[conniebee]

(Original post by Cephalus)
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

(Original post by meenu89)
I know. How dare they let someone express a point of view/ their own opinions...

I personally can't get on with her after the storm that kicked up about Mary Beard being "too ugly" for TV and that she was so pretty that it was a problem for her everyday life.

But, that's just my opinion. If people like her column then long may she continue to her readers.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

(Original post by Cephalus)
The thing that I like about the DM is the quality of the journalism they produce. Everyday, I see an exciting array of stories that covers a broad range of issues. They don't fear to tread where other, more "popular" papers wouldn't. Indeed, they also promote alot of good causes. Yet on this forum, the paper is referred to as the "Daily Fail". Why do people feel so badly about this paper?

Lol I love the sarcasm, 10/10 for effort.

[Cephalus]

(Original post by Foghorn Leghorn)
Lol I love the sarcasm, 10/10 for effort.

LOOOOL when I typed it I was actually going to put that it wasn't sarcasm =D I know thats how it sounds but its not =/

[kaboon-supreme]

Simply the worst journalism i have ever seen. they print their opinions and not actual news. it is riddled with many factual and grammatical errors not to mention the spelling. it is like they only require you to be a bigot to let you write articles

[OddThings]

I have noticed that too on here,and although I don't have quite that level of hatred for the daily mail,personally I don't read it because I don't like the style of writing.It can be a little too simplistic for me(not implying I only really 'highbrow' literature,not at all) I just prefer an article with more depth and substance. I feel they cover stories with a degree of bias(the islamaphobia,the idea that nearly everything causes cancer,stirring themselves into a frothing rage about pornography in general). And,they seem to hardly ever cover a decent range of world issues,unless you count ranting about climate change,in frankly,a fear mongering fashion,or that the 'tide' of immigrants must be stopped from taking all of our jobs.Oh,and the bizarrely length coverage of celebrity fashion/gossip and sometimes rather vacuous articles within that section,which although clearly interests many as it is a very well selling newspaper,doesn't interest me,which is another reason that drives me to not read it.

[Cephalus]

(Original post by OddThings)
I have noticed that too on here,and although I don't have quite that level of hatred for the daily mail,personally I don't read it because I don't like the style of writing.It can be a little too simplistic for me(not implying I only really 'highbrow' literature,not at all) I just prefer an article with more depth and substance. I feel they cover stories with a degree of bias(the islamaphobia,the idea that nearly everything causes cancer,stirring themselves into a frothing rage about pornography in general). And,they seem to hardly ever cover a decent range of world issues,unless you count ranting about climate change,in frankly,a fear mongering fashion,or that the 'tide' of immigrants must be stopped from taking all of our jobs.Oh,and the bizarrely length coverage of celebrity fashion/gossip and sometimes rather vacuous articles within that section,which although clearly interests many as it is a very well selling newspaper,doesn't interest me,which is another reason that drives me to not read it.

Have you seen the website today? It talks about everything

[meenu89]

(Original post by conniebee)
I personally can't get on with her after the storm that kicked up about Mary Beard being "too ugly" for TV and that she was so pretty that it was a problem for her everyday life.

But, that's just my opinion. If people like her column then long may she continue to her readers.

I've never read any of her articles because I can't stand her, but I am not bothered enough to say I hate her. I'll defend her right to write the articles though.

[PrincessSuperStar]

This is my fav paper.

[Cephalus]

Everyone slates the DM, but has anyone mentioned the good things it does? It fights for what it believes in.

[onda]

I am sorry who are the Daily Mail? IMO a disease.

[Cheese_Monster]

The Daily Mail isn't a paper with 'gusto' or 'balls' or 'non-pc', its fear-mongering bull**** concerned with Amanda Holden's new weight loss regime or Beckham's new tattoo as its main article, its up there with the likes of Hello and OK magazines.

[conniebee]

(Original post by meenu89)
I've never read any of her articles because I can't stand her, but I am not bothered enough to say I hate her. I'll defend her right to write the articles though.

I don't hate her, I just dislike what she comes out with sometimes. But I don't read what she writes anymore, so she can continue as much as she likes.

[pseudonymegg]

[Foghorn Leghorn]

(Original post by Cephalus)
LOOOOL when I typed it I was actually going to put that it wasn't sarcasm =D I know thats how it sounds but its not =/

So wait you actually believe it is quality journalism? You really need to broaden you scope of news papers if you consider the daily mail to be quality journalism. Half of the articles they produce have horrendous grammar, as if the journalist hasn't even completed gcse English. The actual content of the articles are ridiculous, they are inconsistent, they contradict their own ramblings and they are notorious for making misleading comments and twisting facts. That on top of the frequent propoganda spreading and scaremongering makes them literally the worst mainstream newspaper out.

