Forum Topic

Daily Mail nears the nadir

"ROSS CLARK: Has anyone caused as much damage to the British economy as Ed Miliband?"https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11397083/ROSS-CLARK-caused-damage-British-economy-Ed-Miliband.htmlI've heard of "thinking outside the box", but ... sorry, words just fail me. Or perhaps, more honestly, I just fail them.

David Ainsworth ● 951d47 Comments

"Not direct quotes but probably what even an A-level Media Studies student might infer from a long term reading of their Opinion pieces."So an opinion based upon Opinion.Oh people have inferred a lot these last few years. I'd infer that inference has caused much of the mess that we are in now.As someone who is from a pre-A-level Media Studies generation, I feel blessed.

David Ainsworth ● 945d

Sorry Sue  - that was a reply to John Hawkes that didn't land where intended!

Philippa Bond ● 945d

Does what????

Sue Hammond ● 945d

Mr AinsworthNot direct quotes but probably what even an A-level Media Studies student might infer from a long term reading of their Opinion pieces.And as I said, it is from the BTL comments of such articles the  Guardian gets clicks for its advertisers.

John Hawkes ● 945d

And you think that that is the only newspaper that does that????

Philippa Bond ● 945d

"For what it is worth I read the Guardian for its uber-woke - 'the planet is doomed'; 'the Conservatives have policies deliberately aimed at harming the poor'; 'Eddie Izzard is a women and should be able to use female toilets'; 'the whole of the UK is institutionally racist because of our involvement in slavery 2-300 years ago and we should pay reparations for the descendants of such people'; 'Britain should have an open border policy and certainly accept all of the 'boat people' who are fleeing torture and death in countries such as Albania'.....take on life in Britain today."Are they direct quotes from the Guardian?

David Ainsworth ● 945d

For what it is worth I read the Guardian for its uber-woke - 'the planet is doomed'; 'the Conservatives have policies deliberately aimed at harming the poor'; 'Eddie Izzard is a women and should be able to use female toilets'; 'the whole of the UK is institutionally racist because of our involvement in slavery 2-300 years ago and we should pay reparations for the descendants of such people'; 'Britain should have an open border policy and certainly accept all of the 'boat people' who are fleeing torture and death in countries such as Albania'.....take on life in Britain today.....and also the Mail.Yes, it has a right of centre perspective of politics and certainly goes out of its way to attack and criticise many Labour policies where it can. It does however report them.But it also reports Conservative policies without propagandising in its news sections and will criticise where it feels such is warranted.Yes it will comment on and point out the ridiculous attitudes I list above because it knows that there is a vast number even a majority of the British public that will agree with it on these matters.Its serious political commentators on the whole are quite rational in their views; Andrews Neil and Pierce for example.Its polemicists such as Dan Wootton, Amanda Platell and Richard Littlejohn are entertaining and in Peter Hitchens they have probably the last true Conservative writer in the strict meaning of the term in the media.Also by scanning Mail online today one sees proof of the vast number of topics and news items no other media source, least of all the Guardian will publish.And last but not least, where else can we read what Harry and Meghan, Prince and Princess of Woke are up to ?!So my advice is read both the Guardian and the Mail to really get a feel of what's going on out there !

John Hawkes ● 945d

Did the Guardian not get a prize for helping to defeat the Left?

David Ainsworth ● 946d

Michael, as you mention: "collaboration with the Daily Mirror" a red top paper and according to Wiki also implicated in phone hacking not to mention it's previous proprietor.When it comes to holding the government/state to account we really can't be that picky unfortunately.Looking at some of the entries for this year, many are collaborations as probably the case in previous years.But what of the relationship between journalist and paper? Will the paper stand by them when put under pressure? There is also the question of contractual obligations. My understanding is that many journalists are on casual contacts that can be dropped fairly quickly if they stray outside the unwritten rules or upset higher management.I wonder if the Guardian is a good safe employer for journalists or just some?

