M S Therapy Centre Leisure And Pastimes...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Why do they hate the Daily Mail?
44 Answers
Why do some hate the Daily Mail with such vigor?
It is just another newspaper nothing more nothing less, except to say, for whatever reason it is one of the most popular newspapers in Britain.
Could it be that in this age of looking over one's shoulder before saying anything, it will report on most things no matter how sensitive the story may be. Perhaps this is the reason, they wish to muffle items that don't fit in with their agenda?
It is the same reason that they hate me, we are not afraid to speak out. Others don't like this for some reason, and Just as they would like me off this site, they would also wish to have the Daily Mail banned, reminiscent of Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia.
But short of having us banned, has it never occurred to them, that they have a free choice, not to read the Daily Mail or my posts, simple as that.
It is just another newspaper nothing more nothing less, except to say, for whatever reason it is one of the most popular newspapers in Britain.
Could it be that in this age of looking over one's shoulder before saying anything, it will report on most things no matter how sensitive the story may be. Perhaps this is the reason, they wish to muffle items that don't fit in with their agenda?
It is the same reason that they hate me, we are not afraid to speak out. Others don't like this for some reason, and Just as they would like me off this site, they would also wish to have the Daily Mail banned, reminiscent of Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia.
But short of having us banned, has it never occurred to them, that they have a free choice, not to read the Daily Mail or my posts, simple as that.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
Click https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI then watch and listen, Anotheoldgit. (All the way through, now!) That'll give you an idea of why the Mail is so detested.
Ah! Having answered the present question, I then scrolled on down the page only to discover that someone had already posted the link I provided above. When another answer on this thread referred to "the song below", I assumed that a failed link was involved, as there WAS no song below. Never mind...at least the questioner has had the opportunity to grasp what's wrong with the Mail.
Its readership profile is one of old people, and the paper addresses that section.
Readership profile, age
65+ 37%
55-64 21%
45-54 17%
25-34 7%
15-24 8%
It's the older age group that tends to being Little Englander and has the fears and obsessions so neatly summarised in the song cited.
The Daily Mail health scares are interesting. Some scientist took the trouble to list the Daily Mails 'things that cause cancer/ make you ill' against the Daily Mail's 'things that help stop cancer/ keep you well' and found over time that the same things were in both lists!
It's also fond of making headline claims when, hidden in the very text,is the bit of evidence, or a lead to evidence, which utterly disproves the claim.
It is quite a dishonest paper in making big claims on no evidence or a distortion of or careful editing of, material.
And in case you wonder AOG I'm 63 and have never voted Labour (and I'm not vegetarian). I have, to date, only ever voted for the Conservative Party.
Readership profile, age
65+ 37%
55-64 21%
45-54 17%
25-34 7%
15-24 8%
It's the older age group that tends to being Little Englander and has the fears and obsessions so neatly summarised in the song cited.
The Daily Mail health scares are interesting. Some scientist took the trouble to list the Daily Mails 'things that cause cancer/ make you ill' against the Daily Mail's 'things that help stop cancer/ keep you well' and found over time that the same things were in both lists!
It's also fond of making headline claims when, hidden in the very text,is the bit of evidence, or a lead to evidence, which utterly disproves the claim.
It is quite a dishonest paper in making big claims on no evidence or a distortion of or careful editing of, material.
And in case you wonder AOG I'm 63 and have never voted Labour (and I'm not vegetarian). I have, to date, only ever voted for the Conservative Party.
AOG,
Nobody is persecuting you. Your comparison with Nazi Germany and the USSR is juvenile and ridiculous.
The reason people attack the DM is because they don't trust it and don't consider it credible. There's plenty of cases (and I know this because I myself have pointed some out to you) where upon further investigation, the mail has been discovered massaging figures or not reading them properly and generally - even by the dismal standards of the British press - signs of poor journalism.
This is made worse by the forcefulness and, yes, vitriol you can find in a lot of its pieces. We can see the Mail writes like this, but on closer inspection it bases such forceful conclusions on such bad evidence. That makes people angry, and justifiably so. What makes it worse is that so many people buy into it - it's very frustrating. Or if they don't, then they do what a lot of Mail readers seem to do (I know an awful lot of people who this applies to) - they'll buy it as an easy lunchbreak read and 'skim over' or ignore "all the crap" (their words, not mine).
Sure, you get the odd crackpot who wants to ban it. But nobody's trying to remove you - they're taking issue with the validity of your source for the reasons I've outlined above. Why do you consider this persecution? You readily get on your soap box to "criticise" immigration/ethnic minorities, but whenever anyone attacks what you're saying, you back into a corner and moan about persecution and freedom of speech. Why don't you try showing us how you're right? Why don't you try defending your ideas? Or are you incapable of it?
Come to think of it, how that approach remotely constructive? The whole point of freedom of speech is that ideas can come from everywhere, and we can work out which ideas work, which don't, and make progress from the ones that do. How can that possibly happen if one corner says "I believe this, for these reas
Nobody is persecuting you. Your comparison with Nazi Germany and the USSR is juvenile and ridiculous.
The reason people attack the DM is because they don't trust it and don't consider it credible. There's plenty of cases (and I know this because I myself have pointed some out to you) where upon further investigation, the mail has been discovered massaging figures or not reading them properly and generally - even by the dismal standards of the British press - signs of poor journalism.
