The Problem with the Daily Mail - Case Study Example

THE PROBLEM WITH THE DAILY MAIL A lot of people have, for a long time, regarded The Daily Mail as a biased source of disinformation, super-hype, and exaggeration. Despite these allegations, a scrutiny of the Daily Mail reports on different threads show a close correlation with similar reports on other streamline media platforms such as the BBC website. In this regard, this paper aims at examining the various issues that have exacerbated the dislike on the Daily Mail. A lot of people consider the company as problematic and always out of touch with the real issues that affect the populace.In order to arrive at a succinct conclusion regarding these issues, the paper forms an in-depth analysis of the operations of the Daily Mail.This is done with a keen regard to the kind of content often reported by the newspaper. A review of such reports and threads will help in understanding the kind of discontent and dismay that people often portray regarding the Daily Mail. There are many reasons why different kinds of people find the reporting of the Daily Mail a bit problematic. Some of the issues given include the tin-eared coverage of several contentious issues, including immigration and race relations issues (Burnell, 2012).Concerns have also been raised pertaining to the method in which the newspaper columnists espouse their hateful sentiments on some of the key aspects that the society may regard as essential in their overall well-being. Indeed, one of the most profound complaints raised by left-aligned activists against the Daily Mail is the way the newspaper adopts various issues that they seek to highlight (Swipe, 2012). In highlighting these issues, the newspaper appears to make the insinuation that these issues are the norm and the ultimate truth. It is notable that there is a great problem in such kind of reporting. While other newspapers and tabloids may still be reporting on similar issues as the Daily Mail, they leave a room for critical analysis of the issues without making any final judgment. It is up to the public to analyse the issues and come up with a most appropriate conclusion (Simpson, 2010). Therefore, it is plausible that many people often perceive the reporting of the Daily Mail a bit problematic. This is so especially in the way in which the columnists and reporters try to force the readers into accepting the facts reported as the final truth of the situation at hand (Digital Spy, 2007). For most of the late 2000s, the Daily Mail demonstrated a great obsession with house prices and the manner in which they change, in both directions. In fact, the recent decreases in house prices in the country have initiated massive panic and rage across the Daily Mail front pages and headlines.In spite of the fact that these decreases represent a small fraction of the overall price surges experienced in the preceding years.Furthermore, the Mail has been seen as a leading voice in demeaning anybody who makes claims to any form of social benefits for any particular reason. This has happened despite the fact that more than fifteen million people have received the State Pension as part of a social benefit. Therefore, the negative reporting by the Daily Mail has only served to fuel stigma against the majority of the genuine claimants, as well as discouraging individuals who may need assistance in accessing the pension. It is these kinds of misleading information that have built the avalanche of animosity against the newspaper by a great segment of the U.K populace (Williams, 2005). Another area of reporting that attracts significant level of discontentment about the Daily Mail stems from the level of research conducted by the newspaper.The Daily Mail error most of the time in preparing news statements especially those that touch on the moral fabric of the society. In many instances, the Daily Mail has come under heavy criticism for makes reports that are soon deciphered to have been inaccurate, insensitive, misleading, and at times, defamatory and homophobic. For example, an article criticizing the aspects of life and death of Stephen Gately went down in history as the article that has ever received the highest number of public complaints. (Booth, 2009). It is important to note that many people were unhappy with the content and even the timing of the article given that it was published only six days after Gately’s death. Thus, the newspaper editors are not able to read the public mood and determine the sensitivity of any given piece of information, has increased public dislike against the Daily Mail. This kind of public outrage has not only portrayed the newspaper as insensitive to the culture of the people but has also resulted in immense loss of revenue on the newspaper. For instance, in the wake of the article about Gately’s life and death, major advertisers pulled down their adverts on the Daily Mail website. In a similar manner to the reporting above, the Daily Mail came under heavy criticism again in 2013.This was due to an article about Ralph Miliband, who happened to be the father of the leader of the Labor Party, Ed Miliband.The article insinuated that Miliband had some hatred against Britain and even portrayed a photo of Ralph’s graveside. Even though the Daily Mail later admitted that the content of the article was an error in judgment. The damage had already been made, and this reinforced people’s growing hatred against the newspaper (Bond, 2013). It is noteworthy that the major source of dislike against the Mail stems from its mode of reporting on sensitive issues, especially those that do not augur well with the British society. This includes any form of reporting that seems to display