Another post? I must be a sucker for punishment.

The Month of Mail is over, I've been allowed to read what I want since Monday. Unfortunately I appear to have decided that I want to, at time, continue to read the Mail. Only from a purely 'interested' position, I'm not making it my daily paper.

I've been promising a 'debrief' all week, I'll get to it, but this week hasn't been great work-wise, and sometimes, things just get in the way. Tomorrow, or Sunday. Don't hold your breath!

From my privileged position where I can now pick up any paper, read any blog, listen to any radio station (it is AMAZING!) I've been thinking about similarities and differences between different news outlets. By this I mean The Daily Mail, and The Guardian.

Here we begin with the printer cartridge bomb plot. The thing that I'm interested about is the difference between what the Mail has to say about it, and what the Mail has to say about it.

Lets begin with the article concerning this from the Guardian:

This article, from yesterday (4th) says the idea that the bomb being diffused with only 17 minutes before detonating was 'disputed'.

But what does the Mail say:

Oh, It was 'ready to explode'... This article was last updated this morning. Over twelve hours after the 'fact' was disputed. But you know, sometimes the facts are buried in a Mail article

Nope, sticking with it.

M. Hortefeux's statements in both articles were 'not elaborated'. However, for the Mail that is enough to be true, while for the Guardian there is a level of doubt in the statement.

Part 2... Poppies!

Oh Marina, a little close to agreeing with Jan Moir! Just an observation...

and finally one STUPID observation from Littlejohn, and a tasteful story from the Mail

I don't think that I need to elaborate.

Come back tomorrow (or Sunday) for a debrief!

Matt

Top rated comments

Not sure if I should be pleased or sad about having a 'top rated' comment on the Daily Mail site...

Two places to the top!
Three days left!

Matt

Dare to suggest torture is unjustifiable on the Daily Mail...

Imagine you were to believe that torture is always wrong. I wonder what Mail readers would think of that? Lets have a quick look at a clip of a comments section for this article:

Oh, they'll try and shout you down. Who'd guess?

Matt.

political compasses

For the sake of balance I also took this political compass test. It measures pragmatism as well as left-right...

Between Tony Benn and 'Red' Ken Livingstone apparently. Full results here if you care to look.

I'm not sure the Mail has turned me towards it's world view yet, still got four days to try!

No Sleep 'Til Brooklands: The Olivers/Mohammeds are coming!

As I've mentioned - Also been done here, slightly different numbers, but you know, depends what you count! Head over there, and check it out.

No Sleep 'Til Brooklands: The Olivers/Mohammeds are coming!: "Is it that time of year again already? Every year, a list of the most popular names given to newborn babies in England and Wales is publishe..."

Pervwatch courtesy of Daily Mail

Today I am going to focus first on the pervy stories that the Mail runs on a daily basis. I'll then have a quick look at anti-Muslim sentiments expressed in certain articles and finish with a cheeky look at the inclusion of anti-PC statements in an article about Inter-planetary space travel.

Perv Watch 2010:

First in our review of stuff from the Mail over the last couple of days, and following on from the pieces on both Miss Momsen and Sexygleegate is this interesting juxtaposition of paedo-story and titillating schoolgirl story:

It's the two stories so close together, it almost says "what a dirty paedo, but if schoolgirls insist on wearing skirts..." Although to be fair I didn't read too far in to it, you know what it's like after 27 days of reading only the Mail, you tend to get jaded.

Also Note the story about Jon Snow and his "Zimbabwe-born wife" (you know what those liberals are like - they marry foreign women. Probably to get her a visa.)

Next the lecherous writers turn their attention to the 'news' of some bloke out of a band's thirteen year old daughter.  I've taken a few screengrabs, I've probably directed too many links to the Mail recently.

Here we go:

First, she's wearing a "grown up dress" and has "endless long legs" and "looks more like a 16-year-old than a girl barely in to her teens". Nice, and certainly not ogling a child.

Next, "Ava looked stunning". Which isn't pervy at all. And...

Ooh, she's "as tall as her actress mother". Nice, Daily Mail, nice.

The more observant among you will have also noticed the sideline stories which include no fewer than five stories objectifying women. This leads us nicely to this story about why Western women convert to Islam in which the author asks:

 "How, I wondered, could women be drawn to a religion which I felt had kept me in such a lowly, submissive place? How could their experiences of Islam be so very different to mine?" 

