Come on you Daily Mail supporters

Oh I forgot ..DH has a sub to Private Eye so read that too!

Is there a Private Eye mindset? It is the only publication I trust, although I read every paper I can online, every day. I went off the Guardian when I found out about its tax avoidance scheme.
My father took the Daily Herald and despised the News of the World.
How right he was!

Well I have always bought The Guardian and I now subscribe to the full downloadable version. This is because we enjoy the Saturday review, magazine and other supplements. By and large it comes closest to my attitudes and values, but it doesn't mean that I believe every word or that I don't disagree with many of the articles and columnists. I also read lots of other papers on line. Would never say that I was "proud" to be a reader of any newspaper; that seems a strange idea.
I dislike the DM because it seems to me to be full of hatred for all sorts of groups and individuals. There is no problem with saying (though I would have thought that most people knew) that Ralph Miliband was a well-known Marxist academic. The problem for me was the "man who hated Britain" headline, the misrepresentation of his complex views in a few sentences and the sensationalist tenor of the piece, with the implication that "Red Ed" must share the views of his father. To say nothing of the picture of his grave with Grave Socialist against it. I really do not see what that has to do with the freedom of the press.

Well as a daily reader of The Grauniad I promise I do not have an ethnic skirt..though I used to when I wore skirts as a younger person!

I think that reading varied press is good for people. We do read The G on a daily basis, The Metro when I travel by train, The Independent on a Saturday and The DM online and sometimes pick up The Morning Star when I am in town. I have a friend whose son is a prize winning photographer for The Times so read that too when she sends me links with his pics! I also read other stuff online when following a particular story. However I find some papers closer to my general political views than others an so quite naturally prefer to be associated with one rather than the other! But that is not pride!

I do not belong to any political party because I do not feel close enough to any to commit. I have strong views and opinions about certain issues but am an 'undecided' about other stuff so like to explore ideas of those who have more understanding /experience than me and then try to decide what to think.

The press needs a regulatory body that is independent. The general public needs to shout loud and clear when it feels a paper /article has overstepped the moral/human decency line. The more we just accept poor journalism the more it abounds.

There have always been poor quality publications where the authenticity of reports is doubtful but these are becoming more mainstream now with many papers feeling it absolutely ok to be economical with the truth to promote a political agenda. Fine to have editorials that express a political view but not to mis-report a situation.

mice, he was!

Or an "it hates me..."

Your dad sounds quite a character.

BTW when I worked in Afrrica we used use The Guardian Weekly as loo paper - there was no alternative.

I haven't a clue what papers, if any, the people I know read. If they tell me I forget. But one gathers impressions, rightly or wrongly, from blogs and Twitter comments and so forth about people one doesn't know personally. And I think there is what might be called a "Guardian mindset" just as I think there is probably what might be called a "Daily Mail mindset" or a "Sun mindset". And you could probably put an "I hate the..... mindset" in front of any of those, with some justification.

That's a joke too.

Hmm. I've always read The Guardian. It hates me because A I'm a Christian B I don't support the LibDems

My late father switched from The Guardian to the Telegraph because it was cheaper.

We've always thought for ourselves.

I'm sure the stereotypes about the mindset of people who read certain newspapers are just that.

In fact, my dad advised me to read the Guardian leaders, not just because he tended to agree with them but because he thought they were well-written and would help my own writing style.

I expect he would have said the same had he been a Times or Telegraph reader. The Telegraph wasn't allowed in the house and he walked back to the paper shop once with on delicately pinched between his finger and thumb and a yuk expression on his face when one was delivered instead of the Guardian because the G's had failed to arrive at the shop.

I don't know what he said but it will have been along the lines of: Never darken my letter box with this rag again!



He wouldn't even use it as toilet paper.

Since I was brought up in a proud Grauniad household, I'd say it was more than a perception, jane

Bags I agree there's a perception that some Guardian readers take pride in reading it, and certainly when I was at school we were taught that the Manchester Guardian as it was then, was an organ that we should look up to, as an exemplar of both literary style and liberal thinking.
One example of the modern perception of Guardian readers can be found in the acronym used by doctors - GROLIES - Guardian-reading older ladies in ethnic skirts - but I have to say that the Guardian readers that I know personally don't wear their newspaper habit as a badge of honour, nor do they wear ethnic skirts

jane, agreed. Just a joke. And one I didn't like. That's all I was saying.

