Talk:Daily Express
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Political allegiance
I know language like 'far-right' or 'extreme-right' might be seen by some as a little tendentious, but 'right wing' doesn't seem to me to be a particularly accurate description of the paper. Its unswerving traditionalism and virulently anti-muslim and anti-immigrant line surely suggests that an alternative moniker should be found. Unless someone proposes a more neutral way of describing the paper, I would suggest changing it to 'far-right'.
[edit] Diana obsession
From looking through the Mail Watch website, and from glancing over the front pages most days, I get the impression the "35" front page features is during 2006 alone? The Mail Watch website catalogues about 25 (depending on some interpretation, whether it is supposed to be a complete record, and my ability to count). Halsteadk 23:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Price
"...as well as the recent addition of "10 pence cheaper than the Daily Mail - and ten times better" due to recent price cuts."
I don't have a copy of the express with me to verify that it says this, but I know that this is incorrect. The express is 40p, the mail is 45p. So, there's only a 5p difference. Haddock420 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is. The "10p cheaper" was added when the Diana Express was only 35p. Now it is 40p, only 5p cheaper, and there is now only a small bubble saying "5p cheaper than the Daily Mail", without any mention of "X TIMES BETTER".
[edit] Real Values
Under this heading is the paragraph:
For some, the paper has been considered homophobic, which may be because the paper's new advertising tagline is "The paper that stands for real values and gives you real value for money". These "real values" include "traditions, progress, good manners, family fun".
This doesn't make any sense. People don't think the Express is homophobic because the paper's advertising tagline is "the paper that stands for real values" etc, they think it's homophobic because of the content of its articles.
-- Markbrough 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. I've altered the text slightly.
- Surely this page needs at the very least, to list examples of articles that some consider homophobic, if it is to make such a claim? Even then I think this is still drifting into a point of view which doesn't really have any place in an encyclopedia. If the Express has been publicly accused of being homophobic there should be a citation.
81.1.110.162 12:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The "Grey Lubyanka"
The article could probably do with some details on the famous buildings the Daily Express has occupied in the past, including the art-deco Fleet Street building [1], Ludgate House on Blackfriars Road, and the current Northern & Shell Building. DWaterson 17:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I thought it was the "black glass Lubianka" that Private Eye used to call it. Fab building anyway. BTLizard 10:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Picture
Is this an actual scan of a front cover? And if so, does anyone know the date? It just seems too perfect to be true...
- It's the Daily Express in a nutshell! NumberJunkie 14:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely genuine, yes. Don't have the actual date to hand, but it's from December 2005. MrBronson 01:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
A brilliant front page to sum up the Express, well done, perfect. Chris Longley 21:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] criticisms
There seems to be more text on criticism than there is text comprising facts about the paper. There must come a point where criticism of something gets out of hand for an encyclopedia. Indeed, it could get into the area of point-of-view, which may belong somewhere on the web but not in an encyclopedia. The Guardian has no section of criticism and the entry on Adolf Hitler doesn't include such a section.
[edit] Daily Snack
What is the relationship (if any) between the website dailysnack.com.uk and Daily Express? PeterLinn 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Daily Snack is from Dirty Desmond's Northern And Shell outfit. --Oscarthecat 07:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Express1.jpg
Image:Express1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I added a rationale, but'm not quite sure what's expected. Is what I've written OK? Nick8325 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV???
I thought articles in wikipedia were supposed to be Neutral Point Of View. This is clearly not. It seems to have been written by either someone working for The Guardian, or some left-wing loser who has a serious chip on his shoulder about the newspaper. The way it is written is totally subjective and from a very biased point of view. It needs a total overhaul.
