Daily Mail

Virgin Trains West Coast does not sell The Guardian or the Daily Mail.

They only sell The Times, FT and the Mirror - two right wing serious newspapers and one left wing tabloid. As you say, they sell what they choose to sell but where is the bias?

Just so.

Virgin has every right to sell what it chooses at any of it's business interests. If however a business such as Virgin holds a monopoly , as it does with it's train service, then it is difficult to represent an opposing view or challenge the companies decision as a customer/user. It probably wouldn't give a toss anyway.

Virgin is a business and relies on it's customers to buy it's products and if it wants to take such a stance it will do so presumably with the understanding it may have pleased some but alienated others.

I find it very interesting there are a nucleus of people who would consider they are Liberal minded but in fact are anything but. They are perfectly happy to suppress free speech when it does not suit 'their view or agenda' and as long as it is not 'their' chosen source of reading feel content to see this form of censorship, however trivial or not it may be dependent on your view.

Whether the paper in question was the Daily Mail or the Guardian I would hold the same view as I believe in freedom of choice and freedom to believe what we like as long as it is within the law because politics in the UK is not run under a Dictatorship, YET! That however is becoming increasingly a moot point.

To my mind I have always felt the regurgitated hatred of the Daily Mail and it's readers gives rise to the point the definition of Bigotry ,' intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself ', has many meanings and follows many paths.

I doubt many young people buy and read a newspaper or even bother reading one online.

No you are right baggs The Mail carried 16 pages rubbishing Corbyn the day before the election, but the under 50s see papers like the telegraph and mail as part of the same elite as the Tory Government. So it seems the more they trash Corbyn the more likely the under 50s will be convinced to consider voting for Corbyn.

I did specify good newspapers, I think. The DM 'rubbishing' Corbyn doesn't seem to have done him any harm.

The editorial stance influences the reporting. It shouldn’t but it does.

So for example with regard to the Mail you won’t find day after day of reports putting Corbyn in a good light but you will find day after day if rubbishing him and labour.

That is why Blair courted Murdoch as hs realised that without the support of the right leaning newspapers which are almost the entire majority, labour finds it almost impossible to get into government. These papers influence thought.

It is however hopefully changing with social media.

VT that doesn,t pay enough tax. Plenty of room to signal its virtue then

I wouldn't know, varian.

There's nothing to stop people travelling on Virgin Trains bringing their own copy of the DM or reading it on their phones or tablets. VT is just virtue signalling.

Opinion doesn't come under truth. Reports do, or should. A good paper will cover both and correct factual errors.

Yes, but not in the Daily Mail.

There is factual reporting where someone or some several report on what they've seen or found out. And there's opinions pieces, your editorial stance if you like. Good papers cover a range of opinions that don't all agree because they employ a range of op-ed writers.

It's possible to have quite a broad-minded editorial stance.

It isn’t about truth but the editorial stance

That's why I said: "But all newspapers print their own opinions, depending upon their political slant/bias of their editor, and their readership"

There shouldn't be any Virgin trains. They should be nationalised.
The only government not able to bid for our trains is the UK government.

Quite.

You can't buy the Guardian either.
Or the Express and Star

On Gransnet we discuss important things and less important things and even unimportant things.

I think it is quite important that our democracy is hugely influenced by a tiny number of billionaire newspaper proprietors. Others may think that is not important.

There are a whole host of things more important.

Much more important than whether you can buy the DM on Virgin trains.

pbs.twimg.com/media/DTKScnAX0AADfQr.jpg

Oh.

It isn’t about truth but the editorial stance

Yes, I read it sometimes, I also read other newspapers sometimes, except for The Sun.
DH buys it on Saturdays for the tv times bit, sometimes I read it, sometimes I don't, time dependent.

I sometimes read an article online because other Gransnetters post links to them, usually to see what all the 'pearl-clutching' is about

This has piqued my interest, I may take a look.

jura2 Marieliz - racism, lies, mysoginism are not 'opinions' @ 18.02

You're really good at reading things into posts that were never intended, aren't you?
I detest "racism, lies and mysoginisms" just as much as you do - whether they're printed in the DM, DE, Guardian or I. But all newspapers print their own opinions, depending upon their political slant/bias of their editor, and their readership. It's naivety to think that any newspaper prints anything but the truth, and nothing but the truth, in their publications. The only thing we each have to decide is which one we prefer to read.

hello varian - I confess to reading the DM on line since I retired. Nope, it hasn't turned me anti immigrant/anti EU, anti Labour Party or Pro the return of hunting and secondary modern schools. I read the Guardian, the independent and occasionally (on holiday) the Telegraph. I read the DM on line with a degree of incredulity so far as it's political leanings go.
I'm slightly ashamed of reading it on line because I know the number of on line readers increases its advertising income. I often wonder if the country would be a happier and in fact a nicer place, if the DM stopped publishing for a couple of months. I don't want to appear rude but its right wing, anti immigrant etc etc stance has always been evident. As it was during the 1930's and early 1940's when for example, it ran many articles and headlines saying this country should not offer refuge to Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany. Not much change really.

Its a shame to denigrate whole sections of society. It certainly wont lead to honest discussions.