I am against press regulation and part of that is you have to accept that certain publications will slip from time to time. What concerns me most I suppose is that the Mail is yet to apologise for the original piece. Self regulation requires this and you can't have a publication running away with itself as others did with phone tapping - there has to be a line and where as they can nudge it and sometimes by the nature of their industry slip across it - they have to accept when it is clear they have done so! Learn from the mistake and be very apologetic!
The fact they have even sought to defend their actions worries me!
Those of you slating the Daily Mail - have you ever read it or are you just basing your opinions on what you THINK it says?
Yes, I have to admit that I read it fairly regularly. (I should explain that this is because our neighbours are frequently away, we look after their house, and they never seem to get round to cancelling their delivery of The Mail. We nick it, mainly for the crosswords, etc - it has a fairly good puzzles page and the financial/city pages aren't bad. I also know and have dealt with a journalist, Tony Hetherington, who does an informative, regular financial scams/consumer champion piece in The Mail. In addition, the paper comes in handy for wiping paint brushes on after a spot of DIY.) It is also fair to say that many of my opinions would be classified as "right wing". Nonetheless, I find many of the articles in The Mail to be profoundly poor, flawed, badly researched, hysterical, based on rumour rather than fact, unremittingly depressing and, perhaps most importantly, entirely trivial in the overall scheme of things. The major flaw seems to be that its stories - I hesitate to call them news - are designed to appeal to a certain type of reader while telling them nothing that they don't know (or think they know) already. This seems to be more important to the paper than actually printing something that could be construed as an important in-depth news item or informative journalism.
Whatever anyone else thinks, I will continue to buy it. I can make up my own mind on what I read and assess the value of what I'm reading.
As a woman I like the 'Femail' section which has good articles on health. I don't have the time to read the broadsheets and they are too unwieldy to read comfortably. The Mail has a lot more news than papers like the Sun and Mirror. I don't understand why some think it is a 'pervy' paper, it doesn't have pictures of half naked women.
Whatever anyone else thinks, I will continue to buy it. I can make up my own mind on what I read and assess the value of what I'm reading.
As a woman I like the 'Femail' section which has good articles on health. I don't have the time to read the broadsheets and they are too unwieldy to read comfortably. The Mail has a lot more news than papers like the Sun and Mirror. I don't understand why some think it is a 'pervy' paper, it doesn't have pictures of half naked women.
That's like saying I don't have time to read the complete works of Shakespeare so I'll just read the Beano instead !
My first ever perusal of the Mail website after this thread was an eye opener. Full of sensationalist nonsense including an SAS plot to kill Diana, and 'celebs' in states of undress. Utterly vile and manipulative. But...a couple of interesting pieces in the gutter.
Its no surprise Milliband stayed low following the absolutely amazing revelations from Damian McBride in the Mail. It was an excellent scoop in a desperately poor rag. What a contrast to the non stop week of appearances on every media outlet following the (despicable) article on his father.
If the Grauniad or Torygraph had published them there would have been far greater fuss made about revelations of the amazing spin, dirty tricks and Labour in-fighting twixt Blair and Brown, such as accessing then leaking confidential internal Downing Street emails (including a whole batch to the man just appointed at Milliband's deputy Director of Communications)
Whatever anyone else thinks, I will continue to buy it. I can make up my own mind on what I read and assess the value of what I'm reading.
As a woman I like the 'Femail' section which has good articles on health. I don't have the time to read the broadsheets and they are too unwieldy to read comfortably. The Mail has a lot more news than papers like the Sun and Mirror. I don't understand why some think it is a 'pervy' paper, it doesn't have pictures of half naked women.
It is a free country, feel free to keep reading and ignore the red wedge on here.
Whatever anyone else thinks, I will continue to buy it. I can make up my own mind on what I read and assess the value of what I'm reading.
As a woman I like the 'Femail' section which has good articles on health. I don't have the time to read the broadsheets and they are too unwieldy to read comfortably. The Mail has a lot more news than papers like the Sun and Mirror. I don't understand why some think it is a 'pervy' paper, it doesn't have pictures of half naked women.
It is a free country, feel free to keep reading and ignore the red wedge on here.
But the fact that you read a right wing Guardian makes you infinitely less intelligent than the left wing intellignecia on here.
Whatever anyone else thinks, I will continue to buy it. I can make up my own mind on what I read and assess the value of what I'm reading.
As a woman I like the 'Femail' section which has good articles on health. I don't have the time to read the broadsheets and they are too unwieldy to read comfortably. The Mail has a lot more news than papers like the Sun and Mirror. I don't understand why some think it is a 'pervy' paper, it doesn't have pictures of half naked women.
It is a free country, feel free to keep reading and ignore the red wedge on here.
People are free to read it as are people free to criticise it Tory Boy. See we can all label people!
Serious question time (and may end up sinking my own question!)
Personally I think the Mail has changed a lot over the last 20 odd years.
They deserve huge credit for the sheer balls they took over the Stephen Lawrence murderers. That was a massive call to take and they were standing on their own.