I agree with the individual above. Very biased and there are alot of "weasel sentences" like "and also its tendency to print a lot of pictures of attractive young women, especially murder victims, and a lot of sex-related "non-news" stories" - who put this in there and where is the source or example? [Pagren 17/07/2007]
I have placed a tag on the article involving neutrality, and this is the offending line: "These front pages are generally not based on a major news story of the day and are often sexed up with spurious headlines with little factual content to follow." This isn't allowed and someone needs to start rewriting it. 81.145.242.10 19:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Whilst the article is true in what it says, (and I think you'll find that more than just "left-wingers" find the express utterly odious) it isn't written in an encyclopaedic style, and it definately isn't NPOV. It needs a major overhaul- the article is more like something from uncyclopedia.84.64.219.16 15:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Non-newsworthy front pages"
The Daily Express often dedicates its front page to stories that would appear to rotate around several key themes including; house prices, food scares, miracle medical cures and the weather. These front pages are generally not based on a major news story of the day and are often sexed up with spurious headlines with little factual content to follow, for example 'The Secret Killer in our Food' - creating a front page headline about the dangers of hydrogenated vegetable oil in food or 'The Amazing Protein Diet' creating a front page headline about ketosis. Both such medical stories would appear to have been in the public domain in some form for several years making it hard to see how they could be worthy of newspaper front pages. House prices or inheritance tax stories also appear to be extremely popular, e.g.'House Prices to Rise by 50%'.
Nicknames for the Daily Express include Daily Excess and Daily Sexpress, due to its ownership by Richard Desmond, and also its tendency to print a lot of pictures of attractive young women, especially murder victims, and a lot of sex-related "non-news" stories.
-
- Rich Farmbrough, 07:26 14 September 2007 (GMT).
[edit] Image
While the front page chosen is of course amusing, and illustrates the "criticism section" it does not appear to be a NPOV choice.... Rich Farmbrough, 07:30 14 September 2007 (GMT).
[edit] Diana Express
BBC News Online's Magazine Monitor has frequently noted that articles about Princess Diana are often printed on Mondays regardless of the existence of more pressing news.[1]
The article in question says
- Diana stories appear on Mondays because Sunday is often a quiet day (though by this logic, every day must be a quiet day in Express towers)
is paraphrasing an Independent story: BBC's Magazine Monitor sounds like a good source but, in this case at least it isn't. We could perhaps cite the Independent interview. "Frequently noted" is also not stood up. Rich Farmbrough, 07:51 14 September 2007 (GMT).
- I've cited the Indy - its possible thou not clear that this was the editor of the Express being reported. Rich Farmbrough, 08:10 14 September 2007 (GMT).
[edit] Circulation wars
Really should be coverage of price cutting, competitions, give-aways etc. OR at least a ref to another article. Rich Farmbrough, 08:08 14 September 2007 (GMT).
[edit] More NPOV
Relcutantly I've removed the following section as well. To many "sweeping generalisations". It could perhaps be recovred
[edit] Real values tagline
In January 2006 the Daily Express introduced its new advertising tagline - "The paper that stands for real values and gives you real value for money". These values include "traditions, progress, good manners, family fun".[citation needed]
These values have often manifested themselves in nationalist ways, such as the post-July 7 headline, "Bombers are all sponging asylum seekers" (which earned the Daily Express a substantial amount of negative attention from media watchdogs and other newspapers such as The Guardian). None of the bombers were asylum seekers, and when the headline was printed the identities of two of them were still unknown. The newspaper has also been criticised by the Press Complaints Commission for its repeated use of the self-contradictory term "illegal asylum seeker".[2] The Express's obsession with the asylum issue even led to a member of the British National Party crediting the paper with boosting the BNP's electoral fortunes by focusing on the issue.[3]
The paper has made such sweeping generalisations about numerous other targets, such as Tony Blair, the Labour Party and self-injurers (the paper published an ill-received editorial under the title "all self-harmers are tiresome attention seekers", in parody of the original asylum seeker heading, claiming that self-injurers are all teenagers who are looking for attention and should not be treated by the NHS). In addition, some of its articles have been considered homophobic, for example, voicing distaste about civil partnerships for gay couples in a December 2004 editorial, and printing an article in 2006 about the BBC show Torchwood with the headline 'It Contains Gay Sex and Bloody Violence, But Never Mind, Let Your Children Watch It, Say BBC'. The programme contained no onscreen gay sex (and very infrequent strong violence) and, in the article, the BBC spokesman had stated that it was up to parents to decide on Torchwood's suitability for their children, just like any other post-watershed show.[citation needed] The editorial in that edition also claimed that same-sex kissing is 'not something that most families would choose to watch'. <reflist/>
- Rich Farmbrough, 08:17 14 September 2007 (GMT).