Ed Robinson ● 946d

2020:"Guardian journalists walked away with more prizes than any other news provider at the British Journalism Awards on Wednesday, winning recognition for producing indispensable commentary, riveting features, and “the must-read story of the pandemic”.Among the five awards, reporter Matthew Weaver took the prestigious scoop of the year prize after he exposed Dominic Cummings’ lockdown breaches in a collaboration with the Daily Mirror."2021:"The Guardian took the most awards in total (four), with Sirin Kale and Lucy Osborne scooping the arts and entertainment prize for their investigation into allegations against actor Noel Clarke, Stephanie Kirchgaessner winning the technology category, and Marina Hyde taking the comment category for the third year running."2022 awards are next month.

Michael Winstanley ● 946d

You too are pulling me up for something I did not say. Of course a PhD is not necessary to be considered "educated". But some have a higher level of education than others. There are many people without first degrees (in either STEM or arts), without A Levels, without even many GCSE's. c. 30% of school students don't leave with a Grade C or better in maths.Many of them nonetheless can read (sometimes after  a fashion) and buy newspapers.

Michael Winstanley ● 946d

Mr RobinsonTheir readers are NOT more educated. They just have degrees from one of our numerous universities.

John Hawkes ● 947d

The trouble is Richard, the Guardian obviously isn't very good at it, hence its low rating.

Sue Hammond ● 947d

"The Guardian has... a sophisticated way of satisfying its advertisers. clicks by opening up its news and Opinion pieces to reader comments."Indeed, just like every other newspaper, so this attempt at criticism falls rather flat.

Richard Carter ● 947d

I don't get - I never have got - this arts versus science argument . My background is maths, science and technology (although I'm happy to admit my maths is very rusty!) but I go to many art galleries, concerts, plays, operas, etc as well as going to science lectures and astrophysics/astronomy conferences (and IT & Infosec seminars!) - I don't see the two are mutually exclusive although I'd readily admit my knowledge of the arts isn't as good as that of sciences.It's interesting how few politicians have science degrees; how many government ministers did PPE at Oxford? Is a lack of science understanding why they go on about the UK being a leader in science and technology, yet do nothing to complete membership of the Horizon programme? (I'm not saying PPE is a bad degree, just highlighting the apparent imbalance of skills in the government - one wonders how many concentrated on the "PP" rather than the "E". Wouldn't one be more impressed if BJ, JRM et al could explain the difference between the fusion processes in the Sun and those in the Culham torus rather than quote ancient Roman statesmen?)I really don't understand why so many people are proud to say the can't do maths - and most of the time they're normally time they're really talking about basic arithmetic! (Actually, a lot of mathematicians aren't necessarily good at arithmetic, but they can just tell you how it works:-) ) My belief is that what they're really saying is "my maths teacher was really useless and confused me and now I can't be bothered …". I can't think of many maths or science person who'd be happy to admit they'd not been to a play or concert.Part of the problem seems to be the UK's education system, certainly at one time when I was in a state school if one did sciences the scheduling cut out history and arts, although not English literature and not geography - but isn't geography applied science?But I'm off topic. The Guardian writers may express opinions in line with their readers but don't the Time and Telegraph also do that? Or perhaps they express what Murdoch and the remaining Barclay brother want to hear, or tell them to say?I guess one main benefit of higher education may be to learn referencing the source of facts backing one's or others' arguments and distinguishing facts from opinion? That, of course, doesn't mean everyone who hasn't been in higher education hasn't learned to do that, just that it is possibly less likely they're rigorous about it?

Michael Ixer ● 948d

I'm not sure how many journalists the Guardian has. It certainly has a lot of columnists which fill the paper with opinions without any reference to facts. Such opinions have no more weight than those of red top papers.It is also noticeable that major items of public interest are not even reported. Whatever credibility it had is long gone IMO. When was the last time it broke an important story?Like other papers, it tells it's readers what they want to hear.

Ed Robinson ● 948d

I beg to differ Michael W.Nobody needs a PhD to be educated, that is level of specialism.Your comment reminds me to something some friends said to me years ago.  They were horrified that I had not studied the arts in depth, particularly history of art.I used to mention science and they were horrified.  That is only for loonies!

