Most people I know who read the Mail read it because it mixes news with some celebrity and fashion escapism and decent tele and puzzle pages.
In each and every case, they're either incapable or unwilling to check the facts elsewhere or are poorly educated and see the Daily Mail as some kind of aspirational pseudo-intellectual badge of honour because they can't possibly be seen to read The Sun.
Just because you are a frightful snob, don't tar everyone else with the same brush.
Just because you are a frightful snob...
Guilty as charged m'lud.
Don't tar everyone else with the same brush
Can't help it if everyone I know who admits to reading this piss-poor excuse for a newspaper fits one of the aforementioned profiles.
The primary issue with UK politics is the simple unacceptability of any form of left wing politics, it simply does not fit with the publics aspirations. Thatchers great legacy was not destroying the Miners but changing "we to me" and Blair then made it socially acceptable for everyone to be greedy and self serving. The Trade Unions recognised this at the time of the miners strike and kept there heads down. We had a cultural revolution and embraced it.... tough s**t folks be careful what you wish for
The Mail is the only UK daily newspaper with more female readers than male, I assume they read it mostly for the reasons mefty notes and also the cute animal pictures. I doubt they are all UKIP nutters.
On that point in 2004 the Mail readership breakdown by political party was 53% for the Conservative Party, with 21% for Labour and 17% for the Liberal Democrats. I guess the lib Dems will have dropped since then probably moving mostly but not exclusively to the Conservatives.
In each and every case, they're either incapable or unwilling to check the facts elsewhere or are poorly educated and see the Daily Mail as some kind of aspirational pseudo-intellectual badge of honour because they can't possibly be seen to read The Sun.
Its unbelievable isn't it? That people manage to read Peter Hitchins and his ilk without immediately concluding that they're all completely deranged, and should be locked up for their own protection.
You look at the yawning chasm between the country as described by the Mail (overrun and swamped with muslamic fanatics blowing up on every street corner, welfare scrounging eastern European single mothers, feral yoof's kicking old folk to death, EU Commissioners making sure all bananas are straight, drug taking gayers raping kids) and actual reality, and you wonder whether these people ever leave the house, or if they do, ever actually absorb any information with their own eyes?
Most people I know who read the Mail read it because it mixes news
Depends what you call news. I wouldn't really describe vile hate-mongering and nonsense stories about things that will cure/cause cancer news - but each to their own I suppose.
It's really quite laughable for people to suggest there isn't a general right-wing bias in the UK media though.
dragon - Member
...I guess the lib Dems will have dropped since then probably moving mostly but not exclusively to the Conservatives.
most ex lib-dem voters i know are now green party members...
most ex lib-dem voters i know are now green party members...
Look at the election results, most lib dems went to UKIP. the tory vote rose 0.6% and the labour vote rose 1.5%. UKIP rose 9.5%. and the lib dems bombed 15%.
i think it's pretty clear given the differences between UKIP and the lib dems that the vote they have commanded between at the last 2 elections is basically just a floating protest vote.
Seems to me that around 10% of the electorate is basically anyone but labour or the tories.
It's really quite laughable for people to suggest there isn't a general right-wing bias in the UK media though.
I am not sure anyone has (talking about the print media), however most people get their news from broadcast media which is required to be balanced. But the simple truth is that Labour didn't lose because of the RW press, they lost because they weren't trusted with the economy and the other party had the more highly regarded leader. This is the same reason that the Tories lost to Blair.
I am not sure anyone has
You were certainly implying it.
they lost because they weren't trusted with the economy
And the (mostly right-wing) national press had absolutely nothing to do with that?
most people get their news from broadcast media which is required to be balanced
😆
Have you never seen Laura Kuenssberg or Adam Boulton on the TV?
You were certainly implying it.
Not at all, along with the other golden oldies, they are excuses, not reasons.
And the (mostly right-wing) national press had absolutely nothing to do with that?
Far less than the absence of a political strategy with a consistent economic programme.
Have you never seen Laura Kuenssberg or Adam Boulton on the TV?
Kuenssberg is Scottish and I am told there are no Scottish Tories and Boulton is married to Blair's former political assistant.
...made it socially acceptable for everyone to be greedy and self serving...
IMO this is currently a huge problem. People don't think so much about communities, rather about about themselves. You could blame this on many things - the rise and ease of personal transport, commuting further for work, not shopping locally, social media - but I do genuinely believe that this has had quite a major impact on how we, as a nation, view what we consider 'important', and consequently the politics that appeal.