You'd think that Mail readers would be keen to get involved with Islam when it's described in this way:


"I grew up in Germany in a not very religious Protestant family. I drank and I partied, but I realised that we need to behave well now so we have a good after-life. We are responsible for our own actions."


And the converts used to do all the things that the Mail 'hates':

"She says: ‘I would go out and get drunk with friends, wear tight and revealing clothing and date boys."


And...

"For some converts, Islam represents a celebration of old-fashioned family values.

‘Some are drawn to the sense of belonging and of community — values which have eroded in the West,’ says Haifaa Jawad, a senior lecturer at the University of Birmingham, who has studied the white conversion phenomenon.

‘Many people, from all walks of life, mourn the loss in today’s society of traditional respect for the elderly and for women, for example. These are values which are enshrined in the Koran, which Muslims have to live by,’ adds Brice"

Community! respect for the elderly! Values! But perhaps I am ahead of myself...

"It is values like these which drew Camilla Leyland, 32, a yoga teacher who lives in Cornwall, to Islam. A single mother to daughter, Inaya, two, she converted in her mid-20s for ‘intellectual and feminist reasons’.

She explains: ‘I know people will be surprised to hear the words “feminism” and “Islam” in the same breath, but in fact, the teachings of the Koran give equality to women, and at the time the religion was born, the teachings went against the grain of a misogynistic society."

Ah! They're feminists, as well as Muslims! I'm not really sure where they were going with that casual bit of Islamophobia. And then we had this story, which I think is definitely untrue.

"Mohammed is now the most popular name for baby boys ahead of Jack and Harry". The article tells us that this is only true if you massage the figures and add all the different spellings of "Mohammed" together. 

That totals 7,549. Remember that. Next the "Top 10 other boys' names". Here the numbers (not included in the graphic) are, in order: 7364; 7090; 6143; 5536; 5526; 5520; 5409; 5247; 4544; 4444. The highest ranking 'Mohammed is no. 16 at 3300. 

The Mail's argument is that if you add the spellings of Mohammed together that totals more than any name in the 'top 10'. However with just a quick look at the statistics (you can find the ONS .xls file here) it can be seen that by adding together all the spellings of "Oliver" you reach a total of 8,280 by my calculations (731 more than combining all of the 'Mohammeds'). And 'Jack' in all it's spellings gives us 7275 babies - 7547 if you also include 'Jackson' or 7558 you also include 'Jacky'. 

You can prove anything with statistics, and, if you're the Daily Mail, it helps if you can prove something that holds up your Islam-hating viewpoint. I posted something to this effect on the Daily Mail website but their pre-moderated comments stopped that appearing. 

A final P.S to this - these statistics only cover England and Wales.

Lastly for today I give you this screenshot from a story about a discussion regarding a space mission to Mars (I think that the 'project' is merely a discussion between rich people at the moment).

Congratulations to the Mail for the shoe-horning in of anti-PC ideas into a theoretical discussion about Space flight, and extra points for getting in how great things were in the past as opposed to now. You know, before all this "'elf and safety" malarkey. And when you could force the poor to work in dangerous factories and chimneys and mines, and they were grateful just to hear about the king and doff their hats at passing gentry. BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEIR PLACE.

Political opinions: more left than before

Throat: Sore

Days left: 4!!!!

Matt

Primly Stable: "Strict rules"

Primly Stable: "Strict rules". Well written deconstruction of Daily Mail's creation of outrage where the BBC is concerned.

Turns out pointing out the flaws in the Daily Mail is close to a full time job... before I started this month I thought that their idiocy was an occasional thing. Turns out I was wrong.

P.s. You should definitely head over to Primly Stable, it's very good.

Priorities?

I'm not sure, but I think that the Mail may have their 'World News' priorities all wrong. How long has this Cholera outbreak been going on? This is the first I've heard about it, and it certainly wasn't on the front page (as of 8am this morning).

That one story may well be the only actual bit of 'news' on the entire page.

Matt

EDIT 2: As of 1600 today the Haiti story had been relegated to over halfway down the page. You've got to go looking for it. Time permitting I'll return to some of these stories in the coming days.

