Guardian and the Mail

I was bored at work reading the Guardian and the Mail online like I do most days,I like to read the readers comments on some of the articles and noticed in many of the Guardian comments that the word racist was used .
I then decided to do a quick search of the site and found that it had been used 179000 plus times,I decided then to do the same thing on the Mail site ,it had been used 5700 odd times on there.
This proves to me which readers prefer to use the word ,why do you think that is ?

See what response you get for rimming!!!!

Quoted from grimps

I was bored at work reading the Guardian and the Mail online like I do most days,I like to read the readers comments on some of the articles and noticed in many of the Guardian comments that the word racist was used .
I then decided to do a quick search of the site and found that it had been used 179000 plus times,I decided then to do the same thing on the Mail site ,it had been used 5700 odd times on there.
This proves to me which readers prefer to use the word ,why do you think that is ?

It's not rocket science, is it? One newspaper reports factual news and is owned by a trust fund, so isn't answered to either megalomaniac owners or shareholders, the other's the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is owned, ans been owned by the Rothermere family for well over 100 years. The Rothermeres were notorious owners, printing the false Zinoviev letter in the run up to the 1924 General Election, which is generally considered to have cost the Labour Party that election.

In the 1930's, Lord Rothermere - an avowed fascist - courted both Hitler and Mussolini. He also backed Oswald Moseley and his fascist blackshirt party who tried to mirror Hitler in this country. He backed them with front page headlines and supportive stories, and also financially too. Much of the paper's reporting at the time was the same kind of sensationalist nonsense you see on their front pages even today. They know it sells papers, so aren't going to change a style that's suited them for so long.

As I've said on here before the only time I ever look at the paper is to get the football results when abroad. I now have an i-pad so thankfully I don't have to do that any more. I do enjoy political debates with Daily Mail readers though, and ditto Daily Express ones. No doubt they enjoy the rants of a seasoned Grauniad reader as well

Anyway, to get back to the original post, it's hardly surprising about the instance of the word racist in the Daily Mail given the owning family's history?

4 in the Mail -4172 in the Guardian  

Quoted from jock dock tower

It's not rocket science, is it? One newspaper reports factual news and is owned by a trust fund, so isn't answered to either megalomaniac owners or shareholders, the other's the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is owned, ans been owned by the Rothermere family for well over 100 years. The Rothermeres were notorious owners, printing the false Zinoviev letter in the run up to the 1924 General Election, which is generally considered to have cost the Labour Party that election.

In the 1930's, Lord Rothermere - an avowed fascist - courted both Hitler and Mussolini. He also backed Oswald Moseley and his fascist blackshirt party who tried to mirror Hitler in this country. He backed them with front page headlines and supportive stories, and also financially too. Much of the paper's reporting at the time was the same kind of sensationalist nonsense you see on their front pages even today. They know it sells papers, so aren't going to change a style that's suited them for so long.

As I've said on here before the only time I ever look at the paper is to get the football results when abroad. I now have an i-pad so thankfully I don't have to do that any more. I do enjoy political debates with Daily Mail readers though, and ditto Daily Express ones. No doubt they enjoy the rants of a seasoned Grauniad reader as well

Anyway, to get back to the original post, it's hardly surprising about the instance of the word racist in the Daily Mail given the owning family's history?

I read both and to be fair the Guardian has some good atricles in it ,I think most of the Racist's was probably used to try and win an argument be some of its readers than the actual newspapers writers .A bit like you like to scream Tory to try and win some of yours eh Jock ?
I see one comment today which was the one that actually  inpsired me to do the search.It was from a disabled guy that said he welcomed immigration as many of his carers had been immigrants and they had given him an insight into many countries that he wouldnt have been able to visit.He then went onto say that he thought now due to the high numbers of imigrants over the last few years that it might be a good idea to slow the tide a little.
underneath one of the Guardian types had commented that he must be a racist and that he was just using the black friend line  
I love the Mail comments too mainly becuase you get alot more world opinion of what they think of us brits

Quoted from grimps

I was bored at work reading the Guardian and the Mail online like I do most days,I like to read the readers comments on some of the articles and noticed in many of the Guardian comments that the word racist was used .
I then decided to do a quick search of the site and found that it had been used 179000 plus times,I decided then to do the same thing on the Mail site ,it had been used 5700 odd times on there.
This proves to me which readers prefer to use the word ,why do you think that is ?

I think you should get on with your work  

I've noticed a fair few comedians, Dave Gorman and Stewart Lee being two I have seen in the past year who have taken quotes from the Daily Mail Online comments and used it for material, it really is comedy gold.

Quoted from Manchester Mariner

I've noticed a fair few comedians, Dave Gorman and Stewart Lee being two I have seen in the past year who have taken quotes from the Daily Mail Online comments and used it for material, it really is comedy gold.

reminds me of Stewart Lee's Top Gear standup and some of their comments

[youtube]w0i0RXMvzMs[/youtube]

The daily mail list of things that give you cancer!
http://hellokinsella.posterous.com/the-daily-mail-list-of-things-that-give-you-c

Quoted from jock dock tower

It's not rocket science, is it? One newspaper prints material that isn't always accurate (re the News of the World and the phone hacking scandal), is owned by a trust fund, so isn't answered to either megalomaniac owners or shareholders but while knocking capitalism only exists due to a very capitalistic investment in a magazine that sells second hand cars, the other's the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is owned, and has been owned by the Rothermere family for well over 100 years. The Rothermeres were notorious owners, printing the false Zinoviev letter in the run up to the 1924 General Election, which is generally considered to have cost the Labour Party that election and 88 years later it appears some still haven't got over it. For the record, at the last election the Guardian endorsed the Liberal Democrats.

Corrected it for you Jock.

For all its' faults (and its ability to provide comedy material) the Daily Mail probably reflects the thoughts of a significantly large number of people in this country given that 1.8m copies are sold a day, compared to the 200,000 copies that the Guardian somehow persuades people to give money for.

I haven't read the Mail for some years now (I read the Times - "Boo Hiss! Murdoch lackey!" I hear Jock cry) but whilst some liberal 'right-on' papers where devoting pages to attacking the police for institutional racism only one newspaper campaigned to get justice for Stephen Lawrence and to see his murderers imprisoned for their crime.

The paper concerned? Why, it was that 'bigoted racist prejudiced' rag called the Daily Mail.*


_{*Guardian readers don't like you knowing this.}