Far less than the absence of a political strategy with a consistent economic programme.
This could be applied to all parties. Certainly to me none of them appeared particularly coherent. I'd argue the fearmongering of the larger, billionaire-owned right-leaning print press played a bigger part.
People don't think so much about communities, rather [s]about about themselves.[/s] why the council / government hasn't stepped in and done it. But equally changes in people moving to cities from rural communities and also the decline in the church's role in local life have all had an impact.
Still I don't think it is quite as bad as people make out, I know plenty of people trying to support local shops, and helping out at charities or sports clubs etc.
Kuenssberg is Scottish and I am told there are no Scottish Tories
This is both a strawman and a jambafact.
@dragon still lots of people doing lots of good stuff in communities. The point is perhaps that government at all levels is done to us rather than by us.
This is both a strawman and a jambafact.
It was supposed to be a jocular comment.
Some of Mefty's assertions about the Daily Mail didn't quite ring true for me, so I have a bit of a look behind the scenes.
It has a highly visited website because of its different editorial for the website (sidebar of shame), albeit it is still not making money online.
Turns out, the Daily Mail does make quite a lot of money from its online content.
[url= http://arifdurrani.mediaweek.co.uk/2012/07/25/how-did-the-mail-online-become-a-profitable-newspaper-site/ ]Here.[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9708000/9708023.stm ]And here.[/url]
Printed media is in a state of decline, all papers are feeling the effects of profitability - the Independent is now online only. The printed Mail has had falling revenues, offset by its online edition. The website guarantees advertising space, it's the same model as the type traditionally employed by ITV and other commercial TV stations.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/26/mail-online-revenues-grow ]Here.[/url]
I can't speak for the demographics of 2004, but in 2016 a staggering 95% of UK adults access their news and magazines online.
[url= http://www.nrs.co.uk/ ]Here.[/url]
Broadcast media doesn't work when you're commuting, browsing in a lunch break or sat on the bog with a mobile phone.
I'm not sure where the stuff about the political affiliations of Daily Mail readers came from, but I suspect the same 2004 source is irrelevant today.
Ipsos Mori did some research into this:
[url= https://www.ipsos-mori.com/DownloadPublication/240_sri_you_are_what_you_read_042005.pdf ]Here.[/url]
The consensus amongst academics is that most people chose a newsbrand that already fits with their worldview - i.e. if you're prone to titillation about impending immigrant doom, then you've already chosen your newspaper before you walk into the newsagent - it's called 'Confirmation Bias' I believe. We're all guilty of this to some degree.
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias ]Here.[/url]
Which why I'm going to share a final link [url= http://www.****/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html ]here.[/url]
People don't think so much about communities, rather about about themselves. why the council / government hasn't stepped in and done it. But equally changes in people moving to cities from rural communities and also the decline in the church's role in local life have all had an impact.
[url= http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689 ]"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know...., [/url]
Owen Jones
I think that we ought to defer to the master:
[img]
[/img]
OP, I've always been interested in Politics, after all its the Government who control many things in our lives. At 53 I have never been more engaged. If the EU Referendum doesn't get your interest ask yoirself why not. Its a Yes/No question on a specific and vital issue, thenkast time we where asked was 40 years ago.
I have always felt helpless in the far east politics mixing with religion since the early 70s.
Over there we have the same govt since independence (nearly 60 yrs now) and each govt would be much more corrupted than the previous.
The current PM is so corrupted even the previously corrupted ministers are outdone by him ... oh ya ... he is mate with Obama and play golf together. Take that you PC ZM!
[b]In the UK the only thing that get on my nerves is the EU ZM bureaucratic system.[/b] When I was younger I thought nothing of it (it was contained then) but as I work in one now I realised that this is not only a dangerous entity but an extremely dangerous one (expanding like parasite). It might look docile but this beast packs a punch so hard that it cannot be controlled once it has taken root ... ZM is an understatement.
The communists (all those Utopians) might think they can control the beast of EU ZM but they are wrong coz this beast has no identity yet decide to create own identity but it cannot coz it is "soulless" and is caught between no way land.
Remember I told you so and you heard it from me first here ... 😯
I'm amazed at the poor coverage of the EU issue in the media, print, TV and even Radio. There seems to be so many claims by boths sides that are unsubstantiated.
My natural basis is to be stay in the EU and I can't see how the conclusions have been draw logically from any of the leave EU evidence. Even the side I am more pro (stay) I see very little logically mad assertions, no one rigorously pulls apart either arguments on either side.