This is made worse by the forcefulness and, yes, vitriol you can find in a lot of its pieces. We can see the Mail writes like this, but on closer inspection it bases such forceful conclusions on such bad evidence. That makes people angry, and justifiably so. What makes it worse is that so many people buy into it - it's very frustrating. Or if they don't, then they do what a lot of Mail readers seem to do (I know an awful lot of people who this applies to) - they'll buy it as an easy lunchbreak read and 'skim over' or ignore "all the crap" (their words, not mine).
Sure, you get the odd crackpot who wants to ban it. But nobody's trying to remove you - they're taking issue with the validity of your source for the reasons I've outlined above. Why do you consider this persecution? You readily get on your soap box to "criticise" immigration/ethnic minorities, but whenever anyone attacks what you're saying, you back into a corner and moan about persecution and freedom of speech. Why don't you try showing us how you're right? Why don't you try defending your ideas? Or are you incapable of it?
Come to think of it, how that approach remotely constructive? The whole point of freedom of speech is that ideas can come from everywhere, and we can work out which ideas work, which don't, and make progress from the ones that do. How can that possibly happen if one corner says "I believe this, for these reas
I buy the DM on Saturdays for the TV magazine and the puzzles. I find that the newspaper itself covers news items that have been aired previously in other newspapers. Although it usually carries some interesting artlcles at the first half of the paper, the last half is full of holidays and adverts and sport. Normally I buy the Express because the OH reads it. Personally I prefer the Telegraph.
It represents a particular kind of narrow-mindedness and mean-spiritedness that characterises a certain demographic of unpleasant, unmerciful people who lurk behind a flimsy veil of respectability. It is a rank vehicle of fabricated outrage, aimed at binary-minded people whose one-zero default positions are plump contentment and finger-jabbing fury.
And its standards of reporting are appallingly, staggeringly low. Among a print media that is generally poor on reporting health and science, the DM is in a shameful league of its own, and actually seems to have set out to place itself among the dregs in this respect. On that score alone, it is the paper of the stupid, the thick, and the gullible.
And its standards of reporting are appallingly, staggeringly low. Among a print media that is generally poor on reporting health and science, the DM is in a shameful league of its own, and actually seems to have set out to place itself among the dregs in this respect. On that score alone, it is the paper of the stupid, the thick, and the gullible.
// But I would never criticise what a person reads, only when it is a publication that the person has been criticising others for reading //
Fine words AOG, however some of your recent posts do not seem to tally with that pronouncement...
// NO! It is the likes of you that are always accusing certain newspapers of telling lies.Here is what I did say, "it is only true if it is printed in the Guardian or any other far left propaganda sheet". //
// Ooooh!!!! jake, spits out his yoghurt, all over his white socks and sandals, and to top it all his Guardian, slips from underneath his sweaty arm-pit, and is trampled into the mud. //
// Only to increase the symptoms amongst Guardian reading left wingers //
// jno
( whereas the Guardian will. )
( One reason I prefer the Guardian )
Don't suppose you could be a tinny, tinny, bit bias, could you? //
// It's amazing that some people will believe what they read in the Guardian, yet criticise anyone who posts from the Daily Mail. It is little wonder a lynch mob hasn't been formed. //
Fine words AOG, however some of your recent posts do not seem to tally with that pronouncement...
// NO! It is the likes of you that are always accusing certain newspapers of telling lies.Here is what I did say, "it is only true if it is printed in the Guardian or any other far left propaganda sheet". //
// Ooooh!!!! jake, spits out his yoghurt, all over his white socks and sandals, and to top it all his Guardian, slips from underneath his sweaty arm-pit, and is trampled into the mud. //
// Only to increase the symptoms amongst Guardian reading left wingers //
// jno
( whereas the Guardian will. )
( One reason I prefer the Guardian )
Don't suppose you could be a tinny, tinny, bit bias, could you? //
// It's amazing that some people will believe what they read in the Guardian, yet criticise anyone who posts from the Daily Mail. It is little wonder a lynch mob hasn't been formed. //
I don't think your examples work, simply because they have been taken out of context, and some even have had words added to create a more meaningful meaning. Also I was not outwardly condemning what a person reads only mainly in the Guardian's case, making a comparison with the Daily Mail.
This is more like what I was referring to,
http://www.theanswerb...s/Question922340.html
Had I had posted such a question using a Daily Mail link, as you yourself did, can you imagine the flack I would have receieved?
This is more like what I was referring to,
http://www.theanswerb...s/Question922340.html
Had I had posted such a question using a Daily Mail link, as you yourself did, can you imagine the flack I would have receieved?
if i do buy it then its mainly to do the crossword on the back page. whenever i do get chance to read it, as of last week when away on holiday, every day there were so many typos in it, it was shocking and disgusting.if you don't know typos are spelling mistakes btw. they must go to print so late at night that the staff just can't see the errors in front of them. wake up!
this is the Express, not the Mail, but the practice is similar
http://express.co.uk/...al-Mail-bans-religion
Note the quote in the last paragraph that proves all the rest of the story is a lie.
http://express.co.uk/...al-Mail-bans-religion
Note the quote in the last paragraph that proves all the rest of the story is a lie.
