Talk:Daily Mail

Middle Market?

On this page and Middle-market newspaper (an article with no references or sources), it is claimed that the Daily Mail is a Middle-market newspaper. However, judging by the Mail Online, I think that the more appropriate label would be downmarket, as (quoted from Middle-market newspaper) down-market newspapers favor sensationalist stories. Currently featured articles on the front page include one about Cheryl Cole (Head to toe: Cheryl Cole launches shoe collection with big hair), an anti-Traveller article regarding Dale Farm (Fiasco down on eviction farm: Travellers' glee as judge halts closure of illegal site at eleventh hour). Other common articles that often appear include anti-immigrant, anti-Traveller, anti-Muslim, anti-gay undertones, as well as sensationalist anti-benefit-cheats articles, not exactly things that springs to mind when one thinks of a middle-market newspaper.

Though this is of course original research and POV, my point is that the claim about it being Middle-market should still have a source. Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was fully sourced, and then was cleaned up. I fear using "down market" would be explicitly POV. [1] among many others explicitly calls it "middle market." [2] explicitly differentiates the Daily Mail from the eplicitly named "down market" newspapers. Collect (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Your sources are from 1992 and 1994. I would occassionally read the tabloid then if someone left it behind on the bus, but checking its website, it appears to have moved down market since. It used to be on the same level of the Daily Express but now seems to be too "salacious" for the Blue rinse brigade. TFD (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about judging the paper based on the Mail Online which is quite a different beast. The online version contains stories from the paper version, of course, but seems to be substantially enriched with celebrity stories etc. shellac (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No doubt there are better sources, but for example this article by Peter Preston explains how the Mail is pretty unusual in running the online version as a distinct entity. Note the the reference to sniping about "...those yards of celebrity gossip and pictures on the site; this isn't the Mail we know..." etc shellac (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is absolutely not 'downmarket', it is a middle-market newspaper, I am a reader myself. I agree with Collect, labelling it 'downmarket' is POV and not acceptable. The Mail is not anti-muslim, anti-immigrant or anti-gay at all. You can't go around hurling such wild accusations they are not appropriate on here. Please leave these ridiculous statements out of the article they are absolutely not appropriate. The article should remain how it is. Christian1985 (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

In fairness they provide reasonable news coverage, which puts them in a class above the "tabloids". TFD (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue that up/middle/downmarket is about choice of subject matter and presentation (in terms of both the language used and the visual design) rather than any political positions or prejudices the paper may or may not hold. The Mail clearly falls into the mid-market by UK standards on those points, and also meets our own definition of Middle-market newspaper. Barnabypage (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd query whether "our" definition is correct though. In any event, surely what's needed is strong and clear sourcing. I'm also not sure that the different terms sit together within a spectrum in the way that is being presumed. Conceivably, the Mail is downmarket in its content and middle-market in terms of its target demographic. All very subjective, though. --FormerIP (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a pretty well-established tri-partite division of the British industry into downmarket "red-tops" (Sun, Mirror, Star, Sport if it's still going), middle-market (Mail, Express) and "quality" (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, FT). Of course, as you say, it's subjective and not necessarily the best way to slice up the pie - nevertheless it is the way the pie's generally perceived within the newspaper industry and by advertisers (less so, I'd suspect, by readers).

Couple of sources:

http://www.ejc.net/media_landscape/article/uk/ (on the tri-partite division in general)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade+tone/analysis (on the middle-market position of the Mail specifically) Barnabypage (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The current entry for Middle-market newspaper is woeful; with no external references it is clearly no more than original research. Better to remove the reference in the introduction until a better entry for Middle-market newspaper can be created? Markb (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It is still the common term used to describe the market position of the Daily Mail, as has already been stated, despite the flawed nature of the linked article. Philip Cross (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

[3] directly connects the Daily Mail with "middle market" (by saying until a specific time, the Express on Sunday was the only "middle market" newspaper as a reason for the "Mail on Sunday" being launched) in an official House of Lords paper. [4] specifically identifies the Daily Mail as "middle market." As does [5]. [6] and other exceedingly strong sources also use the term specifically about the Daily Mail, and Daily Express. In 2008. Seems enough for me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If it is a "common term" , then surely there must be citations, like Collect has come up with? I suggest you update the Middle-market newspaper entry with this, rather than this talk page? Markb (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I see Collect has reverted my edit, on the basis that this non-contentious claim is supported by a great number of RS sources . It isn't, there are no references on the Middle-market newspaper, it is simply a POV entry. If there are a great number of RS sources then they should be on that page, not in the talk section of this entry. Please do nor re-revert my edit without addressing the core issue. Markb (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It is highly unusual to ask for cites in the lede - but I figure the House of Lords cite well ought to suffice. Collect (talk) 12

36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you've done, & the update to Middle-market newspaper, thank-you for your effort. Markb (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

My Chemical Romance

Why is there no mention of this entire section from the My Chemical Romance article:? "UK tabloid incident

