Talk:Daily Mirror

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The"[edit]

Resolved
 – Not part of official name.

Is the definite article part of the paper's official name? The masthead just says Daily Mirror. 81.158.201.224 03:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. "Mirror.co.uk is the online edition of The Daily Mirror, Britain's brightest tabloid newspaper." Deadlock 10:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No! See the masthead, which is considered the title of the paper and also the corporate nationals brand web page. [1] Notorious Biggles (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs work[edit]

Stale
 – Article has progressed much in 4 years; any remaining issues should be raised in new topic.

This page needs a vast amount more work! I've added some history but it still needs a lot more: on the 1940s, on the role of Hugh Cudlipp, on King's demise in 1968, on the paper in the 1970s, on the Maxwell debacle Paulanderson 21:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of editors is incorrect (lists editors for Sunday Mirror, misses off notable editors such as Piers Morgan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.21.173 (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot more work needs to be done in the History 1903-1995 section, large sections of it are completely uncited and those parts that have citations are only from issues of the paper itself.Nome3000 (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have tried to do some general copy editing and tidying of this article but it remains weak. Improvement of the History section, and in particular the addition of quality ciations to the section, would be a big step forward.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Image?[edit]

Resolved
 – Image long since changed.

Is that main image (the one with Bush in) appropriate? I get the feeling it was put there by someone trying to say something- remember, this is the article on The Daily Mirror, not George W Bush. It is actually in the GWB article... opinions anyone? Deskana (talk page) 20:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little tongue-in-cheek, perhaps, but I guess it's fair to say that it accurately summarises the political stance of the paper. — Johantheghost 00:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The point of an image is to give the reader an idea of what the subject looks like. Let the political stance of the newspaper be left to the text. The Daily Mirror does not typically have that frontpage layout. I think the image should be changed to something more representative of what the daily mirror actually is. Plus, though I agree with the sentiment, I think that headline is way to biased to be up there. --[unsigned]

Political allegiance[edit]

Resolved
 – Changed as suggested, and stable for almost 3 years.

I think the Mirror's politics should be described as Labour rather than left-wing. These two things are not exactly the same - like most tabloids the Mirror can slip into right-wing populism all too easily, but it has always supported Labour even so. MFlet1 06:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced facts added[edit]

Resolved
 – Just an FYI.

There is too much in this piece which is essentially opinion or comment which I would probably agree with, but nonetheless is unsourced. I have added a few points which are verifiable as taken from the newspaper directly.Chemical Engineer 22:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)HI[reply]

Scorer (Cartoon Strip)[edit]

Scorer is described as innovative. I always thought it was a rip-off of The Sun's Striker. Have I got that the wrong way 'round? Striker seems the more intuitive title, convincing me more it was first. Chris Longley 21:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we quote a third-party independent reliable source that it is either innovative or derivative, either description is non-neutral and personal opinion, and has to be deleted. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 00:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circulation war[edit]

I'd love to see some more about the circulation war with The Sun. I was only a kid in the seventies but remember the words BRITAIN'S BIGGEST DAILY SALE proudly below the Mirror's masthead for years. When The Sun pulled ahead they used the same phrase, but only for a short while.

Later, (was it in the nineties?), the Mirror was quoting sales figures higher than that of The Sun, but in smaller print was an explanation that they were counting in sales of Scottish sister paper The Daily Record! Do I remember correctly that The Sun thought this was a bit rich and they too added Daily Record numbers to their sales to prove the point?

John Pilger's documentary[edit]

There is a fairly comprehensive documentary by the acclaimed journalist John Pilger here

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=pilger&emb=0&aq=f#q=pilger&emb=0&aq=f&start=40

called Breaking The Mirror

well worth watching. It traces how the content changed over time and paints a fairly grim picture about the future of the media under Murdoch's monopoly —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesPat (talk • contribs) 01:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we can't use that. I think it was a book too, but can't find it on Amazon. SimonTrew (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can use it. See {{Cite video}}. A source is a source is a source. It doesn't have to be on dead trees. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 00:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another copy of the 1998 Breaking The Mirror video here: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISSN[edit]

Someone find the ISSN for this please, if you can. I mean for the main paper, not the Sunday version. Please let me know if you do, since I need it for WP:Cite4Wiki, too. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 00:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image[edit]

This article needs a new lead image. A logo and past front cover could be used under fair use terms. Mtaylor848 (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First tabloid?[edit]

Is it true this paper was the world's first tabloid-size paper? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it was one of the first major ones. Barnabypage (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people[edit]

Is the "Notable people" section appropriate? It seems out of place. I don't think every CEO or leader of an organization is typically listed on other articles. I am inclined to remove the list of editors, and possibly the list of contributors, too. Anybody else care to weigh in? *Seen a Mike* 16:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider the list of editors useful encyclopedic material. The list of contributors is by its nature going to be more selective but since they all seem to have Wikipedia articles I can't argue with any of the individual entries. Barnabypage (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, Barnabypage. I am "more ok" with the list of contributors, because it is selective AND the contributors listed seem to be notable (based on the fact that they have a WP bio). As for the editors, only 4 of them even warrant being mentioned in the article itself (aside from the list). And 3 of those are the most recent editors. Useful encyclopedic information perhaps, but even at that, should the editors be listed under the heading "notable people"? Maybe I've just gotten bogged down by the word "notable" from the WP definition, but that section of the article rubs me as wrong. *Seen a Mike* 16:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be perfectly happy with a separate Editors list - it's probably a better solution, indeed. Barnabypage (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the 2nd level heading from "Notable people" to "Significant staff members." Feel free to change or adjust if you have a better idea (not that anybody needed my permission). Regards, *Seen a Mike* 13:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Shadow Minister that never was?[edit]

The Daily Mirror say that a: "Shadow Minister" brands Jeremy Corbyn a 'f****** disgrace' after fiery meeting in wake of Paris attacks" Daily Mirror, 16 Nov 2015. Without giving a shred of evidence, or naming the Minister said to be involved, is not the Mirror story a 'f****** disgrace'? That said, might not this 'news story' be reported as Crude Dis-information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.56.85 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a matter on which Wikipedia can take a view. -- Alarics (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daily Mirror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spin off[edit]

I'm sure there was a short-lived compact/lite website about a decade ago, similar to The Independent's i100. I can't remember its name, but it had an orange masthead. Anyone...? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping over tabloid status[edit]

The introduction sentence to this article states:

The Daily Mirror is a British national daily tabloid-sized newspaper that is considered to be engaged in tabloid-style journalism.

A tabloid-style tabloid-sized paper sounds like a tabloid newspaper in all respects aside from advertising itself as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyDouble (talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crossword. Puzzles. Can. It. Be. More. Accurate??[edit]

They. Keep. Giving. Wrong clues for. The. Answers. Keep. The. Numerical. Order. Of. The. Greek. Alphabet. Daily. Mirror. Crossword. Puzzles. Please Check. Answers. Against. Clues?!!AlsoTen. Minute. Crossword. Is. Not!!!😐😐😐,,. 86.179.72.224 (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daily_Mirror&oldid=1194842152"