ChatterBank0 min ago
Something strange about the Daily Mail
Something has just occurred to me, and I wonder if anyone else has spotted it...
Remember last week when the Daily Mail reported 'uproar' because of a bedroom scene between two characters in Eastenders?
And today with the alleged racist remark by Chris Evans?
And last year with the (factually inaccurate) report that stated Mohammed was the most popular boys' name in the UK?
Well...could it be argued, that the right wing press, and the Mail in particular, are simply now just trying to get a reaction from their readership (who, looking at most of the comments section, are already pretty reactionary).
Is this degree of news manipulation a good thing? You could understand it in editorial pieces, but when editorial inferences seep into news coverage - doesn't that make for bad journalism?
Remember last week when the Daily Mail reported 'uproar' because of a bedroom scene between two characters in Eastenders?
And today with the alleged racist remark by Chris Evans?
And last year with the (factually inaccurate) report that stated Mohammed was the most popular boys' name in the UK?
Well...could it be argued, that the right wing press, and the Mail in particular, are simply now just trying to get a reaction from their readership (who, looking at most of the comments section, are already pretty reactionary).
Is this degree of news manipulation a good thing? You could understand it in editorial pieces, but when editorial inferences seep into news coverage - doesn't that make for bad journalism?
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.
sp1814 I have taken the Mail for years and consider myself to be pretty moderate and not at all reactionary. I take it because I like the crossword and I agree with most(not all) of what it prints.Have tried other paperws,(Express, Mirror, Telegraph) but just dont like them. Most of the people on here who criticize the Mail ignore the fact that the stories are usually in all the other papers as well
yes.
And it's not just a matter of stories that appear inother papers; it's the spin individual papers put on them. See for example the Express story yesterday that managed to persuade at least one eager-beaver reader that skin colour was somehow involved in what was in fact a straightforward tale of identity theft
http://www.theanswerb.../Question1029989.html
It's been twisted - inaccurately - to suit their gullible readers.
And it's not just a matter of stories that appear inother papers; it's the spin individual papers put on them. See for example the Express story yesterday that managed to persuade at least one eager-beaver reader that skin colour was somehow involved in what was in fact a straightforward tale of identity theft
http://www.theanswerb.../Question1029989.html
It's been twisted - inaccurately - to suit their gullible readers.
alexanderd
You're correct that the Mail runs the same stories as other news outlets - but it not only spins but sometimes tells outright lies!
Take the Mohammed story from last year...the only way that name is the most popular for new born boys in the UK, is if you add up all the many variations of it.
What the Mail did was add up all the different Mohammeds, but omit to add up all the different spellings of Oliver. If it had, then Oliver would've been the most popular boys name!!!
Furthermore, it didn't report that Mohammed is an EXTREMELY popular name amongst Muslim families, which skewed the numbers.
If you look at the Independent, Observer, Guardian, Times...you'll notice a distinct difference between 'news' and 'comment'. The line in the Mail is very blurry indeed.
You're correct that the Mail runs the same stories as other news outlets - but it not only spins but sometimes tells outright lies!
Take the Mohammed story from last year...the only way that name is the most popular for new born boys in the UK, is if you add up all the many variations of it.
What the Mail did was add up all the different Mohammeds, but omit to add up all the different spellings of Oliver. If it had, then Oliver would've been the most popular boys name!!!
Furthermore, it didn't report that Mohammed is an EXTREMELY popular name amongst Muslim families, which skewed the numbers.
If you look at the Independent, Observer, Guardian, Times...you'll notice a distinct difference between 'news' and 'comment'. The line in the Mail is very blurry indeed.
I read it, try to do the ever infuriating c/w and don't consider myself gullible. The DM had a somewhat different article than the one produced in the Express, it didn't say that the Nigerian fraudster
had a passport with a picture of a white womans face in it, it said the Nigerian woman had used the passport to travel around the world, and that she had fraudulently obtained Mrs Keasts birth certificate to get the passport and further documents. a case of ID theft.
had a passport with a picture of a white womans face in it, it said the Nigerian woman had used the passport to travel around the world, and that she had fraudulently obtained Mrs Keasts birth certificate to get the passport and further documents. a case of ID theft.
jno
/// persuade at least one eager-beaver reader that skin colour was somehow involved in what was in fact a straightforward tale of identity theft ///
Now how did I guess you were referring to me?
So a black person taking on the guise of a white person, via the white person's passport, has nothing to do with skin colour?????
You not only amaze me, but you also make yourself seem so silly.
Would the story been so newsworthy if it had been a white person taking on another white person identity, or if it had been two black persons falsifying their identities?
Then I would agree that there would have been no reason to report on their colour.
/// persuade at least one eager-beaver reader that skin colour was somehow involved in what was in fact a straightforward tale of identity theft ///
Now how did I guess you were referring to me?
So a black person taking on the guise of a white person, via the white person's passport, has nothing to do with skin colour?????
You not only amaze me, but you also make yourself seem so silly.
Would the story been so newsworthy if it had been a white person taking on another white person identity, or if it had been two black persons falsifying their identities?
Then I would agree that there would have been no reason to report on their colour.
The Daily Mail judging by the number of substantiated complaints regarding fabrication and lack of editorial 'vigilance'.
The BBC was recently had up for staging a scene in a documentary - it was wrong to do so but was re-enacting something which clearly does go on as the rest of the film accurately reported.
The Daily Mail describes events as 'news' that never actually occured - if they fit their overall agenda.
The BBC was recently had up for staging a scene in a documentary - it was wrong to do so but was re-enacting something which clearly does go on as the rest of the film accurately reported.
The Daily Mail describes events as 'news' that never actually occured - if they fit their overall agenda.
em and Zeuhl are entirely correct. The identity theft had nothing to do with colour (I doubt the thief even knew her victim's colour).
"Would the story been so newsworthy if it had been a white person taking on another white person identity, or if it had been two black persons falsifying their identities?"
It wasn't newsworthy anyway - unless the newspaper has some weird skin colour agenda to push. Which is exactly my point on this thread: newspapers invent stories that aren't there, to manipulate their gullible audiences. sp1814's example of the non-existent "first name" scandal is another good one.
"Would the story been so newsworthy if it had been a white person taking on another white person identity, or if it had been two black persons falsifying their identities?"
It wasn't newsworthy anyway - unless the newspaper has some weird skin colour agenda to push. Which is exactly my point on this thread: newspapers invent stories that aren't there, to manipulate their gullible audiences. sp1814's example of the non-existent "first name" scandal is another good one.