[Edit: change of 't' to 'T' in the word 'This]

The Penultimate Weekend

I've got a mere seven days left of this ridiculous project, and some of you, if you follow my twitter feed, will know it is beginning to really get to me. I cannot stand the Mail, and I am resolved in my opinion that it is poisonous and dangerous to British society. Ill informed opinions, downright lies and misogyny fill its pages. For it to be called a newspaper disgraces the old press. Mark Thomas' 'Manifesto' tour gave us the suggestion that we should:

Require the Daily Mail to print the following on every front page: "This is a fictional representation of the news. Any resemblance to real life is purely coincidental."

I believe now that this should be enacted as swiftly as possible.

Before I move on to the digest of 'stories' I've been experiencing from the Daily Mail these last few days I shall present the results of this week's political compass test. I've compiled all three tests to date into one handy guide to the movements of my political leanings over the last near-month. 

I've got to say that this week the result really was a bit of a surprise.

I would imagine that this result has been caused by my reaction to the bigoted nonsense that fills my eyes on a daily basis....

Well, so, there you go, I can't prove anything at present. I think that I'll continue to take a test with reasonable regularity after this is all over and try to find out how much of this movement is just related to the way in which you may naturally change how you answer questions and how much is linked to the paper that I am currently reading. 

Next, we move on to a special double edition of the game that no one is calling 'Who wants to be a Mailionaire?'. Firstly I present the standard edition, in which it is revealed that I agreed with the readers of the Mail twice, in that Britain is not a world power, and that students should not pay £36,000 for a degree. A massive 91% of reactionary bigots in Mail-land do not think that we should be spending money on overseas aid, and it would appear that 60% of idiots think that we need more cuts.                                               The one slightly vexed question if the BBC 'over 75's Licence Fee' one. I figure that of course the elderly should be provided with state benefits - and, perhaps a free TV licence is a nice addition to any pension, but I can't quite work out what the paper is getting at here (other than the BBC, obviously). I chose the 'no' button, but in this I assumed that this was a choice between covering the fees from the BBC budget, or the provision being subsidised by central government, a choice I think that I'd prefer to see.                           And now, part two of this week's Mailionaire. This ties in with the 'scandal' that is rarely being referred to as 'sexy glee-gate'. I wrote about this non-existent scandal earlier in the week. It really was a storm in an idiot's teacup. Anyway, there was a poll regarding sexygleegate today, so I took it:                                                        

Turns out that Glee has become marginally too sexualised... Top work Daily Mail.

On the subject of non-existent scandals,   Press not Sorry's post on twitter earlier drew my attention to this utter load of bollocks non-story dreamt up by the Fail. Apparently an advert that has not led to a single complaint to ASA is "controversial" and "has caused offence". Ok, sounds plausible. Oh, and one more - there was also this not-at-all-controversial-controversy that popped up, and also provided the lecherous twats at the Mail with the opportunity to print a picture of a seventeen year old's breasts. (I did have a quick look at the video that the paper got their screengrab from, you'd need lightning-fast reflexes to be able to pause the video in such a way as to show more than a tiny bit of boob).

And now to business. I'm going to start with the comments that followed an article about Tony Blair's Half-sister-in-law converting to Islam. Apparently she had a religious experience that made her want to become Muslim (how this is news, I'm unsure), but the reaction to this from some of my friends at the Mail is outstanding.  We'll begin with Martin who says:

And what's wrong with our Christian religion? You can have spirituality without the ridiculous costume, have a glass of wine, eat any meat you want and basically not act subservient. Get a life woman!

Which might be a fair point, if you a) subscribe to the idea that Christianity is 'ours' and b) choose your religion based on the menu choices and the clothes. (I'd go Hare Krishna every time - who doesn't love lentils, and I've never met someone who looks bad in Orange.)

Or how about:

Does this silly woman realise that in Islam as a woman she has less status than a cow ?

Which comes from Mr. G (Not Mr. B, who is, after all, the gentleman rhymer). Finally, we get this comment, which, at time of writing had 180 'Red Arrows' (the Mail's way of allowing idiots to shout down any balanced arguments appearing in the comments section of the website).

Peace be upon You All... Welcome sister to the religion of Peace May peace and blessings of Allah be upon You... May God almighty Allah give you the beneficial knowledge of Islam Aameen... My request to the brothers and sisters in humanity to read Quran the final revelation from God almighty and accept the truth... May Peace and blessings of Allah be upon our final Prophet Mohammed and his family and the true believers in the oneness of Allah till the day of judgement Aameen...

- Mashkoor basha, india, 24/10/2010 13:59

There are plenty more stories of note today, I'll get back to this tomorrow or tonight.

Matt

Until then.

