[Andy McDandy]

Not the paper, but the concept.

It occurs to me that one thing the right really don't like is being shown their own selves. They don't like being shown up as stupid (Brighton 'mosque' image), admitting they're wrong or out of control (Brexit) and really don't like being shown the consequences of their trains of thought. Hence any far right or extremist nutter being a pathetic sad case, and never representative of the people they claim to champion.

It's not just a British thing - I think we're seeing it in the USA with the kneeling protests and the reaction to them.

Thoughts?

[mr angry manchester]

Typical reaction of a bully. Show them up for what they are and they don't like it and throw tantrums, also they never admit that they are wrong and shout even more. Dacre over Ed Millibands Dad was an example.

[Andy McDandy]

Yes, double down and go for broke in that case.

I think that Dacre takes the attitude of "if you don't like It, don't buy it", so his justification is that he's speaking for his readers, as if they didn't agree, they'd not buy his paper.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Yes, double down and go for broke in that case.

I think that Dacre takes the attitude of "if you don't like It, don't buy it", so his justification is that he's speaking for his readers, as if they didn't agree, they'd not buy his paper.

And in that, of course, he is correct.

[Boiler]

This made me think about Hugh Muir's programme on Radio 4 this week about the lack of diversity in print newsrooms having an impact on the content.

I think Muir missed the point - the audience for the content is self-selecting and so, having a newsroom made up of white middle class, university-educated men will appeal massively to a certain section of the populace. Its audience doesn't want alternatives explained to it - it wants to see its thoughts reinforced, not challenged. Financially, the Mail model is working well for the parent company so why change it? It's one of the few newspaper sites not to paywall its content, shove a begging bowl in front of you, or bleat about you using an ad-blocker.

[youngian]

Big on ego and low on intellect. Most conspiracy theorists think they know something clever most people don't due to not knowing much at all. And like fanatics what they most fear is the possibility they are wrong and that maybe no one is pulling the strings. Not the Brussels bureaucrats, the bankers, Muslamics, metropolitan elites etc.

[Boiler]

There is another thought that has has crossed my mind, spurred on by a little spat I had tonight with someone elsewhere.

Andy says that "...the right really don't like [is] being shown their own selves". But that presumes a level of both intelligence and self-awareness for them to realise that the 'reflection' is ugly. Most people I know on the right are, as @youngian has pointed out, big on ego and low on intellect. They genuinely do not believe that what they say, and do, has any element of "wrong" about it and more to the point, how dare we as mere lefties who as 'we' all know, are stupid because we're lefties, question them?

I think, as Malc is wont to say, this is Dunning-Kruger writ large.