Do You Think I Would Be Taking The ***...
Jobs & Education1 min 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.
K, Its a bit early but for my two cents, I don't agree with Rov's idea of society, generally its live and let live, i read the DM because i want to, i don't believe everything i read in it no more than i do any paper, i used to read the DT, amongst other things, i liked the c/w, and that gets criticised and called the Torygraph, you can't win. I am not arguing against any one, but the constant reference, carping on about one newspaper, which isn't even the most widely read, that i believe is the The Sun, is absurd. If people are so anti why don't they write to the paper with their views, or better still write to other papers to condemn it as you have described. I do read other papers, watch tv news, try to get info any whichway, but the DM for the time being is my choice. I am amazed that people think its so anti gay, one story recently on corrie and all hell breaks loose. If some gays are attacked, you had better look at how some religions in Britain are promoting anti gay propaganda, and their stance of homosexuality is not one we should accept.
"i read the DM because i want to, i don't believe everything i read in it no more than i do any paper"
Nobody's attacking your right to do that - seriously, we're not. I feel pretty confident I can speak on behalf of sp and the other people who are outspoken about the DM on that point. Speaking personally, I don't want people to just stop reading the Mail per se (well, not anymore than in my utopian dreams I'd like them to not read papers at all), I just want them to be critical about it, and not take what they read at face value. By the sound of it, you already do that - but sadly there are people who don't.
Yep, you're right about The Sun. But I think the reason nobody does the same with the Sun is because virtually nobody takes it seriously. They do, however, with the Mail.
"used to read the DT, amongst other things, i liked the c/w, and that gets criticised and called the Torygraph, you can't win."
What do you mean 'you can't win?' You mean that there isn't a daily newspaper in the market you can unreservedly trust? Sadly, that's just the truth of it. I wouldn't call being made aware of that a loss though - that strikes me as something which is rewarding and valuable to know.
"If people are so anti why don't they write to the paper with their views, or better still write to other papers to condemn it as you have described."
I think they do, as far as I'm aware. Alas in my (admittedly limited) experience with papers, the only current affairs publication which I've ever seen regularly publish letters that were directly critical of its methods and conclusions is The Economist.
Nobody's attacking your right to do that - seriously, we're not. I feel pretty confident I can speak on behalf of sp and the other people who are outspoken about the DM on that point. Speaking personally, I don't want people to just stop reading the Mail per se (well, not anymore than in my utopian dreams I'd like them to not read papers at all), I just want them to be critical about it, and not take what they read at face value. By the sound of it, you already do that - but sadly there are people who don't.
Yep, you're right about The Sun. But I think the reason nobody does the same with the Sun is because virtually nobody takes it seriously. They do, however, with the Mail.
"used to read the DT, amongst other things, i liked the c/w, and that gets criticised and called the Torygraph, you can't win."
What do you mean 'you can't win?' You mean that there isn't a daily newspaper in the market you can unreservedly trust? Sadly, that's just the truth of it. I wouldn't call being made aware of that a loss though - that strikes me as something which is rewarding and valuable to know.
"If people are so anti why don't they write to the paper with their views, or better still write to other papers to condemn it as you have described."
I think they do, as far as I'm aware. Alas in my (admittedly limited) experience with papers, the only current affairs publication which I've ever seen regularly publish letters that were directly critical of its methods and conclusions is The Economist.
"Why all the anti-Daily Mail threads, it is because the DM is a right wing newspaper and you will find it is generally the Left that is opposed to this newspaper."
I'm not left wing - admittedly I rarely or never chime with right-wing views, but wouldn't classify myself as left-wing - I hate the DM simply because I detest bad reporting and distorted journalism. Yes you can find those traits in other publications but the DM is festering and dripping with them. They twist and warp facts, or just invent stuff, so long as it fits their narrow-minded agenda. And their science/health "reporting" is beyond belief. In a medium which already sets a very low standard in this area - and I include the BBC and the "qualities" such as the Guardian - the DM's science reporting is in a league of its own, worse than if you gave the job to delinquent chimps. Though I admit that some of their cancer scare stories are so staggeringly droolingly dimwitted they have some comedy value.
Not so funny though is the way they treat some of their contributors. I must track down the depressing and infuriating story of a woman who was interviewed for a DM feature on rural living, then spent masses of time and money trying to repair the damage done to her by the resulting distorted, unrepresentative article that painted her in a negative light and for which the DM not only refused to apologise or back down, but actually threatened her. She's not the only one to be treated like this.
It's a horrible publication, seemingly bent on fabricating outrage and pandering to the simplistic thinking and gullibility of the easily-swayed, and the uncompassionate prejudices of suburban bigots.
I'm not left wing - admittedly I rarely or never chime with right-wing views, but wouldn't classify myself as left-wing - I hate the DM simply because I detest bad reporting and distorted journalism. Yes you can find those traits in other publications but the DM is festering and dripping with them. They twist and warp facts, or just invent stuff, so long as it fits their narrow-minded agenda. And their science/health "reporting" is beyond belief. In a medium which already sets a very low standard in this area - and I include the BBC and the "qualities" such as the Guardian - the DM's science reporting is in a league of its own, worse than if you gave the job to delinquent chimps. Though I admit that some of their cancer scare stories are so staggeringly droolingly dimwitted they have some comedy value.
Not so funny though is the way they treat some of their contributors. I must track down the depressing and infuriating story of a woman who was interviewed for a DM feature on rural living, then spent masses of time and money trying to repair the damage done to her by the resulting distorted, unrepresentative article that painted her in a negative light and for which the DM not only refused to apologise or back down, but actually threatened her. She's not the only one to be treated like this.
It's a horrible publication, seemingly bent on fabricating outrage and pandering to the simplistic thinking and gullibility of the easily-swayed, and the uncompassionate prejudices of suburban bigots.
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.