Amy reads the Daily Mail.

My dad reads the Daily Mail.

You, the reader, may have sent me a link to the Daily Mail’s website.

You all do it for different reasons. Amy is that new wave of Daily Mail reader, who only picks out the online content about celebrities, fashion – Femail life stories of interest to female readers. The sort of articles that feature real life issues or reality TV, pop and film stars. What they are up to – why they may seem relevant to “our” lives.

My dad reads the Daily Mail in its physical form. He likes the puzzle section. The Sudoku – the word games. Seeing as he works in a racially diverse environment – the fruit trade – I doubt he spends too much time, if any, on the age-old headlines the paper is (in)famous for; but he still gets it delivered each day. It is his want.

The biggest puzzle though is in the inordinate amount of links that get bandied about on twitter, or on facebook – telling me to read a section of the paper’s online content. Often the tweets contain a degree of moral outrage. “Look at what she has written” a tweet my shout. “I can’t believe people still write stuff like this” another will proclaim. Why then do I want to read it? To complain about it – something I wouldn’t have read, had I not been sent a link?

The other position is when you actually get sent a link that – wait for it – might be worth reading. I’m talking, naturally, about the sporting position here. The Fail, Wail, Paper of the Third Reich – whichever moniker you may feel most appropriate to use – does actually have a number of writers worth reading. It’s that “new(is)” notion that we readers may not necessarily agree with everything in one paper – therefore, through RSS feeds/readitlater and the like – we cherry pick our way round the areas of a paper that interest us most.

I’d read Martin Samuel if he wrote for any other paper (well, The Times, Guardian or their associated weekend offerings) – so why not the Daily Mail? Same can be said for Lawrence Booth (whom I follow on twitter) or Paul Newman (same position). They are a very small, personal interest, within a paper I would rather no longer continues to exist. I won’t purposefully check for their columns, but I tend to read what they say if linked.

The position only becomes difficult in that I have made a judgement on the paper. I haven’t bought it in years, nor would I ever see myself buying it again. I don’t agree with the editorial slant on the “despicable” links I am regularly sent, so why buy a paper I believe provides a view I am totally at odds with?

The Daily Mail exists. The website exists. Just because something exists, does not mean we have to experience the parts of it that I, nor others would actively choose to read (I eat steak but won’t touch tripe for similar reasons). Linking something that annoys you, for others to read, will only continue to justifying the column, the advertising spend, the reason why the paper/website continues to publish that type of article.

Please bear that in mind before you next tweet something you are totally disgusted with. If you are so disgusted, don’t add further to the national disgust by asking me to read it as well.