Registered On: December 24, 2013
The point I would make about The Mail is that you know exactly what you’re getting. By all means criticise that for what it is but at least you know where you are.
As for it’s reporting being any more or less reliable than any other medium that is extremely hard to say. Modern journalism relies much more on opinion than facts compared to how things were 20 to 30 years ago. This is partly because the number of journalists in the media has decreased greatly over the past 20 years while the amount of content required for 24 x 7 coverage has increased dramatically over the same period. As a result journalists just don’t have the time to look deeply into the stories they write about.
Something else that’s happened with the web has been the advent of technology, which enables the media to see the stories gaining most interest in real-time while things such as AI enable content to be analysed for things such as ‘readability’.
What this means is that a lot of today’s reporting has as much to do with the audience reading the stories as it does with the media producing them; and when it comes to media such as The Mail you are criticising its readers as well as the publication itself. That would be all well and good if these were the traditional blue-rinse Tories of old, but they’re not. The simple fact that The Mail has such a vast online audience reveals how many younger people read it, across the entire political spectrum.
What you won’t find, however, is many people admitting they read it even though they do, which brings us back to media snobbery. In truth I suspect a lot of this is down to the fact that it isn’t very sophisticated, which is fair enough, but 30+ million UK readers a month can’t all be wrong.