I think it's time that one or more of us posted a thread on GD...

[LeftishBrit]

about HOW bad a source the Daily Mail is. Its characteristics are not always immediately obvious to people who don't live here (just as I didn't know who Rush Limbaugh was until I joined DU). I have seen it quoted elsewhere on DU as a source of info about everything from the evils of immigration to 'the MMR causes autism'; and today a negative article about the NHS was quoted as a warning against the USA adopting single-payer health care.

Who wants to start/ join a thread about this?

[mr blur]

1. Let's do a "We, the undersigned..." post or something -

I'm tired of ponting out that the Hate Mail is not a reliable source.

[supernova]

2. Oh PLease do that

It's probably the most formal tabloid I've ever seen, but still a tabloid. :eyes:

FWIW, at HuffPo, they link articles to TDM but only under their entertainment and style sections.

[mr blur]

3. How about this?:

We in the UK Forum often notice threads on DU in which the Daily Mail is cited as a source.

For those of you not familiar with this crappy little right-wing tabloid, let me put it this way: It's as if a DU-er in the US posted a story and cited Ann Coulter as the source; there may possibly be some fact or, indeed, truth in what she says but who among you would feel comfortable accepting her as the primary source?

It may be helpful to know that during the 1930s the Daily Mail supported Nazism and Fascism - its controller, Lord Rothermere was a friend and supporter of both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler.

These days the Mail is, I would say. the most right-wing British newspaper. Its popularity is with what we think of as Middle England - a section of the population that's hard to pin down but, I would say, is characterised by reactionary politics, fear of anything which threatens their comfortable little lives (immigrants, anyone under the age of 21, anyone who isn't white and doesn't love the queen - you know the kind of people I mean. They feel that the country started going downhill when we gave India back to its inhabitants). It tries to present itself as a serious newspaper but really it's obsessed with celebrities, minor royals, "Britishness" (whatever that is) etc.

The ideal Mail front page would feature a story in which a poor oppressed white British female christian employee was being "persecuted" for demanding the right to wear some vulgar symbol of her "faith" to work even though it contravenes the dress code to which she agreed when she took the job. If they could also work in something about Muslim doctors they would be ecstatic, and so would their readers.

Going back to Ann Coulter, the Mail is probably the only daily paper here which would feature her views without a hint of irony or condemnation.

The Mail's "Star" columnist - Richard Littlejohn - lives in a mansion in Florida, a location from which he happily pontificates about What's Wrong With Britain Since Churchill Died. He is a loud-mouthed bigot, and he fits in perfectly in Mail Land.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

5. That's great

I would also add that the Daily Mail is rabidly anti-reproductive choice, uses the words "homosexual agenda", engages with 'War on Terror' stories with the gusto of FOX News, and is supportive of pseudoscience and medical scare stories without foundation.

Whipping up fear of Muslims


Xenophobic nonsense


Standing up for that most disadvantaged group, white men


Those evil Muslims again


The gay PC-brigade going after those poor Christians


Anti-choice propaganda


Yes, gosh there's people having sex.


Scare story bullshit


Yes, the "red tape" that are parental rights. I thought the Mail were for family values?


Stigmatising the poor, the unemployed, foreigners and muslims in one swoop


OMG the Bible is banned!!!1 Except that the story turned out to be bullshit


More anti-choice propaganda


Just in case there's any doubt. Here's the Mail reporting Bush's victory in 2004


These front-pages were originally reported on the fantastic http://www.MailWatch.co.uk We could use some in the GD post as examples of the Mail's Bullshit.

[LeftishBrit]

9. Thanks - that would be a great addition

(and thanks also for your self-sacrifice in going through all that! Hope you have a strong stomach!)

[Mr Creosote]

7. Perfectly explained

I'll add my name to that

[LeftishBrit]

8. Great stuff!

[non sociopath skin]

10. OK. Shouldn't they be warned about the other toxic elements of the British press, though?

The Skin

[Anarcho-Socialist]

11. Good point

The Diana (or is it 'Maddy'?) Express is particularly noteworthy when it comes to toxicity. I think we could add a comment about the style, political positioning, and relative trustworthiness of the main British newspapers.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

4. Great Idea, LeftishBrit

mr blur's post is an excellent starting point for what the post content should be like.

