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

Grumppa respect!

I knock a newspaper if it twists the truth or tell outright lies, stirs up hatreds, pushes a particular political agenda (usually right wing) and revels in pointless trivia. As this covers most tabloids, I feel free to knock!!

This doesn’t mean I’m knocking the readers - after all, I must have read it myself in order to know what it’s like.

Living in Australia, where political arguments and talking about anything controversial is just not on in many circles, I have been known to get into a bit of bother for being outspoken.

But I really don’t care. In fact I enjoy it.

mediareform.us7.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=ca407d4765e6b4879b06b0d5b&id=af3ffbcd01&e=d031b5a155

For anyone in London, a media democracy festival at Goldsmith's College.

I just don't get this thread. We live in a democracy. Why should we not critcise any newspaper.
Don't forget the Sun and Hillsborough and the News of the World and phone hacking.
Actually we should all be very critical of all newspapers. By critical I mean we should think very carefully about everything that is said by them and not take everything as being accurate.
We should check with other sources of news before taking anything anyone says as "The Truth." It's like gossip. So many people tell you "they" are saying, without a clue who "they" are. Chinese whispers.

To suggest that anyone who criticises a particular newspaper are automatically offering criticism of the reader is IMO irrational.

Why should I feel upset or offended if someone says they really dislike the piece of music my choir is singing next time? No IMO that's their loss. I am happy for them to think it is an appalling piece of music.

I am just going to say on here that... "I dislike Staffordshire Bull terriers and Fluffy Kittens." But if anyone chooses to be upset by my views on them then is their choice to feel offended and alienated. Not my intention or my fault.

Well said Nelliemoser.
We should be free to criticise any newspaper. It is not criticising the readers.
I disagree with a lot of things they choose to print.

I've just had "The Sun " delivered instead of the Guardian.

Will have a look and see what I think.

Ooh a treat in store?

The press are more or less free to print what they want and we are in the privileged position of being free to criticise them.

However some people seem to take whatever their preferred newspaper says as gospel (which is in itself a strangely inaccurate term) and not pass the news through a reality filter, or more often, they buy a newspaper which reflects their political leanings and soak up every little piece of misinformation they are fed.

That goes for papers at both ends of the political spectrum.

The first thing I have noticed about the Sun is that there are a lot of short paragraphs covering subjects and no whole page in depth coverage.

So true Anya it helps to know the political bias to start with.
I would have hoped few people still quote something as "gospel" truth,
"Because it was in the newspaper", (but fear there might yet be some.)

@Alea - and what we now know of the Gospels should kick that expression into touch anyway!

There certainly are some Alea, that much is obvious.Good post Anya, if you are not well informed in a rounded sort of way by varied reading then you do stay in a bubble.

The Daily Mail has long had something of the status of a national joke. It is by no means just on Gransnet.

This extract is from this link
www.realnews247.com/daily_mail_circulation.htm

"Criticism"

The Daily Mail is a target of satire and criticism by centrist and left-of centre media and individuals as well as certain satirical magazines. As a target of satire the stereotypical Daily Mail reader is characterised as a borderline-racist, homophobic, aspiring middle-class conservative who lacks the intelligence to read the broadsheet equivalent the Daily Telegraph.

In fact, in recent years the phrase 'Daily Mail reader' has become increasingly used in general parlance (not just in the media) as shorthand for any person with such attitudes.

Due to its stance on moral issues - for instance, its continuing condemnation of already-punished criminals such as Myra Hindley and Maxine Carr, and its editorial outrage at television programmes such as Jerry Springer - The Opera or Brass Eye - some left-wingers refer to the paper with nicknames such as the "Daily Wail" and the "Daily Hate".

The latter is in part because - according to Polly Toynbee in The Guardian [3]
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1178434,00.html -

The Mail's founder, Lord Northcliffe, said his winning formula was to give his readers "a daily hate".

The Mail is often ridiculed for its supposed obsession with the property market. This has led to Private Eye mock-headlines such as Influx of asylum seekers cause house values to plummet and Property prices fall as asteroid prepares to wipe out life on Earth.

Another aspect of the Mail that draws controversy is its alleged promotion of pseudoscience. Astrology is often the subject of articles, and the newspaper runs a profitable telephone astrology service (http://www.randi.org/jr/040204orange.html) through its association with Jonathan Cainer.

Regular features are also run on Alien abduction, the Bible code, and other such paranormal subjects.