Days left: 7!!!!!!!

[note. I realise that I said"I'm going to start with" then only covered one thing, I'm sorry about that oversight everyone!]

Cut out and keep budget special souvenir issue

Before we get on to the main event, the very very first thing to say is about the demonstration of Mail idiocy and inconsistency that has occurred today. Obviously we know that this flip-flopping and inconsistency is a key feature of the Mail's content but this was exceptionally well demonstrated today.

I am, of course, talking about the 'sexy glee' fiasco, as it is sure to not become known as. I've been pointed in the direction of this, (fantastic piece from Primly Stable) that demonstrates the change in tack throughout the day, but, as I check it now this article has appeared (actually just more stuff tacked on to the original article with a new headline). Don't people know not to give these reactionary idiots an inch? In it Glee's Dianna Agron expresses remorse at her photo shoot. I'm not sure why the Mail gets so uppity about scantily clad women when it so clearly loves the objectification of anyone with tits and a breath in their body. Additionally I had the pleasure of this article which demonstrates, with the help of scienticians, that pregnancy makes women more intelligent. Take that you childless, barren lefties, and while you're at it note the CAPS LOCK in the URL.

So, to the main event. I've been through as much of today's Mail as I could manage with a highlighter. A little like a forensic psychologist going through the contradictory, rambling letters of a convicted murderer.

Today really has been MAILPOCALYPSE. An exceptional day of contradiction, misguided anger and the uncertainty inherent in not knowing if you should be angry that white middle class men are most impacted upon by the budget, or angry that it isn't hard enough on people on benefits, OR that those gosh-darn foreigners are going to get hold of OUR money (isn't this what we fought WWII for?). One question that I must ask at this point is what does the phrase "charity begins at home" really mean? It's being tossed around in the comments section like confetti at a wedding.

Labour's decades of relentless expansion (a bad thing?) is being cut back, and the welfare system is being 'dismembered' to save us from a 'decade of debt'. This will result in Women and middle class families being hardest hit (really? I assume that women will be hit hard, after all, Tories hate them, but the middle classes, really?).

It sounds like cutting benefits will save £270m, but I'm uncertain as to where this number has come from, I'll find out in November...

All these cuts are apparently going to 'restore 'sanity to our public finances'' and result in 'a more prosperous, fairer Britain', although how 'hitting women and middle classes' and wheelchair users is actually fair is beyond me. One thing that this has made me think about is the combined worth of the cabinet and coalition - could they do a whip-round and cover the deficit?

The Mail coverage demonstrates about a £80bn saving, as far as I can see from my ignorant vantage point (It's ok guys, £6m is coming from the queen!). However the higher cap on annual rail fare increases will save an 'unknown' amount. Is that because it is a massive ideological 'fuck you' to working Britain?

A comment piece from Max Hastings tells us that the pain will be worth it (bend over and take it women and young families), and Dominic Sandbrook presents a confused historical defence of old Gid, as 'history tells us unpopular chancellors are always the best'. I'm not sure if this is true. The article itself does not seem to actually back this up, merely that chancellors are often prone to messing with our economy, you know, like what there actual job is.

Additional stories of interest:

• Muslims protest against extractor fan. Although even within the story itself this doesn't seem to be entirely true - and the URL is misleading on top of all that...
• Cheryl Cole has a new tattoo
• Is this hormone the secret key to a longer life? - I don't know, is it, you're the paper, tell me.
• Squatters take over hotelier's home when he goes on week long holiday (the second such story this month)
• Maggie Thatcher is following the spending cuts in hospital. Probably loving it
• Police waste two hours removing road hazards (Shopping trolleys). I wish they'd just leave them to cause RTCs.
• And, my personal favourite: 'Zoo breeds rare pigs..then kills them to hit quotas set by Europe'. This is a pointless story (surprise) that demonstrates throughout that there are reasons behind the cull which the Mail chooses to paper over and merely focus on the outrage. It has since been re-headlined 'Silence of the Hams' - got to hand it to them, that's not that bad. 

And it was there, on p41 that I gave up. Sorry for letting you down. I hate the days when I actually buy a hard copy.

New update at the weekend, and in other news you'll be pleased to know I finished my Spanish homework prior to my night class.

Matt

p.s. watching the taking of Prince Harry, there's apparently already been outrage about it, but I don't see why, it's quite dull.

and p.p.s.