On May 8, 2008, British tabloid The Sun published an article entitled "Suicide of Hannah, the Secret emo", which reported the death of a thirteen year-old British girl named Hannah Bond, who had hanged herself supposedly because of her involvement with a reported "self-harming 'emo' cult", which the newspaper directly associated with My Chemical Romance, and their then-current album The Black Parade, which was said to be linked to her suicide. In the article, coroner Roger Sykes expressed concern that Bond's "emo" lifestyle glamorized suicide, and suggested that her obsession with My Chemical Romance was linked to her death.[54][55] Regardless, The Sun's article, and an article in NME about The Sun's article, had linked My Chemical Romance to the suicide.[56] Supporters of emo music contacted NME to defend the genre against accusations that it promotes suicide.[57]

A group of British fans eventually planned a march across London in protest against the depiction of the band in the media. The march was expected to be held on May 31, beginning at Hyde Park's West Pond and ending outside the offices of tabloid newspaper the Daily Mail, which widely criticized My Chemical Romance and had published general pieces about the dangers of "suicide cults". The march was expected to attract 500–1000 protesters, according to the organizers.[58][59] After concerns by police, the march was called off and instead about 100 fans congregated at Marble Arch[60] and the band repeated the statement "fuck the Daily Mail" during their gigs in the United Kingdom.

The Daily Mail defended its position saying its coverage was "balanced, and restrained" and "in the public interest" and they were reporting genuine concerns raised by the coroner at the inquest and claim that their coverage of the incident has been misrepresented and confused with rumor. They state that their coverage of the coroner's remarks and the parents' comments was in common with that of other newspapers, and point to their publishing of readers letters defending the band and positive reviews of the band's albums and tours.[61]" 90.209.124.27 (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The vast and extensive criticism of the Daily Mail cannot all be included in the article. Philip Cross (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The appropriate policy is WP:WEIGHT. You need to show not only that the story is significant but that it is significant to how The Mail is viewed. TFD (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

WEIGHT is clearly not present for such material in this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Seriously - If you want to know why this article has no "controversy" sections, or any negative news, it's quite simple. The user "collect" policies it on almost an hourly basis, and removes anything he doesn't personally like - usually trying to find a grey area in wikipedia rules to justify the deletion, in the hope that he can drag out the dispute long enough for the person who made the addition to give up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmooney9 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 27 February 2012‎

Well, the Jan Moir debacle is in there, if nothing else. But feel free to bring back up any dusty talk threads which weren't resolved - if someone's been filibustering to suppress content they personally dislike, then some more eyes or an RFC might clear it up. We should all assume good faith of fellow editors, though. --McGeddon (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Libel cases section

I removed "<!-- omitting all unk[n]own amounts or cases under 30K pounds -->" from the edit window of this article. This is arbitrary, and the use of this template was not raised in the earlier discussion of this issue. Inclusion of specific cases should be based on the verifiability of the case, and the notability of the individuals involved, as is usual for Wikipedia, not the absence of details. Though only indirectly involved, the Blairs are high profile figures, and for that matter we do have an article about Carole Caplin. Yes, libel cases should be included in articles about other publications. Philip Cross (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a reason - we had an editor including cases where the damages were on the order of 100 pounds etc. in a catch-all list for the paper. As every UK paper has had libel suits, it seemed to be more a trivia section than much else. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Including small amounts like £100 probably makes an instant case for removal. Trivia sections usually include information which is tangential to the subject, and I share your dislike of them, but these are reactions against stories in the Daily Mail itself. Hard facts, yes? Philip Cross (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Where similar papers do not have such sections, I fear my distaste for trivia sections is made stronger. And in some cases, listing the libels only perpetuate them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion should be the degree of coverage in third party sources, not the actual damages. The case described in QB VII resulted in only token damages, but was noteworthy nonetheless. TFD (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

1934 Olympia

[7] acsribed end of Rothermere's initial support for BUF to brutality at Kensington Olympia in 1934. [8] iterates it as a cause for loss of mainstream support. [9] ascribed end of DM support to 19 July 1934. Cheers - this had been on an earlier talk page when this was added a long time ago and the cites seem to have been elided. Collect (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

Why doesn't The Daily Mail, or any Daily Mail writers (see Melanie Phillips) pages have any reference to the fact that they're generally controversial? And have published controversial articles?

I'm assuming it's because they're heavily policed/censored by people who agree with the newspaper/writers. But you know, that's POV editing. Against wikipedia rules.

You know, the Daily Mail was heavily criticized, universally for it's article about Stephen Gateley's death. What's the possible justification for not discussing things like this in the article? Other than not wanting to offend the Daily Mail.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Gately/Moir criticism is already covered in this article under "famous stories". Are there other prominent criticisms that have been overlooked? --McGeddon (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not keen on "stand alone" criticism sections but if you can see a way of incorporating well sourced criticism into the article, why not be bold and do it. If it get's reverted, we can always discuss why. No reason this page should be any different to any other part of wikipedia. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Vanished

The Mail had "For King and Empire" on the top of the front page at one time. This seems to have vanished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.124.253 (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)