Why I hate the Daily Mail, as distilled into one edition

Irony, lady.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/22/trans-teacher-lucy-meadows-press
http://boingboing.net/2013/03/22/transgendered-teacher-kills-se.html

Then there's this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2296440/Dark-Knight-killer-James-Holmes-Muslim-prays-times-day.html

There is No James Holmes that guy is an Actor that has played other parts in these fake shootings (Drills) even his lawyer is fake real name Alva Greenberg from that acting family. Nobody died nobody shot - If even one of the witnesses or officals is shown to be an Actor then the whole thing is Fake - Hoax. Stop promoting this nonsense and investigate the roles these people play over and over again. We are Legion

- Elyag Reed , Banjul, Gambia, 22/3/2013 15:53
Click to rate Rating 1

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2296440/Dark-Knight-killer-James-Holmes-Muslim-prays-times-day.html#ixzz2OJEVTVc7

that comments page is full of conspiracy crap. Where the hell do they come from?

they make the usual mail commentors seems sane

You've gotta love the comments section. It's usually full of rants about how immigrants moving to Britain are ruining "our country", by "John - Expat in Spain"

And there was that scandal a few years back when that BNP member said women enjoy being raped, and likened it to being forcefed chocolate, and the people on that site expressed genuine shock and surprise that a member of the BNP would actually make a bigoted and ignorant remark.

daily mail commenters are low iq, bored guardian readers, just like guardian commenters are bored, low iq daily mail readers.

Guardian has a fair few low iq bored Guardian readers too.

No wonder they're bored

yeah, troo, guardian commenters are a joyful mixture of daily mail readers and guardian readers

There are these hordes of people who worship Marina Hyde or Charlie Brooker and seem to see themselves as these arch cynics - I think they're the worst people in Britain.

every so often I think about what would be worse, being stranded on a desert island with people who passionately love Charlie Brooker or being stranded on a desert island with people who passionately hate Charlie Brooker or

people who don't finish their posts properly

ha otm xxp.

one thing i never, ever miss about britain is people who love to get sincerely angry about trivia. like today on fb someone has posted a link to something in the guardian (not clicking) with the commentary "Let out your Saturday morning rage here..".

On one level though, Charlie Brooker does understand. Deep down, he knows he hasn’t contributed anything positive to TV, to journalism, to culture, to the wider understanding. He’s a man who, quite rightly, hates himself. What he should really hate, though, is the people he’s spawned. And that’s why he’s on this list. There’s thousands of them. People who, for some reason, want to be him. People getting inordinately angry about popular culture that isn’t aimed for them. People who watch Battlestar Galactica and own most of Tool’s discography writing what they’d no doubt term an “epic rant” about, say, Hannah Montana. We’ve allowed manchildren to take over Twitter. And that’s why Brooker is on here. It’s not so much that he doesn’t understand. It’s that he has no desire to learn.

one thing i never, ever miss about britain is people who love to get sincerely angry about trivia.

Yes, that truly is a uniquely British trait that you would certainly never find in any other corner of the globe.

we've cornered the market in a particular wanky tone of it

Seriously. You're kidding yourself if you think this isn't a British (and to a lesser extent Australian) thing.

Otm, was one of the first things I noticed when I moved away from the UK

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2013/4/2/230027/default/v1/030413-papers-daily-mail-1-329x437.jpg

How can anyone working for the Mail sleep at night when they use the deaths of 6 children to push their anti-poor agenda and defend the UK Govt Welfare reforms?

PURE. UTTER. SCUM.

Use of the word "bred", rather than "fathered", is particularly grotesque.

fuck 'em. just fuck 'em, is all.

Harold Shipman - Vile Product of Medical School
Peter Sutcliffe - Vile Product of Long Distance Lorry Driving
Jimmy Savile - Vile Product of State Owned Broadcasting (that one's possibly already been used)

Let's see.

Newspaper prints outrageous cover story.

Outraged people name it, link to it or its website, give it the publicity it wants.

Editor says thank you and carries on printing outrageous stories.

Harold Shipman - Vile Product of Medical School the NHS (fixed for Mail readers)

I've not seen anyone link to the actual piece but to a 'tinypic' of the front page that garners the Mail group exactly zero pence, but perhaps our social media circles don't cross over much, Marcello. But seriously, what would you suggest is the correct response to this situation?

the correct response is to type or use the phrase "A Good Story" at some point during the day

The correct response to this situation would be for people to stop buying the paper. But that won't happen. People stick to newspapers the way that they stick to one political party. They look at today's front page and go: "well, that's a bit much, but I'm going to buy it anyway, because I've always bought the Daily Mail and I always will buy the Daily Mail, it's my paper" and continue to read it, blindly (if that's not a contradiction).

Or else it maintains their probable root belief that welfare dependents deserve everything that's coming to them, and worse. The Mail are good at exploiting and inflaming that part of their readers' personality.

One thing's for sure; the Philpots will be the next election's Willie Horton.

The correct response to this situation would be for people to stop buying the paper.

yes but if the people involved, the left-leaning, well-meaning sorts, aren't buying the paper, what for you would be the "right" thing they should do, since you seem to think that discussing this and passing around a tinypic link of the Mail cover story is counter-productive somehow?

by which i mean, the people passing the tinypic link around ALREADY aren't buying the paper.

what purpose does sharing the link serve? The mail's mo is known, isnt changing, is working for them.

sharing the link help us being outraged by the headline, and so will click onto daily mail to read the whole thing and become more outraged. it's the same with your mail readers just the outrage is opposite

it's like people who reply-all to reply-all in work e-mail chains to tell people to stop using reply-all

what purpose does sharing the link serve? The mail's mo is known, isnt changing, is working for them.

― mister borges (darraghmac), Thursday, April 4, 2013 8:31 AM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't see how even the Daily Mail could use that guy and his singularly weird lifestyle as a justification for welfare reform.

― Step not on a loose unforgiving stone on a pyramid to paradise (Tom D.), Tuesday, April 2, 2013 5:46 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^ who was that hopeless hapless naïf?

― Step not on a loose unforgiving stone on a pyramid to paradise (Tom D.), Wednesday, April 3, 2013 10:37 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm missing the point stevie. Genuinely. To remind yourselves that the dm is the other side?

This story is dm fodder. Getting all angried up when they act accordingly serves no purpose that i can see, it's not like there'll be a huge groundswell against it or they can be shamed out of it.

yes but if the people involved, the left-leaning, well-meaning sorts, aren't buying the paper, what for you would be the "right" thing they should do, since you seem to think that discussing this and passing around a tinypic link of the Mail cover story is counter-productive somehow?

Find and express a coherent and attractive counter-argument. The Left can bandy about stats until it bleeds but nobody is moved by stats. They have lost the emotional argument and if they're going to get it back they need to do a lot better than more taxes and more unions. Zoe Williams today says at the end of her column: "Don't get mad - get even." Details of how exactly this is to be accomplished are unstated.

The point is this: even Tom D couldn't believe that the Mail would exploit this story as viciously as they have. That's why the cover gets bandied about - as proof/reminder of how poisoned the discourse is. I know the Mail is a vessel of rankitude, but even I was taken aback by how baldly they spun the story into a broadside against the welfare system. Becoming aware of this isn't necessarily productive, but I don't really see the profit of sticking one's head in the sand and ignoring it, especially as the story won AN Wilson the opportunity to bloviate over his lessers on the Today programme this morning.

Where did I say anything about "sticking one's head in the sand and ignoring it"? What I'm saying is if you don't like them don't publicise them and then fewer people might buy it and they would have to close down. They are only printing what their readers want to read. If nobody wanted to read the paper it would shut down.

One thing's for sure; the Philpots will be the next election's Willie Horton.

It'll be forgotten by then

Plenty time for more juicy murders/ misc. outrages for us all to get our teeth into

I managed to miss that because I woke up 10 minutes after it was on, but I do wonder why AN Wilson is entitled to an opinion/platform on anything to do with poor people. The kind of asshole who pays his cleaner in cash and then sounds off about people on the fiddle.

What I'm saying is if you don't like them don't publicise them and then fewer people might buy it and they would have to close down.

I don't think many of the people who would've seen the image would've gone on to buy it, you're ascribing causalities to this action that just aren't there.

They might focus on immigration at the next election but they'll drag this out again if they can: "Vote Labour and you are paying for more VILE BENEFIT SCUM PERVERT MURDERERS!"

Wilson was just typically vile, Suzy, and the labour pol fielded to rebut was infuriatingly ineffectual.

Seems to me the more outrage, disgust, contempt etc is built up online around the lies and pov pushed by the tories and the DM the more chance there is of a non-tory gov in 2015. That simple really. A non-tory electoral result can't be taken for granted. The net is now the public forum for millions, it's where they read the views of others, consider and form their own. It's where campaigns are started, organised and grown.
If you consider that insignifigant it's clearly for ideological reasons.

What I've noticed over most of the BBC lately is that speakers with a conservative/authoritarian viewpoint are speaking without being interrupted, but contributors from the left get spoken over by both their opposite in debate *and* the presenter. Never allowed to finish a sentence, that kind of thing.

There will probably be a Tory majority in 2015. Most people, including many who are on the net, think benefits need cutting; poll figures bear that out. In the absence of a convincing argument as to why benefits don't need cutting, they will vote accordingly, perhaps because they don't trust Labour to do anything different.