TheBrick - Member
I'm amazed at the poor coverage of the EU issue in the media, print, TV and even Radio. There seems to be so many claims by boths sides that are unsubstantiated.
Very simple ... as a nation you do not give up control to external entity.
Just like me telling you how you should live your life in your home.
Ya, you have to follow club rules to be in the club but that club rules should not dictate your home life. Unless we are in the cult ...
🙄
Attributed to Joseph de MaistreIn many ways it's very true, in most political systems there are a bunch of people that would vote for a penguin if it had the right colour next to it's name those views are therefor not as important. The views and opinions you need are in the middle and hence most of politics is heading to the centre. Couple that with the sort termism that the population demands and a decent long term outlook on life is hard to find.
A French army is composed very differently from ours. The conscription calls out a share of every class — no matter whether your son or my son — all must march; but our friends — I may say it in this room — are the very scum of the earth. People talk of their enlisting from their fine military feeling — all stuff — no such thing. Some of our men enlist from having got bastard children — some for minor offences — many more for drink; but you can hardly conceive such a set brought together, and it really is wonderful that we should have made them the fine fellows they are. Some of our men enlist from having got bastard children — some for minor offences — many more for drink; but you can hardly conceive such a set brought together, [b] and it really is wonderful that we should have made them the fine fellows they are. [/b] - Nelson
I think this can be said about most civilians as well, the only reason why the ****ing plebs are halfway civilized is because of centuries of hard work by the political classes. 😈 Half of them still shouldn't be trusted with the vote, they'd be lynching ginger midgets and stringing them up from trees given half the chance.
Oh and
aaaaaaand
I'm guessig you didn't watch the media coverage of the scottish ref then, or of the GE just past?TheBrick - Member
I'm amazed at the poor coverage of the EU issue in the media, print, TV and even Radio. There seems to be so many claims by boths sides that are unsubstantiated.
Politics in our media is laughable.
But that's the point, get people discussing/het up about irrelevant issues while others get on with the rob.. erm governing.
It's not like any of it is particularly hidden either.
Turns out, the Daily Mail does make quite a lot of money from its online content.
Wrong
He said there was no focus on making Mail Online profitable in its own right.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/26/mail-online-revenues-grow ]From here you seem to like the Guardian[/url]. You need to learn the difference between income and profit and stop being blinded by big numbers, £60 million is only just over 10% of the income of the Mail businesses, which only make £70 million.
I can't speak for the demographics of 2004, but in 2016 a staggering 95% of UK adults access their news and magazines online.
Read your link according to NSR, a trade funded body
95% of GB adults consume newsbrands or magazines across [u]Print[/u], PC & Mobile
So not just online.
I can't be bothered to follow your other links as I can't imagine they will be anymore enlightening.
Very simple ... as a nation you do not give up control to external entity.Just like me telling you how you should live your life in your home.
Ya, you have to follow club rules to be in the club but that club rules should not dictate your home life. Unless we are in the cult ...
And you show me a perfect example of what I am on about.... Some claim of "its obvious" with the stment of a philosophical point of belief.
I'm guessig you didn't watch the media coverage of the scottish ref then, or of the GE just past?
Politics is in our media is laughable.
I did. I thought that too. Was bad, again on both sides.
I can't be bothered to follow your other links as I can't imagine they will be anymore enlightening.
Mefty, you've provided absolutely no citations to back up your assertions. Just curious as to your sources...? I'm quite keen to read them.
You don't seem to have read any of the citations I've shared at all, the text below states that the Mail Online's revenue growth more than offset the decline in print revenue.
...he company said the Mail Online’s revenue growth of £19m year-on-year outstripped the £10m decline in print advertising revenues.
You've also completely ignored the point about people only reading the stuff that supports preconceived world views...?
There is an article I linked with a quote from the FD of the company - saying it is not profitable - what else do you need management accounts?
EDIT: You are looking at income, they took cost out in the print side, put cost on on the digital side. They have 600 staff plagiarizing for the online side.
You've also completely ignored the point about people only reading the stuff that supports preconceived world views...?
Because it is bollocks
You do realise that the comment "...there's no focus on making the Mail Online profitable in its own right..." does not mean that its not making a profit?
I can see no quote from the FD in that link stating that Mail Online is not profitable.
