Discussion of the more serious side of the Mail's agenda
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By oboogie
Membership Days Posts
#268674
Timbo wrote:
oboogie wrote:
Timbo wrote:Remember that the Mail only falls as high in the chart as it does, because they include subsidiary titles such as This Is Money in the rankings.
That's right as is pointed out in Carlos' link. Doesn't alter the fact that Mailonline frequently get quoted as the world's most successful online newsource.
Timbo wrote:By that logic, I think News International probably win the day...
What? Win what day?
If you include sister titles and other sites owned by the same company, NI own hundreds of news sites all over the world, so if they used the logic of the Daily Mail, they could claim any of theirs to be the biggest. It's farcical.
I know but it isn't just the Mail that says it, their competitors agree.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16746785" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#268682
Whether it's first, second or third is immaterial. It's a huge player in international information business. For my thesis I don't see how such a huge number of people are the pessimistic dystopians that we call Mailites; they will be across the spectrum of political and social values. The key is the way Dacre uses his power stemming from being a global player to promote his dystopic view. That is surely one of the most corrosive elements in the erosion of civilised society.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#268778
I don't think so. I think the business model is to provide a huge range of stories, especially on Mail Online, covering a very wide spectrum. These have a generally right-of-centre position, but nothing too much so as not to scare the horses. It makes a lot of money for the board and Rothermere (and Dacre is the highest-paid editor by far, I believe).

Commentators are further right, but these are sections of the newspaper and website you tend to need to look for, and they certainly provide confirmation bias material for a lot of pretty crazy rightists. Most of the dystopic view is there, the reinforcement is in the 'news' or the sidebar of shame online.

So there are two things going on at the time, the business plan (pay a lot for traditional journalism, pay a little for the filler, get lots of paper sales and hits, therefore money from advertising) and Dacre's political plan. Which is strangely non-Tory conservative, non-UKIP Eurosceptic (mild), socially regressive, racist (count the pictures of black people who haven't been arrested on the Online splash page) and sexist. Dacre is also a crashing snob, and that is a very major theme.

There's no such thing as an 'average' Mail reader, of course, and there may be a big difference between the paper and electronic readerships. I'm pretty certain that a very large number buy into the business plan, but not Dacre's world view.
 
By D.C. Harrison
Membership Days Posts
#268791
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:There's no such thing as an 'average' Mail reader, of course, and there may be a big difference between the paper and electronic readerships.
From personal experience (which counts for little, I know), I would say so. My girlfriend, who is pretty left-wing, would never dream of buying the Daily Mail and yet has an app on her smart phone that takes her straight to the Mailonline site, which she reads in the main for the celeb shite. Cue her on the sofa going "oh, have you heard about so-and-so?" and me going "who?"

The vast majority of people I know who go on Mailonline are women aged 25-35, reading the celeb gossip. It's like that bit in Alien where Ash says he admires the monster's purity - the same way I can almost admire whoever is in charge of the website for creating such a hit-generating machine.

What might (or not) be an interesting tangent is how much control Dacre has over the website - when the time comes (as it surely must eventually?) where the website is making more money than the actual newspaper, is there a shift in the axis of power at the Mail?
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#268793
One of the things which was said at the time of the Leveson evidence was that the editor of Mail Online (I forget his name) lives in fear and trembling of Dacre, who doesn't have the immediate control over content that he does in the paper version, but still has ultimate power.
 
By D.C. Harrison
Membership Days Posts
#268805
Indeed, but I just wondered if (to use a terrible analogy from my youth) that particularly Starscream will one day have the confidence to make a play against Megatron as time goes on. If it ends up with him pulling in the revenue, surely he'll have the ear of the big cheese more and more?

Sorry if I'm just babbling nonsense.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#268819
Partly...
I don't know what the Mail Online communication channel to Rothermere is. Certainly Dacre had a hot line, at least until recently. If feedback has to go through Dacre I doubt if it will be accurate. Rothermere doesn't seem to do detail.
 
By Kreuzberger
Membership Days Posts
#269005
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:One of the things which was said at the time of the Leveson evidence was that the editor of Mail Online (I forget his name) lives in fear and trembling of Dacre, who doesn't have the immediate control over content that he does in the paper version, but still has ultimate power.
Martin Clarke. And he certainly is no pussy-cat. Moreover, I'd suggest that he is in some kind of Faustian pact with Dacre - a ruthless, uncaring bot who will play whatever tune his master calls. One might argue that, without willing and very able lieutenants such as Clarke, Dacre's mission would be nigh on impossible to prosecute.
By Paul
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#269023
According to Private Eye, Dacre is in for a rogering when Leveson reports. Peter Wright was ditched as Editor of the Mail On Sunday recently as M' Lady Rothermere took a dislike to him. According to PE, she dislikes Dacre even more for his cunting of staff and reign of terror. Hence his attacks on the BBC recently, the best form of defence being attack. He will retire with wads of money, but people like Littlejohn will get the heave- ho under a new editorship.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#269024
I'd have very little problem* with the Mail or Mail Online if they were to drop the Drip. After all, Huffpo UK covers much the same material with no political bias (or not much) and is getting to be popular. So let's look forward to Leveson, to the leaving party (what odds everyone's washing their hair that night?).
Then people can get on to making it less sexist, ageist, lookist and so on, bringing it into the second half of the 20th century.

Perhaps the days of the Mailite, like the EDL, are numbered.

*I think that the tone would change a very great deal to try to attract a younger, more tolerant, more worldly readerhip.
 
By D.C. Harrison
Membership Days Posts
#269090
Paul wrote:According to Private Eye, Dacre is in for a rogering when Leveson reports. Peter Wright was ditched as Editor of the Mail On Sunday recently as M' Lady Rothermere took a dislike to him. According to PE, she dislikes Dacre even more for his cunting of staff and reign of terror. Hence his attacks on the BBC recently, the best form of defence being attack. He will retire with wads of money, but people like Littlejohn will get the heave- ho under a new editorship.
I think that was what I was reaching at, with my horrific Transformers comparision, whether yer man who runs MailOnline can position himself to edge out Dacre because he has more draw with Rothermore. I suppose it depends on the comparision between how much cash the site brings in compared to the actual paper.
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#269203
Likely the website. Print newspapers, unless you follow the Desmond model of minimal staff and reliance on wire services, are (and have been long before the internet) a money pit. I recall hearing an interview with Eve Pollard in the early 1990s, when she said that what every newspaper dreamed of was an owner prepared to throw cash at it. The press barons didn't run papers to make money, they ran them to gain influence.

On the other hand, the website has less outlay in terms of paper, distribution etc, but draws in the same (if not more, as space is technically unlimited) advertising revenue. It's Amazon vs Waterstones.
Climate change and "politics"

BR, you may want it to be treated as a purely scie[…]

Indeed. I've recently had someone on Quora tell m[…]

Brexit Fuckwit Thread

And of course, the BBC carried all of it live, wit[…]

Nigel Farage

He seemed to appear every TV news studio on Tuesda[…]