Do you have a story about a celebrity? Call the Daily Mail showbusiness desk on 0207 938 6364 or 0207 938 6683 - probably would, if I were you.

Happy Budget Day

I’ve been away for a while in some sort of terrible Wicker Man scenario, locked away from the world in a remote Lake District Cottage, in a tiny village with no central heating, hot water, phones, TV or internet access. I had only the Daily Mail, Mrs. AMOM and a fleecy blanket for company (and a medical textbook from 1935 we found in the cottage – a document that demonstrated a better understanding of modern medical science than most DM reporters). There were ups and downs, but mostly I enjoyed keeping up to date with what the X Factor contestants were up to, and the continued drivel of DM ‘News’.

As there is a need for me to be entirely open and honest, I must admit to a couple of things. Firstly I have lapsed twice. I was sent an article that appeared in the Guardian, regarding those wonderful, insightful, intelligent people Insane Clown Posse, I read it in it’s entirety, but honestly, given that to read, who wouldn’t at least have a peak? I also read a short article on the BBC website regarding the slightly too short Cardiff Half Marathon, this was mostly because I was disappointed that my first Half was, in fact nearly 200m short. I may get over the bitter sting of being let down so horribly one day.
Back to business.

My favourite headline from the previous week has been the one entitled "Cancer almost unknown in Ancient Times". @pressnotsorry kindly provided me a link to an article debunking this ridiculous piece of scientific reportage. However, I did not read this (probably) very good article (I will do on November 1 ^st) on the grounds that it may provide too much of a balanced view of science.

And now, to the big issues… Below is a direct quote from the Daily Mail online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322070/Budget-airlines-make-pay-NOT-flying.html). I’ve not edited anything.
"When it comes to making a claim, insurers demand evidence you haven't flown. But many budget airlines charge up to £25 for 'no show' letters, which can eat up most of any reclaim.

More...

• £1.25 a litre: Price of petrol to hit a record high in weeks, followed by threat of even worse to come
• Disposable income falls for nine months in a row as families squeezed by ever-rising bills
• Raoul Moat victim PC is refused refund on flight tickets after doctors warned him not to fly 
• Gatwick Airport gets the green light for A380 superjumbo to land

Thomas Cook charges £25, Bmibaby's fee is £20 and Ryanair's letter costs £17 per booking. Flybe doesn't make a charge, neither does easyJet. Major airlines such as BA and Virgin also don't charge.

Insurers won't cover this cost, arguing that it's part of the written proof you have to supply. To cap it all, you'll have to pay the first part of any insurance claim - typically £50 to £100. " Yet again I’m entirely frustrated by the DM’s lack of internal consistency. They claim that there are massive charges that, in fact turn out not to exist, and then describe – shockingly – the way that an insurance excess works. This is a story that does not need to exist, being spun in a way to stir up anger. "If you don’t use your holiday flight, and try to cancel it after the fact, you may well be charged administration fees shocker". Yes, administration fees are a ballache, but they’re not a headline news story, are they?! Oh, you should also note the ‘human interest’ angle of the third story down in the ‘More…’ section.


A further amazing comment piece from our good friend, Mr. Richard Littlejohn covered the lack of Quangos being ‘scrapped’. This was a theme that ran through one day’s paper last week, in which the "bonfire of the quangos" was referred to in these terms:


"not so much a bonfire of the quangos than a barbecue"


and


"not so much a bonfire of the quangos than a plate of cold potatoes"


Gold.


Richard spent a short amount of time on the "national potato council" that is not being scrapped. He was not happy about that at all. To me this seems like a silly thing to get angry at. What about the other bodies that deal with agricultural products? And, (I did a bit of digging – excuse the pun) the national potato council, while formed by an act of parliament (I think), does not appear to be in receipt of any public money other than the levy paid by potato growers and sellers.


I may have spent too long thinking about potatoes.


I’ll lay off the dissection of individual stories, as I’ve taken to doing. Without sounding like an ego-maniac, this blog is about me! I’m maintaining my sanity well, although feel as if I may be missing out on something (news, possibly).


Thank you for your kind words during this arduous task.


Tomorrow I shall be putting up a budget special, once I’ve read tomorrow’s DM, and you should all look forward to my political compass test at the weekend, I may well be hungover after a colleagues retirement do, and I often get reactionary when suffering the after-effects of alcohol.


Sorry for cutting this short, but I need to go and do my Spanish homework.


Adios amigos.


Matt


p.s will add links properly tomorrow

Press Not Sorry: Littlejohn: Massaging figures to make his point

Press Not Sorry: Littlejohn: Massaging figures to make his point: Very well written, and extremely good point.

Matt

A bumper 'who wants to be a mailionaire':

I disagreed with the Daily Mail three times, and agreed with them once. But can you guess which one I agreed with?!

"He insisted the majority of pension payouts are not 'gold-plated' with the average around £7,800-a-year but admitted action had to be taken due to their spiralling cost."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1318405/Hutton-report-Public-sector-lose-gold-plated-pensions-retire-LATER.html#ixzz11hgBzx4m


Um... in an article that starts by calling all public sector pensions "gold plated" and refers to Bob Crow as a "militant".


As much as I'm reading this shit smear of a paper it really makes me angry. It is wrong, wrong, wrong and full of lies.


Oh, and is it fine for 'Sam Cam' to wear a fucking £750 dress?! fuck off. Nope, they don't criticise that do they?


Oh, and there is hardly any mention of the violence that the conservatives are attempting to perpetrate upon the NHS. Unless they're hiding it very well. 


A bit about Jeremy Hunt takes a lot of quotes from Labour party members to question benefits policy, before attacking a massive family for getting too many benefits. I'm not sure what they want.


Enough of this. 


See you all later,  Matt


...And remember to check out my twitter!

The mid-week lull

It's nearly been a full week since the challenge started. Nearly a full week, but it feels like longer.

I'm not sure if any of you have ever attempted to only gather your news from one source that you fundamentally disagree with, but it's no fun. I was trying to explain my problem with the paper, and with this month to one of my friends today. I think that the fundamental problem is the lack of coherence demonstrated in the articles. By this I mean:

• Articles often appear to have contradictory points that they are making - one this week both was sickened at health and safety laws, and also sickened about a girl who health and safety laws were seeking to protect.
• The paper is obsessed with people being free to do what they want, but only if that is what the Mail wants them to do (an obvious point).
• The Mail pushes the idea that women have their place, but their website, with it's prominent 'Femail' section targets women (mostly with stories designed to make women think that they shouldn't get fat, that they shouldn't eat red meat, that they should be doing the cleaning and that they shouldn't feel bad about treating their boys and girls differently). 

I am upset that I've not heard anything about the Tory conference that covers the event from a more balanced perspective, I guess come November I'll be doing a fair amount of catch-up reading. What I do know is that we are all in this together, and while there is a problem with a lack of middle-class benefits this is better than suffering from 'scroungers' living the highlife on benefits, buying boob jobs and playing us hard-working honest  Joe's for fools. I also know a rather charming 'human interest' story that a young girl sent David 'just call me Dave' Cameron her 'tooth-fairy money' to help pay the deficit. So that was nice.

My knowledge of the news at the moment is slightly more limited than I think it could be, and this may partly be my fault, it is difficult to read more than a couple of these articles a day. The shouting, the hectoring, the lack of coherence and the backwards views is getting far too much! 

Anyway, if you're still with me we'll move on.

To the main event:

I've taken my second political compass test. There has been a little change, but if that is part of a larger change in myself or just a slight change in how I read/answered questions. 

It looks like I've moved slightly to the right, and slightly towards the libertarian. I wonder if this will last?!

Thanks for reading.

Matt

A bumper Monday edition (I was away at the weekend)

It's been a while guys.

First things first. I've noticed a massive downside in my "no radio 4" rule. It means that I can't listen to radio 4... This weekend I spent over ten hours in the cars, and while the end result of that was a nice weekend with old friends the journey dragged a little more than it should.

On Saturday morning I bought my first Daily Mail, the evidence is presented below:

As you can see, I'm really happy about it, and the misery was not just related to the slight hangover I was nursing.

Rather excitingly the magazine had a feature on Felicity Kendall, which somewhat raised the mood of the day - the night before (Friday) myself and a friend had been discussing how sexy she is, and luckily, she agrees.

I've realised that there is hardly any need to list all the articles that I've been reading, we all know what to expect from the Mail. I'll bring to attention the notable articles, and comment on my mood and how things are going, and see how we go!

One thing that I was not prepared for with the Mail is the amount of Parentheses used in headlines in the Mail. I don't wish to be a snob, and I'm hardly one to talk, but I'm not convinced that this is something that is accepted as being good English.