The entire DM portfolio returned an overall operating £71m profit, with a drop in return from print media. You might have missed this telling paragraph:
Total ad revenues across the Mail businesses hit £252m, a 4% year-on-year increase (£9m). Within this, Mail Online grew ad revenues by 46%.The company said the Mail Online’s revenue growth of £19m year-on-year outstripped the £10m decline in print advertising revenues.
I'm well aware of the difference between profit and revenue BTW, but I'm still waiting for some citations to back up your assertions.
Because it is bollocks
Citation please. It's been a theory in social science since the 1960s, with many, many academics publishing papers on this subject. Unless of course, your unsupported opinion holds more weight?
You do realise that the comment "...there's no focus on making the Mail Online profitable in its own right..." does not mean that its not making a profit?
It is a pretty clear implication.
The entire DM portfolio returned an overall operating £71m profit, with a drop in return from print media.
A drop in revenue does not mean a drop in return if they stripped out costs, which I understand they did.
Don't get me wrong their online business is fantastic compared to the competition, a reason why the guy who was the managing editor and who I played cricket against last year has been poached by News International.
[img] 
[/img]
[url= http://mediatel.co.uk/newsline/2015/05/07/yougov-study-reveals-how-newspaper-readers-will-be-voting/ ]Source[/url]
Thanks Mefty. I take the implication under advisement.
I used to work with a bunch of ex-Guardian media staff so I also have some anecdotal knowledge of the online business model they'd tried to adopt and the applications elsewhere in the media industry.
What's the age of that infographic, I assume it's pretty recent given the representation of UKIP voters? Also, it supports the Confirmation Bias theory that a newspaper with a right wing bias is going to be bought mainly by those with a preconceived right wing political stance.
[ninja edit] - the source is reasonably up to date being published in May 2015.
I used to work with a bunch of ex-Guardian media staff so I also have some anecdotal knowledge of the online business model they'd tried to adopt and the applications elsewhere in the media industry.
No better advice on how to lose money can be obtained.
I'm well aware of the somewhat turbulent recent financial history of GM group.
In terms of online content, it's a similar story to Mail Online, digital revenues up by £14m alone between 2014-15.
In terms of online content, it's a similar story to Mail Online, digital revenues up by £14m alone between 2014-15.
Cost base is horribly high though, far better plagarising like the Mail and all successful online media operators do.
EDIT:
Overall, British newspaper readers are split between Labour (35%) and Conservative (34%) - followed by UKIP (13%), 'other' (11%) and Lib Dem (8%).
If only the whole population were newspaper readers.
Losses at GM are narrowing to £8m, however we're getting away from the original topic - political awareness and the role of the media. While the Mail Online's business model may be successful, I find the newspaper itself quite offensive.
Did you not see my final comment, more Labour supporters read newspapers than Tories, I would say this suggests the media has far more limited influence on voting intentionthan credited - of course your confirmation bias crap would support that contention.
seosamh77 - Member
Look at the election results, most lib dems went to UKIP. the tory vote rose 0.6% and the labour vote rose 1.5%. UKIP rose 9.5%. and the lib dems bombed 15%.i think it's pretty clear given the differences between UKIP and the lib dems that the vote they have commanded between at the last 2 elections is basically just a floating protest vote.
Just reading through the thread and this struck me as the sort of thing that doesn't really help with politics and engagement. Given the low level of turnout it's not possible from those numbers to determine that, it could also be that Nick Clegg managed to get a lot of new voters out who were disillusioned by the last term and didn't come back where as a bunch of non voting UKIP supporters could have been mobilised. Without better data it's all speculation.
As for press bias it's one of the reasons for keeping the BBC. The print/big media has an agenda and a line to follow, demise of the left wing press probably has a lot to do with the demise of the left wing or that those people chose to abandon main stream media earlier on. I certainly know that some of my more left leaning friends seem to get more from blogs and small sites (by way of their media shares) than a newspaper/TV station
The Express/Mail covers people who are a bit scared of the internet and the Times/Tele those that would use it but still like the feel of paper and having the man deliver and iron it in the mornings 😉 (tongue firmly in cheek here) but it's delivering news/opinion to a different generation.
I think the last time I bought a newspaper was when I moved house and needed to pack some glasses up a few years back.
Turnout was higher in 2015 than 2010, the last election with a higher turnout was 1997.
I'd be interested in your view of this.
