I wonder how many people who complain and denigrate the Mail have actually read the complete paper more than once, so they can form an educated opinion of it. It's still a very popular paper and all the people who buy it can't be wrong can they?
The Sun and Mail are both cleverly edited. They will take quite a dry story and give it a catchy human face. So whereas the Express in particular (the Mail's main competitor) often looks as if it is droning on in a wearisome way about things, the Sun and the Mail will find - create if necessary - victims prepared to pose looking tragic next to a wheelie bin or a Romanian grocers shop or a pram, depending on the story.
They also have deep pockets (alongside the Mail on Sunday and the NOTW) when it comes to buying in exclusives. The Star is the opposite - it is run on a tiny budget, does not buy in stories, and just runs 'exlusives' by people too low down the pecking order to care, or cut and paste jobs pinched from other papers. Hence the Star tends to be a day late for any genuinely big story and often gets things wrong. The Mirror has never quite pitched itself right - it seems to occupy a shaky middle ground between the Sun and the Mail, trying to cover serious stories but also get the celeb stuff.
I wonder how many people who complain and denigrate the Mail have actually read the complete paper more than once, so they can form an educated opinion of it. It's still a very popular paper and all the people who buy it can't be wrong can they?
I certainly have. I used to buy the Mail on Saturday because of its excellent TV magazine, which is the best of any paper. But the Mail does have a ruthless, even hateful streak that has not been invented by Digitalspy members. It has notoriously invented, for example, figures for the benefits payable to asylum seekers that are wildly inflated above the tiny amount they actually get. It quite genuinely does keep using the word 'Muslims' to describe perhaps two or three attention seeking idiots, giving readers not wise to the trick that it is Muslims per se who are burning poppies or demanding sharia courts or threatening shop assistants.
And the woman hating stuff is relentless. It is almost every day that a woman is too fat, to thin, too old, too shabby or whatever; I see that today they are having a second go at Cheryl Cole's fat ankles, which are genuinely invisible to my eyes.
I wonder what the gender breakdown is for the Daily Mail, is it only men who read it?
Whenever I take a look at their online edition it's like women-hating central over there. Maybe women with low self-esteem make up the numbers.
Surely the Mail is the print version of the Conservative party.
And why it's constant refrain of "wearing no make-up"? I have never met a woman who went out without makeup.
I am pretty sure the Mail has more female readers than male. Which is a bit depressing when you reflect on just who is scarfing up all these "here is x looking worn and tired only 25 years after being a star' articles. Women just do seem to be MUCH harder on each other than men are.
The Mail has a very high percentage of 'features' and 'human interest stories' rather than straight news, and this seems to appeal to women.
Although the Independent figures are so low, I have always suspected that the Express is most at risk, simply because their readers are so slanted towards older people. There is something a bit sad and unsophisticated about the way they get obsessed with stories: countless 'Princess Diana was murdered' stories, and over 100 consecutive Madeleine McCann covers, all wildly self-contradictory. The Sun would NEVER keep doing the same story over and over again like that.
I have asked Express readers what they think, and they always agree that the cover stories are often ludicrous. The most common reason for reading it seems to be that people like the sports pages.
I wonder how many people who complain and denigrate the Mail have actually read the complete paper more than once, so they can form an educated opinion of it. It's still a very popular paper and all the people who buy it can't be wrong can they?
You could apply that same stupid logic to segregation amongst other bad things in society. It's a very flawed logic.
I wonder what the gender breakdown is for the Daily Mail, is it only men who read it?
Whenever I take a look at their online edition it's like women-hating central over there. Maybe women with low self-esteem make up the numbers.
Surely the Mail is the print version of the Conservative party.
And why it's constant refrain of "wearing no make-up"? I have never met a woman who went out without makeup.
You must lead a very sheltered life? I'm female and I don't own any make-up whatsoever and I know plenty of other women who dont' wear any. Strangely enough we all have far better skin, less wrinkes, and look younger than our slapped up female counterparts.
As for the Mail, it's basically the Conservative tabloid for working class people aimed at getting the masses in hysteria about issues which support what wealthy people want from life. Talk about the average working person shooting themselves in the foot baying about 'how dare teachers go on strike' and 'how dare people claim benefits'.
The Daily Mail online edition gets its money from advertising both here and abroad, America especially. Hence those articles about people we in the UK often have not heard of. Advertisers are only interested in hits. They can't tell if someone goes on the site and leaves in disgust just that they looked at the site. I belong to a popular US website and they find the Mail offensive but nearly everyday they offer links to the site so that their readers can be appalled. If they had any sense they would refuse to carry any Mail stories even if only to criticise. But then that would greatly reduce their source of sories to carry;).
I knew an ex daily mail columnist who use to be a client of ours. He would grab the sun, go straight to page 3 , and be in heaven . lol. First thing he would do is ask 'have you got the sun'. Quite funny as we didn't want anyone to be seen reading the sun, but him a famous columnist, didn't care. I guess the sun is a very popular read.
Evan with the daily mail:D
I wonder what the gender breakdown is for the Daily Mail, is it only men who read it?
Whenever I take a look at their online edition it's like women-hating central over there. Maybe women with low self-esteem make up the numbers.
Surely the Mail is the print version of the Conservative party.
And why it's constant refrain of "wearing no make-up"? I have never met a woman who went out without makeup.
Well, I go on there quite a bit to write comments mostly on the gender specific stories to defend women (like anyone should have to:rolleyes:) and to debate against misogynistic posters. A lot of posters might recognise my name for there so I'll not give it...I've been called a man-hating feminist more times than I can count, all because I see exactly what the Mail is doing and try to speak out about it.
