That's it - I've had it with Daily Mail website
rammsteinqueen
Posts: 514
Forum Member
✭✭
Yes I know a lot of people slag off the DM but I actually liked reading their site for news and gossip.. however, no more as yet AGAIN I log on and there is another story of animal cruelty. Luckily the photo hadn't loaded up but I saw the headline story and it sickened me. So can anyone recommend a decent website for showbiz and news although I don't do slag-heap Sun and BBC just doesn't have enough gossip for me - it's more news.. any recommendations appreciated. Thanks x
0
Comments
I think it's a bit daft when the Daily Mail report on animal cruelty and put in capital letters "contains graphic pictures" while putting up one of the pictures next to that so you don't even have to click on the article to see an animal ripped apart and killed or whatever else. I do scroll through their pages with caution. I was looking the other day and a picture of a half-eaten wallaby popped up.
news != tory propaganda
gossip != anything of value
That was the story! Oh bless you! I couldn't read it and THANK YOU for telling me they were rescued. I know others won't be so lucky but that played on my mind all night, I hardly slept. I was up at 3am working
Yes you're right - I wish they wouldn't put graphic pictures on either - some of us are a bit sensitive and just don't want to see it
Or what Rihanna isn't wearing at the moment ... YAWN! I know, I don't read all of the crap
it was an awful headline tho - to have it flashed in your face as soon as you surfed in:mad:
I don't really agree with this, I'm an avid reader of the Daily Mail website for the same reasons as the OP and check it out maybe 3-4 times per day, but I don't want to be scrolling down the page and come across a picture of a dog with blood dripping down it's face after an attack or see animal corpses like the dog story in mexico (I think) a couple of weeks back.
I don't see it as turning a blind eye to the issue, I see it more as not having pictures of helpless animals in pain forced upon you - The headline is still there if people want to read it, it isn't like they are being told they can't run this type of story, just not show the pictures on the front page.
I do get what you're saying, a headline should be enough but the design and layout of the website is in it's essence, a very visual format, which is why it's so popular. To get people clicking, often shocking pictures draw more attention than just a headline. With the case of the orang-utans you would get the impression just from the pictures that they were doomed but having read through it, it became apparent that they were in fact saved so even if it is a shocking picture, its still worth a click.
If more people were shocked by these images, maybe more people would do something to prevent the cruelty happening in the first place.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092722/Pregnant-orang-utan-hugs-daughter-bounty-hunters-Borneo-in.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092722/Pregnant-orang-utan-hugs-daughter-bounty-hunters-Borneo-in.html
It does have a happy ending, but the pictures speak a thousand words.
Might I suggest the Guardian website? Still free.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16743645 and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16746785
Even though many of us dislike the newspaper itself, it's easy to see why their website is so popular, especially in the US where there really isn't any equivalent and newspaper sites tend to be very staid and dull.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought this!
Rather than boycotting the DM, surely they should be given credit for highlighting the story and raising awareness.
So it's okay for it to happen as long as you don't see pictures of it?
Of course not. I think it's good they highlight it. I was just saying for me I don't like to see it, so I avoid it. I know too well it goes on, I support animal charities etc but it doesn't mean I want to view those type of photos everytime I go on a site.
Have you tried Digital Spy?