Timeline for Is it reasonable for me to complain about an objectionable newspaper being ordered for the office?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 3, 2018 at 9:37 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @MaskedMan You misunderstand my description then. Complaining at work is usually very effective, so that's what I recommend. I recommend changing jobs due to lack of cultural fit only for the case where it isn't, and the OP feels sufficiently strongly about this. Regarding generality, this answer would obviously apply in equivalent cases as well. | |
| Feb 3, 2018 at 9:02 | comment | added | Masked Man | Also, on this site, we generally avoid giving examples specific advice, because we want this site to be useful to a broader audience, without having to ask additional example-specific question. I wrote an answer for the question, "I don't like a certain newspaper that my employer provides in the office, what should I do about it?" Even though I am aware of Daily Mail's "reputation", I didn't think the specific newspaper was relevant enough to make any difference to my answer. | |
| Feb 3, 2018 at 8:58 | comment | added | Masked Man | Even though you have been critical of my answer and many of the other answers (just to be clear, I don't mind the criticism), your own answer more or less comes down to "if you don't feel comfortable with the employer bringing in a certain newspaper, you should look for another job". I don't see how that is fundamentally different from my answer. You do mention something about "complaining loudly" culture but from your own description, it sounds like that doesn't really lead to anything, so I am not sure how it is any better than my advice of just sucking it up. | |
| Dec 1, 2017 at 13:17 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @koan I keep repeating myself: accepting different opinions isn’t at all the same as promoting their dissemination at the workplace. I fully support the DM’s right to exist and to be read. But if your workplace has coworkers of certain minorities (ethnic, LGBTQ+, …) then monetarily supporting the DM is a slap in the face of these people by the employer. I’d rather my workplace had an inclusive, friend environment than a “political opinion free for all”. But judging by the comments here I am in a distinct minority on this site. | |
| Dec 1, 2017 at 13:13 | comment | added | koan | I don't like the Daily Mail, but how on earth do you get to say the DM is NSFW ? Is there a Department of Thought at your place of work, who check on whether people are reading acceptable opinions ? I find most of the broadsheets objectionable because of their political bias and poor presentation of the truth, but I would rather live in a world with differing opinons. | |
| Dec 1, 2017 at 11:34 | comment | added | Philipp | The comment was in regards to sales, as I read it. Also Ben included the other top selling newspaper in "the mainstream" as in: "These are definitively the mainstream. You don't have to like the mainstream [...]" | |
| Dec 1, 2017 at 11:23 | comment | added | Rich Smith | @Ben sorry typo, meant to quote as you as saying "the mainstream culture", in which I interpreted the definitive article as being important. And while the question is about the print version, your comment was in regards readership, in which combined readership is surely the relevant statistic. | |
| Dec 1, 2017 at 11:14 | comment | added | user44634 | @RichSmith First, we are talking about the print edition, that's what the question is about. Second, I didn't say it was "the dominant culture" those are your words not mine. I said it was mainstream, which it clearly is, as are those other newspapers also mainstream. Obviously all the top 10 newspapers are in "the mainstream". There is variety of opinion in the mainstream, this is normal. | |
| Dec 1, 2017 at 11:09 | comment | added | Rich Smith | @Ben Only if you consider print copies only. If you look at the combined online / print versions, readership of the Sun, Mail, Guardian, and Mirror are all pretty similar (and the Metro is the most-read print paper). You also have the BBC News website, which is for most purposes a newspaper. I don't think you can call the Daily Mail "the dominant culture". And the Daily Mail website is quite different politically to the newspaper. pressgazette.co.uk/… | |
| Dec 1, 2017 at 0:59 | comment | added | gbjbaanb | @KonradRudolph the "stop funding hate" campaign appears to be a lot of talk and very little action - AFAIK less than a handful of advertisers have pulled out of advertising there, as you can read on their website that also has a lot of advertisers saying effectively "we never advertised there anyway". Besides, SFH seems to me little different to book-burning, and frankly, the DM is centre-right, hardly the racist or sexist rag its purported to be. Its investigative journalism is possibly the best of all the UK papers too. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 14:56 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | If it's that widely circulated, and that infamous for its content or tone, surely this specific topic has come up in a formal, legal way? Would be interesting to see if there's anything that an industrious Internet content searcher can find. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 13:48 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @Philipp Oh, I totally agree. But note that I didn’t make that claim. Rather, they are unrelated points. I agree that the campaign merely shows that the DM is controversial. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 13:06 | comment | added | Philipp | I don't see how the campaign making advertisers pull out of DM proves DM to be generally seen as unconducive to an inclusive environment. The campaign is obviously bad PR for the DM, so the DM becomes less attractive as a place for advertisements. I don't know the DM, but to me Bens argument "you can see it at every public space" is a lot more solid. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 12:27 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @Ben in the same vein, it’s not hard to find out whether something is controversial. The success of the “Stop funding hate” campaign in making advertisers pull out of DM shows this. You seriously overstate the importance of something being mainstream. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 12:08 | comment | added | user44634 | I have no idea who you have worked for but if you want to know what is "generally accepted" it's not hard to find out, you don't have to remain in the dark. Walk into the lobby of any multinational or major hotel. The Daily Mail will almost always be there, as in most pubs or bars. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 11:37 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @Ben Now we’re just battling opinions. You are entitled to yours as I am to mine. But in relaying my personal experience I can confidently state that none of my employers would have shared your view. I can’t claim generality from that of course. And beyond that, making your objections known at the workplace is generally acceptable regardless of that. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 11:35 | comment | added | user44634 | "The Daily Mail is generally regarded as un-conducive to such an inclusive environment." No, it isn't. ... Some people are making a big show of being offended by the Daily Mail, but it is simply not true that it is "generally regarded" as unconducive to an inclusive environment. I am sure you think it should be generally regarded as such, but it isn't. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 11:31 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @Ben Again, I’m aware of that. But that doesn’t change my statement that while some things are mainstream to do on your own time — and some, admittedly, even in public! (hence my Playboy example) — the workplace isn’t a public place in this regard: it has its own set of rules, some of which (in the UK at least) employees influence, in the interest of creating an “inclusive environment”. The Daily Mail is generally regarded as un-conducive to such an inclusive environment. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 11:19 | comment | added | user44634 | I can't believe I have to actually explain this, but while reading newspapers in public is mainstream, it's not actually mainstream to have sex in public or watch pornography in public. Nor is it mainstream to defecate in public, should you be in any doubt about that. ... But if the question is "shall we have newspapers in the break room" the Daily Mail is literally going to be top of the list. ... Also, some people vote Tory! Shocking, I know! Who are these people? They aren't even ashamed! | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 11:07 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @Ben I don’t disagree that they are mainstream. But how is that relevant? Sex is mainstream (as in, most people have it at some point in their lives), and most people object to it at their workplace. Pornography sells more than all other video material combined (so it’s definitely mainstream by your definition), yet it’s unacceptable at the workplace. | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 11:05 | comment | added | user44634 | The Daily Mail is the second-highest selling newspaper in Britain. The highest-selling paper is The Sun. Each of them outsells The Times by a factor of 3 and The Guardian by a factor of ten. These are definitively the mainstream. You don't have to like the mainstream culture of your country, you should still recognise that it is what it is, and suggesting it is "not safe for work" is just silly. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… | |
| Nov 30, 2017 at 10:07 | history | edited | Konrad Rudolph | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 357 characters in body
|
| Nov 30, 2017 at 10:02 | review | First posts | |||
| Nov 30, 2017 at 10:50 | |||||
| Nov 30, 2017 at 9:58 | history | answered | Konrad Rudolph | CC BY-SA 3.0 |