Ivonne Holliday ● 948d

Indeed - Stephen Lawrence - fifteen love to the Mail Group. However, its daily stock in trade is bigoted and misleading rubbish, of which the articele which started this thread is a great example. Here is a list of some others.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#CriticismGiven the size of its readership, its revenue and its resources, it would be very strange if in the last 25 years it had not led one or two successful campaigns.NB not all the killers of Stephen Lawrence have ever been brought to justice though 2 of them have and thus you cite yet another of their misleading headlines.

Michael Winstanley ● 948d

I did not say "a bit thick", nor am I a leftie. The vast majority of the population does not have a post-graduate degree and thus I cannot help but be better educated than the average Brit.The average IQ is 100. The average school leaver struggles to understand percentages. There is nothing patronising about recognising this and accepting that this creates a market need for mass media which cater to the not particularly clever. Where we need to take care is when such media, at the behest of their owners, seek to mis-lead their readership. Those of us with greater ability for critical thinking need to call them out when they do.

Michael Winstanley ● 948d

I am not old enough to remember - do tell.

Michael Winstanley ● 948d

I'm interested in your statistics regarding the age range of Guardian readers. Do you have a reference for the source of those numbers? I can think of many in the 65±10 years age range who are Guardian readers. Of course many in this age range will also read online versions of newspapers. Perhaps the Times, Telegraph and FT discourage many online readers from viewing their papers because of their policies on subscription?

Michael Ixer ● 948d

'This situation is likely to continue so long as people rate newspapers by their popularity rather than the quality of their content.And lets be honest, not everyone is well-educated - there is thus broad market appeal for papers with shorter words and lots of pictures, particularly if they pander to obvious prejudices'.Mr WinstanleySo not only are most people less wealthy than you nor as active in fighting climate change (except when flying or driving their car) (re your earlier comments) they are also less well educated and 'a bit thick'.A typical patronising 'leftie; comment.

John Hawkes ● 948d

Mr WinstanleyWhat was the Mail's view on the Boer War ?!!

John Hawkes ● 948d

Ms Guy'Real' newspaper sales numbers are fairly meaningless today.Mail and Guardian both have good online versions and the typical Guardian reader is probably aged 18-40 (the latter an age when maturity and common sense set in) and would never be seen with a non-eco-friendly paper under their arm but spend all day gazing at their phone.

John Hawkes ● 948d

The Guardian has a clever way of satisfying its advertisers.It has a sophisticated way of encouraging clicks by opening up its news and Opinion pieces to reader comments.Of course most of these readers pile in with the usual 'right on' and wokish comments in support.If you don't fall straight in line, and especially if you dare make any less than favourable comment about its journalists or say anything non-wokish with regards to race,  gender, class or disability then you just get silenced.You should read the screeds that describe what or what is allowed.

John Hawkes ● 948d

Michael,A lot of Nazi collaborators at that time in very high palaces, probably still is.

Ed Robinson ● 950d

@Ed 11.27"What ever we think about the DM/MoS they have on occasions gone where others have failed and published the truth even when it has been unpopular. They do have a fair number of awards that show it."Exactly.  The DM is a great campaigning newspaper and one of their finest achievements imo was its 15 year dogged pursuit of the the killers of Steven Lawrence and greatly helped in bringing them to justice. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080159/Stephen-Lawrence-case-How-killers-finally-brought-justice.html

Sue Hammond ● 950d

Surely your not feeding your own prejudices MW 😁😁

Andy Pike ● 950d

They certainly have on occasion gone where other newspapers have not.https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-britains-nazi-loving-press-baron-made-the-case-for-hitler/https://hackinginquiry.org/investigation-daily-mail/

Michael Winstanley ● 950d

"so long as people rate newspapers by their popularity rather than the quality of their content."So long as people rate newspapers according to their own political and social point of views rather than the truth would be more accurate.What ever we think about the DM/MoS they have on occasions gone where others have failed and published the truth even when it has been unpopular. They do have a fair number of awards that show it.They do not represent my political views but the idea that there are better quality newspapers has to be questioned. Certainly they may be aimed at the more educated but are they any more truthful?

Ed Robinson ● 950d

Or show pictures of females scantily clad?

Ivonne Holliday ● 950d

This situation is likely to continue so long as people rate newspapers by their popularity rather than the quality of their content.And lets be honest, not everyone is well-educated - there is thus broad market appeal for papers with shorter words and lots of pictures, particularly if they pander to obvious prejudices.