In the same vein, the Mail's opposition to the "single-jab" MMR vaccine was condemned by medical practitioners. It is, however, inconsistent in such areas, and marked the 250th anniversary of the birth of homeopathy's founder with an article calling it "Undiluted Tosh!".

Just read your link nelliemoser out of interest, you leave out the fact that the paper often champions 'left wing causes' as well, as it was the first paper to campaign for the murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence.
selective links are like editing, they don't tell the whole truth.Polly Toynbee is very left wing as well.
In any case, I don't like the idea of forum members deciding which papers are the right ones to read i.e. The ones that they do themselves.This is IMO of course, which I am entitled to.

If I were to read any paper, it would very likely be The Times, DH used to buy this once in a while, but even so this wouldn't give balanced coverage.

To answer the OP, it is just snobbery really isn't it? We are nearly all guilty of snobbery regarding something or another IMO. Though, being snobbish about a newspaper is somehow more acceptable than any other kind, in some people's eyes.

granjura's post 12 October. 20.24.12

For someone who professes to hate the Daily Mail you seem to have a very intimate knowledge of its content
You must have studied it intensively for years and years!
(If that is its content!)

I missed this thread yesterday, but it is very amusing.

Well I think grumppa has more than established his bona fides to comment on Le Monde and the Frankfurter Allgemeine, just not please, Die Bildzeitung!!

I look forward to the weekly review. Actually, it would be interesting to read about our EU "hokey okey"(in, out, shake it all about) from a European perspective, so maybe I will have a look at one or other online.

I agree, roses, that one can't trust any newspaper to give balanced coverage. Which is not to say that they don't all publish balanced reports sometimes, but I think it's always wise to read widely rather than stick to one editorial point of view.

rosesarered I just quoted a small paragraph of the article and left a link for anyone who wishes to read it in full. The highlighted comment from the newspaper's founder still says a lot about that paper.

George Orwell in his book "1984" wrote about the Two minutes hate.
This was an attempt at rabble rousing. Stirring up hatred of certain groups by gender race etc etc. Also in "Animal Farm"

This was also seen in many films of Hitler in the Nazi Nuremburg rallies.
The DM is still publishing such rhetotric, although it is very much less obvious in its manner. These days they have to go out of their way to avoid prosecution. I can't find any examples as I don't buy the paper.

Orwell was a socialist. I think he may have been a communist for a time but once he realised what was going on in Stalinist Russia he became a fierce critic of that communist state.

I don't like the idea of forum members deciding which papers are the right ones to read

I wonder if anyone has seen this happen of the forum? It seems quite an extreme extrapolation of people expressing an opinion of one or other newspaper.

Nelliemoser, very true, you did, which is where I found the ' often espouses left wing causes' like the Stephen Lawrence case.I mentioned that because lots of people don't bother going to links.
Yes, Orwell was Socialist, and became disillusioned with Communism, hence 1984 as you say.

GG,obviously nobody has actually said that in words, saying which papers we should read, but by rubbishing just one newspaper, the unwritten idea is formed that we should not read, or like, that particular one.

Rise, rise Sir Grumpa- no need to kneel. As said, mine was a straight question, and you've answered it, choosing to add sarcasm, which is fine by me. The point I was making, as I made it before when someone asked if I would mind them criticising Switzerland (and there is plenty to criticise... I'll be the first to admit)... and my reply was- as it was to you here- if you have long-term expeprience of living and working here, hopefully in several locations (as life in Zurich is very different to life in Geneva, and vastly different to the rural part of French-speaking Switzerland where I am, or the very traditional Swiss German valleys of central Switzerland, etc) then it would be totally appropriate.

However, as you are obviously 'Au Fait' with France, could you tell us which newspapers in France would be the equivalent of the Daily Mail or Sun? Thanks, my flower name in the Brownies was 'Muguet' not Edelweiss btw.

Gracesgran started the thread, clearly asking for opinions. So really opinions are bound to be varied- and come in many guises. There is little point in asking for an opinion, if only certain opinions are seen as 'correct', is there?

But the pattern has become so well established now- and the same posters, again and again, will just jump on the same posters, again and again- as soon as they bring to the table an opinion they do not like.

Alea, I have I believed answered all your questions. Would you have the decency to answer mine. What qualifications does one need to dare give an opinion on what you clearly called

OUR OWN PRESS