[url= https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/02/07/british-press-most-right-wing-europe/ ]YouGov.[/url]
65% of newspaper readers [i]didn't[/i] vote Labour. The Sun and the Daily Mail alone represented 50% of newspaper sales in 2013, The Mirror (the leading leftist newspaper) was a distant third place at between 13%-14% of market share. The Guardian and Independent combined barely notched up 7% of circulation.
I'm knackered. I need sleep, but I suspect and hope we'll agree to disagree.
Despite turnout being higher it was still not that high and easily possible that a large number who voted in one election didn't vote in others. I think at the moment in the states Clinton is struggling to engage with the youth and young women that Obama got on side, where as Trump is pulling from another block of previous non engaged.
On the who voted which way the % need some more meet behind them to really analyse, it also may have a lot to do with the demographic of newspaper readers rather their political makeup. As is very well publicised newspaper buying is in massive decline, if the traditional Mail/Sun readers are the ones more likely to buy a paper then that will distort that stat. It comes to a chicken and egg question around did the Left Media leave or did it's readership leave them? The print media needs readers, if your audience moves to other delivery methods (rolling news/online content/non mainstream) then your going to lose circulation, it doesn't mean the people don't exist any more.
and some interesting stuff from the YouGov link
[img] 
[/img]
[b]Perceptions[/b]
An analysis in 2013 claimed to have found statistical evidence for left-wing bias at the BBC, saying in only 10% of reports on stories by left-wing think tanks did the BBC qualify the findings with a 'health warning' about the think tank’s views, ideological position, or connection to a political figure. However it claimed the warning appeared in 25% to 60% of reports on research by right-wing sources, and was less likely to give them any coverage at all.
Mikewsmith What makes you think the BBC is any less biased than the rest of the media? [url= http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/13114132.BBC_does_not_reflect_our_lives__say_half_of_Scots/ ]Only 48% of Scots think BBC represents their lives in news and current affairs [/url]
OK from that report
Less than half – 48% – of people in Scotland believe the corporation is good at representing their lives through news and current affairs, the lowest proportion of any of the countries in the UK.The figure compared with 58% of viewers in England who thought the BBC was good at reflecting issues south of the Border.
The figures emerged in a report by a body representing TV viewers' interests. It warned the BBC risks failing to inform audiences properly by carrying too many reports that have nothing to do with events north of the Border.
The criticism is contained in the annual review by the Audience Council Scotland which scrutinised the issue of whether the corporation is balancing the Scottish news agenda and news in other parts of the UK properly.
It warned that programming made in Scotland should be more reflective of Scotland.
Scotland represents about 10% of the UK population, so 5% don't like the coverage, how much of the BBC's budget be dedicated to life north of the border?
On the web, it said there is a "disproportionate coverage of England-only stories on the UK page." It added: "The council was concerned provision for Scotland was not growing at the pace of the wider BBC service, and at a possible loss of distinctiveness when Scottish content had been integrated into UK pages."
Again proportionally it should average about 10% coverage?
Is there also a perception that UK stories somehow don't impact Scotland.
Today (as of now)
Budget - UK wide implications
Surveillance Powers - UK wide implications
House of Lords Immigration debate - UK wide implications
Scotrail Story - Direct Scottish story
Thor! Loki! Action heroes inspire Scots' baby names - Highlands and Islands
So about 10% direct coverage and the rest being given to mostly UK based news with some England in there (given the balance of the population)
Is it more that some people in Scotland (close to the numbers who voted for independence) don't think UK wide stories like those relating to Westminster politics impacting on the whole nation and relevant to Scotland? If I click on the Scotland page of the BBC news there are lots of Scottish stories there.
Is the bias more perceived than actual?
To be fair the issue is more that editorial decisions are taken in London/Salford and instruction passed on to BBC Scotland. The lack of local editorial control can make BBC seem out of touch. It also means that when a Scottish story becomes UK news and is broadcast on UK news the UK.correspondent is parachuted in and often gives a less knowledgeable report than the Scottish correspondent, who is often standing right next to them. There's also an issue about lack of funding and resources in BBC Scotland News. Only one camera crew at weekends! Finally the allocation of budget is complex Scotland has less than 10% of the population. The BBC raises 320million in Scotland and spends approx 175million further complicated by the fact that some of the money spent in Scotland is spent on network programmes.
http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/scottish-independence-tv-licence-fee-pledge-1-3195903. So it's hard to be absolutely certain whether Scotland share of spending matches it's population share. Nor is it clear how much of the money spent in Scotland is spent on Scottish programmes edit
There was a study done by the university of the West of Scotland which found some bias during the indy referendum.