[edit] Maddie Express
I've updated the "Maddie Express" section. In my opinion this newspaper is disgusting. Myself and dozens of other people I know are getting thoroughly sick and tired of their constant, peculiar obsession with Madeleine McCann. 72 consecutive front page stories... how on earth is this justified?? It's like they're trapped in their own bubble of reality where nothing else happens. An asteroid could hit New York and wipe half the city out, and they'd still be showing Maddie as the front headline. Wjfox2005 09:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I have moved this content here:
"In the second half of 2007 the Daily Express, like most media outlets, gave a large amount of coverage to the missing toddler Madeleine McCann. However, the Express was unique in its dedication to the case.[citation needed] From August 3, 2007 onwards, the Express dedicated at least part of every front page to Madeleine.[citation needed] As of November 2, 2007, this makes 91 front pages in a row.[citation needed] 78 of these, a vast majority, have been the main headline (often stylised by "MADELEINE" in red block capitals, plus an inevitable picture of the child).[citation needed] This constant stream of Madeline headlines has been criticised by many as obsessive, and adding nothing to the case."
It is wholly unsourced, including the attribution "Madeleine Express" and the headline count fails WP:OR. Personal opinions on the newspaper are conflicting with sound editing. This material should remain out unless reliably sourced. TerriersFan 01:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
On primary sources, which in this context means the papers, the OR policy is:
(1) only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims, unless such claims are verifiable either from the primary source itself or from another source. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.
The questions are then who's counting the headlines and what comment has been made on them e.g. in paper reviews, or the documentary about the case and coverage. It is a key fact about the paper that they give this coverage, but it can't be said that they've been criticised without providing examples, and there could be other perspectives, such as this:http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/sep/17/mondaymediasectionBillwilson5060 14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can count the headlines. It's a simple fact that they have had her on the frontpage so many days in a row. It is easily verifiable without any specialist knowledge by simply going through the Express's own website and counting the number of front pages they've done in a row! I fail to see how stating a statistic that anyone can check by visiting a newspaper's website is is a personal opinion. Counting the number of headlines is *clearly* descriptive. --Gothicform 22:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- That would still fail WP:OR. On Wikipedia we record the research that is carried out and reported by others (reliable sources). If you want to show that the Express is overdosing on Madeleine then you need to cite a reliable publication that says so. TerriersFan 00:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- This extract from the page should not fail WP:OR as no analysis of the primary source has been made. The claim that X front pages have contained Maddie stories is entirely objective rather than subjective and, per Wikipedia's policy, is easily verifiable as the trusted source is the Express website which lists their front pages. Where this extract might fall down is on WP:NPOV, but NPOV would be satisfied by the inclusion of a counter-balancing viewpoint. It would however be hard to factor in undue weight as it would be impossible to gauge how many people disagree with this POV. I do however agree with it's inclusion in the article as even a short time Googling shows that a number of people agree with the sentiment. Even Maddie's father agrees that the constant headlines about every little thing don't help and he specifically singled out the Daily Express as a culprit. http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1644291.0.i_dont_think_necessarily_having_newspaper_headlines_with_the_image_of_madeleine_being_thrust_on_to_people_every_single_day_helps_clearly_we_have_seen_irresponsible_reporting.php EarlyBird 02:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Personal opinions happen to be factual in this case. However, there are now several references to Maddie criticism- if someone wants to improve them please go ahead.(81.1.124.88 01:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC))
- Helpful, thanks. I have restructured so that most of it is now OK. The final sentence remains not reliably sourced. However, I think it is factually wrong in any case (see the family comment in the 1st para) and would probably be best out. TerriersFan 01:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding original research - using past front pages from, say, the Express website would act as source-based research wouldn't it? As far as I know that's acceptable. Not that I know if such a source exists. Pobbie Rarr 00:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The run didn't stop on 10th November - 10th November issue (Saturday) had MADELEINE on it, 11th November didn't have a Daily Express as it was a Sunday. 12th November (Monday) does have MADELEINE on the cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.5.96 (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The 15th November 2007 front cover is of great historic importance because it doesn't have any mention of Diana or Madeleine! (AndrewAnorak 20:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Image-Express2.jpg
Image:Image-Express2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
