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.}

Quoted from kingofthekippers

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.}

and this is why......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jan/08/paul-dacre-stephen-lawrence-editor-fury


i hate the daily mail and all it stands for - for daily mail readers the world must be a scary place where nothing good ever happens; just a world where the middle class are under siege from things as disparate as falling house prices, cancer, falling house prices, socialists, falling house prices, travellers, falling house prices, benefit scroungers, falling house prices, east europeans, falling house prices, chinese and russians, falling house prices, health scares/epidemics, falling house prices, liberals, falling house prices.......ad infinitum

KOTK, you're obviously living in a parallel universe somewhere...The Daily Mail doesn't "reflect the thoughts of a significant amount of people" it influences them, which is wholly different. It's an uber right wing rag no getting away from it, always has been, always will be.

i like how guardian readers come up with the term "Nazi" when referring to  anything even slightly non ultra left-wing?  let me get this straight,a system of denouncing any comment and belief system not in line with their own point of view, this is what the left guardian reading zealots practice, oh hang on a minute haven't we seen this somewhere before? oh yes here we are..................................1930s Germany under the "nazi" party mandate..............oh the irony.

Quoted from jock dock tower

KOTK, you're obviously living in a parallel universe somewhere...The Daily Mail doesn't "reflect the thoughts of a significant amount of people" it influences them, which is wholly different. It's an uber right wing rag no getting away from it, always has been, always will be.

good,thats why we read it

Quoted from the ace face

i like how guardian readers come up with the term "Nazi" when referring to  anything even slightly non ultra left-wing?  let me get this straight,a system of denouncing any comment and belief system not in line with their own point of view, this is what the left guardian reading zealots practice, oh hang on a minute haven't we seen this somewhere before? oh yes here we are..................................1930s Germany under the "nazi" party mandate..............oh the irony.

Brush up on your history. Rothermere did finance the blackshirts, was an open admirer of Hitler and Mussolini, and the paper's never changed in it's stance to anything that doesn't conform to the family's rather distorted view of the norm. Nothing ironic there.....

Quoted from the ace face

i like how guardian readers come up with the term "Nazi" when referring to  anything even slightly non ultra left-wing?  let me get this straight,a system of denouncing any comment and belief system not in line with their own point of view, this is what the left guardian reading zealots practice, oh hang on a minute haven't we seen this somewhere before? oh yes here we are..................................1930s Germany under the "nazi" party mandate..............oh the irony.

Absolutely none of what you have written is true.  The guardian is marketed at and read by 'AThe educated left'.  Your assertion that Guardian readers refer to people and viewpoints as "Nazi" does not ring true at all.

As a Guardian reader myself and knowing many people also who read it; Teachers, health care professionals, lawyers, university lecturers. . . The ridiculous dismissive "nazi" tag to anything other than related to national socialist germany 1930-45 would be mocked by anyone from the educated left.

You have tried to make this point before on here and you are now trying to shoe-horn this ridiculous point into this thread.

What comes across most powerfully in your posts aceface is that yiu have a massive chip on your shoulder probably related to your own level of education (I would guess)

Did you get kicked out of college? Fail your A levels? Fail to make the grade at Uni?

The quality of your arguments (unless you are an 11 year old boy) is pretty embarassing!

Apparently the Daily Mail website is the most popular news related website in the world-eclipsing the BBC.

...if it was only peddling real news, Barralad, it would be the most boring site in the ether? It's popular for a reason....

Quoted from jock dock tower

KOTK, you're obviously living in a parallel universe somewhere...The Daily Mail doesn't "reflect the thoughts of a significant amount of people" it influences them, which is wholly different. It's an uber right wing rag no getting away from it, always has been, always will be.

Reflect or influence, couldn't the same accusation be levelled at all newspapers? Do left-wing newspapers reflect the views of its' readers whilst right-wing ones influence them?

I think you are over-estimating the power of the press in this area. Your argument assumes that everyone is an idiot and cannot make up their own minds. If the Mail (or indeed any newspaper) printed material its' readers did not agree with or sympathise with, it would soon be out of business. All newspapers pander to their given market otherwise they'd be long gone. Indeed some are going quicker than others; of the broadsheets the Guardian and its' Sunday stablemate, the Observer, have shown some of the biggest year-on-year declines (only the Independent has done worse), although all newspapers are losing readers.

You're quite right that the Daily Mail is a right-wing newspaper, in the same way that the Guardian is a left-wing one but they have one crucial difference. Most Mail readers wouldn't give a toss about the Guardian, whereas Guardian readers have an in-built horror of the Mail or any newspaper which doesn't follow their stance.

It has always struck me as odd that the left, given their ideological belief in equality and fairness, has a far greater intolerance to views that do not chime with theirs, a view you'd normally associate with the right.

Quoted from kingofthekippers

Reflect or influence, couldn't the same accusation be levelled at all newspapers? Do left-wing newspapers reflect the views of its' readers whilst right-wing ones influence them?

I think you are over-estimating the power of the press in this area. Your argument assumes that everyone is an idiot and cannot make up their own minds. If the Mail (or indeed any newspaper) printed material its' readers did not agree with or sympathise with, it would soon be out of business. All newspapers pander to their given market otherwise they'd be long gone. Indeed some are going quicker than others; of the broadsheets the Guardian and its' Sunday stablemate, the Observer, have shown some of the biggest year-on-year declines (only the Independent has done worse), although all newspapers are losing readers.

You're quite right that the Daily Mail is a right-wing newspaper, in the same way that the Guardian is a left-wing one but they have one crucial difference. Most Mail readers wouldn't give a toss about the Guardian, whereas Guardian readers have an in-built horror of the Mail or any newspaper which doesn't follow their stance.

