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

Granjura
However most of us are not quite so willing to be lectured to on the vicissitudes of our own press

As Ana pointed out, and you may realise when you read my post carefully, I raised no objection to discussion. My objection was to a "lecture", AKA rant, diatribe, exposition, "spiel".
Substitute "the press" if you wish, but I was not including other non-UK media.

What gives anyone the right to "knock" a newspaper? I don't understand why we shouldn't have that right?
As I wrote earlier, all publicatins select what topics to print, so much important news might be left out.
Does anyone remember the News of the World? Full of salacious stories, the editors were very selective about what they oublished.

Sp...publications..... published

I didn't think you would answer the question asked, and by pass it again, lol. Are you a politician by any chance.

Where does an opinion start- or a 'lecture'? When people do not see what others are saying, in this case why the Daily Mail is famous all over the world for being right wing and having repeated articles attacking the same groups and themes- is it not valid to post more information and in this case, a list of the well-known and regular 'victims' of the Daily Mail?

The Copy and Paste looked quite different to the original- with Russel Howard's quote and joke not being very clear. But the list of topics and groups attacked in the DM's pages was actually very accurate.

As said, I often wonder whether I am biased, and always make a point of reading the Daily Mail when out for coffee- in the hope my mind would be changed. There are a few good articles- but I always put it back on the rack after a while, feeling just as I did before. You don't- that is fine by me.

This is a Forum- if someone puts a thread on anything asking for an opinion- it is fair to give it. If people fail again and again, to see why someone disagrees with their conclusion/s- that person has 2 choices, leave it be (perhaps the wisest option) or give more information in the hope it may sway or convince (and yes it rarely does- as people can be so entrenched in their views). But the British Press is not your OWN- I can assure you.

I read the guardian - most of our neghbours read the telegraph and we are always making fun of each other's choices in a spirit if light hearted banter. Im quite used to comments such as 'well of course you are a leftie guardian reader' I think it's quite innocuous on GN . Pales into insignificance compared to personal attacks on individual people on this site which is horrid.

When does an opinion become a lecture?
Perhaps when it runs to a 51-line cut and paste job from a dodgy website?

<joke alert>
Let's not of course forget the doctors' acronym GROLIES - Guardian Reading Older Lady In Ethnic Skirt. It's not just Gransnetters who have these prejudices

My thoughts for what they are worth.

There is a real challenge balancing the rights of free speech against other rights, which might include the right not be be prejudiced against, the right in a democracy to know the truth etc.

The problem is that there are several degrees of lies, all of which newspapers indulge in.

The most extreme is for a newspaper to publish something that is simply blatantly factually untrue - a lie. Newspapers usually try and avoid this for fear of being sued.

Next down the list is to distort the truth - a good recent example of this is the mis-reporting and gross distortion of Corbyn's view on the death of Bin Laden.

Next down the list is the selective reporting of facts - typically reporting in great detail the facts about a politician you support that show him/her in a good light; and not reporting things that show him in a bad light. Most newspapers do this to a large extent. So much so that in an attempt to avoid this and give people a balanced view of the facts, one newspaper even calls itself the Independent, and tries to live up to the name.

Also, newspapers have in the past given distorted views about racial groups or other minorities. (Not as bad now.)

Next down the list of 'lies' are those newspapers (and some columnists) that publish opinions that most sensible people would agree are nasty and / or absurd but which serve to perpetuate some myths. A recent nasty piece was published about the winner of the British Bake-off, just because she is a Muslim.

The problem is made worse as 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.

In a nutshell (at last, I can hear you saying!!), 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.)

Very interesting thread. I googled the Daily Mail to see who owns it now. I thought that might be interesting too, since powerful and wealthy owners have their own agendas.

It's the Daily Mail and General Trust PLC, an 'international portfolio of businesses in industries such as media, energy, education, insurance and property'. Listed on the London Stock Exchange. The Chairman is Jonathan Harmsworth 4th Viscount Rothermere. It was founded by Harold Harmsworth 1st Viscount Rothermere in 1896, as I expect you all know. He was the man who backed Adolf Hitler and Oswald Mosley and wrote the article headlined 'Hooray for the Blackshirts.

I suppose it's possible that some people who decry the paper now, have long memories.

I think the danger is in assuming that because a person habitually reads a certain publication here could be a tendency to stereotype that person - in fact hold prejudices bout them.

An example is jane's acronym that doctors may use for certain women.

In fact, reading some threads posts one might begin to believe that all Daily Mail readers are homophobic, racist fascists and members of the BNP
Or that all Guardian readers are marching, egg and rotten tomato throwing communists, spitting at people they disagree with.

In fact, both these extremes are unlikely and the majority are ordinary decent people wanting the best for their families and the country as a whole.
They are probably living next door to each other, as maryEJB said.

