Read the forum code of contact
By: 28th March 2017 at 16:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Totally agree. Precisely why I no longer waste my money on buying any newspaper, nor my time in reading the tat that they churn out. There are far quicker, more reliable and cheaper ways these days of determining what has happened (that's important) and I certainly don't need propogandist opinion pieces and editorials to make my mind up for me.
By: 28th March 2017 at 17:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I'm sure that I read somewhere - probably in the Daily Mail, that the Daily Mail outsells all other tabloids put together. Journalistic creativity is to be admired.
By: 28th March 2017 at 17:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-All that shows it that there are a lot of people who have no taste, discernment or the ability to see beyond the clickbait journalism to find the thoughly reprehensible approach of The Dacre Hypocrite
By: 28th March 2017 at 21:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-After that, I like it a lot more. You know when something is effective; it gets criticised by those whom it offends !
By: 28th March 2017 at 21:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-AK
I didn't have you down as a paid up member of the terminally offended. I bought a copy to see what was tweaking your tail. What ever it was went over my head.
By: 28th March 2017 at 21:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-AKI didn't have you down as a paid up member of the terminally offended. I bought a copy to see what was tweaking your tail. What ever it was went over my head.
Far from a terminally offended type, haven't the time or energy to rant against everything, however, do you think that the main headline to come out of political discussions should be about women's legs? surely any serious newspaper should have more mature news at least than that? Were it in an alternative universe and Salmond and Cameron talking would a main headline talking about the size of their respective dicks be similarly (in)appropriate?
I don't see you as the Sun reading type John and this headline is heading in that direction.
I can only assume that as we turn our clocks back to the 70's tomorrow the DM is adopting the level of sexism of that era?
By: 29th March 2017 at 09:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It seems to be what the public likes and wants !
By: 29th March 2017 at 10:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The "Bangkok post"is a good read!
By: 29th March 2017 at 11:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It seems to be what the public likes and wants !
Well, a small percentage of the population perhaps. Their circulation is approximately 1.5 million, even with the estimate of two and a bit people reading each paper, which is high, then that is less than 7 percent of the adult population who actually read it. Of those who do, which on occasion includes me, not all will agree with their approach. I read it to have a good laugh.
The other thing about Fail readership is that they are quite old, only the telegraph has an older demographic
https://www.themediabriefing.com/article/youth-audiences-newspaper-old-demographics-advertising
By: 29th March 2017 at 12:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-After that, I like it a lot more. You know when something is effective; it gets criticised by those whom it offends !
Likewise with the BBC and the Guardian amongst others, by your own reaction to them and by you own proposition, I'd suggest you see them as very effective.
By: 29th March 2017 at 14:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-A silly thread. Yes, the OP can state his opinion.
But the things he finds lacking in the DM can be said about any paper or news organization.
Today, it seems that all news outlets have a political bias...and if you read history it's always been that way, now it's just more obvious.
People who disagree with the paper complain and rant often thinking what they're saying is something never heard before and they're the first to notice a perceived bias.
If you don't like something, don't buy or read it. Problem solved.
By: 29th March 2017 at 15:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Likewise with the BBC and the Guardian amongst others, by your own reaction to them and by you own proposition, I'd suggest you see them as very effective.
You're right. I see them as very effectively wrong, as do many others, as we've lately seen !
By: 29th March 2017 at 18:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Now I know what all the fuss is about. Full marks to the DM ! I like a bit of a leg show and there were some nice attractive pins on offer. What's not to like ? The Blessed Theresa of May is an attractive woman, the The wee Scots lassie less so. She needs a little lip plumping.
By: 30th March 2017 at 13:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Now I know what all the fuss is about. Full marks to the DM ! I like a bit of a leg show and there were some nice attractive pins on offer. What's not to like ? The Blessed Theresa of May is an attractive woman, the The wee Scots lassie less so. She needs a little lip plumping.
They're both a little to young for a man of your age John and I suspect out of your league, but it's good to have daydreams....
On a lighter note, a description I think I read in Private Eye describing Theresa May as a having the look of a "haunted art gallery owner" was both funny and observant.
By: 31st March 2017 at 21:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I'm quite fond of daydreaming but I really can't explain how it is that you appear to know so much about me - all of it, it appears, imaginary
By: 2nd April 2017 at 20:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I'm quite fond of daydreaming but I really can't explain how it is that you appear to know so much about me - all of it, it appears, imaginary
Probably in a similar way that you frequently appear to know so much about people as to be able to label them according to their political leanings and intellect.
By: 2nd April 2017 at 21:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Well, that much is obvious. I don't understand how you know so much about my personal circumstances. How do you know my age or who is in or out of my league ? You're not undercover for MI5/6 are you?
By: 2nd April 2017 at 21:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Well, that much is obvious. I don't understand how you know so much about my personal circumstances. How do you know my age or who is in or out of my league ? You're not undercover for MI5/6 are you?
Think further afield.......
By: 3rd April 2017 at 10:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Yes, I did have that in mind.
By: 10th April 2017 at 12:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Saw this recently, sadly it's hardly surprising but interesting nonetheless. I guess a certain sector of society will happily read what it wants to hear and deny the actual facts.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]252446[/ATTACH]
Posts: 963
By: Agent K - 28th March 2017 at 14:09
There are a variety of preferred newspapers read by visitors to this forum, and some here appear very selective to ensure they read what they want to hear and ensure it meets their view.
Some of these newspapers offer a far higher standard and quality of journalism than others, but there are a few who (misguidedly) see the Daily Mail as a reputable source of quality journalism and news.
Looking at todays front page, and putting any "quips" and "amusing comments" some might have aside, for a story of utmost importance to both countries, to be treated in such a sexist and unprofessional manner highlights all one needs to know about the level and professionalism of the paper and its journalists and dismisses any argument about the DM purporting to be a credible newspaper.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39416554