Is the Daily Mail really that bad?

Priori

Today, reading through comments left in the aftermath of the article about 'Magda' in that despicable rag the Independent, I noticed a comment referring to the Indo as the 'Irish Daily Mail.'

My gf regularly reads this, and while I realise it's very trashy and would never go near it myself (and would rather she didn't, but I won't be an asshole and try to tell her what she should and shouldn't read), my question is: Is the Daily Mail bad enough that a comparison with the Indo is warranted? Have there been any clear instances of it publishing outright dishonest, nasty, agenda-pushing bullsh1t?

I'm honestly just curious, and would be grateful for any links.

gcgirl

Yep both would be classed a lazy journalistic agenda driving drivel

minidazzler

As with most newspapers these days, both of those are full of sensationalist trash which really doesn't need ot be printed but they have quota's to fill so they will write whatever tripe they need to.

KeithAFC

A leftist insult to the Daily Mail.

Proxy

It's a load of right-wing, reactionary nonsense; a tabloid that thinks its a broadsheet. My parents read it at the weekend sometimes. I would hope your girlfriend is able to have her own opinion, separate to the DM.

Fago!

Newspapers? I get my news from After Hours!

The ally cat

It's not fair to compare the daily mail to the indo, they put thought into the stories they make up!

thomasj

is the daily fail really that bad

Yes!

iguana

Just google Jan Moir, Stephen Gately or Jan Moir, Dunblane.

KeithAFC

Proxy wrote: »

It's a load of right-wing, reactionary nonsense; a tabloid that thinks its a broadsheet. My parents read it at the weekend sometimes. I would hope your girlfriend is able to have her own opinion, separate to the DM.

How dare a newspaper be right wing and make up stories. Not like left wing papers don't do it.

Cool Mo D

Yes the Daily Mail is that bad. Not because of it's reactionary right-wing agenda though.

The real problem is that the Daily Mail does not care about facts, or the truth, or ethical journalism. It is perfectly happy to twist a story, make up quotes, or just fabricate from whole cloth. For example, when Amanda Knox was appealing her murder conviction in Perugia, the Daily Mail had two articles written, for the cases where here appeal was successful or unsuccessful. When her appeal was successful, they accidentally put up the wrong article on their website, which detailed how she "sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably" when she heard the verdict, and how she was put on suicide watch. Which never happened of course. http://www.malcolmcoles.co.uk/blog/daily-mail-guuilt/

If you read an article in the Mail, with a quote like "an expert said", or "a bystander said", or "persons familiar with the case said", unless it gives a name and picture of said expert, it is actually the journalist writing the article who is the expert/journalist/bystander.

The Daily Mail is so popular because it tailors its articles to provoke outrage in its readers, without regard to the truth.The Daily Mail is 10 times worse than the Independent, because even though the Irish Independent is full of lazy, sloppy journalism, rehashed press releases, and wannabe celebrity nonsense, it isn't actively and purposely lying to it's readers like the Mail is.

FouxDaFaFa

I once read a Daily Mail article about the death of a young girl. She had been molested and murdered by her mother's boyfriend and the writer explicitly said that it was the mother's fault for bringing this man into the household. The death of her daughter was on her. It was the most disgusting article I have ever read.

This is all utterly dreadful. Yet a big part of me can't help but wonder: for God's sake, Roxanne, what on earth were you thinking?

Without a moment's doubt or suspicion, Roxanne Lawrence let a monster waltz right into the heart of her family life.

(Don't want to link directly as it will just be more traffic for it).

It was an opinion piece but the fact that it was allowed to run shows what a piece of sensationalist scummy journalism it is.

4zn76tysfajdxp

KeithAFC wrote: »

How dare a newspaper be right wing and make up stories. Not like left wing papers don't do it.

No newspapers should do it. Left, right or x wing.

John Doe1

I get my news from The onion, its the only reliable source

g'em

I read the Daily Mail on-line every lunchtime (now the most read on-line newspaper apparently). I treat it much like I do the men in my life - pretty to look at and perfectly perfunctory for a quick fix but I couldn't give a flying fart what it has to say.

KeithAFC

Martha Incalculable Housewife wrote: »

No newspapers should do it. Left, right or x wing.

We don't live in a perfect world. These people need to make up stories to sell papers and earn money.

CardBordWindow

As long as they keep including pictures of Georgia Salpa, then who cares about the actual content!!?

GLaDOS

Obligatory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

My name is URL

The Daily Mail is at least entertaining. The Indo isn't even that

Eric Cartman

The daily mail is just a right wing tabloid.

