[DalePie]

In WW2 the Daily Mail was a proud supporter of the Black Shirts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists

This ideology often comes through the paper even to this day. They will print stories about immigrants, jews, gays, blacks and women; pretty much all the expected fascist ideals.

The Daily Mail, unlike say the Sun newspaper, is aimed at a lower middle class demographic. Normally older people who climbed the social scale over the past 50 years since WW2. Although these people have done reasonably well, they are typicably only educated to O Level standard. This means the Daily Mail can print false information and essentially make up stories much in the way the tabloid press do. The difference here however is that the Mail will spin a story to suit it's facist roots.

The funny thing about the Mail too, is that the stories are very hypocritical. One week brocolli will cause cancer, next week it will cure it etc etc... When you consider the target demographic however this is not an issue just as it's not an issue with the tabloid press. The Times, Guardian, Independent wouldn't get away with this because it's readership is normally educated to degree level or higher.

So...

The reason why people on this forum will hate the Daily Mail, is that it represents uneducated people; possibly our own parents who have fairly nasty views on race, homosexuality or feminism. Many students will push against this upbringing by deliberately buying/reading more left wing newspapers like the Guardian.

Also...

University is obviously a place of academic learning and education. As people become educated they will fall out of the target demographic of the mail and tabloid press. The errors and false information which "normal" people wouldn't notice become glaringly obvious! Eventually the students view of the world changes and they will want to read news media that equals that new view. This is where the broadsheets come to play.

And Me...

I don't pay much attention to newspapers. I read the Independant and my partner reads the Guardian. Have to say that I find the Guardian way too "self aware" and trendy. Although Charlie Brooker is very funny and I will read most Polly Toynbee articles.

[Cephalus]

(Original post by conniebee)
They keep giving Samantha Brick a column.

Whats wrong with Samantha Brick? I actually read her column only yesterday and she wrote an informative article on cults. You should check it out

[Soph.Jade]

(Original post by zaliack)
It wasn't just any response... It was a Daily Mail readers response.

If only I hadn't used all my rep for today - that comment made me laugh

[JustAnotherCliche]

Because they're a bunch of royalist sucking, tory licking, homophobic, over religious, youth bashing, sexist bigots. That's why. Not to mention the fact they're so up themselves with their campaigns. Whenever anything is slightly successful they splash it everywhere OMG OUR CAMPAIGN FROM 15 YEARS AGO IS SPOKEN ABOUT IN GOVERNMENT, OMG GIVE US A SHINY GOD DAMN MEDAL AND LICK OUR BALLS CLEAN. Piss off.

[meenu89]

(Original post by conniebee)
They keep giving Samantha Brick a column.

I know. How dare they let someone express a point of view/ their own opinions...

[Minotauro]

Is The Daily Mail held in the same light as 'The Sun'? I always thought The Sun was the paper everyone thought was a bit of a joke, is one worse than the other, or are they just as bad as each other?

[pseudonymegg]

[Cephalus]

(Original post by Minotauro)
Is The Daily Mail held in the same light as 'The Sun'? I always thought The Sun was the paper everyone thought was a bit of a joke, is one worse than the other, or are they just as bad as each other?

DM is far superior to the Sun.

[unclej]

(Original post by JamalAhmed)
They are racist, sexist and against disabled people and they are hypocrites.

this is true, i've read it a few times, its a joke.
the underlying racism and islamophobia is worying.

[arnoob]

The whole purpose of the Daily Mail is to scare pensioners.

[zaliack]

(Original post by Minotauro)
Is The Daily Mail held in the same light as 'The Sun'? I always thought The Sun was the paper everyone thought was a bit of a joke, is one worse than the other, or are they just as bad as each other?

I think The Sun is better. DM just gets people to say something and pretend it is a fact.

[the bear]

they have a brilliant horoscope. here is today's for my star sign Pisces:

Your place in the Olympic squad still awaits you. Somewhere, there is a team who could use you - an activity that you could truly excel at. Perhaps it isn't yet an official Olympic sport. We may have to wait a few more years before the world becomes so enlightened that it recognises the exceptional skill that is involved in the kind of tasks you often undertake. But even if you can't compete for a gold medal, you can certainly rest assured that the universe knows just what an incredible contribution you make to the lives of others. Now please, keep reading because, if you haven't yet had a full personal chart reading, calculated from your date of birth, you have been missing out. Change your future.

[SubAtomic]

Don't know if I qualify to comment as I don't read any newspaper regular because I think they all have their own agenda, and they aren't worth the cost of the paper they are written on.

I look at the court and crime section of my local paper but other than that even the local paper is of very poor quality, bad grammar, and just a load of balls really.