Personally, I don't think the modern day Mail would take such a stance. Do others agree / disagree ?
In fact, would any modern day press outlet go out on a limb calling a group of people Murderers (sue us if not true) ?
Serious question time (and may end up sinking my own question!)
Personally I think the Mail has changed a lot over the last 20 odd years.
They deserve huge credit for the sheer balls they took over the Stephen Lawrence murderers. That was a massive call to take and they were standing on their own.
Personally, I don't think the modern day Mail would take such a stance. Do others agree / disagree ?
In fact, would any modern day press outlet go out on a limb calling a group of people Murderers (sue us if not true) ?
For every good story such as Stephen Lawrence, there's equally bad ones (the Sun coverage of Hillsborough). So in my opinion, i'm kinda glad that newspapers are more cautious as they used to be.
However, the Guardian's leaks about Wikileaks, the NSA etc. shows that some reporters still have some balls to print things that may not put them in favour with the establishment.
Whatever anyone else thinks, I will continue to buy it. I can make up my own mind on what I read and assess the value of what I'm reading.
As a woman I like the 'Femail' section which has good articles on health. I don't have the time to read the broadsheets and they are too unwieldy to read comfortably. The Mail has a lot more news than papers like the Sun and Mirror. I don't understand why some think it is a 'pervy' paper, it doesn't have pictures of half naked women.
I think its the online version that has lots of pics of half-naked d-list celebs.
The truth of the matter is that the British public gets the newspapers it deserves.
People buy papers containing largely fictional, salacious cr*p about "celebrities" for some unknown reason rather than serious analysis of important issues, a form of journalism now almost extinct on the printed page but, thankfully, still available on blogs.
My personal view is that freedom of the press should be paramount. The Stephen Lawrence case is one example, MPs expenses another and I could cite more.
If the price of that freedom of the press to do the right thing is all the bo****** we sometimes see then so be it.
Just remember that some of the most vociferous advocates of the repressive measures of Leveson are people likely to be "at it."
Fair play Len. Of course the situation is compounded by society's seemingly inexhaustible capacity to take offence and then have an instant and ready mouthpiece in the internet to bore everyone else with their opinion on the matter (see, I just did...)
I love the idea that the lefties such as myself are frothers... That is all that the Mail does. When you read some of the bile that the right wingers on here come out with, it makes me laugh. I think Prague's take on it is the most accurate, it just scares the bejaysus out of casually racist old folk, most of whom only ever see a foreigner on the tele. And yes ME14 I flick through it a lot, it is often left in bars around here, every other headline seems to be OTT sensationalist claptrap, or completely irrelevant (like the other tabloids, to be fair).
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you are an I'm all right Jack, l look after number one, sod everyone else type person that is fine, stand by your principles by all means, but why do you have to be so spiteful to people who want to be inclusive, help out those less fortunate and are not prepared to tar vast swathes of people with the same brush because of a few bad eggs?
I love the idea that the lefties such as myself are frothers... That is all that the Mail does. When you read some of the bile that the right wingers on here come out with, it makes me laugh.
I wonder how free our press really is nowadays, when ownership is increasingly concentrated in the hands of foreign owners whose personal views are clearly well to the right of the average British citizen.
I am perplexed by the lack of British media reaction to the Edward Snowden revelations. Here we have the evidence that "1984" is already upon us, and the Guardian is the only paper running with it. WTF? There's more coverage in Czech newspapers, but on reflection that may be because they know exactly what a Surveillance State looks like.
I wonder how free our press really is nowadays, when ownership is increasingly concentrated in the hands of foreign owners whose personal views are clearly well to the right of the average British citizen.
I am perplexed by the lack of British media reaction to the Edward Snowden revelations. Here we have the evidence that "1984" is already upon us, and the Guardian is the only paper running with it. WTF? There's more coverage in Czech newspapers, but on reflection that may be because they know exactly what a Surveillance State looks like.
This! The UK press has always been concentrated in a few hands and has always filtered both stories and angles for its own ends - from right, centre and even left...And many maintain they can sift that bias while others don't / can't! The beauty of sites like this - with the spectrum of views and links elsewhere - and the internet in general - is that this proprietal monopoly on news is dead...caput...it is no more And now certain elements face commercial meltdown as they are about to face 12-18 months court exposure to just how they get those stories...yes there is about to be case after case on phone hacking, bribery of officials etc.
Many (if not all) printed newspapers are on their last legs...I see more and more commuters reading whatever on their ipads ...perhaps a paper, book or last nights TV? Less and less paper sales + more free papers showing the whole model changing... Let us hope that the news model on the web is pluralistic so anyone who can click is able to source different angles. The real question is who regulates the web and who can build the best model to promote their particular philosophy - we are at the dawn of a new age which, supported by efforts to mass produce netbooks at low low prices means there is a global audience
I do hate this classification of people because of the paper they read. My political views are probably slightly right of centre, I am not a racist, or homophobic etc, but I read the Daily Mail. I think a lot of this classification is in fact snobbery.