Theyre not afraid to talk about issues that need to be talked about , like immigration or the islamisation of the UK, but the problem is that they sensationalize it and try to cause panic among people.

The daily mail is just basically the other side of the same coin as something like indymedia.

it angers some on the right because of its sensationalising of stories
it angers all those on the left because they dont know how the world works and think we should all pretend that everything works perfectly

PhlegmyMoses

The Indo is a better paper than the Daily Mail by a mile. Seriously. If you think the Indo has an agenda then you should read the Mail. Their editor, Paul Dacre, is an absolutely appaling person who promotes this method of writing which forces the journalists to write polemic and offensive articles to get more papers sold and more hits on the website. The paper exists to whip up a frenzy about anything and everything, particularly if you are not British, straight or a conformist to the status quo. Read Jan Moir or Richard Littlejohn if you want an insight into the type of people they employ. It is a paper for white, middle-aged British women who have right-wing view types.

4zn76tysfajdxp

KeithAFC wrote: »

We don't live in a perfect world. These people need to make up stories to sell papers and earn money.

Well they shouldn't. And we have every right to criticise them for it.

Ellis Dee

Determining the worseness of rags like the Indo and the (Hate)mail is a bit like trying to decide whether it is more disgusting to find you have dog poo or human sh1t on the sole of your shoe and have just smeared it on your best carpet.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Laisurg

Yep they're both as bad as each other, who says you need to verify your sources! pfff hell you can just make them up in fact.

FinnLizzy

The Irish Independent back in the day was considered a mouthpiece for the Catholic Church, but any sort of collusion isn't obviously visible at the moment.

The Irish Independent's agenda is much less visible than the Daily Mail. I can read through a Indo article and not get the sense that I'm being whipped up into a frenzy. I wouldn't trust a newspaper that uses words like 'sick', 'evil' or 'heatbreaking' (taken from today's headline on their website).

Anyways, Independent News & Media own the Herald and the Star, so you don't have to venture far to find their right-wing trash.

lucylu

The only good thing about the Daily mail is the TV guide on a Sunday..

K-9

KeithAFC wrote: »

How dare a newspaper be right wing and make up stories. Not like left wing papers don't do it.

Indeed Keith, the left or right wing part is irrelevant, the making up part is the important distinction. Good on you for spotting that.

Snazzy_Chazzy

Daily Mail is great where else would you get headlines like todays for example

"James Corden shows off his slimmer frame to Lulu as he leans semi-naked out a window"

thomasj

Snazzy_Chazzy wrote: »

Daily Mail is great where else would you get headlines like todays for example

"James Corden shows off his slimmer frame to Lulu as he leans semi-naked out a window"

I think the only reason people buy it is because the free classical/country music cds or bingo cards they sometimes put in it!

elgriff

I am in disbelief that anyone reads it, and worry about people trusting it.

Here is a site showing a list of things the daily mail says can give you cancer, as well as thing that can prevent cancer. Needless to say there is overlap!

http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/

Latchy

What passes for news in the Daily Mail ie, Kate Perry drop's Russell Brand from her twitter account ( yawn) isn't really news but such is the bland age of trashy journalism /news worthy items we live in ie , 53 year old boot flashes her boobs and wins reality tv contest ( jesuz ) we take from it and other newspapers like the Indo what we wish . I read both above on the net for free anyway so it costs me nothing except my time .

Snazzy_Chazzy

elgriff wrote: »

I am in disbelief that anyone reads it, and worry about people trusting it.

Here is a site showing a list of things the daily mail says can give you cancer, as well as thing that can prevent cancer. Needless to say there is overlap!

http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/

The daily mail gives you cancer!!!!!!!:eek:

"Runs to Beaumont for colonoscopy and lubes up" :eek:

The King of Moo

And don't forget of course, the hypocrisy of them claiming to be some sort of moral guardian, yet filling their pages (and the entire right-hand side of their home page on the website) with women in bikinis. Just like the Sun with Page 3.

It's at its worst when they combine outrage with prurient titillation in the same article.
For example: their website carried a headline outraged at 14-year old actress Chloe Moretz (Kick-ass, Hugo) wearing a leather outfit, alongside a thumbnail of her in said outfit, sandwiched between minor celebrities in bikinis (and I don't mean "sandwiched" in the way you might be thinking!).
Naturally, upon clicking on the headline to read more, a number of photos of her in the outfit and other more adult-appropriate outfits took up far more space than the outraged text.

