Talk:Daily Mail

Daily Mail Libel Section

Given the near constant nature of the acts of libel committed by the Daily Mail, it would surely be informative to have a separate section detailing this aspect of the Mail. This section could have three parts: 1. themes of libel - environment, dodgy immigrants, NHS, silly celebrities, political enemies of Murdoch. 2. The reasons the Mail uses libel as part of its editorial and sales strategy. 3. The effectiveness of the libel in manipulating/shaping public opinion in certain insufficiently educated sectors of the British populace.

I can help out with numerous references, yet unfortunately do not have the time to write all of the copy myself.

This could greatly improve the accuracy of the Daily Mail wiki, which seems to have been written and sanitized by employees of the Daily Mail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.172.254 (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is for improving this article - not for coatracking every possible charge levelled against the newspaper. Note that The Times and other papers have also had libel cases - which are not listed in their articles. Collect (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If that content is notable, verifiable, and unbiased, it can be included in the article. --Bsherr (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This does seem a bit agenda-driven. I agree there is no reason we shouldn't cover notable libel cases, and if there is reliable third-party material out there on the "themes", motivations and effectiveness of libellous statements by the Mail, perhaps we could briefly summarise it. What we shouldn't be doing is trying to imply these themes on our own, for example by grouping libel cases into different categories.

Also, as a reality check, bear in mind that the number/"themes" of libel cases brought against any newspaper probably bear little resemblance to the number/"themes" of its actual defamatory misstatements, because very very often no case is brought.

Why would the Mail have it in for enemies of Rupert Murdoch? Barnabypage (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This article has NOT been 'written and sanatized by Mail employees' as the IP user above ridiculously claims. That is just the sort of opinionated nonsense that we are keeping out of the article for good reason. Those comments are simply your opinions they are not facts. The article is perfectly accurate and balanced, if anything this page is dominated by left-wingers. Christian1985 (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Just read through this article and it is completely biased towards the Mail, there's nothing on the death of Stephen Gately and the 40,000+ complaints against Jan Moir, the reporting of the Daily Mail defending itself from this, any bad nicknames they have for their biased articles (Daily Hate, Daily Fail) nothing on their constant anti-gay articles (there being 2 this week alone), their anti-gay cartoon showing a gay couple as leather-clad skinheads (again this week) and it's all perfectly chronicled on "Pink News" "Pink Paper" and in fact their OWN comments sections of the articles.

It appears the article is being watched carefully by a few users with no intent to add anything bad the Mail have done and still do, this is against Wikipedia rules and it needs to stop. Jenova20 (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You're at it again hurling unfounded accusations around. The article is NOT biased toward the Mail, it is a balanced and fair article. The Pink Paper is just as biased as the Mail so it is not a realiable source. You are clearly LGBT, but this article is not an opportunity to publish your hatred of the Mail, it is an encyclopedic article. Your views are clearly very very biased against the Mail. The article is fully in accordanced with Wikipedia guidelines so get your facts straight please. No rules have been broken. Christian1985 (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest The Pink Paper is a reliable source, at least in terms of news coverage (as opposed to comment). Reliable sources aren't required to have no ideological position, just to be reliable in their recounting of fact. The issue shouldn't be treated disproportionately - it is not the salient issue in the entire history of the Daily Mail - but I suggest it's not unreasonable to mention it if a source can be provided. Barnabypage (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I can provide clear proof to each fact just stated and the Jan Moir debaccle alone generated international coverage and should be mentioned. It does not matter about me at all, what matters is that you are clearly sitting on the article and claiming ownership, and resisting any changes you do not approve of. That is in violation of rules. Jenova20 (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Jan Moir has made the New York Times - but not in the context you assert. [Nor will the United States, in conformity with its treaty obligations, permit the establishment of a regime dominated by international, atheistic Communism in the Western Hemisphere] would be a reliable source for quoting " The ganging up on Twitter against people who have somehow run afoul of others has become increasingly common here. The same thing happened last month when the journalist Jan Moir wrote a column in The Daily Mail criticizing the lifestyle of Stephen Gately, a gay member of the pop band Boyzone who was found dead at 33 in his vacation apartment in Majorca. Many people — including Mr. Fry — believed that the article had homophobic undertones, and said so on Twitter, where Ms. Moir then became one of the topics of hate du jour. An organized campaign helped ensure that her article led to about 23,000 formal complaints to the Press Complaints Commission of Britain. " In short - that Moir was a victim of an organized campaign. But nothing more. And nothing directed at the Daily Mail, nor any assertion that the DM prints regular anti-gay articles. I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:V to see why "Pink Paper comments" are not allowed on WP. Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well said Collect, no Jenova20 I am NOT 'sitting on the article' claiming 'ownership' of the article at all. Please do not make such rash judgements about me. Just proves yet again how biased you are. You clearly have a personal hatred of the Mail, this site is not the place for you to express that. I am simply following guidelines and standards set by Wikipedia. I have not violated any rules whatsoever so keep such accusations to yourself. Christian1985 (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not biased for requesting a criticism section and your talk page is proof enough that you do indeed have a personal interest in keeping this article devoid of change. Jenova20 (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