I was also interested to see how obvious the Mail is in forwarding it's ideals in both it's headlines and the content of the articles. As my friend said "you can't use the phrase 'at last' in a headline", although apparently, you can.

Basically, I've been reading the Mail exclusively for for days now, and already I think that it's taking it's toll. I didn't realise that there is barely any proper news coverage in the paper that isn't tainted by a slant towards a particular world-view. I'm confused by the whole thing. The Mail is decidedly retrograde in it's view of the world, women have a place, and Britain is an island that has a proud history and is a truly Christian nation.

I'm not sure that I know what is going on in the world, I'm living in a bubble. My knowledge of the world is becoming slightly more narrowed, there is less 'world news' focus in the Mail than I'm used to, and any coverage is slanted towards things that have a direct impact on Britain.

I'd really like to read some more coverage of the Conservative conference that is more critical, and possibly, although I'm not sure, more factual. I think that this may well be that main problem with the Mail - a lack of depth, and lack of a critical function and, dare I say it, a lack of news.

Also I've discovered the terrible writing of Peter Hitchins. Which was nice.

Anyway, I'm a little confused, and I apologise for the quality of this missive.

Matt

Opposition the Mail's world view: High
Confusion: High
Political opinions: unwavering

When it comes to Lunchtime reading the Daily Mail poses problems.

I’ve been eating my lunch (left over stuffed roast peppers, since you asked) and having a quick read through the Daily Mail site.

First impressions are that whoever designed it is a moron who barely understands how people use the internet. Furthermore the side panel on the right is entirely populated with fluff stories. It appears almost impossible to find actual ‘news’ on the site. Even their ‘Breaking News’ section consists primarily of opinion pieces.
I picked out a few articles, enough that I could read through them quickly, and get my thoughts down in my break. I began with a ‘First draft’ of Ed Miliband’s Leadership speech, which actually turns out to be from yesterday, while still being considered worthy enough for the front page.

I can see that this piece is meant to be satire, but it has all the subtlety and nuance of a frying pan to the face. I move on, but before I do, I play a quick round of who wants to be a Mailionaire. I lose – 18% of Mail readers think that we should spend our way out of recession, as opposed to 82% who would prefer to say their way out. 
 
Next, a short article on how biased the BBC is against the Tories, what with a strike coinciding with our dear leader’s conference speech potentially preventing it’s live broadcast. The snideness of the article puts me off it, and the comments at time of writing are really, truly something to behold.

I’m told that David Cameron was ‘calm’ on This Morning "Even while sitting opposite that testament to engineering, the statuesque Holly [Willoughby]". So that was nice. The article manages to include some sniping at Ed Miliband and the Labour party, and some extremely patronising descriptions of women (mainly Holly Willoughby).

An article 'At the register office, my baby in my arms, I was asked: Marriage or birth? Why does that memory make me think of Ed Miliband..?' pumps more anti-Miliband guff down my eyes, forcing me to choke on my feta-filled peppers. Steadying myself, and reading on Ed Miliband’s Atheism is raised and his fitness to lead questioned, largely due to his lack of due respect for traditions.

As many a more erudite person than me has probably written and said – for a paper so concerned about not being told what to do, they sure like telling other people what to do.

A bit of Jan ‘some of my best friends are gay’ Moir finishes me off – can I carry on?! Prince Charles is "Right" about comedians who are crude.Further, I am told that Kylie is fabulous, the Milibands are treacherous and Nigella Lawson has tits. All Breaking News I’m sure you’ll agree.

Interestingly (although probably not for the Mail) Ms. Moir suggests that crude jokes regarding Downs Syndrome (Boyle), maimed soldiers (Carr) and Anne Frank (Mitchell – Although to be honest I’d not heard about this, can anyone enlighten me?) had something to do with the BBC. The crude comedians to whom she refers are largely C4 based, so I leave the article mostly confused.

As I choke down the last of my lunch I come across and article on the NHS which manages to get digs in at both art and our health service.

After my first sustained bout with the Mail I leave feeling confused, anxious, and certain that the Milibands are a "non-human" Marxist conspiracy to destroy Cameron’s brave new Britain.

Political leanings: Entrenched
Endurance of typos: Wavering
Mood: Positive about the project, concerned for Britain

More later.
Matt

Day one.

So, I'm yet to have read the Mail exclusively, I've been weaning myself on to it over the last few days, and already I'm sure I'm losing touch with reality.

