James Curran wrote ‘Mass Media and Democracy’ which focuses on Habermas and his idea of the public sphere. Curran stated that “Public service broadcasting organizations tend to be unduly influenced by the political class.” and argued that the developments the mass media, as well as education, makes it simpler to access information related to the government, authority and control. This relates to liberal theory as it discusses the freedom to publish in the free market to “ensure that the press reflects a wide range of options”. Habermas believed democracy depended on the public and came up with the theory of the public sphere which is an area in social life where people can come together to freely discuss and identify problems. This could possibly influence political action. Both theorists described the press as ‘watchdogs’, suggesting that it is more of just a way of providing information to the public, but discreetly persuading people’s political viewpoint though lying or “twisting the truth”. 

In terms of The Daily Mail, it was introduced in 1896, whereas The I was introduced in 2010, therefore, The I is less traditional. Since The I is owned by The Daily Mail & General Trust, it is curious that The Daily Mail clearly supports the conservative party whereas The I has shown perspectives from both left (socialist) & right (conservative(traditional)) wing. This brings up the question: why do they not support the same political views?  The Daily Mail has had a lot of criticizing accusations made against them in regard to racism, homophobia, and sexism, not to mention the questionable reliability and the power they hold over politicians. “Immigrant-bashing, woman-hating, Muslim-smearing, NHS-undermining, gay-baiting” is how a critic described The Daily Mail on intelligence2.com who are partners with New York Times. The Daily Mail has endorsed the conservative party in all general elections and put down other views, for example in 2013, it was criticized for an article on Ralph Milliband, father of Ed Milliband the then Labour leader, titled “The Man Who Hated Britain”. Since Ralph is a Jewish refugee from the Holocaust, the article constantly referred to this negatively and described him as untrustworthy. Ed Miliband said that the article was “ludicrously untrue”. A Jewish Newspaper described the article as “a revival of the ‘Jews can’t be trusted because of their divided loyalties’ genre of antisemitism.” With regard to politics, Ministers may ask themselves “What would the Mail say?” when considering any new policy as this newspaper determines a certain amount of the public’s opinion on said policy. Relating to Noam Chomsky, he came up with the idea of manufacturing consent which states that the mass media has the power to use propaganda to persuade the public. The press sets an agenda, meaning the public’s awareness & concerns of big issues are caused by the media which links to the idea of  ‘conditions of consumption’ which means the media actually decides how the mass audiences interpret it. “A political economy perspective has sometimes tended towards ‘conspiracy theory’” he writes, relating to the concept of gatekeepers which is the process through which information is filtered for dissemination which is the action of spreading information widely. This is apparent in The Daily Mail since they strain through the information that fits their political views which raises their stance and puts down alternative notions. 

On the other hand, The I is much more tame, which is staggering considering that The Daily Mail bought it for £49.6 million in November of 2019. This conglomerate recognises that people with alternative views would not be interested in their stories and information, which perhaps is what caused them to allow The I to publish views from different political parties. A copy of The I from the 5th of November 2020 featured presidential candidate Joe Biden on the cover in which clearly encouraged him, stating that “Biden edges closer to power.”. It is as if they collected data from this election to see which side the masses are on as an ominous online media presence. This idea of watching and surveillance is used to protect or observe the public which relates to Shoshana Zuboff who wrote ‘The Age Of Surveillance Capitalism’ and says there is an “emerging behaviour control technology” to establish the public as one, however, she says that we are no longer a mass, but individuals in which technology is being pushed on us which “gives one man [power] to impose his views and values on another.” The fact that is it possible for a newspaper to publish information taken from online sources shows that their political stance can dominate the public’s knowledge, permitting right and left wing views to become less distinguishable.

This relates to Althusser who said that society is structured to keep you in your place as the political views presented in such news sources are able to create falsehoods which ignorant masses will easily regard as truthful. He coined the phrase ‘socially constructed’ meaning that the ruling ideology constructs us and that we are interpellated in this system. He wrote “All ideology hails or interpellates concrete individuals as concrete subjects…”. In terms of The Daily Mail, a prime example of this would be an article written by Jams King in 2015 for Gawker, a New-York based blog, titled ‘My Year Ripping Off the Web With the Daily Mail Online’ as he formerly worked in the Mail’s New-York office. The article alleged they rewrote or reworded stories from other reporters with little to no credit as well as journalists publishing pieces that they knew were untrue. In September 2015, the Mail’s US company filed a $1 million lawsuit against King and Gawker Media, showing how untrustworthy this conglomerate is.

Finally, both newspapers have established their political views despite The Daily Mail’s questionable reliability. Perhaps that is strategy to keep their paper relevant, by using controversy the public is a target to be influenced by said views.