What exactly happened to Megan Markle?

Status
Not open for further replies.

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
Obviously not everything on the Mail is trash, and I never said it was, but they know what sells so they have their fair share of it.

Like some other newspapers, but the Mail's trash is trash for what they like to pretend are their more discerning and aspirational readers.
The Daily Mail are visual communicators. It's a paper that goes for photos, imagery and metaphors of things whether it be some peaceful photo of countryside or stars of TOWIE,
 
OP
Arrowfoot

Arrowfoot

Veteran
The public also know much of what's in Mailonline is not trash.
Their hook is a portion of factual reporting and they are prepared to pay well for photos and insider versions of what happened. They do it faster than most. So decent people go across to visit it.

Pass that factual and news worthy moment which remains a portion, the majority are trash, sensationalism and slanted journalism. Targeting and trolling vulnerable celebrities is their forte. Piers Morgan is in the right place.

Supposedly "complimentary" photo gallery of celebrities in swimwear and revealing outfits is a major draw for the young fans as well as elderly voyeurs. Some these minor celebrities are clearly overweight, wearing the wrong outfit but are covered with such descriptions as "flaunting her curves", "looks younger than she is" etc and they start sending more photos of their holidays in more raunchy outfits. Not that people are complaining. Exploiting the vulnerable? Note the near absolute focus on the female gender on nearly every exploitive and trolling adventures of theirs.

We fool ourselves if we think we are looking at responsible journalism based on the small portion of factual reporting.

Hence the top of the ranking in ratings. They got the formula right. And they also provided the excuse for you and I to keep reading the trash.

Here is why you know humanity is mainly intact. Many of the commercial and profit making news media and their journalists could copy the Mail formula but they did not. They too could have given us cover factual reporting and carry trash but they did not. I guess there is some level of morality in the corporate World.
 
Last edited:

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
Their hook is a portion of factual reporting and they are prepared to pay well for photos and insider versions of what happened. They do it faster than most. So decent people go across to visit it.

Pass that factual and news worthy moment which remains a portion, the majority are trash, sensationalism and slanted journalism. Targeting and trolling vulnerable celebrities is their forte. Piers Morgan is in the right place.

Supposedly "complimentary" photo gallery of celebrities in swimwear and revealing outfits is a major draw for the young fans as well as elderly voyeurs. Some these minor celebrities are clearly overweight, wearing the wrong outfit but are covered with such descriptions as "flaunting her curves", "looks younger than she is" etc and they start sending more photos of their holidays in more raunchy outfits. Not that people are complaining. Exploiting the vulnerable? Note the near absolute focus on the female gender on nearly every exploitive and trolling adventures of theirs.

We fool ourselves if we think we are looking at responsible journalism based on the small portion of factual reporting.

Hence the top of the ranking in ratings. They got the formula right. And they also provided the excuse for you and I to keep reading the trash.

Here is why you know humanity is mainly intact. Many of the commercial and profit making news media and their journalists could copy the Mail formula but they did not. They too could have given us cover factual reporting and carry trash but they did not. I guess there is some level of morality in the corporate World.
Mailonline broke all the rules but succeeded at it.

Their front page is a good example, it's best part of a metre deep and has dozens if not hundreds of stories on it.

Shouldn't work, according to the 'rules' , but it does.

Also worth bearing in mind Mailonline has a relatively small staff.

The vast majority of stories are from agencies and freelances, so it's simply wrong to say they are Mail produced trash.
 

mudsticks

Obviously an Aubergine
Their hook is a portion of factual reporting and they are prepared to pay well for photos and insider versions of what happened. They do it faster than most. So decent people go across to visit it.

Pass that factual and news worthy moment which remains a portion, the majority are trash, sensationalism and slanted journalism. Targeting and trolling vulnerable celebrities is their forte. Piers Morgan is in the right place.

Supposedly "complimentary" photo gallery of celebrities in swimwear and revealing outfits is a major draw for the young fans as well as elderly voyeurs. Some these minor celebrities are clearly overweight, wearing the wrong outfit but are covered with such descriptions as "flaunting her curves", "looks younger than she is" etc and they start sending more photos of their holidays in more raunchy outfits. Not that people are complaining. Exploiting the vulnerable? Note the near absolute focus on the female gender on nearly every exploitive and trolling adventures of theirs.

We fool ourselves if we think we are looking at responsible journalism based on the small portion of factual reporting.

Hence the top of the ranking in ratings. They got the formula right. And they also provided the excuse for you and I to keep reading the trash.

Here is why you know humanity is mainly intact. Many of the commercial and profit making news media and their journalists could copy the Mail formula but they did not. They too could have given us cover factual reporting and carry trash but they did not. I guess there is some level of morality in the corporate World.
Don't the DM get some a tiny payment, or some other benefit each time you click on a link?

I understood this was another reason people object to reading their stuff.

Even if above is not the case, the DM can still use 'click' numbers to promote themselves to advertisers, so they'll gain that way.
 

Cycleops

Legendary Member
Location
Accra, Ghana
One half is news, one half is showbiz/soft porn.
You seem to know an awful lot about it :smile:
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
For all it's supposed soft porn, the Mail has one of the highest proportions of female readers in Fleet Street.

Attracting women readers has always been the holy grail of circulation, which the Mail cracked with its Femail supplement.

Stuff like 'wear a dress like Meghan's for fifty quid' is enormously popular.
 

Unkraut

Master of the Inane Comment
Location
Germany
I for one, am glad @marinyork is reading and critiquing the DM -

- so I don't have to go near it
So you weren't the one featured in the DM under the heading Suitably A-Tyred wearing expensive latest fashion driving a tractor round the estate, whilst claiming £42,548.69 in benefits and 50" flat-screen TV in every barn, then? ...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom