Daily Mail neighbours.

[tyred]

I haven't bought a single newspaper in at least ten years and have no real intention of doing so ever again.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Where to?

Anywhere as long as there are no/very few Daily Fail readers in the vicinity.

 

[John the Monkey]

Perhaps they have 2 toilets?

Or very incontinent cats.

 

[John the Monkey]

Perhaps they have 2 toilets?

Or they might really like those newspaper palm trees they did on the generation game.

 

[Brains]

From what I understand from those in print media, the conventional daily newspapers (all of them) have got a decade left at most before they stop printing

 

[Piemaster]

Stuck on a ship a dead tree paper isn't possible, the DM is available for free online. I've put up with it until recently - up to the vitriol aimed at Jeremy Corbyn got to a drunken rant level. Currently trying The Independent

 

[vernon]

Where to?

Far far away.

 

[vernon]

WTF are you on?

He's squatting on his ego.

 

[mybike]

It amuses me that people think the Guardian is better than the Daily Mail. All newspapers need to be read with discernment, as does the internet.

 

[rich p]

It amuses me that people think the Guardian is better than the Daily Mail

Blimey, you probably thought Mike and Bernie Winters were funny!

 

[Fab Foodie]

WTF are you on?

CC unfortunately ....

 

[mybike]

Blimey, you probably thought Mike and Bernie Winters were funny!

Just because something fits your prejudices it doesn't mean it is good.

 

[rich p]

Just because something fits your prejudices it doesn't mean it is good.

Pardon? What are my prejudices, please enlighten me

 

[robjh]

Just because something fits your prejudices it doesn't mean it is good.

It isn't simply a question of one's 'prejudices' as you put it - or political outlook as I'd say, I think we mean the same thing - but of the difference between a more or less serious approach to reporting facts versus editorial pieces masquerading as reporting, where facts are used and abused selectively to support a pre-defined (and very predictable) line. On the one side I would put the Guardian alongside the Telegraph - they lean different ways politically but, knowing that, I can read either and be pretty confident that I have been given a fair idea of what actually happened. The Daily Mail's 'reporting' however is composed of a torrent of bile, finger-pointing, insinuation and blame hung onto a thin and highly selective frame of facts. No other UK daily does hate like the Mail does, and the saddest thing is that it somehow dresses itself up as 'respectable' to a group of people who see themselves as 'above' the red-tops but don't want anything as demanding as a real newspaper.

 

[Tim Hall]

Here's another reason:

"So I thank the Mail for its apology. Not that I would ever accept it, but because in doing so they've exposed themselves as the worst kind of tabloid. One that makes up its facts to the detriment of its readers and to all the publications that blindly reprint them."