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

thou not though

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.

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

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.

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.

Does that amount to critical thinking skills? thatbags?

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

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.

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

It is never wrong to have a poor opinion of anything

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

Ceesnan, I agree with you about the political threads, and also Iam64.I am centre with politics and sometimes put a comment on those threads as I am very interested in politics, so why not, but those threads seem mainly a socialist desert, where editorial comment from left wing papers/ think tanks and endless links is pushed at you to prove a point, time and again.Of course, if more people posted on them it would widen the debate.

Iam64 And the way in which anyone who is not crowding to the far left is assumed to be rabidly right-wing, and anyone suggesting additional lines to pursue which are not embraced by the vociferous ones are shouted down.

Reminds me of some people where DH worked to any bought-in equipment - the "not designed here so it'll be rubbish" attitude.

The same with condemning DC for proposing things that the opposition has suggested - I'd call that a win for the cause, but apparently it is stealing ideas. THe fight is more important than what is being fought for.

feetle, whilst agree that no-one has a RIGHT not to be criticised, it does get really tedious. And, I know that it was the DM that was criticised in such a sneering manner, rather than it's readers except by implication, but there is a flipping giddy limit! And some of us have various things going on in the real world that shorten our fuses for being sneered at on GN.

Thanks for the reminder of the original, jessm. I will make a note of that for future reference.