The Daily Mail (Question for Brits)

[QuoVadisNation]

Hi,
For those of you who don't know, I'm working on a comprehensive research paper on 'certain' Muslim groups in Birmingham, UK. My sources are pretty typical, scholarly articles, books, local and national newspapers... but one source, The Daily Mail has given me the most interesting stories. The Question I have (for Brits preferably..) is does the Daily Mail tend to deliberately fabricate or make up stories? Or are they just very very selective, but the stories are true anyway? Thanks to wikipedia, I am perfectly aware the Daily Mail is generally polemical. But are they known to make stuff up? Thanks in advance!


Wikipedia info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

 

[GinandTonic]

Bare in mind that all the major papers are members of the Press Complaints Commission. The members are bound to be factually accurate, to present the facts in a (very roughly) unbiased manner and to distinguish between fact and editorial (which can be as biased as they wish). While many would say that the PCC is a toothless self-reglatiory sham, it does mean that wrong facts result in fines - as opposed to the Fox court case recently where they sued the presenters for refusing to knowingly lie on-air. The broad strokes of the facts can be relied upon unless there has been a retraction - check the PCC site if in doubt.

All of that said The Daily Mail and its sister The Mail on Suday are a by-word for hysterical knee jerk anythingophobia. Generally it pays to check out what the facts are. Often such things as "a teacher" can with careful wording imply "all the schools in the UK, OMG, think of the children".

The Daily Mail also occupies a strange position between the tabloids an the broadsheets. It's core audience would be women over 50, of a respectable type who affect to detest celeb culture but want all the details of what it is they are sick of hearing about.

Its politics are well to the right, but in the little-britan mold. The newspaper for sweet old ladies who hold some off-putting views about "all these gays about now-days. Except that nice Graham Norton off the telly, cheeky monkey that he is."

EDIT -

To clarify, the braod strokes of the facts will be correct but shamlessly mistrepresented and hiden behind a clowd of hysterical editorialising. Give the punters what they want, I guess.

 

[sysyphus]

I'm not British, but I suggest you go to the BNP website and get a copy of their material, it's much more balanced than the Daily Mail.

 

[Whomp]

Did you see the 60 minutes interview with Hassan Butt?

 

[QuoVadisNation]

I don't watch TV anymore. But if I were, I'd be watching a lot more Simpsons.

Thanks for answering, guys (especially you, GinandTonic) I should say by now it's a good thing I made sure to look at other newspapers as well! After reviewing my options, I suppose it'll be okay to use the Daily Mail stories for support, but that I shouldn't rely on them exclusively. I'll make sure to supplement them in citation to make them more credible.

 

[Whomp]

I think you'd find Hassan Butt very interesting since he was a jihadist and recently backed off. You should google search him. His interview in Prospect magazine is very interesting along with a later different Hassan Butt with 60 minutes.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

Oh, right! haha..

Although I never saw the interview, I did read a few articles about it about a month ago. I'm actually using his story in part of my paper when I focus on inter-Muslim community efforts to deter radicalization and when I look at the 'problem' itself. Man, I forget things fast. x-x

Thanks for reminding me, Whomp. It's good to know one of us has functioning memory tracks come finals..

 

[ComradeDavo]

The Daily Mail is aload of fascistic bullfeathers.

 

[Bad Player]

Bare in mind that all the major papers are members of the Press Complaints Commission. The members are bound to be factually accurate, to present the facts in a (very roughly) unbiased manner and to distinguish between fact and editorial (which can be as biased as they wish). While many would say that the PCC is a toothless self-reglatiory sham, it does mean that wrong facts result in fines - as opposed to the Fox court case recently where they sued the presenters for refusing to knowingly lie on-air. The broad strokes of the facts can be relied upon unless there has been a retraction - check the PCC site if in doubt.

All of that said The Daily Mail and its sister The Mail on Suday are a by-word for hysterical knee jerk anythingophobia. Generally it pays to check out what the facts are. Often such things as "a teacher" can with careful wording imply "all the schools in the UK, OMG, think of the children".

The Daily Mail also occupies a strange position between the tabloids an the broadsheets. It's core audience would be women over 50, of a respectable type who affect to detest celeb culture but want all the details of what it is they are sick of hearing about.

Its politics are well to the right, but in the little-britan mold. The newspaper for sweet old ladies who hold some off-putting views about "all these gays about now-days. Except that nice Graham Norton off the telly, cheeky monkey that he is."

EDIT -

To clarify, the braod strokes of the facts will be correct but shamlessly mistrepresented and hiden behind a clowd of hysterical editorialising. Give the punters what they want, I guess.

Perhaps also newspapers introduce bias by what they publish and what they don't publish.

 

[Brighteye]

The Daily Mail is aload of fascistic bullfeathers.

It's tripe, but to call it fascist rather displays your own bias.

 

[handyandy]

Nothing they say will be total lies , but the facts are largly one sided. They also choose there wordings very carfully to imply a much worse situation or to acheive a hystericle view point when the 'truth' is much less dramatic.

 

[ComradeDavo]

It's tripe, but to call it fascist rather displays your own bias.

They whip up hatred of foriegners, are very anti-left wing and support authoritan measures. Thats all sounds pretty fascist to me.

And you know what? They actuially supported fascism and the Nazi's back in the 1930's. Daily Mail? I prefer the term 'Daily Heil'.

 

[Joe Harker]

Hi,
For those of you who don't know, I'm working on a comprehensive research paper on 'certain' Muslim groups in Birmingham, UK. My sources are pretty typical, scholarly articles, books, local and national newspapers... but one source, The Daily Mail has given me the most interesting stories. The Question I have (for Brits preferably..) is does the Daily Mail tend to deliberately fabricate or make up stories? Or are they just very very selective, but the stories are true anyway? Thanks to wikipedia, I am perfectly aware the Daily Mail is generally polemical. But are they known to make stuff up? Thanks in advance!


Wikipedia info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

Very selective, select people who only support their agenda

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

One of the posters on CFC, Katheryn, cites the Daily Mail alot. I'll let you draw your own conclusion from that.