Mainly because of how much it winds up lefties, almost to the point of hysterics.
Brilliant stuff. If you dont like it, dont read it, dont go on the website, and go read the Guardian with the rest of your out of touch, dwindling readership, leftie friends.
Worth listening to tonight's PM programme on iPlayer, they have been taking evidence from people about privacy and tonight Hugh Grant was very outspoken about the behaviour of the tabloid press including the Daily Mail.
Why does the Daily Mail never comment on how old men look? :mad:
The comments are very critical of the DM, pointing out that they pounce on women who have had work done, and those who haven't. Basically women can't win. The DM makes it seem a crime for women to grow older. Not men though.
It's a nasty article, and I'm glad most of those who read it, going by the comments anyway, found it so.
The comments are very critical of the DM, pointing out that they pounce on women who have had work done, and those who haven't. Basically women can't win. The DM makes it seem a crime for women to grow older. Not men though.
It's a nasty article, and I'm glad most of those who read it, going by the comments anyway, found it so.
Comments
They also have deep pockets (alongside the Mail on Sunday and the NOTW) when it comes to buying in exclusives. The Star is the opposite - it is run on a tiny budget, does not buy in stories, and just runs 'exlusives' by people too low down the pecking order to care, or cut and paste jobs pinched from other papers. Hence the Star tends to be a day late for any genuinely big story and often gets things wrong. The Mirror has never quite pitched itself right - it seems to occupy a shaky middle ground between the Sun and the Mail, trying to cover serious stories but also get the celeb stuff.
I certainly have. I used to buy the Mail on Saturday because of its excellent TV magazine, which is the best of any paper. But the Mail does have a ruthless, even hateful streak that has not been invented by Digitalspy members. It has notoriously invented, for example, figures for the benefits payable to asylum seekers that are wildly inflated above the tiny amount they actually get. It quite genuinely does keep using the word 'Muslims' to describe perhaps two or three attention seeking idiots, giving readers not wise to the trick that it is Muslims per se who are burning poppies or demanding sharia courts or threatening shop assistants.
And the woman hating stuff is relentless. It is almost every day that a woman is too fat, to thin, too old, too shabby or whatever; I see that today they are having a second go at Cheryl Cole's fat ankles, which are genuinely invisible to my eyes.
Whenever I take a look at their online edition it's like women-hating central over there. Maybe women with low self-esteem make up the numbers.
Surely the Mail is the print version of the Conservative party.
And why it's constant refrain of "wearing no make-up"? I have never met a woman who went out without makeup.
I am pretty sure the Mail has more female readers than male. Which is a bit depressing when you reflect on just who is scarfing up all these "here is x looking worn and tired only 25 years after being a star' articles. Women just do seem to be MUCH harder on each other than men are.
The Mail has a very high percentage of 'features' and 'human interest stories' rather than straight news, and this seems to appeal to women.
Although the Independent figures are so low, I have always suspected that the Express is most at risk, simply because their readers are so slanted towards older people. There is something a bit sad and unsophisticated about the way they get obsessed with stories: countless 'Princess Diana was murdered' stories, and over 100 consecutive Madeleine McCann covers, all wildly self-contradictory. The Sun would NEVER keep doing the same story over and over again like that.
I have asked Express readers what they think, and they always agree that the cover stories are often ludicrous. The most common reason for reading it seems to be that people like the sports pages.
If we keep that in mind, we won't be surprised.
You could apply that same stupid logic to segregation amongst other bad things in society. It's a very flawed logic.
You must lead a very sheltered life? I'm female and I don't own any make-up whatsoever and I know plenty of other women who dont' wear any. Strangely enough we all have far better skin, less wrinkes, and look younger than our slapped up female counterparts.
As for the Mail, it's basically the Conservative tabloid for working class people aimed at getting the masses in hysteria about issues which support what wealthy people want from life. Talk about the average working person shooting themselves in the foot baying about 'how dare teachers go on strike' and 'how dare people claim benefits'.
I knew an ex daily mail columnist who use to be a client of ours. He would grab the sun, go straight to page 3 , and be in heaven . lol. First thing he would do is ask 'have you got the sun'. Quite funny as we didn't want anyone to be seen reading the sun, but him a famous columnist, didn't care. I guess the sun is a very popular read.
Evan with the daily mail:D
Well, I go on there quite a bit to write comments mostly on the gender specific stories to defend women (like anyone should have to:rolleyes:) and to debate against misogynistic posters. A lot of posters might recognise my name for there so I'll not give it...I've been called a man-hating feminist more times than I can count, all because I see exactly what the Mail is doing and try to speak out about it.
Mainly because of how much it winds up lefties, almost to the point of hysterics.
Brilliant stuff. If you dont like it, dont read it, dont go on the website, and go read the Guardian with the rest of your out of touch, dwindling readership, leftie friends.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2070058/Madonna-Kim-Cattrall-draw-line-quest-eternal-youth-W-E-screening.html
Why does the Daily Mail never comment on how old men look? :mad:
Madonna looks tiny in that link. I thought she might have been about 5ft 5in, not so though judging by the picture in that link.
The comments are very critical of the DM, pointing out that they pounce on women who have had work done, and those who haven't. Basically women can't win. The DM makes it seem a crime for women to grow older. Not men though.
It's a nasty article, and I'm glad most of those who read it, going by the comments anyway, found it so.
Yes, I was glad to see the comments.