Are the DailyMail anti women?

24

Comments

  • wilehelmaswilehelmas Posts: 3,610
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    rawr wrote: »
    I actually find reading the showbiz stuff on their site quite amusing in a bad way (I don't go there for proper news!). I like how blatant they are about trolling for a reaction from their readership, right down to little innocuous seeming descriptive phrases that they know will rile people up. And the comments sections of course provide all the frenzied vitriol/outrage that the article was trying to incite. It's like people don't even realise they're being manipulated. Of course that's true of all media, but I notice it there more because the reader comments always get ridiculous.

    I think a lot of people go for the trainwreck experience, and it gets addictive, seeing what carp the DM will come up with day after day. You just know that any hint of a phoney PR relationship or sobstory will be strung out over several days under various gaudy headlines, as you say, inviting criticism and comment via subtle manipulating that many people are slow to react to.

    People angrily assume the DM is telling them THE scoop on a person/situation and they react with vitriol without even questioning if the stuff is second-hand, anon sourced or likely.

    They also lie about 'not moderating' comments. They do. There have been a few occasions I have politely but directly called the DM a PR paper and that they are in bed with certain publicists and it hasn't been printed on a 'non-moderated' comments section. Of course any comment deriding/applauding someone's looks, or perceived behaviour, or that so and so is fanciable, is allowed to get through.
  • Pea1Pea1 Posts: 383
    Forum Member
    Bizarrely the women columnists on the paper are very anti women, they're so bitchy and a shame to the female sex.
  • Sara WebbSara Webb Posts: 7,885
    Forum Member
    Around 1998/99, the Fail included a centre page spread about a 19 year old who was raped and murdered in her own home. She was a model and friends with Noel Gallagher's then wife, Meg Mathews, so the paper covered the case quite a lot.

    The piece was headed: ''The girl who was too pretty for her own good''.

    Yes, I'm serious.

    I know that was a long time ago and they wouldn't get away with that crap today. It disturbed me so much at the time, though, that I've never forgotten it.
  • dee-recdee-rec Posts: 2,403
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes, yes they are.
  • strictmachinestrictmachine Posts: 3,099
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sara Webb wrote: »
    Around 1998/99, the Fail included a centre page spread about a 19 year old who was raped and murdered in her own home. She was a model and friends with Noel Gallagher's then wife, Meg Mathews, so the paper covered the case quite a lot.

    The piece was headed: ''The girl who was too pretty for her own good''.

    Yes, I'm serious.

    I know that was a long time ago and they wouldn't get away with that crap today. It disturbed me so much at the time, though, that I've never forgotten it.

    Disgusting "journalism" . I wish I could be shocked but this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-423549/Littlejohn-Spare-Peoples-Prostitute-routine-.html just sums up the DM
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The Fail plays a pretty big part in making me really, really long for PROPER regulation of the press. The entire tabloid media is a disgrace but the Fail takes it to another, truly disturbing and damaging level. It is shocking what is allowed in a supposedly first world country in terms of the way our gutter press behave.
  • attackmusicattackmusic Posts: 3,828
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sara Webb wrote: »
    Around 1998/99, the Fail included a centre page spread about a 19 year old who was raped and murdered in her own home. She was a model and friends with Noel Gallagher's then wife, Meg Mathews, so the paper covered the case quite a lot.

    The piece was headed: ''The girl who was too pretty for her own good''.

    Yes, I'm serious.

    I know that was a long time ago and they wouldn't get away with that crap today. It disturbed me so much at the time, though, that I've never forgotten it.

    Outrageous! The Daily Mail are racist, homophobic, sexist etc. I cant believe what they get away with!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I cant believe what they get away with!

    It's so depressing. :(
  • Michael_EveMichael_Eve Posts: 14,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yes.

    Despise all this rag 'stands' for. :mad:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 17,060
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Have you all seen this? It's brilliant! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRWp4B0qsW8&feature=youtu.be

    'Dear Daily Mail' by Amanda Palmer. The Daily Mail wrote an entire article about the fact that her breast was accidentally exposed during a festival performance, and this is her response :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 17,060
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Pea1 wrote: »
    Bizarrely the women columnists on the paper are very anti women, they're so bitchy and a shame to the female sex.

    They're employed/paid by the Daily Mail, they know what's expected of them.

    It must be like selling your soul for these female writers - one made-up story about how women are threatened by your incredible (mediocre) beauty, or how neighbours are jealous of your beautiful (mediocre) home, and they get a nice cheque towards the mortgage, but have to deal with every troll in the country bombarding their social media with rape/death threats.
  • Sara WebbSara Webb Posts: 7,885
    Forum Member
    Outrageous! The Daily Mail are racist, homophobic, sexist etc. I cant believe what they get away with!

    I know.

    They then had an absurd debate on the letters page on the question 'is rape the worst thing that can happen to a woman?'

    Cue a lot of letters from utter morons with no clue, arguing that being raped is no big deal compared to having your house burgled/bereavement/being diagnosed with various illnesses, etc etc etc. It made my stomach turn. What the hell is the point in posing such a question in the first place, apart from to hurt as many people as possible?

    All this happened back in the late 90s when I was a student and even now I remember it all because I was so repulsed by the stuff that was printed.

    I haven't touched that worthless rag since. I despise it and everything it represents.
  • mooblymoobly Posts: 281
    Forum Member
    Yes.

