DailyMail Stereotype
 

Hey guys-

Quick question. I always heard about the "Daily Mail Reader", but never understood who that referred to. I just glanced at the website and it seems sensationalist / gossipy with a preference of photos over text. I was just wondering what the stereotype referred to - conspiracy theorists? political extremists? teenage girls?

Thanks guys,

A US-news reader

Keep it clean, everyone :) This will eventually move to OMNI, but let's give it a fair go here first.

stut
Moderator
UK & Ireland

@:-)@:-)@:-) This... kind of answers my question a bit, believe it or not, the fact that it warrants a moderator warning before any replies are made.

Basically, the Daily Mail positions itself as a middle-class tabloid. It's definitely right of centre, politically, and the online edition is certainly more celebrity-focused than the print version. Both tend towards sensationalism - an often used quote is that "a good Daily Mail article should always leave you hating something new".

The online version does tend towards 'clickbait' recently, too (as do other newspapers that like to see themselves as higher-end, and left-of-centre, I might add...) with ridiculous opinion pieces designed to lure people in with an over-the-top headline.

The paper's stance divides opinion. Some see it as the proud defender of the views of the silent majority, others as the embodiment of curtain-twitching small-mindedness. Either way, it certainly manages to sell.

The warning was partially to myself :) Let's say I'm not a fan of the paper, or the culture it embodies. I do, however, admire how incredibly adept it is at what it does.

Did you mean the Daily Heil ? :)

OK, I'll jump in on this one...

I think the best way of characterising a "Daily Mail Reader" is by allusion - here are some I've heard of (and agreed with) in the past:

"The Daily Mail: Telling you who to Hate, and why you Hate them"

The perfect daily mail headline would be something like "Paedophiles and Asylum Seekers on Benefits are destroying House Prices in UK"

It has been said that the best way to confuse a Daily Mail reader would be to tell them that "Asylum Seekers are the natural predators of paedophiles".

All a bit glib, but I think you get the idea - badly researched, sensationalised, often wrong, or, indeed, completely made up, and generally manically xenophobic, often expressing views that are slightly to the right (of Vlad the Impaler), that gives you an idea of the Daily Mail target readership.

Sadly, my (elderly) mother is among them, and is regularly keen to pass on the latest nugget gleaned from said Fish&Chip wrapper, such as that everything in Britain went wrong once the welfare state was enacted, that we should return to the Workhouse as a solution for unemployment, disabled children should be euthanised at birth, women should not work (as they are taking a job away from some poor man, and anyway, should be at home, washing dishes) and that all of the country (nay, the world's) problems are due to "Asians" (though, she appears to be somewhat geographically challenged on this point as "Asia" appears, to her, to span at least three of the continents that I'm aware of). sadly she lives in one of the few environments within the British Isles where, due to lack of exposure to actual diversity, such opinions can continue to flourish without challenge.

Not something I'm proud of, as you might understand, and on the few occasions I'm asked to purchase a Daily Mail, I'm sorely tempted to add something highly objectionable to the purchase ("Juicy Jugs 2: Readers Wives Special", or "Bestiality and Bondage weekly") just so I can meekly ask for a plain wrapper - for the Daily Mail, obviously.

Anyway, if my Mum is anything to go by, your average Daily Mail reader was likely thrown out of the Hitler Youth as a child, because their views were considered too extreme....

Ken.

Willard the Bear - I don't think they like Bears either - especially not ones made in China!

Ken - you are probably being way too hard on your mum :D Her generation have been well-conditioned over the years: there was a time when most mainstream publications spouted views that today make uncomfortable reading.

The rather sad point to make is that the Mail is insanely popular: and not only within our parents' generation. The paper's circulation has shrunk over the last decade, from around 2 million to 1.75 million: but, there again, the other dailies have also lost out to fashion changes and competition from other media. Some quality journals have fared worse than the Mail (the Guardian is down by a third, and enjoys a circulation of around one-tenth that of the Mail).

So, stereotype if you will, but remind yourself that some of the paper's views resonate quite strongly among the public.

CX HK,

There is a helpful guide to stereotype UK paper readers here:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M

Also astonishing how popular the DM website is in the United States. I believe it is the most visited news website in the world, outdoing The New York Times sadly enough. From a SLATE profile a couple of years ago:

"ComScore reports that 36 percent of its traffic comes from the United States, compared to 27 percent from the U.K. The website’s American audience alone dwarfs the paper’s print circulation, which, at 2 million, is not shabby but certainly not among the world’s largest."

More: http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...ewspaper_.html

The Mail Online is huge in the US even though I think a lot of the subtle voice/tone/attitude stuff is lost on US audiences, and the DM covers many UK celebs who are unknown on US shores.

Views are only views and people are allowed to hold them - even if they are not allowed to act on them sometimes. It's absurd to say some views are right and some are wrong and rather tedious of the Grauniad continually to repeat its mantra that its views are right and acceptable, whereas those of the Mail are wrong and unacceptable, particularly when the Mail's are held by so many more people.

Read the comments for stories involving foreigners, poor people, left wingers or the BBC.

It's the UK equivalent of Fox News CX HK...

And if that's not enough for you, you can always feast on the in-depth exposés of footballers' sex lives, celebrities' plastic surgeries, and the dating habits of the royals. There's a lot of quality journalism in there.

Can't agree with this.

We all have the right to hold opinions - yes. But no opinion is sacred. Challenging ignorance, bigotry and intolerance is part of what keeps us in the situation where we actually get to freely hold stated opinions in the first place.