- Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:22 am
#125709
I couldn't see that we'd had this topic before, but I thought it was worth highlighting those gratifying days when the Mail totally misjudges its readers' likely reactions and fails to stir them up into foaming mouthed fury.
This story is one - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rders.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Dacre and his mates are hacked off that they haven't been able to fill their pages with hundreds of column inches' worth of drooling reports about footballers' sex lives, lavishly illustrated with underdressed WAGs. So they report that the public is full of righteous fury and indignation that they have been prevented from doing so. Except that they aren't. The vast majority of the comments say that they really don't give a bugger, they don't feel its any of our business and they're not interested anyway. One or two say they're actually quite pleased that it might force Fail journos to do their jobs and report some actual news instead.
This story is one - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rders.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Dacre and his mates are hacked off that they haven't been able to fill their pages with hundreds of column inches' worth of drooling reports about footballers' sex lives, lavishly illustrated with underdressed WAGs. So they report that the public is full of righteous fury and indignation that they have been prevented from doing so. Except that they aren't. The vast majority of the comments say that they really don't give a bugger, they don't feel its any of our business and they're not interested anyway. One or two say they're actually quite pleased that it might force Fail journos to do their jobs and report some actual news instead.