Come on you Daily Mail supporters

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Or an "it hates me..."

mice, he was!

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.

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.

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!

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

My late aunt, a lifelong Liberal, always took the Torygraph for the crossword - or so she said! I don't take a daily paper largely because they would account for a ridiculous proportion of my pension! Online versions of the Guardian and the Independent give me the information I want and some opinions I relate to. I buy the Observer on Sunday and the I when I'm travelling by train. I am, however, quite capable of making up my own mind on political and social issues and am no longer a member of a political party.

My friend had her letter published in the Grauniad earlier this week. It was censored!! She was complaining about the amount of print given over to certain issues across the globe, compared with a tiny reference to a current political issue here that should have been given more, wider coverage, as in the other serious papers.

Her last sentence - 'Shame on you, Guardian!' was removed!

Don't you think people do shout loud enough about rubbish like the Ralph Miliband article, then, pen? Seems to me there is a huge backlash, otherwise, what's all this?

I think publications various have always tried to push a certain political viewpoint and always will. I also think that even the better publications are often economical with the truth, without necessarily being actually dishonest. If someone writes from a particular perspective, it's bound to happen. I expect we all do it, even if subconsciously.

But I've seen contrasting articles in the same paper on the same subject quite often, which is great to see.

I don't think bad reporting or bad writing of articles or political bias is any worse than it ever was.

I only read the DM article in question because so many people were shouting about it. Seems to me there's something to be said for deliberate provocation.

And I've read several things since replying to it and defending Ralph Miliband. As I said before, all the rest of what I've read puts the DM article in perspective (and in the rubbish bin).

It has provoked a great deal of discussion about values and what is important. Thats all to the good in my view.

I assumed that the article was an attempt to brainwash people into voting Conservative and that worries me more than Milliband being upset about his dad.

I read the Guardian for thirty years and then stopped a few years ago because I began to see it as boringly predictable, not left wing enough and smug. It's readers are too bloody proud of being Guardianistas as well.

I read The Mail now and then in Waitrose cafe but after Millibandgate will not read it again.

As for censorship, well there's quite a bit of it on GN isn't there, every time someone reports a post with the aim of getting it removed.

Posts are only removed when they break forum guidelines. When you sign up for the forum, you are accepting the rules. That is totally different from a newspaper traducing a dead man. Freedom, of the press or anything else, carries responsibilities.

Reporting a post is an attempt at censorship of something that is not liked or approved of. Sometimes the post is not breaking forum guidelines.

There have been other, more subtle attempts to shut people up, for instance by being hostile or aggressive or telling them they are being silly.

All very normal!

There is quite a lot of censorship in society in general. We have libel laws andlaws against racist and sexist language, for instance.

As for freedom carrying responsibilities, well yes of course. But who decides where those responsibilities kick in? Opinions are bound to differ.

this is an interesting thread, and one that shows a lot of independent thought which is good to read.
Pen - agree with your long post. I've been reading the Huffington Post on line, sometimes Private Eye, and the Exaro site. I feel the mainstream press have avoided printing some stories which appear in these other publications.
I've been a Guardian reader since I was 20. I don't believe everything it prints, and I disagree with some articles, and columnists views. It's the Observer on Sunday. I read the Telegraph on holiday this year, and enjoyed it. Didn't agree with everything of course, but found it interesting and informative. It's also good on gardening.
Bags - I agree with you that the DM article on Ralph Milliband has provoked a real debate about the press, and that can only be positive. I wonder the Dacre will re-consider his editorial style.

The DM was the only paper that British Air were giving out in Athens yesterday. Therefore I had to read it! The first and last time I hope!

Petallus - are you quite happy for posts which are cruel, untrue, abusive or unkind to be allowed to stand? GNHQ decide which posts to delete, not members, buy they cannot monitor every post.