What gives anyone the right to 'knock' a newspaper?

I've been catching up on various threads on gransnet and agree with Ceesnan that despite the robust debate on mumsnet the level of antagonism on the political gransnet threads make mumsnet look like a walk in the park.
I like to keep up with current affairs and political debate but I find the way in which political threads in particular, so quickly seem to become dominated by a simplistic left - right row dispiriting.

Reverting to the original headline - nobody has a right not to be criticised.

I joined Mumsnet years ago and must say I have never experienced the level of antagonism there that some of the threads here can generate. Maybe I've been lucky. My opinion is that on the GN political threads a small group of particularly vociferous members try to shout down anyone who dares to have the temerity to disagree. It's all very well to say "If you can't stand the heat etc,etc" but why should they if they have a point of view they want to express? I always thought freedom of speech worked both ways.

I agree Bags
As Eleanor Roosevelt said "No on can make you feel inferior without your consent".
However some people are "more thin-skinned" than others and find deciding not to take offence more challenging. For those who struggle with this maybe joining an on-line political discussion is a bit like deliberately going for a walk in a quicksand.
Maybe a bit of immersion therapy on MN, where the debate is much more robust in style might help

I agree with many of the comments made here, but especially with Martin321 who I think makes the most important points about our press:

" ........ much of the British press is controlled by Murdoch; and the overwhelming majority of the press is controlled by those with an allegiance to one party."

"......... a 'good press' needs to be more than just a 'free press'. It also needs too be truthful and independent (with a small 'i'). The British press is not. (Of course some other countries have the same problem.)"

I would add that the papers which aren't controlled by Murdoch are, on the whole, controlled by very wealthy individuals, most of whom are non-UK resident. The Guardian is run by the Scott Trust and, whilst perceived as being (relative to the Mail, the Sun, the Telegraph, etc. etc.) left wing, still relies on advertising revenue and is said not to be as fearless as is commonly portrayed. The Morning Star is not in the same ball park as the other papers mentioned. It is not a mass circulation newspaper and is not routinely stocked by newsagents. It is a readers' co-operative, funded by readers, activists and trade unions, and carries very little advertising.

Seems to me that getting upset about a comment made about a newspaper or its readers is an example of the truth hurting. It can only hurt you or upset you if you think there is truth in what is being said.

Yes freedom of speech does mean you/me/we can criticize / express a dislike of 'any' newspaper. I don't think anybody is argueing that point.

If somebody wishes to use a particular newspaper as a tool to try and insult/ belittle their readers that is also their prerogative .

However just as they feel it is 'fair game' to do so then they must accept it is also 'fair game' to respond/answer them by calling them insulting/contemptuous in return. In other words if you 'dish it out' man up and 'take it back'.

I think most rational people consider a persons choice of newspaper simply that , their choice. For example I personally do not like the Guardian nor the Morning Star but I have never insulted their readers , it would serve no purpose and I would stand accused of being rude and a tad narcissistic thinking others should read only what papers I read or say what they can or cannot read.

I have seen the word 'hatred' mentioned quite openly by some when it comes to the Daily Mail. That is a choice of word any poster can use but it when nasty comments extend past the paper and personally applies to it's readers and obviously for the purpose of personally insulting fellow GN's then to me it not only crosses a line of social behaviour it tells me a lot about the person prepared to do it.

Paper's are not bibles but I do wonder if some see them as such at times.

Hate/dislike a paper to your little hearts content but why make it personal, I don't get that.

I suppose you could say he could find his way around as he travels a lot
[oh dear, not punny]

70% of newspapers in this country are owned by just three families. I find that quite worrying, as is the fact that Murdoch has just bought National Geographic.

Ok, I give in! I will do my damndest not to be patronised ever again. Message received and understood

I think one will only feel patronised, or whatever, by others' "sniffily dismissive" comments if one thinks there's something in their sniffiness. Otherwise one can be just as sniffily dismissive, without even saying anything, towards their sniffiness.

Tcha! sniffiness dismissed!

No one can make one feel patronised if one simply won't be patronised.

Someone famous said that better but I've forgotten who it was.

It is never wrong to have a poor opinion of anything

I was taught that you "read between the lines" of all Newspapers. But read them all. This was my English Teacher.

How about knocking all of them?- the standard of journalism is, in my view, appalling these days - that maybe because they please their owners rather than report a story properly. I've stopped buying them and I now get my information largely from the Politics Show lunch time BBC2 where you can hear the news from the 'horses mouth' rather than read a report of what they may have said.

Hattiehelga there can be rumblings in the Women's Institute too

Does that amount to critical thinking skills? thatbags?

One is less likely to be or to feel manipulated if one has learned critical thinking skills. I read articles from the Times, the Guardian, the Independent, Spectator, New Statesman, Daily Mail, Mirror, Telegraph, and anywhere else where I see
thatbags quite right.
And I even read some of the links that posters put on

I hope that I am not a sheep to believe everything I read - like DD I can often be heard muttering 'what a load of old rubbish', 'did you ever read such crap nonsense' in whatever publication I am looking at.

So maybe some people don't like being patronised, Bags, when they have expressed an opinion - I know I don't! I also know that everyone has a right to say what they like, blah, blah, blah but just happen to feel that to be sniffily dismissive of another person's choice of reading material isn't necessarily contributing towards a balanced discussion.

Newspapers are allowed to knock anything and we can knock newspapers- long may it last.

So a comment is patronising. So what?

We live in a free society, thank goodness. People are allowed to say things others find patronising. No 'other' has to take any notice or to take it personally. That's a free choice too.

thou not though

Ceesnan, I think that you have hit the nail on the head.

Oh well, if you read the Daily Mail

You don't need proof, Ceesnan. I've seen that comment plenty of times and when it's done with a holier than though sneering tone it raises my hackles.

No, Hettie why should we do that?

I think the main problem is that sometimes there are comments made such as "Oh well, if you read the Daily Mail......" in what comes across as rather patronising tones. Before anyone jumps in demanding proof then I can't provide it, but I have seen that, and similar comments on this forum. It could be the sneering that is upsetting, not the comments about the paper.