Registered: 1217151204 Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote #706
I'm not sure whether it changed its ways or I changed my view. It still is more than capable of a sensationalist and misleading headline and tendentious argument, but has some fairly good coverage too, going into matters in some depth and presenting reasonable viewpoints. Its coverage of royal affairs is likewise mixed; its photo spreads are superb and always have been but the paper knows that a large part of its readership are female Diana devotees and Charles haters. It therefore pursues a vendetta against the Prince of Wales for their gratification, thereby undermining what would otherwise be impeccable monarchist credentials.
But there's enough good stuff that I often do link to it. Especially as while slow-loading it is free to view. The paper I truly despise nowadays is the Express, whose motto ought to be 'All the news we just made up'. Back to the Mail, in the interests of full disclosure I ought to say that for a long time I had a violent grudge against it because of a particular article, which trumpeted the alleged discovery of a 'gay gene' and offered the hope, yes hope, that in future gay babies could be aborted. It has completely changed its stance since and is perfectly positive towards gay people, apart from in the writings of its rogue columnist Richard Littlejohn, whose basic role in life is to offend. And even he wouldn't dare to go quite that far these days. So, yes you are right but I have changed my mind at least to an extent.