This is the best thing I have gathered from the local one, and it isn't that great, just lol'd a little when I read about it.

Spoiler:

Show

[Clip]

All that has been said about the Mail could easily be levelled at almost every newspaper in the country, and most of the broadcast media, too.

The truth of the matter is that the Mail may not be a wonderful publication, but it's a very soft target for people who want to be trendy by constantly attacking it with nonsense like: "Daily Mail = Daily Fail hurr hurr hurr trololololol"

The BBC is funded from the taxpayer, yet has displayed appalling political bias over the years, is completely unaccountable for billions of pounds spent on any pet project they choose and regularly funds aging media-types well past their sell-by date. Certainly, one could make the case for the BBC being a closed shop.

It's very common for BBC broadcasts to make editorial decisions to give radio presenters free rein to do what they like. Radio 5 generally allow their presenters to openly mock anyone whose environmental politics do not match those of the editors.

The Independent abandoned any quantum of independence decades ago. Just because a paper takes a strong pro-Palestinian / anti-Israeli stance, does not mean that the journalism is any good, nor reliable. Robert Fisk regularly descends into furious rants.

The Guardian prints nonsense on a regular basis that is every bit as discredited and partial as that in the Mail. It appears that because the opinions are closer to those shared by TSR-types - that's all ok.

The Mirror has printed outright lies in the past. Remember the faked Iraqi-detainee-abuse photographs? Instead of being unemployable, Piers Morgan is judging primetime TV shows.

[Schmokie Dragon]

Quite aside from their political and philosophical bias, their journalism is just shoddy. Factual errors, opinions dressed up as fact, dull-yet-scaremongering writing, obsession with celebrity and other tedious things. They couldn't report something with sensitivity, respect and accuracy if they tried.

And because they spend most of their time going 'If you're not a white, employed, middle/working class person who makes 'normal' life choices, you're part of what is wrong with this world', all the 'PC gone mad' idiots champion it is the epitome of hard-hitting journalism for having the 'balls' to 'speak the truth'.

But mostly, it's just appallingly written.

[meenu89]

(Original post by JamalAhmed)
They are racist, sexist and against disabled people and they are hypocrites.

I don't agree with you at all there. You do know that it named the alleged killers of Stephen Lawrence and told them to sue them if they were wrong don't you?

The Guardian is a hypocrite too. Against tax avoidance when the Gurdian Media Group avoided tax.

[Wwalagb]

Tbh I just read the daily mail for the comments, they always make me laugh!


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Drewski]

(Original post by Minotauro)
Is The Daily Mail held in the same light as 'The Sun'? I always thought The Sun was the paper everyone thought was a bit of a joke, is one worse than the other, or are they just as bad as each other?

Everybody knows the Sun is bad, to an almost jokey degree, so everybody - including those who work on it - have fun with it. They do come up with some brilliant headlines every now and then. They have a sense of humour.
The DM is the same quality, but they think they're being serious...

(Original post by Cephalus)
DM is far superior to the Sun.

Keep dreaming, dingleberry...

[Negaduck]

The standards of jornalism are dire and the Daily Mail are way too far right. They spread intolerance, are completely hypocritical and often just make stuff up for the lulz. It's like a paper written by trolls.. except it isn't, which makes it scary. I don't really trust any newspapers, but Daily Mail is the lowest on my list.

[meenu89]

(Original post by Clip)
All that has been said about the Mail could easily be levelled at almost every newspaper in the country, and most of the broadcast media, too.

The truth of the matter is that the Mail may not be a wonderful publication, but it's a very soft target for people who want to be trendy by constantly attacking it with nonsense like: "Daily Mail = Daily Fail hurr hurr hurr trololololol"

The BBC is funded from the taxpayer, yet has displayed appalling political bias over the years, is completely unaccountable for billions of pounds spent on any pet project they choose and regularly funds aging media-types well past their sell-by date. Certainly, one could make the case for the BBC being a closed shop.

It's very common for BBC broadcasts to make editorial decisions to give radio presenters free rein to do what they like. Radio 5 generally allow their presenters to openly mock anyone whose environmental politics do not match those of the editors.

The Independent abandoned any quantum of independence decades ago. Just because a paper takes a strong pro-Palestinian / anti-Israeli stance, does not mean that the journalism is any good, nor reliable. Robert Fisk regularly descends into furious rants.

The Guardian prints nonsense on a regular basis that is every bit as discredited and partial as that in the Mail. It appears that because the opinions are closer to those shared by TSR-types - that's all ok.

The Mirror has printed outright lies in the past. Remember the faked Iraqi-detainee-abuse photographs? Instead of being unemployable, Piers Morgan is judging primetime TV shows.

Hear hear.