Michael Winstanley ● 950d

Matt, And I still use cash too. As regards buying The Times newspaper, I look at nearly every page and read the articles that take my interest.  I like to do the puzzles too. Re: Mail Online, I tend to look at the front page and headlines only.

Martine Guy ● 951d

(Apart from some people on this forum) I don't know anyone who actually buys a physical newspaper.

Matt Palmer ● 951d

Are circulation figures still relevant?I am aware that people do buy newspapers but I thought that the readership is now distributed between printed and online versions?

Ivonne Holliday ● 951d

I’d guess out of those newspapers, the Guardian is the only one that has gone under 100,000.  I like to buy a newspaper everyday, The Times, but I enjoy reading the Mail Online. Today’s most interesting story on MailOnline was the couple who were getting £7,000 a month in benefits, whilst their children lived in squalor.  The parents have been jailed.

Martine Guy ● 951d

It seems the Guardian and Observer aren't the only ones who no longer publish circulation figures and weren't the first: "The decision follows in the footsteps of the Telegraph and News UK’s Sun and Times opting out of making their ABC data public last year." - quoting from the following article:https://pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-abc-print-circulation-private/Newspaper circulation has dropped and I would image that many (most?) readers of the Telegraph, Times and Guardian now read online copy rather than the print version, particularly now many of their readers now work from home, at least part of the time - one might certainly expect that of environmentally aware Guardian readers :-) I notice many copies of the free Metro and Evening Standard are left unread in the racks at stations; they're very useful for putting under cat trays …

Michael Ixer ● 951d

"In 2016, the BBC bought 69,212 copies of the Guardian.  I don’t know if this is still the case, but it makes you wonder how many copies are bought by the general public. "That's 1,300 copies of The Guardian per week, so 220 per day. That leaves 100,000 print copies per day for everybody else, if they want one.https://pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-abc-print-circulation-private/"According to SimilarWeb, the Guardian was the third most popular news website in the UK in July on 129m monthly visits, versus the Mail on 157m and the BBC on 747m.The latest Comscore data puts the Guardian in third place among UK news brands (not including broadcasters) with 3.5m readers per day versus the Sun on 3.7m and Mail Online on 4.1m.More than two-thirds of its digital readers now come from outside the UK, as does over more than half of its digital reader revenue."Let's hope that billions in the rest of the world read the Daily Mail online, and so learns what this country is really like.

David Ainsworth ● 951d

I agree, Sue. In 2016, the BBC bought 69,212 copies of the Guardian.  I don’t know if this is still the case, but  it makes you wonder how many copies are bought by the general public.  We do know one person buys it in SW15!

Martine Guy ● 951d

Too embarrassed to reveal them more like.

Sue Hammond ● 951d

I thought the Guardian circulation figures were now so low, they don’t want to reveal them.  I guess the number has gone under 100,000.

Martine Guy ● 951d

Yes, it's click rate is probably increased by the Milliband story that David posted. It must be those non stories about relationships that Mail readers want rather than serious journalism. Advertisers on the internet look at click rates; unfortunately David has just bolstered the DM by posting that "click bait" link. The Guardian does ask for subscriptions or donations, the Times and Telegraph request subscriptions. Other sites like Wikipedia also ask for donations, it's a way of keeping information available for all while letting those who can contribute to that availablity.

Michael Ixer ● 951d

Which apart from the Metro freebie the DM has the largest circulation of all the daily newspapers.  Where's the always-begging-for-money Guardian? Oh I can see it, 5th from bottom lol. 

Sue Hammond ● 951d

The Mail seems fascinated by Ed Miliband in rather strange ways.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3032823/Red-Ed-s-tangled-love-life-Miliband-s-wife-tells-fury-meeting-unattached-Ed-learn-seeing-hostess-just-one-number-relationships-women-clique.html

David Ainsworth ● 951d

I agree Michael, but even for their standards......

Ivonne Holliday ● 951d

Well, it is the Daily Fail, are you surprised?

Michael Ixer ● 951d

This article is beyond ridiculous!Talk about inventing stories with no substance!

Ivonne Holliday ● 951d