It has always struck me as odd that the left, given their ideological belief in equality and fairness, has a far greater intolerance to views that do not chime with theirs, a view you'd normally associate with the right.

Were that true, then the Guardian wouldn't have backed the Liberal Party at the last election. Wake up Kipperheed! I don't have an intolerance to other newspapers, it's just the shitey stuff I can't stand...so you can take out the Sun, Star and Sport for starters. The Mail, Telegraph, and the Express - and you can't ignore it - are the playthings of media oligarchs who have an undue influence on both politics and free thinking in this country. Doesn't chime with my views on democracy KOTK, but hey, keep on rocking in the free world........

Quoted from jock dock tower

Were that true, then the Guardian wouldn't have backed the Liberal Party at the last election. Wake up Kipperheed! I don't have an intolerance to other newspapers, it's just the shitey stuff I can't stand...so you can take out the Sun, Star and Sport for starters. The Mail, Telegraph, and the Express - and you can't ignore it - are the playthings of media oligarchs who have an undue influence on both politics and free thinking in this country. Doesn't chime with my views on democracy KOTK, but hey, keep on rocking in the free world........

The Lib Dems are seen as centre-left more than they are centre-right. After 2010 they are also seen as power-driven and willing to surrender principles. You can't blame the Guardian for falling for their charms before the election...

And yes, all newspapers are playthings of rich men, otherwise they would all be gone. The Guardian is owned by a trust; does that make it a better newspaper? It may not have a Twiggy Rathbone in charge but it doesn't mean it doesn't follow an agenda; it is just an agenda decided by a committee of like-minded people rather than by an individual.

You criticise the likes of the Sun, Star and Sport for printing 'shitey stuff' but I'm afraid that is what the people like.  I'm with you, I don't like it, that is why I read the Times. I have no particular desire to know what Harry Thingy from One Direction is doing but plenty of people do. Therefore I have no desire to stop their thirst for knowledge of such things. I would love people to take a deeper interest in what matters but folk don't. The world has always thrived on gossip.

And this is nothing new. The last serious news-based left-wing paper for the 'working-classes', the Daily Herald, crashed and burnt in 1964 after losing out to a more populist 'working-class' paper called the Daily Mirror that was prepared to cover the lighter side of life. Ironically the Herald was sold, renamed the Sun and eventually rescued in 1969 by Rupert Murdoch. Given that the TUC once owned 51% of the Herald I wonder what they made of that?

Quoted from kingofthekippers

The Lib Dems are seen as centre-left more than they are centre-right. After 2010 they are also seen as power-driven and willing to surrender principles. You can't blame the Guardian for falling for their charms before the election...

And yes, all newspapers are playthings of rich men, otherwise they would all be gone. The Guardian is owned by a trust; does that make it a better newspaper? It may not have a Twiggy Rathbone in charge but it doesn't mean it doesn't follow an agenda; it is just an agenda decided by a committee of like-minded people rather than by an individual.

You criticise the likes of the Sun, Star and Sport for printing 'shitey stuff' but I'm afraid that is what the people like.  I'm with you, I don't like it, that is why I read the Times. I have no particular desire to know what Harry Thingy from One Direction is doing but plenty of people do. Therefore I have no desire to stop their thirst for knowledge of such things. I would love people to take a deeper interest in what matters but folk don't. The world has always thrived on gossip.

And this is nothing new. The last serious news-based left-wing paper for the 'working-classes', the Daily Herald, crashed and burnt in 1964 after losing out to a more populist 'working-class' paper called the Daily Mirror that was prepared to cover the lighter side of life. Ironically the Herald was sold, renamed the Sun and eventually rescued in 1969 by Rupert Murdoch. Given that the TUC once owned 51% of the Herald I wonder what they made of that?

I'm not sure they like it, just that there's precious little else out there that panders to both a celebrity based culture as well as news. I get the feeling that this attack on anyone and everyone who is on benefits will come back seriously to bite the government on the bum, and also maybe make folk seriously consider why they buy something that would be better served being sold in the comics section, that supports the government with it's austerity (and anti Leveson) agenda? I live in hope, and amongst highflying pigs.....

Quoted from kingofthekippers

Reflect or influence, couldn't the same accusation be levelled at all newspapers? Do left-wing newspapers reflect the views of its' readers whilst right-wing ones influence them?

I think you are over-estimating the power of the press in this area. Your argument assumes that everyone is an idiot and cannot make up their own minds. If the Mail (or indeed any newspaper) printed material its' readers did not agree with or sympathise with, it would soon be out of business. All newspapers pander to their given market otherwise they'd be long gone. Indeed some are going quicker than others; of the broadsheets the Guardian and its' Sunday stablemate, the Observer, have shown some of the biggest year-on-year declines (only the Independent has done worse), although all newspapers are losing readers.

You're quite right that the Daily Mail is a right-wing newspaper, in the same way that the Guardian is a left-wing one but they have one crucial difference. Most Mail readers wouldn't give a toss about the Guardian, whereas Guardian readers have an in-built horror of the Mail or any newspaper which doesn't follow their stance.

It has always struck me as odd that the left, given their ideological belief in equality and fairness, has a far greater intolerance to views that do not chime with theirs, a view you'd normally associate with the right.

true - most mail readers are too scared by all the other horrors in the world to be worried about the guardian - i mean all you read in the mail  is about those scary muslims, east europeans coming over here to take our houses/money/jobs/women, benefit scroungers trying to cheat 'hard working families', commies and socialists trying to ruin the nirvana that was the the 1950's U.K., cancer, spurious health scares, anti royalists and the big one - falling house prices!! it's a scary old world out there.....