They Continue To Walk Among Us ...
Film, Media & TV9 mins ago
For what purpose is the Daily Mail trying to whip up anti-gay feelings amongst it's readership
I know that the Mail has had a long-running and successful campaign against Muslims (search for the word 'muslim' on the site and compare the negative stories to the positives)...but what's their game with gays?
Since Jan Moir and Melanie Philips infamous opinion pieces last year, the floodgates have opened. Two weeks ago, it reported 'outrage' when the BBC broadcast two naked (they weren't) gay characters in bed in Eastenders.
Then last week, they ran the story that Coronation Street's audience is falling (another lie) because of a tiny number of gay-related stories and now they publish details of a faded pop star attempting to have a child through a surrogate, and it smells a lot like 'flame-casting' (printing a story which of virtually zero public interest, only to enflame their right-of-centre readership)
But WHY?
Why has The Mail suddenly decided to attack gays? Is this sensible, in that for every anti-gay article they print leaves less space for 'cancer shock', 'Muslim threat', 'travellers destroyed our village' and 'asylum seeker murders beautiful blonde girl' stories???
Since Jan Moir and Melanie Philips infamous opinion pieces last year, the floodgates have opened. Two weeks ago, it reported 'outrage' when the BBC broadcast two naked (they weren't) gay characters in bed in Eastenders.
Then last week, they ran the story that Coronation Street's audience is falling (another lie) because of a tiny number of gay-related stories and now they publish details of a faded pop star attempting to have a child through a surrogate, and it smells a lot like 'flame-casting' (printing a story which of virtually zero public interest, only to enflame their right-of-centre readership)
But WHY?
Why has The Mail suddenly decided to attack gays? Is this sensible, in that for every anti-gay article they print leaves less space for 'cancer shock', 'Muslim threat', 'travellers destroyed our village' and 'asylum seeker murders beautiful blonde girl' stories???
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"if a paper upset me like the mail does you i would not read it "
Speaking personally, the Mail doesn't upset me so much (well, I admit it did with the Jan Moir thing, but that's about it). But the Mail is interesting. It's a very popular and influential paper, so it when it carries out bad/sensationalist journalism that needs explaining and people should to know about it. What saddens me is that if you do so, people like you will just shrug their shoulders and say 'don't read it then' when it's more important than that. I don't read the Mail for the same reason I don't read any other papers - but that doesn't mean I shouldn't try to inform myself about it.
Speaking personally, the Mail doesn't upset me so much (well, I admit it did with the Jan Moir thing, but that's about it). But the Mail is interesting. It's a very popular and influential paper, so it when it carries out bad/sensationalist journalism that needs explaining and people should to know about it. What saddens me is that if you do so, people like you will just shrug their shoulders and say 'don't read it then' when it's more important than that. I don't read the Mail for the same reason I don't read any other papers - but that doesn't mean I shouldn't try to inform myself about it.
Sp1814 states that it is the Mail that attaches the increase of gays in the cast, that is responsible for the reduction in viewing figures.
Well it's not, a few cast members and ex cast members have said the same thing.
Why all the anti-Daily Mail threads, it is because the DM is a right wing newspaper and you will find it is generally the Left that is opposed to this newspaper.
Why? because the DM are not afraid to report the real facts on certain matters that the liberal left would rather not have us know about.
Just read the attacks certain threads and their posters get when a report from the Daily Mail is entered onto the news section of AnswerBank.
The Right do not normally bother what news story, from whatever news source is posted, whereas the Left go bananas if a news report that doesn't fit in with their particular agenda happens to be posted.
Well it's not, a few cast members and ex cast members have said the same thing.
Why all the anti-Daily Mail threads, it is because the DM is a right wing newspaper and you will find it is generally the Left that is opposed to this newspaper.
Why? because the DM are not afraid to report the real facts on certain matters that the liberal left would rather not have us know about.
Just read the attacks certain threads and their posters get when a report from the Daily Mail is entered onto the news section of AnswerBank.
The Right do not normally bother what news story, from whatever news source is posted, whereas the Left go bananas if a news report that doesn't fit in with their particular agenda happens to be posted.
"Why all the anti-Daily Mail threads, it is because the DM is a right wing newspaper and you will find it is generally the Left that is opposed to this newspaper. "
I know you won't believe me, but generally I don't consider myself that left-wing (depending on your definition of right-and-left wing, of course). Plenty of right-wing or centrist writers oppose the paper as well.
"The Right do not normally bother what news story, from whatever news source is posted,"
Well, perhaps they should. It's important that people's sources are critiqued and analysed - we need to be sure you can rely on who is telling you things.
I know you won't believe me, but generally I don't consider myself that left-wing (depending on your definition of right-and-left wing, of course). Plenty of right-wing or centrist writers oppose the paper as well.
"The Right do not normally bother what news story, from whatever news source is posted,"
Well, perhaps they should. It's important that people's sources are critiqued and analysed - we need to be sure you can rely on who is telling you things.
Kromovaracun
My point exactly. What the Mail tends to do is print opinion as fact, and a subsection of their readership (those who are socially under-educated) then go on to believe what they read as fact.
The Jan Moir piece is a perfect example, but they seem to be ramping up their attacks on gays, and it would be illuminating for someone to give a reason why.
My point exactly. What the Mail tends to do is print opinion as fact, and a subsection of their readership (those who are socially under-educated) then go on to believe what they read as fact.
The Jan Moir piece is a perfect example, but they seem to be ramping up their attacks on gays, and it would be illuminating for someone to give a reason why.
if any paper would to do that suggest that it would get its knuckles rapped,
If the paper has over 2 million readers, no idea what the readership is,
that must a fair cross section of society, you can't label them all right wing reactionaries, no matter.
