News3 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.
Yet another repetitive post on gays and Daily Mail bashing.
sp1814 incorrectly states that the DM as suddenly decided to attack gays, if he is referring to the amount of gays in the soaps they were only reporting on a news story that was doing the rounds several weeks ago.
He also says they have told a lie by reporting that Coronation's audience is falling, not a lie by the DM but a lie by sp1814.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ainment-arts-14107656
sp1814 incorrectly states that the DM as suddenly decided to attack gays, if he is referring to the amount of gays in the soaps they were only reporting on a news story that was doing the rounds several weeks ago.
He also says they have told a lie by reporting that Coronation's audience is falling, not a lie by the DM but a lie by sp1814.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ainment-arts-14107656
Note: The following is an attempt at empathy, and I welcome people's opinions on whether or not it is successful. It is NOT an expression of my own opinions, or what I believe to be the truth.
--
If you addressed this question to a Mail journalist, I really don't think they'd understand what you were talking about. Not out of stupidity or ignorance necessarily, but I honestly don't think they'd see it as a problem or indicative of anything. All journalists have bias to some degree or another - they have to have some criteria to decide which stories to report on and which not to. All papers also need a reason to justify their position in the market place - if you reported on news in a truly neutral or objective way, then the only differences between newspapers would be stylistic. They'd also likely be much heavier.
So if bias is necessary just for practical reasons if nothing else, what's the kind that Mail journalists deploy (or believe they do)? The answer is that they're keenly aware of majority-minority issues because the idea of a simple, straightforward, no-nonsense democracy appeals to them - the one where the majority rules, and it's as simple as that. It's fundamental to their politics. What they'd say their concern is, is the prioritisation/'special treatment'/over-protection of minority groups, which they see as pervasive in media, politics and society at large. They believe this over-protection is extending to people actually obfuscating truths about minorities in order to present them better - hence Jan Moir's comments about the 'happily-ever-after-myth' of civil partnerships. This kind of thinking is something that you'll have encountered very often, day-by-day, because it's fairly intuitive, and therefore fairly common.
Mail journalists, then, see themselves as redressing that imbalance - the ones who tell the truth. They're the ones who buck the trend and refuse to jump on the bandwagon. And that's why they make people uncomfortable, and that's why, secretly, they like it, and why that just makes them think they're right.
That, in my opinion, is the explanation for their attitude towards minorities.
--
If you addressed this question to a Mail journalist, I really don't think they'd understand what you were talking about. Not out of stupidity or ignorance necessarily, but I honestly don't think they'd see it as a problem or indicative of anything. All journalists have bias to some degree or another - they have to have some criteria to decide which stories to report on and which not to. All papers also need a reason to justify their position in the market place - if you reported on news in a truly neutral or objective way, then the only differences between newspapers would be stylistic. They'd also likely be much heavier.
So if bias is necessary just for practical reasons if nothing else, what's the kind that Mail journalists deploy (or believe they do)? The answer is that they're keenly aware of majority-minority issues because the idea of a simple, straightforward, no-nonsense democracy appeals to them - the one where the majority rules, and it's as simple as that. It's fundamental to their politics. What they'd say their concern is, is the prioritisation/'special treatment'/over-protection of minority groups, which they see as pervasive in media, politics and society at large. They believe this over-protection is extending to people actually obfuscating truths about minorities in order to present them better - hence Jan Moir's comments about the 'happily-ever-after-myth' of civil partnerships. This kind of thinking is something that you'll have encountered very often, day-by-day, because it's fairly intuitive, and therefore fairly common.
Mail journalists, then, see themselves as redressing that imbalance - the ones who tell the truth. They're the ones who buck the trend and refuse to jump on the bandwagon. And that's why they make people uncomfortable, and that's why, secretly, they like it, and why that just makes them think they're right.
That, in my opinion, is the explanation for their attitude towards minorities.
There is a kinesthetic way that I think epitomises the way I think Mail Journalists think. Simply do the following:
Put your primary hand in front of you, palm downwards. Position it so it is roughly in line with the centre of your chest, just below shoulder-height.
Turn it about 90 degrees to the side so that the palm is facing inwards, towards your other arm (which is flat/inactive) and the back of your hand is facing outwards.
Make a small kind of karate-chop motion downwards with the hand in this position, and as you do so say something like "simple as!" or "End of!" or "It's common sense!"
Put your primary hand in front of you, palm downwards. Position it so it is roughly in line with the centre of your chest, just below shoulder-height.
Turn it about 90 degrees to the side so that the palm is facing inwards, towards your other arm (which is flat/inactive) and the back of your hand is facing outwards.
Make a small kind of karate-chop motion downwards with the hand in this position, and as you do so say something like "simple as!" or "End of!" or "It's common sense!"
em10
That simply isn't true (Corrie viewing figures). It was a lie that the Daily Mail printed to support it's story - and do you know how they did it?
They compared the viewing figures from the week of Britain's Got Talent which
a) would've been higher because of 'inherited audience figures' where a highly popular show passes on an audience to a subsequent show)
and
b) they compared viewing figures from a summer show to a late winter show (and literally everyone in telly knows that shows broadcast during the summer get fewer viewers than the same shows in the winter and spring)
I've checked the viewing figures from June 2010 and June 2011.
They're the same.
The Daily Mail was lying.
That simply isn't true (Corrie viewing figures). It was a lie that the Daily Mail printed to support it's story - and do you know how they did it?
They compared the viewing figures from the week of Britain's Got Talent which
a) would've been higher because of 'inherited audience figures' where a highly popular show passes on an audience to a subsequent show)
and
b) they compared viewing figures from a summer show to a late winter show (and literally everyone in telly knows that shows broadcast during the summer get fewer viewers than the same shows in the winter and spring)
I've checked the viewing figures from June 2010 and June 2011.