They did the same thing around the same time with an article about the parents of a 15-year old model who were outraged at a magazine ad featuring her in a revealing pose.
Right beside the offending picture so you know what to get titillated outraged about.

Pretty sick.

Spread

I go through the Mail and Indo (as well as other papers) daily and find some of the makey uppy stories faintly amusing. They are both rags and have followed The Enquirer down that road. However, if I wanted to get news and more boring in dept news I'd hit The Irish Times, London Times or Daily Torygraph. Papers no longer are the main news providers for most people (except The League of Gentlemen types).

Hampster Goes Missing or Freddie Starr ate my Hampster

Which story would you read? Go on! Be honest!

Biggins

Priori wrote: »

...Have there been any clear instances of it publishing outright dishonest, nasty, agenda-pushing bullsh1t?

Totally!

Priori wrote: »

...I'm honestly just curious, and would be grateful for any links.

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/

Spread

KeithAFC wrote: »

We don't live in a perfect world. These people need to make up stories to sell papers and earn money.

I was wondering where you got the idea from Keith

Incidentally, where does the AFC come from?

biko

g'em wrote: »

I read the Daily Mail on-line every lunchtime (now the most read on-line newspaper apparently). I treat it much like I do the men in my life - pretty to look at and perfectly perfunctory for a quick fix but I couldn't give a flying fart what it has to say.

There is a heart of stone somewhere beneath those rock hard muscles.

I never got the Irish indo and Sunday Indo hate. I've been reading both since I was a child as it was and is bought at home nearly every day. I think its a nice compromise between the boredom of the Times and the utter crap of the tabloids. Its miles ahead of the tabloids don't see how people compare it to them. If I was to put it in a group it would be with the Irish times etc and not with the tabloids.

The King of Moo

Valentina Worried Rainfall wrote: »

I never got the Irish indo and Sunday Indo hate. I've been reading both since I was a child as it was and is bought at home nearly every day. I think its a nice compromise between the boredom of the Times and the utter crap of the tabloids. Its miles ahead of the tabloids don't see how people compare it to them. If I was to put it in a group it would be with the Irish times etc and not with the tabloids.

Because it combines both?

I don't think the daily Independent is as bad as the Sunday Independent, but the Sindo is pretty shocking.

Tons of articles, especially in the magazine, about non-entity "celebrities" only known to Barry Egan, who of course has to tell us all about how much he knows them.

There was the case a few months of the young girl modelling a dress and the "article" containing an ad and directions for her mother's boutique, when the story's focus was purportedly about the tragic death of the girl's boyfriend.

Of course there's the awful article about the Polish woman which is basically completely full of lies.

If I gave the paper more attention than I do I'd have more examples.
But when I do have a look it's invariably full of fluff pieces about non-celebrities and rabble-rousing nonsense with poor standards of journalistic integrity.

Batsy

The Daily Mail is a very popular newspaper, well-liked not only in the UK - where it is the second most-read newspaper after The Sun - but also around the world.

One reason for its success, of course, is down to its popular views, views which are shared by the majority of people, unlike lefty newspapers whose bizarre views only resonate with sandal-wearing, tofu-eating, Friends-of-the-Earth type people in Islington.

This is shown in the fact that the Daily Mail website is now the most popular newspaper website on the planet, overtaking that of the New York Times.

In fact, MailOnline is the fifth biggest newspaper in the United States.

I also enjoyed reading The Guardian's article about this. The Guardian, the left-wing bible, has a readership which is miniscule compared to that of the Daily Mail, and is shrinking rapidly. So it was good to see The Guardian, which usually can't report on anything without making disaparaging comments about the Daily Mail, even if it's in articles about probes being sent to Mars, reporting jealously on the Mail's success.

I also enjoyed reading the inevitable childish comments from The Guardian's left-wing, PC readers in the comments section underneath the article on The Guardian's website.

I particularly enjoyed this comment, though, from "Toolow":

Love all the twitchy-lipped Guardian people getting so worked up about this. If you don't like hugely popular sites which produce excellent journalism for everybody then don't read them.....

And will the sullen, negative nobodies who wants to bring race into everything please note that I'm a man of colour. Like many of my compatriots I first started reading the Daily Mail because it presents information and comment in well written English - good usage at all times. It's read by thousands of immigrants for this reason.

By comparison, the NYT is pretentious and boring. To be fair, the Guardian isn't, but there are some right little curtain twitchers who read it.

Paparazzo

Batsy wrote: »

The Daily Mail is a very popular newspaper, well-liked not only in the UK - where it is the second most-read newspaper after The Sun - but also around the world.