If we can obtain other UK forum regulars' support then we can speak for the DU UK Forum as a whole.

[WritersBlock]

6. Whenever I see the Daily Mail on a newstand,

I'm reminded of the National Enquirer. I honestly can't say whether or not the National Enquirer is a right-wing rag, but all my life, if I wanted to see pictures of alien babies (the ET kind), 3-headed goats, or find out which celebrity supposedly had a love child by some other celebrity, I only had to look as far as the National Enquirer whilst waiting in the supermarket checkout line.

I suppose that's why I've instinctively never trusted TDM from the time I first moved to the UK - it struck me as the same sort of sensationalist crap at first glance.

[fedsron2us]

12. By all means warn people about the Mail's modus operandi

but let us not patronize DU users on GD. While I do not like the Daily Mail, I like even less the idea that people should not be able to read it. People should be allowed to use their own critical faculties and judgment when evaluating the paper. If you want to educate US readers it might be an idea to include a link to the wikipedia article on the subject which gives a pretty balanced picture

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

It is also worth remembering that not every journalist who writes for it is a moron like Littlejohn. For example, the right wing Andrew Alexander has been a vocal critic of the invasion of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan from the beginning (something by the way not all Guardian or Observer columnists can claim).

[mr blur]

13. Fair enough, but -

no-one's suggesting that they shouldn't be allowed to read the Daily Mail - the fact is that most people in GD probably will never read it yet it continues to be quoted as an authority on what happens over here.

I don't think we're patronising anyone, really.

[barclaycard]

14. why bother...?

ok, so Americans may or may not know - or be interested in - the ins and outs of which sources are 'politically acceptable', but perhaps instead of saying "this source is rubbish, that source is fine", we probably ought to be asking DU'ers why DU has no 'foreign affairs' board, and why, apparently, no one feels the need to have one. hundreds of boards about the most bizzare or moribund subjects/states, yet absolutely nothing about the rest of the world.

GD(P) and GD are crawling with threads about Iraq and Afghanistan, but only as they pertain to partisan US Domestic politics, no interest in the countries for their own sake, just a stick to beat the various DU political drums with.

Venezuela and Cuba are perhaps the (very tedious) exeptions, but i'd bet 50p that any one of us could trawl the main DU boards up to five pages back and not find a single 'Foriegn' story that wasn't actually about America.

they don't know about UK or indeed any other countries politics because they don't care, i'm afraid - as a long term lurker - that i find most DU'ers as ignorant and uninterested in the domestic politics of foriegn countries (for their own sakes) as err... those from another (in)famous US political discussion board.

so why bother, most here aren't actually interested in the accuracy or otherwise of a foreign story, merely its usefulness as a tool within US domestic politics.

[mr blur]

15. Well, you could be right -

I do sometimes feel that I'm living in the 51st State - and you may be right about many DU-ers ignorance/lack of interest in anywhere outside the US, but if I choose to come here then it pisses me off that something like the Daily Mail gets quoted as a reliable source. Doesn't matter whether it's through ignorance or indifference, really.

[LeftishBrit]

16. You may be right, BUT...

I think that it's important that people realize that this is not regarded as a reliable newspaper, especially for progressives. I have noticed that the nature of the source IS often taken into account by posters on GD. (People do tend to realize point out that the 'Telegraph' is right-wing, even though its news reporting - unlike its editorials - is quite a bit more reliavel than that of the Mail.) Many of them quote the 'Daily Mail' without any idea of what it is. Most of them don't read it; presumably, they google certain topics on the web, and find articles on them, without always realizing whether it's a good or a bad source. I don't think it's condescending to provide info about our sources: it's difficult for anyone to tell whether a source outside their country is reliable or not. For example, I didn't know who Rush Limbaugh was, or more generally the influence of right-wing talk-shows in America, until I joined DU.

[Book Lover]

17. May I make a further suggestion?

A thread in GD will do its good work just once. If you posted a thread in the Research Forum, it would be a constant reference. There are already several "Statename: Local Media" threads there. I am positive that a UK Media thread would be highly valued; and information about the Telegraph, etc., could be added as well.

[T_i_B]

18. I once did a UK media list in the Media forum

But this was in the days before the Daily Mail even had a website. The only sources I advised people not to use were the red-top tabloids as I do not believe that either the Sun or the Mirror can be trusted. I did however list the different newspapers as either Liberal or Conservative.

However, the Daily Mail is now online and used (sometimes innocently, sometimes not so innocently) by some DUer's and it can really hack off us lot sometimes when stories that would normally get ripped on here sneak in because people are not aware of the Mail's reputation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. I think it's a good idea

Right after Bill Clinton was elected the first time, the U.S. press was full of scare stories about British and Canadian health care.

A social group I belonged to was discussing theses stories over dinner when a newer member spoke up and said that he had lived in the UK for nine years, and that the papers the scare stories came from (The Daily Mail and The Sun) were the British equivalent of the National Enquirer.


It was an extremely useful piece of information.

[mr blur]

20. So, are we agreed that it's worth doing? And, if so -

here's more up-to-date suggestion, including points made by others here:

----------------------------------------------


We in the UK Forum often notice threads on DU in which the Daily Mail is cited as a source.

Obviously, if DU-ers saw the Daily Mail every day would would, quite rightly, quickly make up your own minds about it. Our view is, naturally, formed from a progressive, "liberal" stance.

For those of you not familiar with this crappy little right-wing tabloid, let me put it this way: It's as if a DU-er in the US posted a story and cited Ann Coulter as the source; there may possibly be some fact or, indeed, truth in what she says but who among you would feel comfortable accepting her as the primary source?

It may be helpful to know that during the 1930s the Daily Mail supported Nazism and Fascism - its controller, Lord Rothermere was a friend and supporter of both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler.

These days the Mail is, I would say. the most right-wing British newspaper. Its popularity is with what we think of as Middle England - a section of the population that's hard to pin down but, I would say, is characterised by reactionary politics, fear of anything which threatens their comfortable little lives (immigrants, anyone under the age of 21, anyone who isn't white and doesn't love the queen - you know the kind of people I mean. They feel that the country started going downhill when we gave India back to its inhabitants). It tries to present itself as a serious newspaper but really it's obsessed with celebrities, minor royals, "Britishness" (whatever that is) etc.

The ideal Mail front page would feature a story in which a poor oppressed white British female christian employee was being "persecuted" for demanding the right to wear some vulgar symbol of her "faith" to work even though it contravenes the dress code to which she agreed when she took the job. If they could also work in something about Muslim doctors they would be ecstatic, and so would their readers.

Going back to Ann Coulter, the Mail is probably the only daily paper here which would feature her views without a hint of irony or condemnation.

The Mail's "Star" columnist - Richard Littlejohn - lives in a mansion in Florida, a location from which he happily pontificates about What's Wrong With Britain Since Churchill Died. He is a loud-mouthed bigot, and he fits in perfectly in Mail Land.

The Daily Mail is rabidly anti-reproductive choice, uses the words "homosexual agenda", engages with 'War on Terror' stories with the gusto of FOX News, and is supportive of pseudoscience and medical scare stories without foundation.


To quote a UD DU-er in the UK Forum:

"Right after Bill Clinton was elected the first time, the U.S. press was full of scare stories about British and Canadian health care.

A social group I belonged to was discussing theses stories over dinner when a newer member spoke up and said that he had lived in the UK for nine years, and that the papers the scare stories came from (The Daily Mail and The Sun) were the British equivalent of the National Enquirer."

(then include some of Anarcho-Socialist's fron page examples from the Mail Watch site)


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

[Anarcho-Socialist]

21. I'd go along with that

thanks for putting it together mr blur.

[non sociopath skin]

22. Sure, go for it.

You might want to add as a tail ender, "The Sun and the Daily Express also share some of the Mail's traits and prejudices."

The Skin

[LeftishBrit]

23. Agree with all that...

So who are prepared to be the 'signatories'? Mr. Blur, Anarcho-Socialist, non-sociopath-skin, Thankfully-in-Britain, Mr. Creosote, myself - anyone else?

[Nihil]

24. Agreed! (n/t)

:thumbsup:

[non sociopath skin]

25. Yep, count me in.

The Skin

[moggie]

31. I endorse this product and/or service

[mr blur]

26. OK, I gave it a go

We'll see.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

27. Just thought I would drop in

And indeed ,what a rush !

Rush,s radio show. He,s a fat mouthed bigot and hypocrite. He is also a speed freak and known pill popper . He is very much admired by homophobics. He is over weight and loud mouthed as well. And is the friend of all loners in America that want it all or nothing.And he is almost funny.

And he is on his way down to the buttom with all the other buttom feeders.

[mr blur]

28. Welcome!

I'm happy to say that although I now know much about RL, I have never heard one of his radio shows. Perhaps I should, or is that asking too much?

[LeftishBrit]

29. It's asking too much if you have a weak stomach!

I did hear him a few months ago; he was interviewed in a Radio 4 series about disability, where he talked about his cochlear implant which partially cured his deafness (apparently it's OK for HIM to benefit from modern medical research; just not people with Parkinson's!) He was full of right-wing economics and against giving any help to poor people though he put it slightly (only slightly!) more subtly than that. He came across as worse than bloody Maggie Thatcher. I hope he doesn't come here again.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. I heard him once on the news in the US - the first time I'd heard of him

They introduced it along the lines of "right wing radio talk show host has said <insert stupid RW thing to say here>", and then there was a clip of some idiot saying "string 'em up, it's the only language they understand", or something like that. OK, I thought, that's the caller, I wonder what this Limbaugh guy says to that - and then it dawned on me he was the idiot. He's like Littlejohn at his worst - but some Americans thing he's a 'commentator', not a yob.

All you'll gain from listening to him is a sickening feeling that one section of the American public must be irredeemably right wing, bullying, violent morons, if they've liked listening to him for so long.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

32. Rush is almost funny.

To some it,s rather like a religion. This painter guy one time, I was remodling this house and the home ownner across the street had this painter come around to do a estimate on painting the house.

Three blocks down the street there is this black pick up truck-brand new. The dude is turning on the intire block to ,Rush, Rush,s radio show!
You want to catch a afternoon rush, just tune into Rush L. and crank up the volume loud! They like it real loud!

So this dude pulls up to the house across the street in this brand new 4 by 4 with very big wheels! The dude is about 5 feet six and a half feet tall, climbs out of his big rigg, radio blasting and blairing , says hay-you guys, this the Jameison house?

Now one of my assistants looks the dude over ,5 feet six and a half button up shirt pressed pance , looks like he never worked a day in his life-, standing there with this very impressive looking leather book binder brief !

My assistant looks down the street and sees that people are standing in their windows, at their doors and in the street , I mean hay, where,s the fire right? !

So this assistant says to the dude, what kind of shit is that you got on there? Dude say,s ain,t you got a brain, ? Thats Rush.

So my aassistant says- Dude, you callen me a man of straw?

Dude says no man, I,am not calling you a man of straw, I just ment everybody knows Rush , I can,t believe you don,t know!

The assistant says , here is what I do know, if you don,t kill that radio befor it,s too late, your not going to have a live truck!
Dude says hay, no problem, we aim to please .

Assistant says, ya, that,s right we do ,you bet ya.

Dude shut it off.

And do you know all the neighborhood people ware clapping . Good show ,very good show!

Assistant says to dude, you pay attention to the people ,now that you know what pleases them!


It,s like I said, What A Rush!

[non sociopath skin]

33. No offence, but I feel divided by a common language, my friend ....

The Skin

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

34. I see waht you mean

But at the same time it would not mean the same thing in formal English, and Rush Lymbach or however that is spelled is moreso inclined to use american slang type pun.s in his radio broadcast,s, as it brings in those illiterates all of which truely think not.

It,s this way ,those that think not ,Rush tells them what to think,

Or
Think not what you really are
But how you prefer to be refered to as
Or
What it looks l,ike is what counts
Not what it really is.

Or truely however you may prefer it read. deskjet 79.

The button line is this, they don,t think.
I think that,s clear in English.

[LeftishBrit]

36. Yes, I see - Rush does all their thinking for them!

It sounds quite scary really. Almost like a cult.

[jody]

35. I understand re DailyMail but what about the article “Big Brother UK: Police now hold DNA

'fingerprints' of 4.5m Britons” from the Dail Mail?

Big Brother UK: Police now hold DNA 'fingerprints' of 4.5m Britons

The "Big Brother" system, already the biggest in the world, now permanently stores the details of more than 4.5million individuals.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Critics believe the system is open to sinister forms of abuse, and that the dangers are growing as the database expands.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

The Home Office has repeatedly claimed the innocent have "nothing to fear" from the growth of the database, which police cite as a key tool in modern crime-fighting.

But critics fear the Government will eventually link the database to its plans for ID cards, and eventually move to make DNA sampling universal - an approach which civil liberties campaigners view as a nightmare scenario.

Is the article factual such that DUers can debate the pros and cons of a national DNA database since the UK is much farther along than the US?

[Mr Creosote]

37. You starter for 10

"DNA samples can be taken by police routinely from anyone who is arrested.

It makes no difference whether the suspect is accused of a serious offence or a trivial one such as littering.

A swab is used to scrape a few cells from the inside of the suspect's cheek, and lab workers extract the unique DNA gene sequence which is then uploaded to the database.

Even if the case against a suspect is dropped, their sample stays on file."


What do you reckon boys and girls - was Lord Levy's DNA taken?

[jody]

38. Thanks but my example was to ask the question whether the Daily Mail was suitable for a DU post

since the replies to this thread oppose the paper.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. If you must - but you'll get more reliable information from other media

Treat it like Fox News. In this case it's not pro-government, but it is still right wing. You can probably liken its politics to Pat Buchanan.

[jody]

40. OK but Pat Buchanan has written scathing attacks against Bush, Cheney and the neocons. n/t

[Anarcho-Socialist]

41. he's the enemy of the enemy

but not our friend. In Buchanan's opinion, Bush/Cheney are "too left-wing" and US federal spending is too high. Just because he doesn't like neoconservatives doesn't make him good, his analyses are from a different ideological position, much like the Daily Mail.

In Britain, the Daily Mail consider New Labour to be quasi-Marxist-Leninists and portray the government as "tax and spend socialists." This is despite the evidence to the contrary.

[T_i_B]

42. Only for opinion pieces in the editorials forum really

The Daily Mail cannot be trusted as a news source as it's more interested in propagandizing then in the actual facts. Ditto for most UK tabloids.

And even for opinion, most of it's columnists are VERY right wing. Melanie Phillips is the British equivalent of Ann Coulter, Littlejohn is a hysterical far right demagogue (if you can be bothered to take him seriously in the first place), Simon Heffer ain't much better. And that's how it tends to go. Most of the opinion pieces from the Daily Mail are no better then what you might find posted on Rush Limbaugh's website. You might find an Andrew Alexander rant against the war in Iraq, but only if you are lucky.

[Mr Creosote]

43. Then the simple answer is

"no it isn't". The story may be true, it may not - in the same was as I presume that some of the stories carried on Fox news may be true. There is no way of knowing unless you check with a reputable source or sources. If you want to use the British Press for a DU post the only papers I'd look at would be the Guardian and Observer, and the Morning Star.

[jody]

48. Thanks for citing the" Guardian and Observer, and the Morning Star" n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. And the Independent at least, I'd say

The Times and Telegraph can be OK, but I'd personally prefer to find a separate source if possible. But I'd have no qualms about posting an Independent story without having to check it elsewher.

[Mr Creosote]

44. Did anyone ever actually do this? nm

[LeftishBrit]

45. Yes - Mr Blur did on Oct 31st.

It ended up on the Greatest page, so I hope lots of people saw it.

[Mr Creosote]

46. I missed it

does anyone have a link to the thread? I hope my name was added to it too!

[LeftishBrit]

47. Found the link...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2174684

And yes, your name was added!

Thanks to everyone involved!