(Although I must say someone i know quite well fits the stereotype of the Guardian reading male - slightly scruffy, bearded, socks with sandals! . And a very lovely man he is too!)

There, not here! (1st line)

Looking at my typos I think I should apply for a job with the Guardian
Stereotype alert!!

Alea, and here I have to agree. As soon as I saw the result of the cut and paste done in haste (how poetic)- I wanted to edit it. Sadly, and as decried by many, this Forum is the only one I know where editing is not allowed, even in the first couple of minutes after posting.

I would have cut it to the list of common Daily Mail 'victims' as it is clear that this is accurate and fair.

You on the other hand, on every thread where DJ and myself post- will immediately jump on us and attack- with the same accolytes coming to your rescue each time. The pattern is so well established now- it shines like a beacon, sadly.

Goodness - as far as I can see, I had to read through to page 5 before my preferred newspaper got a mention - The Times! I know it's out of the same stable as The Sun, but generally I appreciate the well thought out, well written, thought provoking articles that appear. Regularly, I threaten to cancel my subscription, like the occasions when they come down heavily on the Tory side, but it is refreshing from time to time to get a very balanced article which, taken as a whole, tends to veer to the left. Each to his own, as they say, but the older I get, the more obvious it becomes to me that people only see - and read - what they want to. I can't help feeling that we are all being manipulated by an increasingly clever media - a big pinch of salt is recommended whatever one reads! And nelliemoser not like fluffy kittens ..........!

Hands up anybody who sees themselves as my "acolytes"??

No?
Me neither.

(I hope you are not suggesting GJ that you and DJ post as a double act team?
Pounce? Attack? The only personal attack recently was on me and deleted sharpish by GNHQ.
Criticise a post (if necessary), not the poster is the accepted and acceptable way to behave.

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 (often via Twitter) something that looks interesting or worth reading to get a view of 'the other side'. I don't feel manipulated. Sometimes I change my opinion about a subject because of what I've read. I don't think I find any publication more convincing than another in general.

For two years in the 70's we read a different newspaper every day of the week. That certainly helps you reach a more balanced view of events and it is quite staggering to see the extent of political bias.

Now we read the "i" which I do recommend, but most weeks also access online the Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Scotsman and Herald and sometimes other news websites including BBC and Huffington Post and even, on rare occasions, the Mail Online.

I think anyone who reads a good range of newspapers, cannot fail to see bias, both in the selection of news items and the way they are reported and I don't see why we should not be entitled to say so.

I consider the Sun, Mirror, Daily Mail and Express to be pretty apalling, which is not to say that they never publish a sensible article but their overall standards are abysmal and could only seem unbiased to someone who never reads anything else and swallows whole all their populist propaganda.

Remember that newspaper owners have their own agendas - to make a profit and to influence opinion and voting. By and large they have been quite successful.

Newspapers frequently print things that are not true. They can get away with it as long as it is not about a person.
Newspapers also print things that many find offensive. The Sport, for instance, consisted of page after page of photos of almost identical breasts.
Newspapers also break the law e.g. phone hacking.

If anyone takes deep personal offence because someone on this forum has criticised their favourite newspaper that is their choice. They have other choices - shrug it off, try to learn more about the poster's reasons, present counter arguments etc.
But at the end of the day, as long as the member does not transgress the forum rules by attacking another member directly, then they have an absolute right to express their criticism of the newspaper.

Rosesarered Yes they have supported some good campaigns like the Stephen Lawrence enquiry. (My concern about that might be down to the interpretation put on it by the writer of the link). But that should not be considered in anyway as a "left wing campaign" it was a very important issue of social justice. If it was solely considered to be left wing campaign then that could imply that the British Political Right did not care about it at all.

Yet again my main point is that of the OP.
1. I have a right to criticise any particular newspaper.

2. No one on here is telling anyone what papers to read they are just expressing their views on what they do or do not like about particular newspapers.

3. As long as no personal abuse is involved and it is done courteously there is no way anyone should try to claim that they have been offended and alienated by someone who expresses a different view.
We are still a free and democratic country.

I like Marmite, I could tell you why I like Marmite. I cannot tell those of you, who hate Marmite to like Marmite, but I have a right to say why I like Marmite and they have a right to say why they hate Marmite.

It's the same with Newspapers.
What is the fuss? There seems to be far more heat than light on here today.

Your post makes such sense to me, Grammargran. A balanced article is such a refreshing change from a rant. The problem we all face now is how to distinguish between genuine information, personal opinion and propaganda, which as you say is extremely skilful and manipulative.

Blimey !! - when I joined Gransnet I thought it would be lighthearted and a sort of online Womens' Institute. How wrong was I ?!! By the way, I am an avid fan of the Daily Mail and do not always agree with it but I don't think it labels me as a person and neither are readers of other papers. Shall we "put this to bed now"?

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.

No, Hettie why should we do that?

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.

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