Says a lot about the intelligence of Brits and brit expats if they're the 2 most popular british papers.
What's number 3? The daily sport?

mikom

Batsy wrote: »

This is shown in the fact that the Daily Mail website is now the most popular newspaper website on the planet, overtaking that of the New York Times.

They are visiting it for the pictures not the text.

Batsy

Paparazzo wrote: »

Says a lot about the intelligence of Brits and brit expats if they're the 2 most popular british papers.
What's number 3? The daily sport?

It says a lot about the intelligence of the people around the WHOLE PLANET, who like the paper so much they have made its website the No1 newspaper website on Earth.

Batsy

mikom wrote: »

They are visiting it for the pictures not the text.

"Toolow" (see above), a Daily Mail reader, would disagree with you there.


And will the sullen, negative nobodies who wants to bring race into everything please note that I'm a man of colour. Like many of my compatriots I first started reading the Daily Mail because it presents information and comment in well written English - good usage at all times. It's read by thousands of immigrants for this reason.

Toolow (his response to Guardian readers on The Guardian's website)

The King of Moo

Batsy wrote: »

The Daily Mail is a very popular newspaper, well-liked not only in the UK - where it is the second most-read newspaper after The Sun - but also around the world.

One reason for its success, of course, is down to its popular views, views which are shared by the majority of people, unlike lefty newspapers whose bizarre views only resonate with sandal-wearing, tofu-eating, Friends-of-the-Earth type people in Islington.

This is shown in the fact that the Daily Mail website is now the most popular newspaper website on the planet, overtaking that of the New York Times.

In fact, MailOnline is the fifth biggest newspaper in the United States.

I also enjoyed reading The Guardian's article about this. The Guardian, the left-wing bible, has a readership which is miniscule compared to that of the Daily Mail, and is shrinking rapidly. So it was good to see The Guardian, which usually can't report on anything without making disaparaging comments about the Daily Mail, even if it's in articles about probes being sent to Mars, reporting jealously on the Mail's success.

I also enjoyed reading the inevitable childish comments from The Guardian's left-wing, PC readers in the comments section underneath the article on The Guardian's website.

I particularly enjoyed this comment, though:

Love all the twitchy-lipped Guardian people getting so worked up about this. If you don't like hugely popular sites which produce excellent journalism for everybody then don't read them.....

And will the sullen, negative nobodies who wants to bring race into everything please note that I'm a man of colour. Like many of my compatriots I first started reading the Daily Mail because it presents information and comment in well written English - good usage at all times. It's read by thousands of immigrants for this reason.

By comparison, the NYT is pretentious and boring. To be fair, the Guardian isn't, but there are some right little curtain twitchers who read it.

The Daily Mail is very popular, but that's only because they deliberately spin stories or make up out-and-out lies to sensationalise stories that get people outraged.
It's simple common sense that sensationalised news will grab more people's attention and thus sell more copies.

I'm not a big fan of The Guardian and its own biases either, but at least they don't appear to make things up (as the two websites posted earlier show about The Daily Mail).

Sales figures don't necessarily equate to journalistic integrity, just skill at grabbing attention.

Paparazzo

Batsy wrote: »

It says a lot about the intelligence of the people around the WHOLE PLANET, who like the paper so much they have made its website the No1 newspaper website on Earth.

What countries have The Sun as their best selling paper then?

Batsy

Paparazzo wrote: »

What countries have The Sun as their best selling paper then?

This has nothing to do with The Sun. This is about The Daily Mail.

However, The Sun is the 9th biggest selling newspaper on Earth, with a circulation of almost 3 billion, and is the world's second-biggest-selling English language newspaper after The Times of India.

etchyed

Here's another nice example of the Daily Mail making stuff up to suit its own purposes and blatantly contradicting itself:

Jaw-dropping behaviour from The Daily Mail - Graham Linehan's blog

Celly Smunt

meh it's ok i suppose,i only look at the pictures anyway.

Batsy

The Daily Mail is the 11th most popular newspaper in the world (but its website is the most popular newspaper website).

The Guardian doesn't even make it in the world's Top 100.

Latchy

One way to ascertain the intelligence of Brits who read the Daily Mail is to view the comments section under each news item . There you'll find that among the good , the bad ,the ugly and the stupid /iggnorant comments, you'll also find a good majority shooting down those very same articles as not newsworthy and pure shyte , just as you might find a fair section of people from different walks of life and people discussing topics on any social network site such as in AH / Boards.ie .

Edit -Highlighted for Batsy .