However, I do think some people (no-one in mind, so don't think so!) pride themselves on the paper they read. I've seen evidence of proudness of being, for instance, a Guardian reader. I'm sure other people have seen that too. The phenonmenon does exist.

I certainly should be careful of that, greatnan. However, I wasn't talking about anyone else, only myself – trying to explain why I'm on this thread at all and tieing (sp?) myself in knots in the process.

Yes exactly that Bags. Independent of press and all politicians.

Bags, you might not have found it amusing, but I think you must be careful about any hint, however unintended, that you are the only member who can think for herself. I really don't think the history of Gransnet confirms the view that most of us 'toe the line' . I would say there are very many highly individual and intelligent members, on both sides of the political divide, who are more than capable of thinking for themselves.

Bags - I thought 'the DM hates me' thing on FB was just a joke against the Daily Mail, designed to show up the DM's own paradigms.
I don't know anyone who actually prides themselves on the newspaper they read, or would want to be labelled in that way.

To me, that's the same as saying that certain actions by reporters should perhaps be regarded as crimes, if they are not already.

mamie, so what you saying is that the PCC should have stronger teeth and be run by non-partisan people rather than newspaper editors? If so, I'd agree.

I suppose I think that attaching the "DM hates me" label to oneself is a kind of approval-seeking. Harmless but I just don't like it. Nothing more sinister than that.

I think part of the problem is that the PCC is so pathetic and you get this kind of thing going on.

"Mr Dacre (editor in chief of the DM) is a former member of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) and current chairman of the Editors' Code of Practice Committee which writes the PCC code of practice for newspaper and magazine journalists."

See that doesn't really chime with freedom of speech for me Bags.

line-toeing!

I even thought that and then typed the other! Grr.

The pressure to conform thing I feel is probably completely personal, btw. But that's who and how I am.

I agree with what your saying, when. But what press regulation can be put in place that will have the effect that is desired – stopping the DM, for example, playing "dirty tricks" – which won't also censor free speech? For me, it's not an issue of press regulation, but an issue of what constitutes a crime and what doesn't, i.e. it's an issue of behaviour regulation. Maybe certain kinds of privacy invasion should be criminal harassment in law and punishable as such.

greatnan, I just don't find 'surveys' like "the DM hates me" one funny or in the least bit 'fun'. I find them stupid. It's a way of attaching labels to people and it surprises me that people want to have such labels attached. That's the only kind of line-towing I'm talking about, when. I feel there's a certain pressure to 'conform' on these things and I don't like it. I think I agree with all the people who think the DM article about Ralph Miliband stinks. What I don't agree about is that the DM should be stopped from publishing articles that stink. I think the Ralph M article and others like it serve a useful purpose. I was trying to argue this earlier on the thread. Who but someone full of silly prejudices is going to be influenced by such an article rather than the well-argued responses from Ed and others? And they'd be full of the silly prejudices whether the article were published or not. The responses to the article, however, might well serve a useful purpose in actually educating people.

Sorry if I'm just adding to confusion. Doing my best! (and hearing my mum's echo to my dad when he used to say that: "well it's not good enough!"

I'm a bit confused bags. What line are people toeing (or not)? Critically appraising any newspaper on the merit of whatever it churns out on any particular day is interesting and stimulating for me. Until a few years ago, I had not been aware of a vast difference between the DM and other right of centre newspapers, but my interest has grown when they have written about issues that have affected me and my family or friends on a personal level, then it dawned on me that there is somethng different going on at the DM, maybe the editorial style of Paul Dacre, I don't know. I read each article with fresh eyes as far as I can, and compare with other newspapers' treatment of those issues.

Just because a whole lot of Gransnetters are currently very critical and interested in what the DM is up to with the Milliband issue doesn't mean they are following like sheep - it could be that there really is something there that so many people can agree on. For me, regulation of the press is needed, not to suppress free speech but to put some boundaries in where needed, because papers like the DM sure aren't self-regulating. The DM or any other paper can tear Ed Milliband to shreds for all I care - politicians put themselves up for scrutiny in the very nature of the job, but dirty tricks on family and friends is never on.