social harmony and encourages discrimination and violence, thus creating a hostile environment for the targeted members of that same society.
Hate propaganda is defined as a crime in most domestic law systems and in international law.6

Propaganda serves to dehumanize the members of the targeted group. It degrades them and stigmatizes them, creating the necessary illusion that the identifiable group is the enemy.

sunseeker I think we actually agree about this!

when I did also challenge , in the kindest way possible, the purchase of certain newspapers by some members of staff.

We were a very socially and culturally diverse community in school. I felt it was important that those caring for and teaching our youngsters would have empathy with them and their families.

The opinions expressed in the Sun and the Daily Mail did not always appear to concur with our school ethos and values.

The frequency of negative comment by the Sun and Daily Mail about immigration and /or those in receipt of benefits /out of work/single mums etc etc was enough to make me concerned about the capability of those who agreed with the views to relate positively to the children and their families.

I would have been very inappropriate of my staff to have promoted any religious or party political opinions in the class room.

What nanaej said was:

I banned the D M(ail) and The Sun from the staff room because of their poorly substantiated sensationalist headlines. You have to maintain educational standards.

It was the statement that certain publications had been banned that I was uncomfortable with

when I totally agree with you that these publications should not be left lying around where children could see them. If you saw a teacher carrying a publication into school which you were uncomfortable with then of course you would take it up with the teacher.

Well expressed when . You could do the training course for teachers on inappropriate use of facebook as well I am sure. You think they'd work it out? Only some of them.

There are many habits and behaviours that are legal, but no self-respecting teacher, head teacher or parent would want them where children might stumble upon them sunseeker. I would be concerned about the attitudes and values of teachers who teach my grandchildren, if I saw them bringing rubbish containing tittilating pictures into school. I'm more concerned about the safeguarding of children than the rights of adults to carry round inappropriate images that are only one or two steps removed from soft porn and exploitation of children by exposing them to such stuff.

When I and my grandchildren's parents want them introduced to what is contained in newspapers, it should be in appropriate circumstances, where they can receive an explanation about what they might find.

Having attended meetings in school staff rooms, and been a school governor for several years, I would support a requirement that inappropriate material should not be lying around in a staff room, where children are often present for all sorts of reasons.

'I do not want to see copies of The Sun or The Daily Mail left lying around the staff room for children to see. Please keep them out of sight.'

If other publications with inappropriate headlines /images had been left about they would have been included. But they were not!

Isn't that what nanaej has said she did?

Yes the headlines were often crass and accompanied by awful photos Ana