If it prints stories of travellers, gays, Muslim extremeism, its news, the same stories that are printed in other papers, just couched in a different way. This also supposes that the person doesn't buy any other paper, or magazine, which would give different view points.
or watch the tv news, listen to the radio, it seem a bit much to keep on bashing away at one paper, when you have so many to choose from.
If the paper has over 2 million readers, no idea what the readership is,
that must a fair cross section of society, you can't label them all right wing reactionaries, no matter.
If it prints stories of travellers, gays, Muslim extremeism, its news, the same stories that are printed in other papers, just couched in a different way. This also supposes that the person doesn't buy any other paper, or magazine, which would give different view points.
or watch the tv news, listen to the radio, it seem a bit much to keep on bashing away at one paper, when you have so many to choose from.
em10
The press should be held accountable when it actively promotes I'll-feeling amongst it's readership by spreading lies.
When they twist stories to demonize gay people, they light the touch paper which results in gay men being attacked.
When The Guardian Mirror, Times, Evenin Standard etc do the same they too should be attacked and criticised but you se...they don't because they don't have an anti-gay agenda.
The press should be held accountable when it actively promotes I'll-feeling amongst it's readership by spreading lies.
When they twist stories to demonize gay people, they light the touch paper which results in gay men being attacked.
When The Guardian Mirror, Times, Evenin Standard etc do the same they too should be attacked and criticised but you se...they don't because they don't have an anti-gay agenda.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
"that must a fair cross section of society, you can't label them all right wing reactionaries, no matter. "
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't anyone necessarily is. It's the sentiments and practices of Mail journalists which we're scrutinising. But that doesn't change the fact that (as you do sometimes with the Guardian), there are people with an extremely rosy view of the Mail that take what's in it at face value when they simply shouldn't. I'm sure a fair number of the Mail's readers do not do so - my mother is one of them. But the fact is that some do.
"If it prints stories of travellers, gays, Muslim extremeism, its news, the same stories that are printed in other papers, just couched in a different way"
Except it's not that simple, is it? The Mail does recycle old stories to make the same point (if you like, I'll dig back through the ones that 5CC and some other bloggers have unearthed and show you them myself - it just make take a while). Have you ever heard of selection bias? While it usually refers to statistics, it's something of a necessary evil in journalism because obviously a paper can't report everything. But it also can be a tool for portraying the world in a certain way. Why shouldn't we analyse it? Or attack if we think it's distortive?
Plus the way that something is presented is not as trivial as you're making it out to be. The sensationalist tone in which the Mail poses things can make them seem like things that they're not. Again, if you'd really prefer examples and are willing to wait, I'll go and find some for you to show you.
I'm not entirely clear what you're arguing against, em. You seem to have a problem with the idea of vigilance toward big-circulation, influential newspapers with a reputation for exaggeration and sensationalism. Why? On what grounds? I'm sure there must be more to your responses than I'm making out.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't anyone necessarily is. It's the sentiments and practices of Mail journalists which we're scrutinising. But that doesn't change the fact that (as you do sometimes with the Guardian), there are people with an extremely rosy view of the Mail that take what's in it at face value when they simply shouldn't. I'm sure a fair number of the Mail's readers do not do so - my mother is one of them. But the fact is that some do.
"If it prints stories of travellers, gays, Muslim extremeism, its news, the same stories that are printed in other papers, just couched in a different way"
Except it's not that simple, is it? The Mail does recycle old stories to make the same point (if you like, I'll dig back through the ones that 5CC and some other bloggers have unearthed and show you them myself - it just make take a while). Have you ever heard of selection bias? While it usually refers to statistics, it's something of a necessary evil in journalism because obviously a paper can't report everything. But it also can be a tool for portraying the world in a certain way. Why shouldn't we analyse it? Or attack if we think it's distortive?
Plus the way that something is presented is not as trivial as you're making it out to be. The sensationalist tone in which the Mail poses things can make them seem like things that they're not. Again, if you'd really prefer examples and are willing to wait, I'll go and find some for you to show you.
I'm not entirely clear what you're arguing against, em. You seem to have a problem with the idea of vigilance toward big-circulation, influential newspapers with a reputation for exaggeration and sensationalism. Why? On what grounds? I'm sure there must be more to your responses than I'm making out.
//Have you ever heard of selection bias? While it usually refers to statistics, it's something of a necessary evil in journalism because obviously a paper can't report everything. But it also can be a tool for portraying the world in a certain way. Why shouldn't we analyse it? Or attack if we think it's distortive?//
So true and the DM is a master of the art and why it is so dangerous. I am centrist in my politics and I find the DM to be a pretty offensive, perverted paper - the journalistic wolf in sheep's clothing as it tries to influence "Middle England" to -phobic positions.
So true and the DM is a master of the art and why it is so dangerous. I am centrist in my politics and I find the DM to be a pretty offensive, perverted paper - the journalistic wolf in sheep's clothing as it tries to influence "Middle England" to -phobic positions.
They are speaking up for the silent majority! We don't want the antics of the gay community taking precedence over normal human beings as though their practices should take equal consideration. Sexual deviation between consenting humans should be tolerated but not classed as normal.
For far too long we have accepted foreigners with a completely difficult culture. Not too much we can do with this runaway immigration but they should be taught to fit in with our customs and if they object should clear off.
Both topics heavily published in the Daily Mail.
For far too long we have accepted foreigners with a completely difficult culture. Not too much we can do with this runaway immigration but they should be taught to fit in with our customs and if they object should clear off.
Both topics heavily published in the Daily Mail.
Latest Posts
The Post Office Horizon Enquiry
News13 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
Crosswords28 mins ago
Society & Culture30 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.