    Next.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Sara Webb wrote: »
    They then had an absurd debate on the letters page on the question 'is rape the worst thing that can happen to a woman?'

    Cue a lot of letters from utter morons with no clue, arguing that being raped is no big deal compared to having your house burgled/bereavement/being diagnosed with various illnesses, etc etc etc.

    Just when I think I can't be shocked by anything I read about what the Mail have said or done, along comes something like this. There are no words to describe how heinous that rag and seemingly the majority of their readership are. How is it allowed when we are so "PC" about everything else?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,310
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
  • wilehelmaswilehelmas Posts: 3,610
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Disgusting "journalism" . I wish I could be shocked but this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-423549/Littlejohn-Spare-Peoples-Prostitute-routine-.html just sums up the DM

    OT, but I remember the headline about Colin Ireland, the gay killer, when the tabloids were allowed to call him the 'Fairy Liquidator'.

    Times have moved on a little but it's pretty appalling to think that as recently as the 80s/90s certain groups were deemed so worthless to the lofty tabloid culture (as a reflection of society at that time) that people were encouraged to laugh at such misfortune under the guise of creating a witty one-liner.
  • Vodka_DrinkaVodka_Drinka Posts: 28,740
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2363797/Daisy-Lewis-set-join-Downton-Abbey-cast-love-heartbroken-Tom-Branson.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

    Yet evidence of their sloppy journalism. The title of the article says that Daisy Lewis is joining the cast of Downton Abbey, but in the article she's refered to as "Daisy Lowe", who, as everyone knows is a model and not an actress.

    Do they ever check what they write before publishing?
  • Residents FanResidents Fan Posts: 9,204
    Forum Member
    Personally, I don't see the fuss over what Tulisa gets up to holiday-she seems to
    be enjoying herself, which is fine.

    I agree with the Daily Mail's dreadful attitude to women- a few years ago, in an
    obstensibly defence of Sian Massey after referees made sexist comments about her,
    they deliberately printed an unflattering picture of Massey dancing in a bar, thus
    reinforcing the referees' comments about her.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭

    Do they ever check what they write before publishing?

    I think these days editors must be as thick as the rest of the team thanks to the way English is now taught in schools. There's no hope for the future there. :mad:
  • Big Boy BarryBig Boy Barry Posts: 35,293
    Forum Member
    They are anti-everything other than rich white male Tories.
  • soulloversoullover Posts: 1,515
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I would ban the phrases;
    "fluants her pins'
    " shows off her washboard stomach'
    "toned and tanned"
    "shows off her baby bump"
    "flaunts her figure"
    "flaunts her cleavage"
    "shows off her derriere"
    "flashes her bikini figure'
    ...............................................and that's just todays!

    Lately the Mail site is one big commercial blatant advert. They 'pay' celebs (either by money or guaranteed exposure, who knows?) to wear a dress/bikini/perfume/new face cream and then have a click link to an advert where the sheep-like British public can get the same items as the 'celebs'..
    I was under the impression that it used to be clearly marked 'advertorial' but clearly there are no rules any more.:rolleyes:,
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,310
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    soullover wrote: »
    I would ban the phrases;
    "fluants her pins'
    " shows off her washboard stomach'
    "toned and tanned"
    "shows off her baby bump"
    "flaunts her figure"
    "flaunts her cleavage"
    "shows off her derriere"
    "flashes her bikini figure'
    ...............................................and that's just todays!

    Lately the Mail site is one big commercial blatant advert. They 'pay' celebs (either by money or guaranteed exposure, who knows?) to wear a dress/bikini/perfume/new face cream and then have a click link to an advert where the sheep-like British public can get the same items as the 'celebs'..
    I was under the impression that it used to be clearly marked 'advertorial' but clearly there are no rules any more.:rolleyes:,

    It is known as monetising. People are going to the website for free and not paying for the paper so they have to earn their money somehow - the Mail Online is the most popular online newspaper in the world so has no problems getting advertising but they have taken it another step with this 'click to buy what we've shown' policy.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2344853/Online-news-readers-likely-click-stories-weather-celebrities-politicians-to.html
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    They are anti-everything other than rich white male Tories.

    Don't forget "straight", with their 1950s attitudes towards homosexuality.
  • Kiko H FanKiko H Fan Posts: 6,546
    Forum Member
    soullover wrote: »
    I would ban the phrases;
    "fluants her pins'
    " shows off her washboard stomach'
    "toned and tanned"
    "shows off her baby bump"
    "flaunts her figure"
    "flaunts her cleavage"
    "shows off her derriere"
    "flashes her bikini figure'
    ...............................................and that's just todays!

    Lately the Mail site is one big commercial blatant advert. They 'pay' celebs (either by money or guaranteed exposure, who knows?) to wear a dress/bikini/perfume/new face cream and then have a click link to an advert where the sheep-like British public can get the same items as the 'celebs'..
    I was under the impression that it used to be clearly marked 'advertorial' but clearly there are no rules any more.:rolleyes:,

    Don't forget "racy".

    All the clothes are 'racy'.

    See X in racy tights.

    Here's X in a racy dress with a hint of bra.

    etc. etc.

    The DM is aimed at middle aged, middle class men to masturbate over.
  • DANCE OF DEATHDANCE OF DEATH Posts: 4,781
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Daily mail is anti anything if it moves it against it.
Sign In or Register to comment.