So you feel the sections on Rothermere etc. are somehow pro-Daily Mail? WP policy is that where criticism is included properly in other sections, that a separate section is improper. Collect (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

So you would have no problem with more being added to the article with sources? Jenova20 (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Claims about "living persons" must meet WP:BLP, and all sources must meet WP:RS, and the claims must reasonably meet reasonable weight (trivia about the brand of coffee used in the cafeteria is likely not worthy :) ) but solid claims fully backed by reliable sources are fine. The claims must be properly worded, as always, and opinions should always be cited as opinion. Collect (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this controversial cartoon they featured in the paper after the Preddys won damages for being banned from a hotel: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348384/Mac--Damages-payout-gay-couple.html The Mail took the hotel owners' side and then made the couple who were barred out to look like neo-nazi skinheads with swastika and 666 tattoos.

Looks like inciting hatred or at the least controversial from here, anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenova20 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Provide an RS soutce for the claim demonstrating that it is of enough significance to be in this article. And you likely would have to name the cartoonist, since, AFAICT, the DM does little drawing. Collect (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Their own site is not a reliable source? Mac drew the cartoon. Jenova20 (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A harmless cartoon is not an RS for making such a claim against the DM. The cartoon being 'evidence' of 'inciting hatred' is simply YOUR opinion, it is not a fact. I saw that cartoon and I found it rather harmless. It does not support the claims you are making in any way. Christian1985 (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion

I've reviewed the article and the above commentary as an unsolicited WP:3O third opinion. I see no evidence of "sanitizing" the article in support of the DM; a true "sanitizing" effort, IMO, would attempt to suppress the listing of awards listed in the Libel section. That said, I find it curious that this publication has had so many awards ordered, or settlements, in recent times, and from the standpoint of one who takes more than a casual interest in journalism and ethics, that series of awards/settlements does call the DM's motives into question. But as was stated above, this isn't a venue for arguing journalistic ethics or integrity. It is a forum for seeking consensus on improving the article, and as such, any information added or proposed must meet the tests of WP:RS and WP:V. There is, however, an appearance of ownership of the article by Collect. As I'm just now looking at the article and its Discussion page for the first time, I see what some might consider a disproportionate number of reversions by that worthy, albeit reversions made in good faith, and reversions with clear and concise edit summaries to support them. I'm not certain that there's call for a full examination and comment cycle, but it's a possibility, and one the interested editors might wish to consider as part of what looks to be a necessary dispute resolution. Cheers, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh? I am not even in the UK fer gosh sakes. By the way, all of the British tabloids, and most of the broadsheets, have quite similar libel suit records :). BTW, virtually all of my "reverts" are based in WP policy, and are not aimed at "protecting" a newspaper I have never even read. Collect (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect is right, there is no 'ownership' by myself or Collect. We are simply adhering to Wikipedia policy by blocking nonsensical and unsourced edits. An IP vandal once claimed the Mail supported the controversial BNP because of an article titled 'Cheers as BNP Leader walks free' citing the actual article as a reference. Yet the article was condemning the BNP referring to the 'cheers' of Nick Griffin's supporters NOT the DM. Christian1985 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect, don't you think it is a bit odd that you would spend hours of your time defending a newspaper you have never read? Here by the way is a link to their site so that you may read it on-line. It is the sort of paper I'll read when someone leaves it behind in the pub. TFD (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect's claim, as I understand it, is that he or she is defending wikipedia by enforcing its policies, not defending the paper. I find it more odd that you would seek to misrepresent his/her actions, than that a wikipedian has a page on his/her watchlist and acts to enforce policy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of seeking to misrepresent his actions. It would be fine if Collect's concern was consistent for news media and organizations that did share his political orientation . See for example Collect's long arguments at Talk:Democracy Now! or Talk:Unite Against Fascism where he Google mines for obscure references to them as left-wing, then tenaciously but unsuccessfully defends this clear violation of NPOV across numerous noticeboards and RfCs. TFD (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, I recall a poster saying that "other articles should not be discussed." I find, in addition, that calling a newspaper "pro-Nazi" as some sought here in the past is not quite the same as calling a Socialist Workers Party organization "left wing" when that is what The Times called it (noting, of course, that you call The Times an "obscure reference" :) ). Lastly, I suggest you examine my User:Collect/watchlisted articles and see the full spectrum of articles I follow. Now might you restrict yourself to this article as you insist others do? Thank you most kindly. [1] shows the type of comments some editors seem to find valid on article talk pages. Collect (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There you go. Unite Against Fascism is not a "Socialist Workers Party orgnaization", but a broad coalition of people, ranging from the Conservative Prime minister and members of the 1922 committee to the left fringe of British politics. Opposing fascism btw is not left-wing. On the other hand, there is no need to airbrush out of the history section the fact that the DM was sympathetic to Hitler in the 1930s - many people in the UK and US were. And yes, the reference is obscure because it is not typical of the way The Times describes the UAF - is The Times another newspaper that you have never read? TFD (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) Tell the SWP not to claim that they founded it then. Nor, by the way, has Rothermere's infatuation with Hitler been "airbrushed" in this article. And since at least six UK newpspaers use the term "left wing" with regard to the UAF, and the SWP calls it "left wing" I suppose it is really "radical right wing"? FWIW, I do not recall you gainsaying [2]. Or worrying about such edits as [3] (your very first edit on the article AFAICT). Which occurred shortly after [4] my revert of an editor specifying "neo-Nazism" for the paper. Now are you done this silly personal aside about me? Thank you mist kindly. Collect (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You have never have provided the link to the SWP claim that they set up the UAF. Is there any reason why you would consider the SWP website as more reliable than the mainstream media? (BTW there was nothing wrong with my removal of unsourced original research from the article. I am surprised that you did not remove it yourself.) TFD (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right - no one should believe the SWP making a statement about itself. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that. The SWP website is not a reliable source for statements about other organizations. Do you think for example that it would be a good source for this article? You have not btw ever provided the source to which you refer. I can only conclude that it does not exist. TFD (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The SWP claim is, in fact, about itself. And look at the past discussions - I have provided a substantial number of cites, and repeating them seems silly. Collect (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You have not provided any link to this claim. and no one has been able to find it. Perhaps you read the source repeated somewhere else? TFD (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So far we have -- The SWP is not a valid source on the SWP and besides you can't find the cites from past discussions on WP, so therefore the cite which was not valid because the SWP can not talk about itself therefore did not exist in the first place? That appears to be what passes for "discussion." Sorry TFD, I decline to play this game further. Collect (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So you think you saw something on the SWP website, cannot find it, but expect us to take your word and you want to use it as a source for a separate article on a separate organization. Those are the standards you apply to articles about organizations that you oppose, which are different from the standards you apply to this article. TFD (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(od) the cite has been on my UT page now for a while, and FRD has not emended his charges. The cite exists, did exist, and will continue to exist. Collect (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fourth Opinion

Since things have got a little off topic, I thought I'd bring things back to the matter at hand. I also don't see a sanitising of the article - it does include a libel section and their support of Hitler, though the paper clearly has a bias in the modern which could be expanded in the editorial stance section. I would heartily disapprove of a "criticsm" section, and in general I see this as not far from WP:NPOV. As to WP:OWNership, that's something to watch. I've watchlisted the article and will try to help out. Worm 12:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I can only see that as being a good thing. Thanks Jenova20 (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the article as a whole is overly sanitised, but I think the problems are more specific than that, and a look at the talk page archive shows that there is definitely a problem with WP:OWN and editor after editor making the same arguments and eventually getting bored and going away.

The most problematic aspect of the article, IMO, is the "editorial stance" section. At least part of this section should be given over to the fact that the paper is controversial and divides opinion on a number of issues, which is easily (and was previously) sourced. There is good sourcing for the fact that the Mail is criticised by some for the quality of its science writing, for example (health scares, global warming and such like), but other editors may have additional suggestions as to what is notable in terms of the paper's editorial line. And there is no reason they should have to find doing so such a joyless and pointless process.

At present, the "editorial stance section" appears to be put together at random mostly using the Mail itself as the source and without guidance from any secondary sources. Why has South Ossetia been included? Is Melanie Philips an editorial stance as such? --FormerIP (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Cross suggested that Melanie Philips be added. "Editorial stance: "It has" is an advertisement, why Littlejohn but not Phillips, see talk)" Which seemed rather reasonable and was complied with. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a largely rhetorical point rather than a request. Still, if a criticism of Littlejohn can be allowed, cited RS criticism of Phillips might also escape deletion. I agree with the points FormerIP makes, and am at a loss to think who s/he might be accusing of WP:OWN. Philip Cross (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Cancer claims

• a cold
• chips/fries
• errr...NSFW
• sausages and burgers
• hair dye
• sandwiches
• mouth wash
• sun cream
• PRINGLES, HULA-HOOPS & PRINCE CHARLES’ ORGANIC CRISPS
• X-rays
• talcum powder
• Moisturisers
• mobile phones
• red meet (double post?)
• tooth whitener
• bagged snacks
• abortions

(unsigned)

Unfortunately, the claims are not only made by the Daily Mail in the examples I checked. Thus ascribing them to the DM would be inapt. [5] shows the BBC with the cancer claim about childhood infections, for example. Collect (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That said, rather outrageous cancer claims do seem to be heavily associated with the Daily Mail. Off the top of my head, I can't remember references, but it has been parodies in several publications, a few television programs, and of course, YouTube et al. I do think it's worth mentioning on the article. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 10:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/apr/27/dailymail-cancer Barnabypage (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, "inter-paper sniping" is a national sport in the UK. A tad slower than cricket, but with a great deal more emotion. Collect (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Daily Mail cancer scare stories are well documented and notable, see [6]. The famous facebook story deserves a mention, at least. --94.171.77.82 (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Scottish Edition Logo

Can anyone provide an up-to-date version of the logo for the Scottish Daily Mail ? The old one is featured on this page. StephenBHedges (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

BRD

When major edits are made in a "bold" manner, and are reverted, WP:BRD says to "discuss" them rather than to re-revert. In the case at hand, the major edit was to insert "Daily Hate" as a nickname from a competitor, etc. into the article. Alas - no consensus for such an edit has yet been found. Nor does the New York Post have "New York Compost" in it. And so on. Practice is that derogatory nicknames are found for almost any newspaper, and inserting them prominently is not of encyclopedic value. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The above comments are a reference to my edits so I shall try and itemise everything I did of any importance.

In fact, no consensus has been reached over the use of the Daily Hate epithet. Despite the tag being sourced to Julie Burchill, the only supporters for the non-inclusion in the "Strange omissions" section are yourself and Christian1985 who are clearly in a minority. The other comments by Ben Goldacre and Johann Hari are also thought to be unworthy of inclusion on the grounds that they are from competitors. The Guardian, New Statesman, and Independent are not exactly rivals to the Mail, but they do count as reliable sources, and the Mail does divide opinion. According to the NPOV rules all mainstream arguments on a topic should be featured.

You also objected to a wikilink to Lord Kitchener, on the grounds that we all know who he was. To most people he is probably no more than a name; likely curiosity legitimises the wikilink. In your revert a duplication of the “Hurrah for Blackshirts” to the “Famous Stories” section was recreated. This is really a disguised miscellany section covering stories over many decades and material is meant to be more thoroughly incorporated into the article where possible. As it is in this case in the section on the interwar period. I also do not see why Peter Hitchens and his departure from the Express a decade ago has to be mentioned. This is an article about the Mail, for which Hitchens rarely writes. We have had an article on the Mail on Sunday since January 2008, and a reference to Htchens is clearly a remnant which has never been removed..

In this article, we have three lists of journalists and contributors to the newspaper. Why not one? Philip Cross (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As for the wikilinks I actually think they're useful, people might know who they are, but they might also not. Wikipedia is global and so whereas most Englishmen would know who lord Kitchener is, I'd imagine an Indian or Brazilian reading this might not. As for the daily hate citing, I've never heard anyone refer to the paper as this, whereas in the guardian article you have the insertion that "the guardian reader" has become a synonym for a person holding leftwing/liberal ideas is largely widespread. This is not as much a criticism as an informative addition. It's not inherently bad to be left wing, it is however inherently bad to "hate". Therefore if this is to be included in the article it certainly, in my opinion, does not merit a mention in the OVERVIEW section, but in a subcategory "criticism". However I fear that if such a category were created it would be inundated with all sorts of minor and superfluous comments. What do you think philip? Alexandre8 (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I moved the comments from Burchill et al to the "editorial stance" section from "overview" during the course of my edits where they do seem more appropriate. In order to sustain a neutral point of view criticism sections are not recommended, but when they cannot be connected to specific incidents they are difficult to avoid. BTW, some of the criticisms which have been levelled at Paul Dacre directly are mentioned in his article. Any minor and superfluous comments can be dealt with, if appropriate, by the trivia section and undue weight rules. Philip Cross (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how Burhill's nickmane for the paper is notable unless you can show that it has come into wide use. TFD (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It has come into wide use going by the number of Google hits, but this fact is inadmissible for the discussion at hand. It has not been widely used by other notable people it is true, an article by Polly Toynbee citing Northcliffe’s use of the term and an entry on Stephen Fry’s blog are the only other examples I can find quickly, but Burchill's prominence is enough to legitimise its inclusion. Philip Cross (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that someone included the term on their posting to Fry's blog does not make it notable. Not every comment made by Burchill is notable. What you need to find is an article about the Mail that explains the usage of the term. Otherwise it would be undue to include it. TFD (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel it has a place in the article full stop. It is just a silly, offensive name given by left-wingers and it is not NPOV. Polly Toynbee is a hard-left journalist so I don't feel her opinions are fair and neutral, she is strongly biased. Christian1985 (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Christian, the opinions of third-party commentators do not have to be neutral, an editor is quoting the opinion rather than stating his/her own. As the article stands we quote none of the Mail's many prominent critics. That is a serious flaw when articles are supposed to include all significant points of view, not just yours or mine. Toynbee is actually ex-SDP, a party which was created as a reaction to the hard-left in the Labour Party. Philip Cross (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The article incorporates a great deal of criticism - within the appropriate sections. Note the material on Rothermere etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Collect, you asked for a debate, but have not yourself responded to most of my points.

The newspaper's defence of Hitler, Mussolini and Mosley during the 1930s is historical fact not criticism/opinion. You have not said why the comments of, for example, the reputable science writer Ben Goldacre, who brings the accusation of pseudo-science against the newspaper, should be omitted. I moved the passage detailing the claims of current Mail critics from "overview" to "editorial stance" where they are best placed as a response. But you still considered that unacceptable. Philip Cross (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly there seems to be no reason listed above to exclude any contribution referring to the nickname of the "Hate Mail" or the "Daily Hate". Private Eye uses both regularly, much in the same way as it uses the "Grauniad". In such a lengthy and extensive article they're arguably a reasonable representation of some peoples' perceptions or the basis of their opposition to the paper - part of it's character. As for the argument that it should be excluded on the grounds that 'Polly Toynbee is left wing' - I think we've covered this many, many times now. Quotes do not all have to come from entirely politically neutral beings! Not only is such a thing impossible, but the belief that this is how Wikipedia operates is becoming damaging to the comprehensive nature of articles, making them more partisan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marty jar (talk • contribs) 19:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(od)Material critical of the topic is generally considered to be criticism. Wikipedia does not need to say "and critics call this paper despicable" because that sort of opinion is not really the stuff of an encyclopedia. In this article is: On 21 May 1915, Northcliffe wrote a blistering attack on Lord Kitchener, the Secretary of State for War. Kitchener was considered a national hero, and, overnight, the paper's circulation dropped from 1,386,000 to 238,000. 1,500 members of the London Stock Exchange ceremonially burned the unsold copies and launched a boycott against the Harmsworth Press. Prime Minister H. H. Asquith accused the paper of being disloyal to the country. There were 40,000 entries and the winner was a cross between a top hat and a bowler christened the Daily Mail Sandringham Hat. The paper subsequently promoted the wearing of it but without much success Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them.[26] " The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing on Germany (1933). ” —Lord Rothermere, publisher Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists.[27] Rothermere wrote an article entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine".[28] This support ended after violence at a BUF rally in Kensington Olympia later that year. The article also contains a list of major libel lawsuits. Writing for the New Statesman, Johann Hari accused Littlejohn of having a "psychiatric disorder" about homosexuality with a "pornographic imagination. Almost all of the "famous stories" section is critical of the paper.

In short: plenty of criticism and critical material about the paper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"Material critical of the topic is generally considered to be criticism" Where? You have itemised embarrassing details in the paper's history not criticism. Why is Hari allowed in, a liberal journalist in deep trouble, but no one else? I have removed the reference to Peter Hitchens again, a contributor to the MoS, as you have chosen not to defend his inclusion in this article. Philip Cross (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the first reference to Richard Littlejohn, his periods with the Mail are detailed in his own WP article for anyone who urgently wishes to know about them. Why should Littlejohn's connection be favoured over, say, Melanie Phillips? I also considered the first passage on the beginnings of the Ideal Homne Exhibition to be insufficiently worked into the article. As the second reference at the beginning of the "Supplements and features" section concentrated on Northcliffe's changing attitudes to the event it seemed best to place the passage chronologically where his connection with the Mail is discussed. Philip Cross (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Um -- so covering people callling someone homophobic is not criticism? Try asking others - I fear you are now having an IDIDNTHEARTHAT moment. By the way, "Mail on Sunday" I think is part of the Daily Mail empire. But on Hitchens - who cares? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Where do I deny Hari criticised the Mail? You did not respond to my query about why Hari is allowed in, but no one else. BTW, I think we have an article on the Mail on Sunday (and the Daily Mail and General Trust holding company). Philip Cross (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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. [7] among many others explicitly calls it "middle market." [8] 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)

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)