the country or any of its leaders, in a negative light to the rest of the world. Apart from the content of the news, the scheduling is also a major issue. However, the second greatest source of negativity against the Daily Mail is premised on the public dislike of the way in which the newspaper major columnists present their opinion on varying key issues (Wilby, 2013). Before her departure as a senior columnist for the Daily Mail, Melanie Philips attracted a lot of dislike from the public regarding her open contempt against unbelievers. Her outward conviction that prominent media personalities showed be perceived as moral role models (Beckett, 2003). Furthermore, her method of reporting in her daily column proved the assertion that columnists in the Daily Mail are quite insensitive on matters that touch on public interest. For example, Melanie often accused some particular liberal enemies of designing their ideological cloth in a way that best served their infidelities and divorces. Even though the columnists are entitled to their opinion on various matters, it becomes counterproductive when such opinions are presented in a way that portrays them as the official viewpoint of the Daily Mail. It becomes more problematic when the columnists try to force such opinions on the public by presenting them as the whole truth of the matter (Seaton, 2003). Many critics have equated the Daily Mail with the New York Post in the U. S. and the Drudge Report (Conboy, 2005). It is notable that these media platforms are often associated with incompetent editorial capabilities, and a team of team of reporters who cannot perform serious news coverage (Conboy, 2005). In fact, the Daily Mail has become notable in the U.K among the newspapers. It is known for rejecting the standard red-top banner in an attempt to come out as more respectable and up-market (Bingham, 2004). The tabloid has also earned some degree of notoriety for its regular harassment of individuals, incessant campaigns against various minorities, and intended deception against its regular readers. In conclusion, it is notable that the contentious sentiments displayed and expressed against the Daily Mail result from the tabloid’s personalized and sensationalist style of news coverage and reporting. The blurring of the boundaries between entertainment and politics, coupled with the partisan and populist political interpretations has not augured well with a great majority of the public. People still believe that they have the right to interpret events and form an unbiased opinion.For as long as the Daily Mail continues to present news articles that heavily derived from opinion of the columnists and less on research, then, public dismay on the newspaper will only increase by day. Appendix The figures below show the performance of the Daily Mail amid the heated debate about its mode of reporting. Ironically, it seems that the hatred portrayed against the newspaper has not had any significant effect on its performance when compared with other leading papers. It can only be concluded that people, who hate the Daily Mail, are its most avid readers. Fig 1: statistical report for the five-year period from 2009-2014 (Sweney, 2014). Daily average browsers 11,768,620 Month-on-month change +19.96% Year-on-year change +47.53% Month-on-month +17.49% Fig 2: statistical report for 2014 (Sweney, 2014). Headline circulation 1,802,083 Month-on-month change +1.13% Year-on-year change: -5.85% Saturday 2,459,636 UK and Ireland paid-for circulation 1,634,180 (90.6% of total) Overseas 76,070 Bulks 91,833 References Beckett, A., 2003. The Changing Face of Melanie Phillips. [Online] Available at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/mar/07/dailymail.pressandpublishing [Accessed 14 January 15]. Bingham, A., 2004. Gender, Modernity, and the popular press in inter-war Britain. London: Oxford University Press. Bond, A., 2013. Daily Mail Hates Britain": Demonstrators gather outside newspaper's HQ to protest over controversial Ed Miliband coverage. [ONLINE] Available athttp://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/daily-mail-hates-britain-demonstrators-2344700. [Accessed 14 January 15]. Booth, R., 2009. Daily Mail column on Stephen Gately death provokes record complaints. [ONLINE] Available at http://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-boyzone. [Accessed 14 January 15]. Burnell, E., 2012. Why people read the Daily Mail. [ONLINE] Available athttp://shiftinggrounds.org/2012/09/why-people-read-the-daily-mail/. [Accessed 14 January 15]. Conboy, M., 2005. Tabloid Britain: The Construction of a Community Through Language, London: Routledge. Digital Spy. 2007. What's the big problem with the Daily Mail ?. [ONLINE] Available athttp://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=603272. [Accessed 14 January 15]. Seaton, J., 2003. Public, Private, and the Media. Political Quarterly, 74(2): 174-183 Simpson, J 2010. Unreliable sources: how the 20th century was reported. London, United Kingdom: Macmillan Sweney, M 2014. Daily Mail, Daily Mirror and Daily Star report sales increase. [ONLINE] Available at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/sep/06/daily-mail-mirror-star-circulation-august. [Accessed 14 January 15]. Swipe, R 2012. Why do so many people hate the Daily Mail newspaper? [ONLINE] Available at https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121028072119AAoLyce. [Accessed 14 January 15]. Wilby, P., 2013. Paul Dacre of the Daily Mail: The man who hates liberal Britain. [ONLINE] Available at http:// www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-liberal-britain. [Accessed 14 January 15]. Williams, K., 2005.European Media Studies. London: Arnold. Read More