Posted on 07/25/2017 1:14:17 AM PDT by Pinkbell
For a long time, I have read the UK Daily Mail. It was less biased than our mainstream media outlets and was willing to report negatively on Obama (which is something that I didn't see often in the U.S. media). It seemed to attract a much more conservative crowd.
When Trump ran, he seemed to get a lot of support in the comments section of the Daily Mail. He didn't always get the onslaught of negative coverage that he got elsewhere. They certainly did plenty of negative stories on Trump during the campaign and were absolutely brutal when the Hollywood tapes came out. Trump got his share of negative comments, but he also got plenty of positive comments. One thing that people determined during the campaign is that anti-Trump comments would be upvoted and pro-Trump comments would be downvoted sometimes, and it was determined by posters that the volume and speed at which the upvotes occurred and the disproportionate number of anti-Trump votes showed the arrows were rigged perhaps by a Dem group like Correct The Record.
That said, things got better post election...for a while. Now the articles are almost exclusively negative and are heavy on the Russia narrative. I'm not saying everything needs to be positive - that's not fair journalism. I am saying that they have become like every other outlet - in fact sometimes worse. They take a snippet of what Trump said or something that Trump did and spin it out of context or grossly exaggerate it in the headlines. The headlines are hyperbolic and are generated in order to get a reaction that is negative because they know a lot of people don't read the full article (not that the full article is always in complete context or completely honest) but go right to the comments section to react to the title. Right now (for example) the Daily Mail is accusing Trump of outing a CIA program about arming the rebels in Syria (which he knew about during the campaign and promised to end then and which has been widely reported) and of threatening to fire Tom Price if Obamacare wasn't passed (it was a joke). Almost all their headlines are negative and are designed to make Trump look bad, ignorant, etc. These articles get plenty of negative comments, but they are in response to a phony premise, and all I ask for is honesty.
I have noticed that a paper which once got a lot of pro-Trump comments and attracted conservatives who felt that the paper was more centrist and less biased, has now been taken over in the comments section with anti-Trump comments. At first when I began to see this I was concerned because the comments section used to be very pro-Trump. I thought his own base had turned on him. However, I have taken to reading the comments and looking at arrows and seeing that these people are full blown Democrats (which wasn't the core readership in the comments at one time). They hate Trump and hate criticism of Hillary and Obama and are supportive of programs like Obamacare and love to push the line that Trump is a Russian agent. The articles about Trump have sensationalized headlines and are often negative, so I think it's a case of "If you build it, they will come." Liberals have come for the Trump bashing, and the few conservatives that have stuck around get all their comments downvoted. I've tried to correct false headlines or negative comments, and I sometimes get barraged by red arrows, even if I am posting a fully accurate comment.
I will add that I have posted there, and I saw another pro-Trump person complain about this as well, but I have posted and sent pro-Trump comments that aren't going through. I recently tried several, and when I hit submit, the comments don't show up.
I want to conclude by saying, I'm not asking for 100% positive coverage. I won't even ask for positive coverage at this point. What I will ask for is honest coverage and headlines that aren't sensationalized. There are a lot of people who don't critically analyze the news, and it's a shame that they could be mislead. News organizations should but honesty above clickbait.
Anyway, any thoughts on the Daily Mail?
It’s a sensationalist rag. They went with pro Trump stuff because it got a lot of traffic.
Now that Trump is in the traffic is from the bashers.
Before Trump they used to have front page stories about mentally ill people getting arrested for bathing in pig slurry. Apropos.
I have to admit I enjoy the Daily Mail.
I always get sucked in by the Femail links on the right side of the page....end up spending much too much time going through that sensationalist mess :-)
It’s still more real than the US MSM!
But of course, re-runs of Yogi Bear are as well...lol
It’s a tawdry, low-rent, british tabloid that’s fun for the whole family. A little Trump bashing, the latest Royal family fashions, various criminal nutcases, and watch a pimple get popped, all under one roof. It’s Walmart for your mind.
It would be great to have a paper out there where the coverage isn’t sensationalized clickbait but which is devoted to objective journalism - one in which the comments section could be somewhat civil. I know I’m asking for too much today, though.
A lot of Trump bashing - that seems to be all of their Trump coverage now.
Yes, the Trump bashing on DM has gotten excessive.
I’ve noticed the change, too. There do seem to be many more anti-Trump articles but, for a while, the conservative comments dominated even those. Then I assumed that the left finally got organized so that anti-Trump commenters got in so fast, and possibly automatically, that the conservative ones were lost in the noise. I still go there for the photos of POTUS and FLOTUS, and I skim for articles I can’t read anywhere else. But I always come away sad, these days, for the articles I have to avoid. It’s still my favorite soft news site. For political analysis and links to good articles, I come here. I also tiptoe through Lucianne looking for links to good articles, and trying to avoid stepping in the never-Trumpers.
The domino effect of Theresa May badly botching her recent election.
It is obvious to any observer that the Soros money "powers" and the Clintons, and the Obamas have enough influence that they will not let Trump win, they will not let him get his message out. They have isolated him in the White House to destroy him personally and presidentially.
We now have a presidency being destroyed slowly and people are not bright enough to see what is happening.
Thread hijacking here but Another one I’ve noticed that’s gone from straight news to editorializing is AP News.
Murdoch owns Fox and Daily Mail.
Murdoch is on the board of an open borders group. He’s part of the cheap labor express.
Daily Mail ran a story saying Melania is an ex-hooker. Trump sued in England and won a settlement.
Daily Mail is anti-Trump.
Peter Hitchens blog and columns are what I read from the Daily Mail. Not pro-Trump at all, but right on most issues including the Russian narrative. He dares to keep asking “WHY?” on that issue.
Tabloid, atrocious writing and editing, straight to the comments!
“It’s Walmart for your mind.”
-lol- Great description! Making a note of that (as a reminder) over the top of our computer :)
Trump-bashing sells. Reference MSNBC, which has its highest ratings ever.
I suspect they will pay the price with reduce readership.
I also went through several political websites and anything that said I had to, or suggested I had to, turn off my ad blocker, got deleted as well. I ain't putting up with that nonsense anymore.
If the number of websites I consult dwindle down, oh well, I'll find others.
Suggestions anyone?
There are large companies called “reputation” companies who hire commenters to flood reviews and enhance the reputation of products. I have no doubt that liberals have organizations to flood news sites with comments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.