The Daily Mail

Nitefly

Nitefly

Nitefly

Man of Honour
Joined
24 Sep 2005
Posts
36,488
It’s been awhile since this topic came up.

I usually read the front pages of “today’s papers” on the beeb for a summary of the top news from... errr, yesterday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-49173243

Seems to be a lot above Love Island and Prince Harry today!

Anyway, there was one piece of text on from the Daily Mail that really stood out to me (in relation to the VIP accuser case):

Daily Mail Comment: There was no secrecy for the true victims of ‘Nick’s’ vile lies. Now there should be none for the officers who trashed their good names in such cavalier fashion.
Click to expand...

Wow - how angry is that! It’s so angry! Such an ‘eye for an eye’ mentality comes across, to me, as unduly malicious.

Every newspaper posts some angry commentary, but from observing the front pages over weeks and weeks I feel that the ‘anger stoking’ perception of the Daily Mail is well deserved and that it is, pretty much objectively, far more ‘angry’ than any other newspaper. Sometimes anger is duly warranted but it’s the specific ‘consistent disproportionate anger’ tone that the Daily Mail projects that bugs me.

I just think that style of reporting, regardless of political views, is really unhealthy.

Do you agree, or are all papers angry in their own way? Any Daily Mail readers disagree, or do you just buy it out of habit for the Weekend TV guide they do in Saturday’s paper (which frankly was the undisputed leading TV guide of the 90s)?

As a side point, people seem to LOVE the trash in the Daily Mail website / app, regardless of their political views. Can’t get enough of that DM trash :p
 
With regard to that case, and many others involving similar allegations, The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Unless there is really strong evidence that they were completely incompetent, what is the point of going after them?

As for the Daily Mail - It's proven that people are more likely to prefer negative stories that provoke an angry reaction than a positive story, so it sells papers.
 
Yep, couldn't agree more - It's disgusting sometimes what you read in these papers and also online, but people eat it up and force that view on others.

On some level, I'm sure it has contributed to the Leave vote in the Referendum.
 
Rossi~ said:
They do lose their minds now and then. Remember this beauty? :D

Snip
Click to expand...

Wow that's big!

Or this
_92270529_judgespic2_976.jpg
 
Let's not make this about Brexit. There's enough places for remainers to back-slap each other already.
 
Let’s cut to the chase here, most Daily Mail readers are retards.

Anyone who generalises based on certain criteria is a retard.
 
Nasher said:
All the big news sites are like this, including the BBC. They fill in the gaps in stories themselves.
Click to expand...
I can’t recall the BBC ever being quite so angry. Beyond being historically slightly ‘pro-government’ and their current promotion of ‘diversity awareness’, I don’t really see the BBC as being biased and I’m not aware that they ‘fill in gaps’ as you suggest, but feel free to post examples.

Edit: oh, perhaps you mean they add commentary. Yes, they do that.
 
The Metro has been getting really bad lately, I remember when I first started reading it (2006-ish) that it was obviously run by animal lovers as every small article was about how someone's pet did something amazing. Back then I thought it was incredibly unprofessional but it's a free paper so print whatever you want. That seems to have died down a bit but now we have articles about everything instead. It's tragic.
 
FoxEye said:
Let's not make this about Brexit. There's enough places for remainers to back-slap each other already.
Click to expand...
Err, I think you were the only one to bring that up. The clippings were examples of ‘extreme disproportionate anger’ from the Daily Mail.

Edit: actually, that’s not true, Marky brought it up, apologies.
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
I can’t recall the BBC ever being quite so angry. Beyond being historically slightly ‘pro-government’ and their current promotion of ‘diversity awareness’, I don’t really see the BBC as being biased and I’m not aware that they ‘fill in gaps’ as you suggest, but feel free to post examples.

Edit: oh, perhaps you mean they add commentary. Yes, they do that.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Cliff Richard.
 
The daily mail is the newspaper equivalent of that angry drunk bloke at the pub that nobody likes but stills shouts rubbish at anyone that will listen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom