Sorry, but not. As I said I read it for a laugh and I'm not the only one here who does. I think posters are more obsessed with worrying about other posters being obsessed with the Mail.
What pretentious toss, " I read it for a laugh " oh dearie me.
Making out you are intellectually and morally superior to its other readers ?
You read the DM mate, and that's OK, don't worry, you are allowed, it's a free country, [ I think ] just don't make excuses eh ?
They put up stuff about celebs that generate response. They are not trying to make any celeb happen or any such rubbish they are just after inciting folks to click and better still comment to get ad revenue. Royal stuff seems to be the winner as it guarantees thousands of comments even if they are the same old folk posting bile. It's ironic that it's the nasty comments on there about the same celebs day after day that keep those celebs on the bar of shame. Katie Price thanks them. Lol
Regular 'articles' on Z listers, the likes of Lauren Goodger and Frankie Essex and the Carcrashians walking down the street from A to B and littered with twee nonsense about how they have their brunette tresses 'cascading down their toned shoulders. Showing off their tanned pins in a pair of tailored denim shorts and flaunting their ample cleavages and pert derrieres in tight fitting vests'. & of course regularly shooting their bolt over the Middletons.
I think by and large the DM is run by dirty old men for dirty old men.
I read the Mail Online so um, yeah...
The Mail Online is supposedly the most read English language news site on the Internet, ahead of other biggies like the BBC, CNN, the Guardian and the freebie bits of the New York Times and its showbiz section is read more than its general news. Big for sport as well! They've learned the art of online populism.
The ultimate has to be article about the Wimbledon royal box. Ellie Goulding was described as a Dolly Bird !!!!! I nearly wet myself laughing
Pixie Lott is always displaying her pins. Kate Moss's younger half sister another Pixie is an upcoming model. The girl is too short and only gets a look in because of Kate.
I think they're so keen to have frequent updates that they just print any old rubbish without even spellchecking it in most cases judging by the number of errors.
The kind of errors you get in their articles now are ridiculous. It's clear nobody so much as proofreads their own stuff, let alone has someone else take a look at it. I doubt they even do a basic spellcheck run through. Increasingly often I don't make it through a full story in the Mail because the quality of writing is so poor it is unreadable.
The level to which standards have fallen in publication is very sad. It's even happening in proper grown up books now.
I couldn't disagree more. It's plain to see they have their darlings who they want to be able to keep going on about. Is someone like Scarlett Moffat really given much attention elsewhere, because I don't see it?
What pretentious toss, " I read it for a laugh " oh dearie me.
Making out you are intellectually and morally superior to its other readers ?
You read the DM mate, and that's OK, don't worry, you are allowed, it's a free country, [ I think ] just don't make excuses eh ?
You can read something for a giggle without feeling superior about it. The only thing I do feel superior when it comes to the Mail is how poor the writing standards of their journalists are.
When it comes to what other members of the public read or the reasons why I don't gove a damn and I actually get very irritated when people on Digital Spy sneer at someone that they "must be a Daily Mail" reader. To each their own.
It's gone rubbish in the last year or two. Far too many pointless articles about Kardashians, Chrissy Teigan, Hadids etc. Poorly written and full of errors. Would prefer to see articles on people with some talent or something interesting to offer, more UK content as well perhaps. But it seems they are going for a high turnover of low quality stories instead.
The kind of errors you get in their articles now are ridiculous. It's clear nobody so much as proofreads their own stuff, let alone has someone else take a look at it. I doubt they even do a basic spellcheck run through. Increasingly often I don't make it through a full story in the Mail because the quality of writing is so poor it is unreadable.
The level to which standards have fallen in publication is very sad. It's even happening in proper grown up books now.
I have wondered sometimes if they are using cheap labour overseas to put together those types of articles, possibly even prison labour.
For some reason the online version attracts a large audience from the US and the Mail seem to be keen on catering more to them than their homegrown readership. It really annoys me because the US have enough of their own trashy magazines. Why do they have to take over ours as well?! It's hard enough as it is to find entertainment websites that are not completely North American centric.
For some reason the online version attracts a large audience from the US and the Mail seem to be keen on catering more to them than their homegrown readership. It really annoys me because the US have enough of their own trashy magazines. Why do they have to take over ours as well?! It's hard enough as it is to find entertainment websites that are not completely North American centric.
I think quite a number of US newspapers are now paywall.
They also seem to have a lot of readers in Australia because they have a link for there on the menu bar.
I suspect that different regions see slightly different versions of the online site.
I couldn't disagree more. It's plain to see they have their darlings who they want to be able to keep going on about. Is someone like Scarlett Moffat really given much attention elsewhere, because I don't see it?
Don't be ridiculous DM don't care about anything other than making money. Obviously this Scarlet Moffat whoever she is gets folks clicking on article and commenting. If you keep doing it they'll put stories up about her.
They went through a phase of being obsessed with Tina O'Brien from Coronation Street a few years ago. I remember vividly three articles in the space of a week about her doing very mundane stuff like buying an ice cream and picking flowers in the park, was bizarre
Don't be ridiculous DM don't care about anything other than making money.
I don't think I'm being ridiculous at all.
Is it really so hard to believe that the people who run these tabloids develope favourites when it comes to celebs? I don't think it is. Newspapers are all about peddling the agenda of those who own them.
They went through a phase of being obsessed with Tina O'Brien from Coronation Street a few years ago. I remember vividly three articles in the space of a week about her doing very mundane stuff like buying an ice cream and picking flowers in the park, was bizarre
I remember that. She was also on This Morning constantly at one point. No way can I believe the general public just happened to be interest in her THAT much.
A lot of the celebs featured are ones who post a lot of social media a lot. Then the DM 'journalists' just have to hash together a few words with the pictures and that's it.
I think they even have auto text so when you see 'written by DM reporter' it's probably just a machine!
Regular 'articles' on Z listers, the likes of Lauren Goodger and Frankie Essex and the Carcrashians walking down the street from A to B and littered with twee nonsense about how they have their brunette tresses 'cascading down their toned shoulders. Showing off their tanned pins in a pair of tailored denim shorts and flaunting their ample cleavages and pert derrieres in tight fitting vests'. & of course regularly shooting their bolt over the Middletons.
Walking? Major slebs such as these don't walk, they 'step out' ;-)
Mail Online is an awful website these days. The sidebar is always full of celebrity rubbish even when looking at serious news on there. Who wants to see the Kardashians or some reality TV 'star' when reading actual important news on there?? Boggles the mind
I am utterly shocked that Bianca London is an English Lit graduate. Her articles are appalling. All about tresses, pins, rocking and showing somebody what they're missing. All identikit articles by different people. It's ridiculous.
Is it really so hard to believe that the people who run these tabloids develope favourites when it comes to celebs? I don't think it is. Newspapers are all about peddling the agenda of those who own them.
You're not being ridiculous at all,.It's obvious a lot of the time that various celebrities' PR firms are paying for a certain no of articles in order to make 'their' celeb happen. Which probably accounts for the spelling mistakes, sameyness etc. Models and wannabe celebs especially - I think the reporters are just churning them out to order.
Talking of Victoria's Secret, at one point I remember they were running one on ex VS model Miranda Kerr every day or every other day and for some reason hers were even more OTT than usual. Once I'd noticed the pattern - here's our model on a pavement with shades and a big bag! Look at those pins! Showing off her toned tum! etc etc - I couldn't stop reading them for a laugh, 'cos it was so blatant and just - overkill. You can always see what sort of 'brand' for the model/celeb the PR people are trying to push from the sorts of reports there are, where the pics are taken etc.
They way they pretty much stalked Jim Carrey after his ex-girlfriend committed suicide was pretty sickening. They didn't seem to care about this woman who had killed herself but more about what her ex boyfriend was doing, especially seeing as he wasn't doing anything, just going around doing normal day to day activities.
Is it really so hard to believe that the people who run these tabloids develope favourites when it comes to celebs? I don't think it is. Newspapers are all about peddling the agenda of those who own them.
Oh dear. To this think that owners of DM care about any of the celebrities that they feature on their bar of shame is beyond ridiculous it's plain stupid. They care about one thing making money. DM decided to not go behind a pay wall but to fund by advertising. Having moronic folk clicking on articles about moronic folk is a massive earner for them. It drives advertising revenue. Many of the articles are just taken from social media or photo's put into public arena by said z list morons. They don't pay anyone for them. They know who creates clicks/comments so they look out for any old rubbish to put up about them. It's business. A tacky one but business none the less.
They do seem to have certain people they to post stories about no matter how small or silly they are.
Here are some of the ones I notice to be on it quite a bit:
- Lea Michele
- Emma Roberts
- Gigi Hadid
- Brooklyn Beckham
- Chloë Grace Moretz
- Taylor / Tom / Cavlin
- All of the Kardashian / Jenner clan
- Stephanie Davis
- Scarlett Moffatt
Comments
What pretentious toss, " I read it for a laugh " oh dearie me.
Making out you are intellectually and morally superior to its other readers ?
You read the DM mate, and that's OK, don't worry, you are allowed, it's a free country, [ I think ] just don't make excuses eh ?
Regular 'articles' on Z listers, the likes of Lauren Goodger and Frankie Essex and the Carcrashians walking down the street from A to B and littered with twee nonsense about how they have their brunette tresses 'cascading down their toned shoulders. Showing off their tanned pins in a pair of tailored denim shorts and flaunting their ample cleavages and pert derrieres in tight fitting vests'. & of course regularly shooting their bolt over the Middletons.
The Mail Online is supposedly the most read English language news site on the Internet, ahead of other biggies like the BBC, CNN, the Guardian and the freebie bits of the New York Times and its showbiz section is read more than its general news. Big for sport as well! They've learned the art of online populism.
Pixie Lott is always displaying her pins. Kate Moss's younger half sister another Pixie is an upcoming model. The girl is too short and only gets a look in because of Kate.
The kind of errors you get in their articles now are ridiculous. It's clear nobody so much as proofreads their own stuff, let alone has someone else take a look at it. I doubt they even do a basic spellcheck run through. Increasingly often I don't make it through a full story in the Mail because the quality of writing is so poor it is unreadable.
The level to which standards have fallen in publication is very sad. It's even happening in proper grown up books now.
I couldn't disagree more. It's plain to see they have their darlings who they want to be able to keep going on about. Is someone like Scarlett Moffat really given much attention elsewhere, because I don't see it?
You can read something for a giggle without feeling superior about it. The only thing I do feel superior when it comes to the Mail is how poor the writing standards of their journalists are.
When it comes to what other members of the public read or the reasons why I don't gove a damn and I actually get very irritated when people on Digital Spy sneer at someone that they "must be a Daily Mail" reader. To each their own.
I have wondered sometimes if they are using cheap labour overseas to put together those types of articles, possibly even prison labour.
For some reason the online version attracts a large audience from the US and the Mail seem to be keen on catering more to them than their homegrown readership. It really annoys me because the US have enough of their own trashy magazines. Why do they have to take over ours as well?! It's hard enough as it is to find entertainment websites that are not completely North American centric.
I think quite a number of US newspapers are now paywall.
They also seem to have a lot of readers in Australia because they have a link for there on the menu bar.
I suspect that different regions see slightly different versions of the online site.
Don't be ridiculous DM don't care about anything other than making money. Obviously this Scarlet Moffat whoever she is gets folks clicking on article and commenting. If you keep doing it they'll put stories up about her.
I don't think I'm being ridiculous at all.
Is it really so hard to believe that the people who run these tabloids develope favourites when it comes to celebs? I don't think it is. Newspapers are all about peddling the agenda of those who own them.
I remember that. She was also on This Morning constantly at one point. No way can I believe the general public just happened to be interest in her THAT much.
I think they even have auto text so when you see 'written by DM reporter' it's probably just a machine!
Walking? Major slebs such as these don't walk, they 'step out' ;-)
http://journalisted.com/becky-freeth
http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/author/1792/becky-freeth/
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/bianca-london
http://journalisted.com/bianca-london
https://voxpoppy.wordpress.com/about/
http://journalisted.com/poppy-danby-2
https://www.linkedin.com/in/rebeccaklawrence
I am utterly shocked that Bianca London is an English Lit graduate. Her articles are appalling. All about tresses, pins, rocking and showing somebody what they're missing. All identikit articles by different people. It's ridiculous.
You're not being ridiculous at all,.It's obvious a lot of the time that various celebrities' PR firms are paying for a certain no of articles in order to make 'their' celeb happen. Which probably accounts for the spelling mistakes, sameyness etc. Models and wannabe celebs especially - I think the reporters are just churning them out to order.
Talking of Victoria's Secret, at one point I remember they were running one on ex VS model Miranda Kerr every day or every other day and for some reason hers were even more OTT than usual. Once I'd noticed the pattern - here's our model on a pavement with shades and a big bag! Look at those pins! Showing off her toned tum! etc etc - I couldn't stop reading them for a laugh, 'cos it was so blatant and just - overkill. You can always see what sort of 'brand' for the model/celeb the PR people are trying to push from the sorts of reports there are, where the pics are taken etc.
Oh dear. To this think that owners of DM care about any of the celebrities that they feature on their bar of shame is beyond ridiculous it's plain stupid. They care about one thing making money. DM decided to not go behind a pay wall but to fund by advertising. Having moronic folk clicking on articles about moronic folk is a massive earner for them. It drives advertising revenue. Many of the articles are just taken from social media or photo's put into public arena by said z list morons. They don't pay anyone for them. They know who creates clicks/comments so they look out for any old rubbish to put up about them. It's business. A tacky one but business none the less.
Here are some of the ones I notice to be on it quite a bit:
- Lea Michele
- Emma Roberts
- Gigi Hadid
- Brooklyn Beckham
- Chloë Grace Moretz
- Taylor / Tom / Cavlin
- All of the Kardashian / Jenner clan
- Stephanie Davis
- Scarlett Moffatt