They're the same.
The Daily Mail was lying.
"Why must people carp on about the Mail, its just a paper. "
Because it's very influential and, I believe, deserves a lot of scrutiny. The reason it deserves scrutiny is that it fairly often comes up with bad journalism (the blogger 5 Chinese Crackers, if you can tolerate his rather irritating style, provides extremely well-referenced checks on the claims they make, and extensively exposes exaggeration, misquoting, etc.)
Because it's very influential and, I believe, deserves a lot of scrutiny. The reason it deserves scrutiny is that it fairly often comes up with bad journalism (the blogger 5 Chinese Crackers, if you can tolerate his rather irritating style, provides extremely well-referenced checks on the claims they make, and extensively exposes exaggeration, misquoting, etc.)
em10
There's no such thing as 'just a paper'.
Newspapers can lead public opinion. If it lies or exclusively produces negative stories about certain groups - then the less well-educated members of it's readership will see biased reporting as the truth.
The Daily Mail leads the pack in terms of printing editorial pieces dressed up to look like news pieces. My guess is this is the reason why there are a growing number of websites now devoted to deconstructing Mail stories to reveal where and why they twist the truth.
There's no such thing as 'just a paper'.
Newspapers can lead public opinion. If it lies or exclusively produces negative stories about certain groups - then the less well-educated members of it's readership will see biased reporting as the truth.
The Daily Mail leads the pack in terms of printing editorial pieces dressed up to look like news pieces. My guess is this is the reason why there are a growing number of websites now devoted to deconstructing Mail stories to reveal where and why they twist the truth.
Tower Hamlets website
How does this work then?
Over half of Tower Hamlets’ population are from non-white British ethnic groups. A third of these are Bangladeshi, of whom over a third are 15 years or less old.
According to Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2006 population estimates:
fifty six per cent of the population in Tower Hamlets belonged to an ethnic group other than white British
thirty per cent are Bangladeshi
eight per cent are from other white backgrounds
Who reads The Guardian, influential people, just like The Times,
which i would think is the paper of choice of MP's
though of course there is no way of knowing that's for sure.
no more than making an assumption that the Daily Mail is influential
How does this work then?
Over half of Tower Hamlets’ population are from non-white British ethnic groups. A third of these are Bangladeshi, of whom over a third are 15 years or less old.
According to Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2006 population estimates:
fifty six per cent of the population in Tower Hamlets belonged to an ethnic group other than white British
thirty per cent are Bangladeshi
eight per cent are from other white backgrounds
Who reads The Guardian, influential people, just like The Times,
which i would think is the paper of choice of MP's
though of course there is no way of knowing that's for sure.
no more than making an assumption that the Daily Mail is influential
em: You're going on an extremely narrow and incomplete definition of 'influential'. If a paper is a source of information - especially in the rare cases where it's an exclusive source of information - for a large number of people, it has influence.
And I don't think anyone's saying that The Guardian or the Times don't deserve scrutiny (personally, I don't read any newspapers because I distrust them. When I have the time to keep up with current affairs, I combine the Week and The Economist). But the Mail takes a particularly sensationalist tone, has a particularly high readership, and by coincidence seems very popular among a lot of AB users - which is why it gets attacked on this site in particular so much (though to be fair I'd be quite happy to see people examining the Guardian/Times in a similar way).
And I don't think anyone's saying that The Guardian or the Times don't deserve scrutiny (personally, I don't read any newspapers because I distrust them. When I have the time to keep up with current affairs, I combine the Week and The Economist). But the Mail takes a particularly sensationalist tone, has a particularly high readership, and by coincidence seems very popular among a lot of AB users - which is why it gets attacked on this site in particular so much (though to be fair I'd be quite happy to see people examining the Guardian/Times in a similar way).
That doesn't mean it doesn't deserve the amount of scrutiny it's getting. To be fair, it does also (well, until recently...) have a much stronger reputation for poor journalism than most of the other 'quality' papers, and it's also one of the best-selling papers in the country. So the emphasis on it also has some justification from those angles too.
sp1814 # Then last week, they ran the story that Coronation Street's audience is falling (another lie) #
sp1814 i think you must be telling the lies as other papers say Corontion Streets audience is falling
This is from The Guardian
#
Since Stella and her unwieldy, geographically confused northern accent pitched up on the street last month, Coronation Street fans appear to have been switching off – last week viewing figures averaged 7.1 million per episode, compared with an average of 9.8 million across the year. Reports suggest that writers have been hauled over the cobbles, #
sp1814 i think you must be telling the lies as other papers say Corontion Streets audience is falling
This is from The Guardian
#
Since Stella and her unwieldy, geographically confused northern accent pitched up on the street last month, Coronation Street fans appear to have been switching off – last week viewing figures averaged 7.1 million per episode, compared with an average of 9.8 million across the year. Reports suggest that writers have been hauled over the cobbles, #
Perhaps its because it would seem, though others on here say not, that the producer is gay, and that he may have an agenda as to how many gay characters are in the show, and i don't believe that was only in the mail, i did have a look at various sites to do with corrie, and much the same has been said. Its not that alone, new storylines have been off the radar, Michelle collins doesn't seem that well liked, Becky who was something of a stalwart has turned into a shrieking harridan, and they lost Blanche a while back, who at least was funny, this is turning into EE set but in the north.
if a paper upset me like the mail does you i would not read it
a lot of what is posted here has been posted before
http://www.theanswerb.../Question1036095.html
a lot of what is posted here has been posted before
http://www.theanswerb.../Question1036095.html
Latest Posts
Crosswords5 mins ago
Sick Note Culture Being Looked At.......
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
ChatterBank20 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.