The worst thing about the daily mail which I think makes them worse than other tabloids and red headers is that they try to fool people into thinking they are high quality broadsheets and not tabloids, but when given the amount of celebrity bull**** they talk about on top of the typical low quality, unintellectual, unreliable reporting and sensationlised or even sometimes down right made up stories about crime, immigrants, cancer, politics etc makes them them absolute epitome of tabloid journalism. I mean it even publishes daily horoscopes, anything that takes astrology seriously should be looked at with contempt. At least with tabloids like the sun it doesn't try to be something it's not, it actively accepts it's a low brow, dumbed down newspaper that is more interested in reporting how many men some hollywood starlet ****ed last night than reporting actual news. Hence the red header border of the paper.

The sad thing about the daily mail is that many people are actually fooled into believing they are what they claim to be. Many people actually believe it is quality journalism and reporting and therefore take everything the paper says at face value. So of course they will, like you say, tread where other papers wouldn't but that's simply because of what type of paper it is. That's the whole point in tabloid journalism, the main agenda is to say controversial things and report provocatively and there is no end to how much they are willing to mislead and bend the truth. Being "un-politically correct" and controversial is the best way to sell papers, humans like gossip, whether celebrity or otherwise hence why the mail is so popular. But the more sensationalised journalism and gossiping the less credible the paper is, hence why papers like the times, gaurdian, and even the telegraph are known to be reliable publishers but are less popular, whereas the likes of the daily mail, sun and mirror are thought to be unreliable but highly popular.

It works the same in real life, if you go around saying what people want to hear rather than the truth you will be popular too, but at the same time many will start to consider you a bull****er too.

[willbee]

(Original post by Cephalus)
The thing that I like about the DM is the quality of the journalism they produce. Everyday, I see an exciting array of stories that covers a broad range of issues. They don't fear to tread where other, more "popular" papers wouldn't. Indeed, they also promote alot of good causes. Yet on this forum, the paper is referred to as the "Daily Fail". Why do people feel so badly about this paper?

I dislike it mainly for its attitudes to young people and immigrants and every group you can think to stereotype. Also, some of its "campaigns" are obviously to create publicity AGAINST good causes that the average somewhat ignorant DM reader probably understands very little about and thus believes everything the paper publishes. It's like when people complain about incidents on the TV they never saw because they were prompted to by the DM. It's not the only tabloid that does this sort of thing, but it is the most widely read one, and it's considered "not rubbish" and "respectable", just because it doesn't have a topless woman on page 3.

Also, if you ever read the "femail" section near the sudoku and horoscopes, you'll see how awful some of the reporting is. When they tell you about fashion and what is "trendy" and "hip", and they mention things that would be part of the staple of any ordinary woman's wardrobe anyway, it just goes to show that they are chatting total BS and not even bothering to write a decent article that is worthwhile reading. I find this section of the newspaper to be most obvious in it's complete and utter BS.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ge-style-.html

TBQH, I can't think of many women who would wear something like that in their 40s and the whole article just seems like a pathetic attempt that should be discounted as journalism. I can't believe people get paid to write that sort of thing!!!

I think that it does manage to dumb down some issues for the modern reader who cares more about celeb gossip than what is actually going on in the world, but in dumbing things down, they don't really report properly, or they end up massively generalising things.

Having said that, I do think it is written in a more interesting way than, for example, "i magazine", which seems to spout the facts in the least interesting, most neutral way possible. I do like reading "i" but I wish they could recognise when they've written about something interesting or "juicy", and provide us with more detail that we actually care about, and not just the opinions of a few obscure MPs.

So that is why I dislike the DM. What do you think?

[Foghorn Leghorn]

(Original post by Cephalus)
Everyone slates the DM, but has anyone mentioned the good things it does? It fights for what it believes in.

Again stop letting the mail fool you with it's ramblings it fights for what will sell the most papers, not what it believes in. The daily mail doesn't believe in anything other than making a profit, it's a tabloid that's the whole point of a tabloid. The mail is like a teenage two faced gossip. It will pretend to be on everyones side and at the same time gossip to the other person to get popular.

[PrincessSuperStar]

Please don't bad mouth the daily mail. It's the only good paper that doesnt lie aboutt he amount of immigrants taking money from us.

[jordanosborn]

You just have to look at the comments section to know that it's a paper you should stay away from.

[PrincessSuperStar]

(Original post by jordanosborn)
You just have to look at the comments section to know that it's a paper you should stay away from.

Why? I contribute to that, I have friends there.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

(Original post by PrincessSuperStar)
Please don't bad mouth the daily mail. It's the only good paper that doesnt lie aboutt he amount of immigrants taking money from us.