I have to say I agree with this, but playing Devils Advocate, Newspapers like The Daily Mail and The Guardian never seem to concede any ground on any issue. They can't both be right, all the time. Surely on some issues there has to be some 'middle ground'. Perhaps they just don't want to upset the majority of their readership with balanced reporting ?
For example, if an elderly couple voiced their concerns about Immigration and the detrimental effect that they thought it was having on their area / town, the Daily Mail may go over the top and exaggerate the 'problem', whereas a Guardian report may just dismiss their concerns as a couple of old racist bigots ? But would the readers of each newspaper be able to look at it from both sides
Many have voiced their opposition to Trump coming here. I can't stand the bloke to be honest, but he was democratically elected as USA President and we have the potential to negotiate a favourable trade agreement with the USA. So we just hold our nose and get on with it, don't we ?
The Chinese President oversees an atrocious Human Rights record, but we laid out the Red Carpet for him.
There are some people who I do business with, that I don't like and would certainly never meet them socially, but business is business ?
This is the balance that we never see in the Press, depending on what their agenda is ?
One other point on the Daily Mail, I think they are very selective as to how they report on individuals or families, depending on whether they are working class (negative, well what did you expect from a council estate) or middle class (sympathetic and oh how could this have happened to such wonderful hard working people).
