Daily Mail Censorship - a policy of the newspaper

Out of curiosity, I did a search on Google on Censorship at the Daily Mail, after my experience with being censored on the website of this British newspaper. My search turned up over 1.3 million returns.

Clearly, I didn't check them all out - but the upper ones were clearly all relevant and referred to specific instances of censorship on this daily newspaper. What became apparent as I read through these readers failed attempts to comment on the website was why the Daily Mail censored them. It seems that the Daily Mail has a policy of blocking anyone who points out an error, an omission, an oversight, a misunderstanding, the presence of misinformation, or any failing of any kind, on the part of the paper. They also seem to block anyone who holds a contrary view to the one expressed in the paper.

Is this policy consonant with the idea of freedom of speech? No. Is it consonant with the modern idea that media are interactive? No. Is it consonant with the idea that a newspaper should seek to purvey the truth? No.

It is however consonant with the idea of an organization attempting to inflate its image by presenting a front of perfection. By this I mean, the organization wishes to appear infallible and all-knowing.

Yet, that is not the effect their policy has. Each time they block a reader comment, they are losing a reader. Do you think that a reader will have the same view about the paper after their attempt to correct a story has been blocked? I don't think so. What is likely is that reader will tell quite a few people about their failed attempt to comment and the censorship that the paper imposed on them.

It is evident that the Daily Mail doesn't want to be a newspaper in the long term. For it is obvious that the long term effect of their comment policy will be to alienate their readership. Who are the readers most likely to attempt to comment? The precise ones that they should be trying to keep happy: vocal, intelligent, proactive people who can either spread the word about a paper in a good way - or do the opposite if offended. I was really surprised at the tales of censorship that litter the internet in connection with this newspaper. This is a phenomenon totally at odds with the public image they portray in England as being "defenders of the British public". It is evident, now, that their public image is just a ruse. The true nature of this paper is not one that most free-thinking people would wish to support. They suppress the truth and massage their public image, in so doing.

It was quite a surprise to learn that my experience was not a rare instance of a comment being overlooked - but the product of an active policy of readership censorship.

In allowing comments, at all, they are trying to present themselves as being open to their readers. Yet, as one of many people who have tried to comment, but failed, they show themselves to be, in fact, closed to the truth, to feedback, to enlightenment of any kind.

There are many newspapers in this world. I will buy one that actually allows its readers to comment. For instance, the Daily Telegraph - they published my comment within eight hours. I think I will stick to them, then.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and three months, or his gifted brothers, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

The Daily Mail, UK: seekers of the truth?

Are the Daily Mail seekers of or censors of the Truth? I am left to wonder after a recent attempt to comment on one of their stories, online.

You see, two British papers - at least - covered a story about a walking six month old baby. They made a really big story of it. Now, as regular readers of this blog will know, my son Ainan was walking at six months. So I tried to comment on these stories pointing this out and also pointing out that in many other ways my children were more precocious than the child covered (he hadn't started speaking yet, for instance), and yet, oddly, had been ignored by the media.

The Daily Telegraph published my comment. The Daily Mail did not. Now you may say perhaps they have not had time to publish it: well, it is now Wednesday and I tried to comment on Friday. The Daily Telegraph carried my comment eight hours later (they had gone to bed, so had to wait until morning). The Daily Mail has ignored my comment and failed to publish it despite asking on their page: "If you know of a more advanced baby let us know." Well, I let them know...but they didn't want to let any of their readers know. Now, why is this? Could it be because it puts their story into a bit of a shadow? Could it be that I wrote "Singapore" on the location entry...and that they wouldn't want to cover a "Singaporean" above a Brit - not knowing that I grew up in Britain? It is all a little disappointing. You see, I used to read the Daily Mail. I used to enjoy their moral sounding campaigns on many issues. How moral are they being now? Is it moral to censor a story that surpasses one already covered? What would a true journalist do in that circumstance? I would have thought that a real journalist, on hearing of a better story would not censor it, but would actually contact the person concerned and cover it. That is what journalism should be about. Clearly, that is not what the Daily Mail is about these days.

There are some very advanced babies in this world - but curiously, your national newspaper may do nothing to let you learn of them. Interesting isn't it?

I am not impressed.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and three months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, three, and Tiarnan, thirteen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)