3 ms·
The Daily Mail, however, is often wrong and frequently guilty of the sins I list above. Demonstrably so. Sometimes, we sneer at something not because it makes
by EliRivers 14y ago
The Daily Mail, however, is often wrong and frequently guilty of the sins I list above. Demonstrably so.
Sometimes, we sneer at something not because it makes us look good (or, as you put it, to demonstrate "progressive credentials", and your assumption that I want to do that is insulting and ignorant, thank you very much), but because it genuinely is dross.
If you like, I can balance the equation by criticising the Guardian for its ridiculous adherence to leftist views despite the most ferocious evidence in its own pages, or we can do the Economist which suggests less regulation as the solution to almost any problem that exists.
Edit to respond to comment below: Of course it's doing something right. It's selling newspapers. It does it by, as I said, flattering its readership and presenting them emotional sensations that confirm their beliefs. That doesn't make it worthy or correct. It makes it admirable only in a "magnificent bastards" kind of way. They know what they're doing and they do it very well.
- gadders 14y agoLots of papers print stories that are demonstrably wrong, though. And the Mail does cater to the lowest common denominator sometimes, but then that is the business of being a tabloid. And it is one of the most popular tabloids in Britain, and one of the most popular websites in the world, so I would suggest that it is doing something right.
- jiggy2011 14y agoDepends what "right" is. They can certainly sell a lot of papers, no doubt. But do they help make create an informed electorate? Which is the most important function of a free press. The biggest problem I have with the Mail is not whether it is biased or even that it makes mistakes. My problem is more that they will often print a headline and first paragraph or a story that makes some claim that is often refuted in the article itself. I feel that this is intended to deliberately mislead those with lower critical thinking abilities. It's amazing the number of times I've had to correct people on stuff like the legal status of Sharia courts. Of course I can't blame the mail for all of this stuff, there are plenty of other papers and blogs doing the same thing but the mail seems to be the flagship for this sort of journalism.
- saraid216 14y ago> I feel that this is intended to deliberately mislead those who don't read the entire article. Fixed that for you. Keep in mind that "reading only the headlines" is a common speed-up-your-life piece of advice. Tim Ferriss, for instance, specifically advises this. It's not really the readership's fault that the Mail is exploiting this.
- jiggy2011 14y agoNo, but it is the paper's fault.
- gadders 14y agoI'd love an informed electorate, but it would be a very tricky thing to try and define whether a particular story is informing the electorate or not, and to whose definition.
- intended 14y agoIn a sentence, what they are doing right and wrong is selling entertainment as news.