Problems with Daily Mail - Report Example

Problems with Daily Mail The Daily Mail is considered by many to be problematic. What (if any) is the problem with the Daily Mail andwhy is it like this? The Daily Mail is one of UK’s most cherished tabloids newspapers. Having started its publications in 1896, the newspaper is owned by The Daily Mail and General Trust. It must be noted that the Daily Mail is the UK’s second most selling newspaper, just after The Sun. What’s rather different about the Daily Mail is the fact that the newspaper was the first and only newspaper in the UK that was majorly aimed towards the newly-learned English middle class population. In its initial days the newspaper’s sales were high primarily as a result of various competitions and promotional stunts deployed by the editors. The Daily Mail is considered by many to be problematic. Throughout history it has been involved with situations that have casted doubt on the news paper’s integrity towards clean journalism. It is believed that the Daily Mail is one of those newspapers that politicians all over the UK need to maintain a good relationship with as it can turn to be a crucial sentiment mover amongst the masses, especially during times of elections, making near-losers win and vice versa. On the contrary, enemies need to think twice before declaring war against the tabloid, or challenging its views as it is one of those newspapers whose wrath should be avoided at best. The problem with most newspapers and television news companies is alike; they focus on delivering breaking news the fastest amongst their competitors and also make sure to spice up news with information which is often illegitimate in a bid up to boost up their clientele and sales. The Daily Mail is no exception to this problem, just like many other newspapers all over the world, including the United Kingdom. While I would quote a few cases from the Daily Mail later in this paper to prove my point, I would right now focus on the reasons that lead the editors to allow such stories to be featured (SKOG, 2007). The competition amongst companies contributing towards various forms of media is cut-throat. Television news companies often compete on “breaking the news” first in a bid to claim its viewers that they were the first to inform them about a particular issue. However, what often happens in such cases is that the editors claim to verify the genuineness of the news before releasing it on to media, just so they remain ahead of others. This situation is highly critical and is practiced by almost all news companies across the globe. While this holds true mainly for television news companies and less for newspapers, in the current times almost all newspapers have an online presence where they compete to release information via videos and tweets. Another issue that is of highly critical nature is that most newspapers fabricate their news, often getting involved in yellow journalism in a bid to attract more readers and hike up their sales. Almost all newspapers practice this act which can rather be referred to a norm in the newspaper industry today. This situation is highly dangerous and the editors need to understand the complications of the issue. A brief example of this case would be how the UK media dealt with the case of Princess Dianna post her death. While it is very clear that Princess Dianna died as a result of a car accident, various news agencies spiced up the story with details that were rather “deep and cheap” without even verifying the genuineness of the news. Various news agencies went on quoting that Dianna’s boyfriend was behind the death, while others claimed that the accident was actually not an accident but a planted scenario where the UK secret services carried out the execution on the orders of UK’s Queen. Some even went to the extent of claiming Princess Dianna died in the accident as she was escaping from the Royal House with her boyfriend. While this is just an example, various newspapers including the Daily Mail got involved in it in a bid to hike up their sales and provide readers with “different and interesting information” (ROGERS, 2005). We now look at a few cases involving the Daily Mail where its coverage of the issues concerned was deemed to be “problematic”. In 2013 the tabloid ran a story about the father of the leader of the Labor Party, Ed Miliband. The story mentioned how Miliband’s father was a supporter of class warfare and how Mr. Miliband had inherited the same belief from him. In response to the story published by the Daily Mail, Mr. Ed Miliband wrote a rebuttal clarifying the position of his father where he mentioned his father had migrated to the United Kingdom as a refugee, and also served the state by participating in the Royal Navy during the Second World War. He ended his rebuttal by lines which clearly read out the fact that though one can’t libel people who have passed away, you can surely smear them (pointing towards the Daily Mail). The events that followed the case ended up even Miliband’s political rivals taking his side and uniting against the Daily Mail and criticizing its actions. The situation went on to such an extent that the Deputy Prime Minister of UK went on to say of the Daily Mail that the paper excels in degenerating and vilifying about Britain (USA Today, 2013). Had the Daily Mail carried out due diligence before issuing their publication, it would not have had to face the scenario. The issue brought many to take a stance against the daily, and calls for boycott of the tabloid have made by various Labour party leaders. As mentioned earlier, newspapers like the Daily Mail often fabricate information, often not carrying out proper research before publication in a bid to provide its readers with information that hikes up sales (Mirror Online, 2013). We now discuss another scenario where the Daily Mail had to face embarrassment due to its acts. Here we look at an article published by the Daily Mail where it took to task a feminism support group for selling its shirts at a high cost shirts that were procured by them at a cheap cost. It must be understood that an independent website, the Frisky took on the Daily Mail in this case to prove the point that the newspaper indeed is sexist, and involved in false and fabricated reporting (The Frisky, 2014). The Daily Mail pointed out that the charity was ripping of people with its high prices and since it was a feminist support group it didn’t carry out an audit of the Company it gave its shirt orders to. It also pointed out that the Company that produced the shirts for the charity in the UK was based in Mauritius and paid very low wages to its female workers and failed to provide them proper work conditions. The rebuttal from The Frisky compared the wages between UK and Mauritius and also provided statistics which proved Mauritius was much more of a feminist friendly country and provided better rights to its females as compared to the UK. The Frisky concluded with the fact that the Daily Mail got involved in fabricated reporting just to prove its point and this was plain yellow journalism (The Frisky, 2014). The Daily Mail needs to understand that it cannot thrive with its false and cheap reporting and needs to fix its policies to ensure that it thrives as a successful tabloid newspaper going forward. Bibliography USA Today. 2013. U.K.s powerful Daily Mail faces a political storm. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/04/daily-mail-controversy/2923271/. [Accessed 19 January 15]. Mirror Online. 2013. "Daily Mail Hates Britain": Demonstrators gather outside newspapers HQ to protest over controversial Ed Miliband coverage. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/daily-mail-hates-britain-demonstrators-2344700. [Accessed 19 January 15]. The Frisky. 2014. HE DAILY MAIL FABRICATED A CONTROVERSY OVER T-SHIRTS TO SULLY A WOMEN’S RIGHTS ORGANIZATION, AND IT WORKED. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.thefrisky.com/2014-11-06/the-daily-mail-fabricated-a-controversy-over-t-shirts-to-sully-a-womens-rights-organization-and-it-worked/. [Accessed 19 January 15]. SKOG, J. (2007). Yellow journalism. Minneapolis, Minn, Compass Point Books. ROGERS, A. G. (2005). Yellow journalism. Amawalk, N.Y., Jackdaw Publications. Read More