Forums

Posted: 11-10-2013 09:12 Post subject:

I don't know any Mail journalists.

I do - or used to - know some journalists, and the professional ethos is to follow the story regardless of where it leads. I doubt the actual journalists on the Lawrence case would have been thinking 'lets report this so we can do away with double jeopardy'

The editorials of course are a different matter.

Posted: 12-10-2013 14:41 Post subject:

The Daily Mail Editor in Chief takes on the left - in the Guardian!

Why is the left obsessed by the Daily Mail?
The Guardian has published an extensive critique of the Daily Mail and its reporting of Labour, press regulation and the Snowden leaks. We invited Mail readers to join in that debate. Paul Dacre, editor-in-chief, asked for the opportunity to comment. Here is his contribution
Paul Dacre
The Guardian, Saturday 12 October 2013

Out in the real world, it was a pretty serious week for news. The US was on the brink of budget default, a British court heard how for two years social workers failed to detect the mummified body of a four-year-old starved to death by his mother, and it was claimed that the then Labour health secretary had covered up unnecessary deaths in a NHS hospital six months before the election.

In contrast, the phoney world of Twitter, the London chatterati and left-wing media was gripped 10 days ago by collective hysteria as it became obsessed round-the-clock by one story – a five-word headline on page 16 in the Daily Mail.

The screech of axe-grinding was deafening as the paper's enemies gleefully leapt to settle scores.

Leading the charge, inevitably, was the Mail's bête noir, the BBC. Fair-minded readers will decide themselves whether the hundreds of hours of airtime it devoted to that headline reveal a disturbing lack of journalistic proportionality and impartiality – but certainly the one-sided tone in their reporting allowed Labour to misrepresent Geoffrey Levy's article on Ralph Miliband.

The genesis of that piece lay in Ed Miliband's conference speech. The Mail was deeply concerned that in 2013, after all the failures of socialism in the twentieth century, the leader of the Labour party was announcing its return, complete with land seizures and price fixing.

Surely, we reasoned, the public had the right to know what influence the Labour leader's Marxist father, to whom he constantly referred in his speeches, had on his thinking.
So it was that Levy's article examined the views held by Miliband senior over his lifetime, not just as a 17-year-old youth as has been alleged by our critics.

The picture that emerged was of a man who gave unqualified support to Russian totalitarianism until the mid-50s, who loathed the market economy, was in favour of a workers' revolution, denigrated British traditions and institutions such as the royal family, the church and the army and was overtly dismissive of western democracy.

Levy's article argued that the Marxism that inspired Ralph Miliband had provided the philosophical underpinning of one of history's most appalling regimes – a regime, incidentally, that totally crushed freedom of expression.

Nowhere did the Mail suggest that Ralph Miliband was evil – only that the political beliefs he espoused had resulted in evil. As for the headline "The Man Who Hated Britain", our point was simply this: Ralph Miliband was, as a Marxist, committed to smashing the institutions that make Britain distinctively British – and, with them, the liberties and democracy those institutions have fostered.

Yes, the Mail is happy to accept that in his personal life, Ralph Miliband was, as described by his son, a decent and kindly man – although we won't withdraw our view that he supported an ideology that caused untold misery in the world.

Yes, we accept that he cherished this country's traditions of tolerance and freedom – while, in a troubling paradox typical of the left, detesting the very institutions and political system that made those traditions possible.

And yes, the headline was controversial – but popular newspapers have a long tradition of using provocative headlines to grab readers' attention. In isolation that headline may indeed seem over the top, but read in conjunction with the article we believed it was justifiable.

Despite this we acceded to Mr Miliband's demand – and by golly, he did demand – that we publish his 1,000-word article defending his father.

So it was that, in a virtually unprecedented move, we published his words at the top of our op ed pages. They were accompanied by an abridged version of the original Levy article and a leader explaining why the Mail wasn't apologising for the points it made.

The hysteria that followed is symptomatic of the post-Leveson age in which any newspaper which dares to take on the left in the interests of its readers risks being howled down by the Twitter mob who the BBC absurdly thinks represent the views of real Britain.

etc...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/12/left-daily-mail-paul-dacre

Posted: 12-10-2013 14:47 Post subject:

Whiner.

Posted: 12-10-2013 15:14 Post subject:

The poor old Daily Fail, all it wants is a bit of space in your living room then it has no more territorially demands to make.

Posted: 12-10-2013 15:31 Post subject:

Posted: 13-10-2013 09:15 Post subject:

Posted: 13-10-2013 11:11 Post subject:

Posted: 13-10-2013 15:49 Post subject:

Posted: 13-10-2013 19:32 Post subject:

To my mind Dacre's rebuttal is mired in a basic contradiction:

Posted: 14-10-2013 08:22 Post subject:

No newspaper is ALL news, especially the Sundays. Many struggle to be 25% news.

Are you or are you not allowed to investigate and/or publicise the views of a prominent politicians parents?

My views are most certainly influenced by my upbringing, I'd be surprised if anyone's are not, even if in some cases the upbringing has the opposite effect to that intended. And in this case the parent had been brought into the public debate by the offspring.

Posted: 14-10-2013 08:44 Post subject: