Knew I couldn't trust you guys.

dennisn

Now I find out from The Daily Mail that Jack the Ripper didn't really exist at all.
What the hell is going on over there? :roll: :roll:

Dennis Noward

alfablue

Lets hope we find out that the Daily Mail doesn't really exist either!

finchy

dennisn wrote:

Now I find out from The Daily Mail that Jack the Ripper didn't really exist at all.
What the hell is going on over there? :roll: :roll:

Dennis Noward

According to the Daily Mail, Jesus built the pyramids with help from King Arthur using blueprints given by aliens

dennisn

johnfinch wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Now I find out from The Daily Mail that Jack the Ripper didn't really exist at all.
What the hell is going on over there? :roll: :roll:

Dennis Noward

According to the Daily Mail, Jesus built the pyramids with help from King Arthur using blueprints given by aliens

So, it's a newspaper I can put my faith in to deliver the TRUTH? Right?

finchy

dennisn wrote:

So, it's a newspaper I can put my faith in to deliver the TRUTH? Right?

jimmypippa

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Daily_Mail
Probably not safe for work

Nor this entry:

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Daily_Express

This article is about the Daily Express. You may be looking for a Newspaper.

Anonymous

The Daily Mail really p's me off. My Mum and Dad read it and it is just awful.

The headlines are often a sensationalist question that turns out to be wrong or not proven, for example -

Thatcher a man in disguise?

alfablue

I find the Daily Mail serves a very useful social function - I know I needn't bother wasting my time communicating with anyone I see reading it.

Anonymous

Heh heh...

I wish I could use the same yardstick, but unfortunately I am stuck with my parents!

mmitchell88

alfablue wrote:

I find the Daily Mail serves a very useful social function - I know I needn't bother wasting my time communicating with anyone I see reading it.

Add:
People who wear hats while driving (easily spotted)
People who use the phrase 'PC brigade' (unfortunately already have to be speaking with them at this point)

alfablue

Jack the Ripper was a Daily Mail reader...

Homer J

Dennisn

Think you got a similar one over there called the Enquirer or something

finchy

Homer J wrote:

Dennisn

Think you got a similar one over there called the Enquirer or something

No, I think that the Enquirer is deliberately a joke paper, unlike the Mail which presents itself as news.

dennisn

johnfinch wrote:

Homer J wrote:

Dennisn

Think you got a similar one over there called the Enquirer or something

No, I think that the Enquirer is deliberately a joke paper, unlike the Mail which presents itself as news.

The Enquirer was sort of a celebrity gossip type thing. The World Weekly News(owned by the Enquirer) was the one with pictures of Bill Clinton and various other world leaders
shaking hands with an alien(things like that). Both, I believe, are now out of business.
It's a shame really. I thought I might start a second career writing for them when I retire.
I think I could have come up with stupid things like President's and aliens.

Dennis Noward

mercsport

A little bemused by the slanging of the 'Mail on here . It's currently got some of the best writers in journalism working on it . The likes of Quentin Letts , Craig Brown , Max Hastings , Christopher Booker , Anne Leslie , Keith Waterhouse , Tom Utley and so on . Past contributors have been Paul Johnson , Simon Heffer , Winston Churchhill , Evelyn Waugh and , ... well , the list is long and glorious .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

I'd suspect that most of the Mails' knockers on here are young and likely attended by the modern affliction of short attention spans and never get past the headlines - writ large , and don't trouble to discover that there is some serious comment within on a daily basis . It is absolutely nothing at all like the National Enquirer .

This will not appease the Guardian readers and the like on here but , in my defence , I also read the Telegraph - my other half's paper of choice . It's worth it for the crossword and the Sudoku .

finchy

mercsport wrote:

I'd suspect that most of the Mails' knockers on here are young and likely attended by the modern affliction of short attention spans and never get past the headlines - writ large , and don't trouble to discover that there is some serious comment within on a daily basis .

No, I've read some articles. They were shite.

mmitchell88

mercsport wrote:

A little bemused by the slanging of the 'Mail on here .

Really? I guess it's hard to forget the glory days when the journalism is as good as this...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/index.html

mercsport wrote:

I'd suspect that most of the Mails' knockers on here are young and likely attended by the modern affliction of short attention spans and never get past the headlines - writ large , and don't trouble to discover that there is some serious comment within on a daily basis.

And some excellent ads for stairlifts and hearing aids.

mercsport wrote:

I'This will not appease the Guardian readers and the like on here but , in my defence , I also read the Telegraph - my other half's paper of choice . It's worth it for the crossword and the Sudoku .

The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph - a shining example of diversity!

guilliano

If they are such good writers why are they at The Mail??? It's as guilty, if not more so, of sensationalistic headlines as any other paper. I'll stick to The Times for their football pullout.

teagar

mercsport wrote:

A little bemused by the slanging of the 'Mail on here . It's currently got some of the best writers in journalism working on it . The likes of Quentin Letts , Craig Brown , Max Hastings , Christopher Booker , Anne Leslie , Keith Waterhouse , Tom Utley and so on . Past contributors have been Paul Johnson , Simon Heffer , Winston Churchhill , Evelyn Waugh and , ... well , the list is long and glorious .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

I'd suspect that most of the Mails' knockers on here are young and likely attended by the modern affliction of short attention spans and never get past the headlines - writ large , and don't trouble to discover that there is some serious comment within on a daily basis . It is absolutely nothing at all like the National Enquirer .

This will not appease the Guardian readers and the like on here but , in my defence , I also read the Telegraph - my other half's paper of choice . It's worth it for the crossword and the Sudoku .

Quentin Letts is one of the most vile newspaper journalists ever.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/re ... white.html

That was one of the worst reviews I have ever read in my life.

Putting aside the astonishing ignorance of any history of Africa or what occured in British colonies in Africa for one moment... What role does this line have in a review about a play?:

Well, matey, many of us traditionalist, Middle English, Book Of Common Prayer-adhering Anglicans feel exactly the same way about the soft-shoed, knee-jerk Lefty know-alls of atheism who so frequently ventilate their anti-Christian homilies at Mr Hytner's temple of varieties on the South Bank.

Constantly berrating politicians for their physical appearance is also utterly unecessary and vile:

Calling Jaquie Smith " Miss Piggy"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ament.html

Calling Alan Johnson's eyes " Pickled onions"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... lging.html

Horrible.

spen666

alfablue wrote:

Lets hope we find out that the Daily Mail doesn't really exist either!

But where will we find that out? In the Daily Mail?

alfablue

mercsport wrote:

A little bemused by the slanging of the 'Mail on here . . .

I'd suspect that most of the Mails' knockers on here are young and likely attended by the modern affliction of short attention spans . . .

This is such a typical Daily Mail reader's response! The youth of today, pah!

My problem with the Daily Mail is that it's lies feed the bigotry of the greedy, selfish, minority hating middle/little Englanders. The Telegraph serves the same function for those who consider themselves (wrongly) to be superior to Mail readers.

Apart from that, it's fab

(Alfablue, a middle aged Guardian reader :twisted: )

jimmypippa

It is better than the Express, I suppose:

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/

The Mail has form in misreporting suicides when it would make a better story. The PCC has upheld complaints about the paper moving a death forward in time by a year to fit it in with a spate of suicides in Wales; the paper reporting that a man had committed suicide the day after seeing his baby’s scan; and the paper saying a man had killed his wife and committed suicide when that wasn’t the case. There are others, and the Mail’s angle made a better story than the truth in all these.

Now this is just three stories, but there is a definite trend to alter the facts to fit the story...

Or how about the Irish Mails fearless campaign for a life saving jab, whilst its UK sister paper fearlessly dcampaigns agianst the same vaccine promoting promiscuity:

http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/experts-say-new-scientific-evidence-helpfully-justifies-massive-pre-existing-moral-prejudice/

First we have some inevitable scare headlines from the Daily Mail about the cervical cancer vaccine in the English Edition. Endure them, the punchline is worth the effort. “Revealed: The serious health concerns about the cervical cancer jab” “Alert over jab for girls as two die following cervical cancer vaccination” “Twelve-year-old girl paralysed ‘after being given cervical cancer jab’” “How safe is the cervical cancer jab? Five teenagers reveal their alarming stories” That’s enough.

But get this. In Ireland, where the government refused to fund the vaccine, the Daily Mail are campaigning – vigorously - for the jab. Apparently it’s lifesaving: “Join the Irish Daily Mail’s cervical cancer vaccination campaign today” “Europe will shame FF into providing Ireland’s life-saving cervical cancer jabs” “Ditching cancer vaccine is a big step back, says expert” “Health campaigners in Ireland take fight for cancer jabs to Washington” “Cervical cancer vaccine for Ireland’s girls: online poll slams decision to pull funding”.

Read the rest of the article (if your attention span is long enough) to seee how well it deals with science stories.

I could go on.

All media outlets make mistakes, but some have a better policy to correct them.

jimmypippa

alfablue wrote:

This is such a typical Daily Mail reader's response! The youth of today, pah!

My problem with the Daily Mail is that it's lies feed the bigotry of the greedy, selfish, minority hating middle/little Englanders. The Telegraph serves the same function for those who consider themselves (wrongly) to be superior to Mail readers.

Apart from that, it's fab

(Alfablue, a middle aged Guardian reader :twisted: )

You missed out the misogyny...

alfablue

Whoops
:oops:

...and misogynistic middle/little Englanders.

finchy

Let's not forget about Robert Millar's "sex change".

SpinningJenny

alfablue wrote:

I find the Daily Mail serves a very useful social function - I know I needn't bother wasting my time communicating with anyone I see reading it.

mercsport

Hmmmmn.

johnfinch : Your brevity is appreciated .

mmitchell88 : Actually , although aware that the Mail had a web-site , I was unaware that it was quite this tacky . Nonetheless , as with the paper proper and the 'web in general , you have to dig around to unearth the good stuff .

I see ad's for stairlifts and hearing aids in the Telegraph and the other old broadsheets too . What's your point here ? Advertising revenue is the staple of a papers' success .

" The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph - a shining example of diversity! " I thought that would delight you all . No , the best thing about the Tel' is that it's still a broadsheet and it also has the best letters and obit's pages of the lot .

guilliano : " If they are such good writers why are they at The Mail??? " For the simple reason they're hacks and the Mail pays good money and they get to air their craft to a wider audience than would be the case if they were on the Times say .

teagar : I'd suspect you to be a hopeless case for me to try to argue the toss about Quentin Letts' wonderfully brilliant parliamentary sketch writing . So I won't bother , other than to say that I expect the art of satire would be wholly lost on you . From Aristophanes to Hogarth - in the world you inhabit - they wouldn't have a chance today .

alfablue , pippajenny .. et al : OK , I know when I'm beat !

nasahapley

It's all too easy to knock the Daily Mail, so that's what I'm going to do. Though don't have much regard for the press in general, from the Guardian to the Express, the Mail really does stand out as a load of blinkered, hate-and-fear-mongering, xenophobic sh**e. And as has already been mentioned, its reporting of anything vaguely science-related is particularly woeful, often bordering on irresponsible.

For Mercsport: I suppose I had better admit to being young, and also (steady yourself) from a single parent family. But I'd like to point out that despite what you may have read in the Mail about the dumbing down of the state education system, and the certainty of single parents' kids becoming gun-toting crack addicts, I am capable of holding down a professional job which requires a very long attention span and great attention to detail. I'm such a smarty-pants I even know who Aristophanes and Hogarth are, so I know that the quip mentioning them in your last post is nonsense. And I have never commited a KNIFECRIME either.

I will admit to one thing though: I am visiting the Mail's website increasingly often, but only to peruse the 'readers comments' under various articles. It may not be too good for my mental health, but a lot of the stuff posted there is pure comedy gold; it makes the BBC's 'Have Your Say' site look like the Oxford Union.

pedylan

In the interests of balance, all posters, whether pro or anti mail, have overlooked one of the Mail's key attributes - consistency.

In the early 20th Century it opposed Jewish immigration into the UK, it supported the British Union of Fascists in the 1930's and for the past decade it has sensationalised illegal immigration into the UK and campaigned against legal movement of people into the UK and their employment here.

So for at least 100 years it has maintained an ugly, racist stance and provided its readers with what its own founder described as their "daily hate" . The well named "Hate Mail"

Also to balance off the content - and DeenisN is North American? I genuinely only know one Daily Mail reader; the wife of a colleague, foreign languages graduate, highly intelligent and charming person. Jewish New Yorker by origin. Has the Mail delivered every day. I simply cannot make the connection in my head.

So there's dangers in generalising - for the Mail in its stance against foreigners and for us if we write off every Mail reader.

(Another) Middle aged, middle brow Grauniad reader signing off.

pedylan

nasahapley wrote:

I will admit to one thing though: I am visiting the Mail's website increasingly often, but only to peruse the 'readers comments' under various articles. It may not be too good for my mental health, but a lot of the stuff posted there is pure comedy gold; it makes the BBC's 'Have Your Say' site look like the Oxford Union.

You have got to visit the Have Your Say parody site - Speak Your Branes. It will never be possible to better it as a critique of the truly awful HYS.

http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/

I'm convinced the BBC are deliberately baiting their HYS readers now purely to provoke them into making statements of jaw dropping ignorance and prejudice. Each one woefully spelt and ungrammatical.

Have a look at the Number 10 petition site for similar depressing entertainment - especially the rejected petitions.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/list/r ... rt=signers

alfablue

So there's dangers in generalising - for the Mail in its stance against foreigners and for us if we write off every Mail reader.

That's a fair point, there are risks associated with generalising, and just as all foreigners cannot be bad, neither can all Mail readers...the "not bad" ones are surely just innocent, naive, blinkered and lacking insight. They have my sympathy, and I think we should establish rehab centres for them (on council tax funds)..