Gransnet forums

News & politics

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

(197 Posts)
Gracesgran Mon 12-Oct-15 15:26:33

This was a comment on another thread but that bit of the conversation was detracting from the subject so I thought I would ask about it on a new thread. I hope that is OK.

Is it really wrong to have a poor of opinion of a particular newspaper? I have to admit I was surprised to see this as many have such opinions as far as I can tell. The Sun and The Mail are certainly seen in a particular way. The Guardian is often referred to as the Grundian because of it's spelling mistakes. The Telegraph used to be and may still be referred to as the Torygraph.

The now deceased Daily Sport (which specialised in celebrity news and soft core pornographic stories and images, according to Wikipedia) and the Morning Star could each be used to set the scene in a novel which somewhat implies that we all have opinions about newspapers.

If having an opinion about them is something that is country-wide (or international in some cases) then does expressing a commonly held opinion mean that knocking the newspaper knocks all that read it as was suggested? Surely not.

Alea Mon 12-Oct-15 21:06:27

Mea culpa, I have to admit that when teaching A level German, apart from reading the odd extract to show how superficial and sensationalist it is, I never stooped to introduce my students to Die Bildzeitung!!

durhamjen Mon 12-Oct-15 21:05:53

That's interesting, granjura. Your students probably knew more than the British about their own newspapers.

Ana Mon 12-Oct-15 21:05:17

(not the DM report, obviously...)

Ana Mon 12-Oct-15 21:04:36

Strangely enough, durhamjen has posted a link to the Facebook story somewhere...obviously she thinks they've done something wrong.

janeainsworth Mon 12-Oct-15 21:02:33

I happened to notice the DM headline today while I was shopping on Waitrose. It was about Facebook only paying £4K tax last year. The headline definitely gave the impression that Facebook had done something disreputable, if not illegal.
I didn't read the article, so don't know whether it actually said what was said in R4 at lunchtime, that Facebook had given all its employees shares in the company, and that they would have paid tax on the benefits in kind, and that the Exchequer had actually received more money than if they hadn't given the employees shares.
(There was still an issue about how much of FBs income was assigned to the UK however, but the Mail headline was deliberately misleading)

durhamjen Mon 12-Oct-15 21:01:07

Ten lawsuits against the DM this century, soon, seven successful.
Only rich people can take out lawsuits against newspapers, because anyone else cannot afford to lose. They are backed by rich and powerful people.

Ana Mon 12-Oct-15 21:00:07

Yes, an awful lot of posters who 'absolutely despise' the DM seem to know what's in it.

Actually I've found the site granjura's copied and pasted from - RationalWiki, which is basically a rather nasty organisation which mocks, sarcastically describes, and satirises anything it doesn't approve of.

Hardly an impartial source.

granjura Mon 12-Oct-15 20:57:48

alea. I always make a point of reading the Wail when I go for coffee (and have done for 45 years- so quite often ;) )- just in the hope one day I'd be proved wrong. From time to time, there is a good article- most of the time, it falls into one of the categories above.

Teaching University students here and in France, one of the cultural subjects they have to study is the British Press- and they have to explain which paper is owned by whom and where it stands on the political agenda, etc, and which issues are usually tackled, or stirred. I am not the only one therefore of having go to those conclusions- it is official on all European Uni courses on French and culture, I can assure you.

rosesarered Mon 12-Oct-15 20:51:53

Oops, my iPad likes spaces, the emoticons do not.

rosesarered Mon 12-Oct-15 20:51:06

Alea [ grin]

rosesarered Mon 12-Oct-15 20:50:38

Would Guardian/Observer/ Morning Star readers go along with that attitude though Deedaa? Well, maybe not a bad idea if they did.I am happier buying no newspapers at all, because I think you either need to read quite a few different ones, or none at all.

Alea Mon 12-Oct-15 20:48:52

Some posts are just too long to plough through.
More does not necessarily equal more convincing.

I think you have made your opinions clear, granjura , for someone who clearly is not a DM reader, you seem to know an awful lot about it. hmm

Deedaa Mon 12-Oct-15 20:43:43

I don't think it does any harm to find that other people think your choice of newspaper is appalling. You don't have to agree with them. You may find they have a point, or having thought about it, you may find that you are perfectly happy with your choice. An occasional review of long held attitudes can be a good thing.

soontobe Mon 12-Oct-15 20:28:05

Why shouldn't a newspaper, which sells as a commodity and publishes blatant falsehoods (looking at you, Daily Mail, for one) be 'knocked'?

Does it though? Or any more than any other newspaper?
Surely if it regularly and purposefully published falsehoods, there would be lots of lawsuits.

Ana Mon 12-Oct-15 20:27:58

A real Daily Mail front page. Did you know that blacks have 18 more kids than middle-class white people?

I don't believe that. Where is your evidence, granjura?

granjura Mon 12-Oct-15 20:24:12

If it talks, walks, sings and whistles like a duck too often, then perhaps?
Perhaps this is why:

Viewpoints
“”Racist in public, so you don't have to be.
—Russel Howard, Mock the Week
A real Daily Mail front page. Did you know that blacks have 18 more kids than middle-class white people?