Obviously my critical faculties are still, by and large, in place and as such the first few days of Daily Mail (and Mail on Sunday) reading should prove to be irritating rather than posing a threat to a) my political leanings and b) my sanity.

I've started the Month with a classic bit of Richard Littlejohn, and I'm beginning to doubt my sanity in regards to this endeavour. I knew my politics were diametrically opposed to those of the Mail, that, after all, is the point of this, but I fundamentally disagree with his statements, wording, politics... EVERYTHING! None-the-less, I shall continue with this and try to get some Mail reading in in my lunch break and update in the early afternoon.

 I'm not exactly techo-savvy, but despite this I have joined twitter, see previous post for the link to that. Also I will update with links soon!

Matt

Tweet tweet

I'm on twitter! See you there, and tell your friends. Not seen a paper yet today, I wonder what the news is? Apprehension levels are under control.

Matt

How much do you agree with the Mail?

Just a quick one, before I start work for the day. Last night I discovered that there are daily (if not more frequent – I’ll keep you updated on that) ‘polls’ on the Daily Mail website. They ask searching questions such as ‘Is short hair back in fashion?’ and ‘Are you more likely to vote for Labour with Ed Milliband as their leader?’ (next to a less than complimentary piece about him and his ‘heavily pregnant partner’).

In addition to the rules mentioned in ‘Countdown to Mail-pocalypse’ I will be partaking in these polls and playing a game I’m currently calling ‘Do I agree with the readers of the Mail?’ or ‘Who wants to be a Mailionaire?’.

Feel free to post suggestions for a catchier name for this game, as both these are terrible.

Days left until exclusive Mail reading: 2

Level of nervousness: High

Political leanings: Left

Hatred of immigrants/Europe/BBC etc: Low

Matt

A Month of Mail... countdown to mail-pocalypse

I’m a Guardian boy myself, and I pretty much always have been (bar a pre- Beano-subscription period in the early 1990s when I was partial to the ‘Funday Times’). As a fully paid up liberal lefty I have certain views on life, and I have certain views on where I gather my news from (this being largely The Guardian and BBC Radio 4). While being interested in the worlds of science, politics, ‘slebs and the like, it would not be unkind to suggest that my news palette is somewhat limited.

It is with this in mind that I am taking up a challenge, a re-imagining of myself, a questioning of my political leanings, I am confronting my prejudices and undertaking an exploration of the dark side of the Tabloid press.

For one whole month, beginning this Friday, the 1st of October I have decided to source my news only from the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday.

I know a little about these papers, I occasionally browse them when nothing else is available (free newspapers in airports are so frequently the Mail, when is it ever a good idea to give some delayed and agitated air passengers a paper that only serves to make people more angry and agitated?!), or when they do something monumentally stupid (Jan Moir, I’m looking at you!).

So, what are my perceptions of this paper? Let’s see. The paper is racist, homophobic, bigoted, anti-BBC and anti-immigration. The Mail is also anti-Europe, while simultaneously being disgusted at 'Broken Britain'. It is overly obsessed with the fringes of what can be classified as news. It is hectoring and overly assured that its world view is correct. It only covers 'science' when it suits its ideological (for wont of a better word) purposes, and it is responsible for the diminishing trust placed by many in the NHS.

I believe that the Daily Mail is a dangerous newspaper, and it may well be harmful to my health.

With these thoughts in mind I have taken a political compass test and below I present the results:

Turns out I’m a proper dirty libertarian lefty. Bugger.

So, to the project itself, my aims are:

• Confront my prejudices; is it really that dangerous a paper?
• Will reading it impact on my view of the world?
• How far Right will I drift by Halloween, if at all? 

The Rules:

• Only read the Daily Mail or the Mail on Sunday, and that may well mean actually buying the rag
• Forgo my Radio 4 habit – Commercial or music radio only
• Stay away from as much other news coverage as practical,
• And, if I must watch TV news, I must make it ITV, Channel 5 or ‘light news’ – One Show, Lorraine Kelly etc.
• Take a political compass test weekly

Daily I will update: what have I read, what have I learnt, and how angry am I feeling? I’m reading it so you don’t have to!

So, as of Thursday – The Guardian, Eddie Mair, Charlie Brooker, Polly Toynbee, Ben Goldacre, Evan Davis, Jon Humphries – adieu, I’ll miss you all.

I’m ready to confront it, I’m ready to start my Month of Mail.