Whats the problem with Daily Mail

[anobium]

How did it used to go?
Something along these lines I think
The Times is read by people who run the country
The Financial times is read by those who own it
The Guardian is read by those who think they should run it
The Mail is read by the wives of those who run the country
The Telegraph is read by those who think it should be run as it was 70 years ago
The Express readers still think it is
etc etc
Not far off is it

And so, armed with this insight, why post a thread complaining about stereotypes

It wasnt my intention to sterotype all Guardian readers and after re reading my op I can see that it did infer that.
For that I apologise but I still maintain that a section of their readers do have a misplaced superior attitude to readers of other newspapers.
Some ot the comments made here bear that out.
It is interesting to note that nobody as of yet admitted to reading the Guardian let alone buying it.

 

[JohnD]

... a section of their readers do have a misplaced superior attitude to readers of other newspapers.
Some ot the comments made here bear that out.
It is interesting to note that nobody as of yet admitted to reading the Guardian let alone buying it.

So if no-one here has said they are a Guardian reader, what causes you to say that comments here show that your prejudices are correct?

 

[anobium]

... a section of their readers do have a misplaced superior attitude to readers of other newspapers.
Some ot the comments made here bear that out.
It is interesting to note that nobody as of yet admitted to reading the Guardian let alone buying it.

So if no-one here has said they are a Guardian reader, what causes you to say that comments here show that your prejudices are correct?

Intuition
But in saying that your the closest thats come to admitting it.
Are Guardian readers ashamed to admit that they read the rag

 

[JohnD]

Intuition
But in saying that your the closest thats come to admitting it.

Your guesswork is incorrect.

 

[Whitespirit66]

Intuition
But in saying that your the closest thats come to admitting it.

Your guesswork is incorrect.

http://www.theoldie.co.uk/

 

[cantaloup63]

It wasnt my intention to sterotype all Guardian readers and after re reading my op I can see that it did infer that.
For that I apologise but I still maintain that a section of their readers do have a misplaced superior attitude to readers of other newspapers.
Some ot the comments made here bear that out.
It is interesting to note that nobody as of yet admitted to reading the Guardian let alone buying it.

I, like many on here, read articles from a wide variety of sources and as such it is wise to take into account the normal sterotypical and political norm of any rag (broadsheet or other). Thus, when an article is quoted on here, which happens to be for example from the mail, it is entirely natural to view it in the context of a "typical" mail article in precisely the same way that one would view a "guardian" article as "typical" in its own right. Thus the fact that the mail tends to get more gip than any other reflects the plausable fact that the mail is quoted more often than any other rag, which implies that the majority of ops on here tend to read it.

 

[bwhomeresponse]

Thus the fact that the mail tends to get more gip than any other reflects the plausable fact that the mail is quoted more often than any other rag, which implies that the majority of ops on here tend to read it.

could it be that the mail tends to print more drivel any other paper.

 

[cantaloup63]

Thus the fact that the mail tends to get more gip than any other reflects the plausable fact that the mail is quoted more often than any other rag, which implies that the majority of ops on here tend to read it.

could it be that the mail tends to print more drivel any other paper.

A minor technicality

 

[anobium]

Here's an interesting article from the Daily Mail

"Swimming too often in chlorinated water 'could increase risk of developing bladder cancer', claim scientists
By Daily Mail Reporter"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ancer-risk-chemicals-skin-say-scientists.html

And here's a criticism, from Cancer Research UK, pointing out that the research they claim to base the article on, did not mention a link betweeen swimming in chlorinated water, and bladder cancer.
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk...orry-about-having-a-shower-or-drinking-water/

Pure Daily Mail fantasy.

Cancer Research UK do mention that "By far the biggest risk factor for bladder cancer – as for so many types of cancer – is tobacco, which causes about two thirds of cases."
although this is not mentioned by the Mail.

Heres an interesting article from this weeks Guardian.
I couldnt resist it
The comments are more interesting than the article, probably from some sparks on here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/house-and-homes-blog/2011/nov/30/toolbox-tips-electrics