The Mail is usually considered the furthest right of all UK newspapers/tabloids; it competes for this spot with the Daily Express. Although some of the red-top tabloids might throw about more extreme rhetoric, their laddish attitude often means they're not taken too seriously - the Mail, however, is entirely Serious Business. Their primary editorial stances are:

Anti-immigration
Anti-welfare and poor people in general
Health sensationalism (particularly with respect to cancer)
Anti–government
Anti-LGBT
Anti-Europe
Anti-human rights because human rights only protect the obviously guilty and/or paedophiles or darkies.
Anti-politics because the Mail's views are not politics, but just common sense.
Anti-internet and other modern technology ('Facebook kills our children')
Anti-taxes (mainly for those who can afford to pay them)
Anti-intellectualism ('what do they know?) including academics, experts (including doctors); indeed anyone with an "-ology."
Anti-lawyers, especially those who defend the enemies of the Daily Mail State.
Anti-liberal (not realising that the opposite of liberalism - (with a small 'l') is not Conservatism but totalitarianism/fascism)
Pro-objectification of women
Declinism about UK life, the economy, etc.
Pro-complaining about anything and everything
Claiming that political changes were because of their campaigns

A traditionally conservative tabloid (by UK standards), The Mail is currently blaming the European Union and European immigration to Britain for the economic crisis in Britain. It likes to incite its readers against minorities with sensationalist headlines about the benefits immigrants receive and the threat they pose to British culture and security (almost always entirely founded on lies). It frequently reports that the country is "going to the dogs" and we're all going to die, while at the same time wondering why people are voting for the British National Party. Some British people find this amusing, as the Mail's editorial stances are indistinguishable from BNP policies. It is exceptionally rare for the main headline to be unlinked to asylum seekers or "dangerous" foreigners in some way or another, regardless of the context of the story. Such is the case with Mahira Rustam Al-Azawi, who would otherwise just be another case of long-term fraud if it wasn't for the Mail slanting it toward her being an Iraqi asylum seeker.[5][6]

While the Mail does prefer to blame it all on Johnny Foreigner, other popular editorial villains include gypsies, the workshy, Young People Today, the public sector, the BBC[7] (which, in full Fox News style, it says has a strong liberal bias),[8] and anyone to the left of Norman Tebbit. For much of the late 2000s, the Mail had a major obsession with house prices and how they change, in either direction. Recent drops in UK house prices have sparked massive rage and panic across Mail headlines and front pages, despite these drops being a mere fraction the size of the insane increases that have occurred over the preceding decade. The Daily Mail headline generator pokes fun at these obsessions, with many randomly generated headlines asking whether immigrants are lowering house prices.[9] For the last few years, the Mail has also been the leading voice in demonising anyone who claims social benefits for any reason whatsoever (while completely oblivious to the fact that the State Pension received by about 15m people is a social benefit), which has been shown to fuel stigma of the majority of genuine claimants, and discourage people who may need help from seeking it.[10]

Perhaps Google something like 'the worst fron pages for the Sun- and you'll get the message for the Sun.

rosesarered Mon 12-Oct-15 19:49:46

And yes, it was very daft to start this thread.

rosesarered Mon 12-Oct-15 19:48:45

gracesgran asks this question mock 'innocently'..... When she posted her thoughts on the 'abandoned' thread I thought it crass.
Of course anyone has a right to say what they think about any newspaper,
But somehow it's usually the Mail that is laid into on here, but that is NOT the point at all.It was Gracesgran comment on that thread about the Mail readers, later presented as 'humorous' that I objected to.

Alea Mon 12-Oct-15 19:42:01

Oh you just beat me to it trisher!
Freedom of speech, the right to hold and express an opinion, amongst other things!
I believe the Grauniad earned its nckname not only for its many typos but for once actually getting its own masthead wrong grin
All due respect, but bit of a daft thread IMHO

trisher Mon 12-Oct-15 19:38:27

What gives anyone the right to knock a newspaper? Quite simply it is called the right of free speech. Just as I can criticise any thing or person I choose to as long as in doing so I do not say anything which might be construed as libellous.. If people choose to take offence well that isn't the fault of the person criticising. As far as the Grauniad goes its nickname was given to it by its readership who regarded the spelling mistakes with deep affection.

janeainsworth Mon 12-Oct-15 19:10:48

Yes I know they do Ana, it's part of the prejudice that some of us seem to excel at sad

Ana Mon 12-Oct-15 18:06:50

People do make such assumptions though, janea - think back to Jasper Carrott's mockery of 'Sun readers'. I'm pretty sure I've seen dismissive reference made to 'the DM and its readers' on here at some time or other...

Anniebach Mon 12-Oct-15 18:04:48

I dislike the Mail, anyone who watches the 11.30 PM newspaper review every night, as I do, will so often hear the reviewers making jokes about the Mail , not on Mondays because Sunday Mail editor with the mirror editor usually review , nothing is balanced with those two

The Mail is known widely as the Daily Wail or the Daily Vile , it is a very popular newspaper but no one can deny it is very much right wing politically , in it's favour unlike the Murdoch press the Mail sticks with the Tories

janeainsworth Mon 12-Oct-15 17:59:36

I don't see why knocking a particular newspaper translates into knocking anyone who reads it.

Why should anyone who reads any newspaper be regarded as having particular characteristics and values, or even more oddly, that they share these characteristics and beliefs with the rest of the readership?

Especially when what is written in most newspapers is a load of b*ll*cks.

loopylou Mon 12-Oct-15 17:22:05

hmm
Well said Luckygirl, I too hate the sensationalism (sometimes followed by an apology for misleading the readers) and the utterly unbalanced view it offers.
It's hardly going to upset the DM's Editor, is it?