So to confirm does the paper turn people into racist right wingers or is it that racist right wingers read the mail.
Gordon Brown vividly demonstrated the attitude of the left to anyone that disagrees with their authoritarian approach to the world during the last General Election campaign and, on a smaller scale, such attitudes can readily be seen on here should anybody be brave enough to question what I'll describe as the Guardian meme. I've often being a victim of it myself.
Comments
The fact they have even sought to defend their actions worries me!
(I should explain that this is because our neighbours are frequently away, we look after their house, and they never seem to get round to cancelling their delivery of The Mail. We nick it, mainly for the crosswords, etc - it has a fairly good puzzles page and the financial/city pages aren't bad. I also know and have dealt with a journalist, Tony Hetherington, who does an informative, regular financial scams/consumer champion piece in The Mail. In addition, the paper comes in handy for wiping paint brushes on after a spot of DIY.)
It is also fair to say that many of my opinions would be classified as "right wing".
Nonetheless, I find many of the articles in The Mail to be profoundly poor, flawed, badly researched, hysterical, based on rumour rather than fact, unremittingly depressing and, perhaps most importantly, entirely trivial in the overall scheme of things.
The major flaw seems to be that its stories - I hesitate to call them news - are designed to appeal to a certain type of reader while telling them nothing that they don't know (or think they know) already. This seems to be more important to the paper than actually printing something that could be construed as an important in-depth news item or informative journalism.
As a woman I like the 'Femail' section which has good articles on health. I don't have the time to read the broadsheets and they are too unwieldy to read comfortably. The Mail has a lot more news than papers like the Sun and Mirror. I don't understand why some think it is a 'pervy' paper, it doesn't have pictures of half naked women.
Full of sensationalist nonsense including an SAS plot to kill Diana, and 'celebs' in states of undress. Utterly vile and manipulative.
But...a couple of interesting pieces in the gutter.
Its no surprise Milliband stayed low following the absolutely amazing revelations from Damian McBride in the Mail. It was an excellent scoop in a desperately poor rag. What a contrast to the non stop week of appearances on every media outlet following the (despicable) article on his father.
If the Grauniad or Torygraph had published them there would have been far greater fuss made about revelations of the amazing spin, dirty tricks and Labour in-fighting twixt Blair and Brown, such as accessing then leaking confidential internal Downing Street emails (including a whole batch to the man just appointed at Milliband's deputy Director of Communications)
Personally I think the Mail has changed a lot over the last 20 odd years.
They deserve huge credit for the sheer balls they took over the Stephen Lawrence murderers. That was a massive call to take and they were standing on their own.
Personally, I don't think the modern day Mail would take such a stance. Do others agree / disagree ?
In fact, would any modern day press outlet go out on a limb calling a group of people Murderers (sue us if not true) ?
However, the Guardian's leaks about Wikileaks, the NSA etc. shows that some reporters still have some balls to print things that may not put them in favour with the establishment.
People buy papers containing largely fictional, salacious cr*p about "celebrities" for some unknown reason rather than serious analysis of important issues, a form of journalism now almost extinct on the printed page but, thankfully, still available on blogs.
My personal view is that freedom of the press should be paramount. The Stephen Lawrence case is one example, MPs expenses another and I could cite more.
If the price of that freedom of the press to do the right thing is all the bo****** we sometimes see then so be it.
Just remember that some of the most vociferous advocates of the repressive measures of Leveson are people likely to be "at it."
Modern society and the media does my swede in.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you are an I'm all right Jack, l look after number one, sod everyone else type person that is fine, stand by your principles by all means, but why do you have to be so spiteful to people who want to be inclusive, help out those less fortunate and are not prepared to tar vast swathes of people with the same brush because of a few bad eggs?
I am perplexed by the lack of British media reaction to the Edward Snowden revelations. Here we have the evidence that "1984" is already upon us, and the Guardian is the only paper running with it. WTF? There's more coverage in Czech newspapers, but on reflection that may be because they know exactly what a Surveillance State looks like.
The UK press has always been concentrated in a few hands and has always filtered both stories and angles for its own ends - from right, centre and even left...And many maintain they can sift that bias while others don't / can't!
The beauty of sites like this - with the spectrum of views and links elsewhere - and the internet in general - is that this proprietal monopoly on news is dead...caput...it is no more
And now certain elements face commercial meltdown as they are about to face 12-18 months court exposure to just how they get those stories...yes there is about to be case after case on phone hacking, bribery of officials etc.
Many (if not all) printed newspapers are on their last legs...I see more and more commuters reading whatever on their ipads ...perhaps a paper, book or last nights TV? Less and less paper sales + more free papers showing the whole model changing...
Let us hope that the news model on the web is pluralistic so anyone who can click is able to source different angles.
The real question is who regulates the web and who can build the best model to promote their particular philosophy - we are at the dawn of a new age which, supported by efforts to mass produce netbooks at low low prices means there is a global audience