Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

A new low for the Daily Mail

124»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree. Mein Kampf is a much maligned piece of literature and comparison of said to the Daily Mail is frankly insulting.

    :D:D


    Sanitize: I know plenty of people who read the Mail and are not racist, homophobic or xenophobic. Many pay no attention to the politics and read it because it is a female-friendly paper with features and articles that interest them.

    But make no mistake: the rag is all of those things, and together with the Scum and the Express, on a completely different league to every other newspaper in the country. It is virtually impossible to expect the Mail will report any story regarding to immigration, multiculturalism, Muslims and to a lesser degree homosexuality without it being heavily biased and misconstructed. It's fucking poison of the worst kind, and a disturbing percentage of its columnists and lead writers are grade-A cunts. There are no two ways about it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're partly right Aladdin, however every now and then the Mail actually has some superb pieces of journalism. I seem to recall a couple of pieces in the past few years which were nominated for Private Eye's Paul Foot award for investigative journalism. I'll see if I can find them when I get home to my Private Eye collection.

    Yes Paul Dacre is a grade A tool but to decry the whole output of the paper is a little, dare I say it, closed minded.

    On a totally unrelated topic, I have given up smoking. I feel like such a sell out.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're partly right Aladdin, however every now and then the Mail actually has some superb pieces of journalism. I seem to recall a couple of pieces in the past few years which were nominated for Private Eye's Paul Foot award for investigative journalism. I'll see if I can find them when I get home to my Private Eye collection.
    Yes, I did notice that. Can't remember what the pieces were about but was rather surprised that anything from the Mail had made it to the shortlist.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sanitize wrote: »
    This can of course be done for any newspaper.

    We're not saying you're wrong. However a significant amount of the Daily Mail's column inches at the moment are taken up with issues surrounding multiculturlism (sp), immigration, muslims and people on benefits. Whenever they do one of these articles it's invariably full of journalism that appears to be completely made up on the spot or blown out of context.

    I personally despise them because of their bizarre pro-law anti-police stance.
    They quite like the idea of zero tolerance e.t.c. but get in a right old state when the laws are enforced.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I personally despise them because of their bizarre pro-law anti-police stance.
    They quite like the idea of zero tolerance e.t.c. but get in a right old state when the laws are enforced.
    And i wouldn't really call them that pro-law. They're only pro-law regarding those activities that don't usually concern them (drug taking, etc).

    When it comes to motoring offences, the Daily Mail is but the most vociferous critic of of the law being enforced. Sometimes they're all but demanding their 'right' to break the speed limit without being prosecuted for it, and speak of "the War on the Motorist".

    I look forward to them complaining about people being arrested for taking drugs, and bravely campaigning against "the War on the Recreational Drug User".

    Hypocritical cunts as they are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    And i wouldn't really call them that pro-law. They're only pro-law regarding those activities that don't usually concern them (drug taking, etc).

    When it comes to motoring offences, the Daily Mail is but the most vociferous critic of of the law being enforced. Sometimes they're all but demanding their 'right' to break the speed limit without being prosecuted for it, and speak of "the War on the Motorist".

    I look forward to them complaining about people being arrested for taking drugs, and bravely campaigning against "the War on the Recreational Drug User".

    Hypocritical cunts as they are.



    Good point. It's ok when the Proles are arrested, but not people for "middle class" crime such as speeding or using a mobile phone behind a wheel.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    Either that or they will highlight a person's race or religion if it's a negative story (or one that meets their stereotyped agenda of dole scrounging, criminals for example) but ignore it when it's positive or about someone who is white/christian.
    Interestingly, what you said (in bold) doesn’t concur with the example you went on to give over here:
    MoK wrote: »
    There's the coverage of this terror plot compared to this one. Guess which has more details and sensationalism - the one involving whites or the one... (well you get the picture).
    In regards to the ricin terror plot story, let’s compare the headline of the Daily Mail with other mainly left/liberal media sources:

    Daily Mail... Police smash white supremacist terror plot to poison ethnic minorities with ricin


    BBC
    ... Pair questioned over ricin find

    Guardian... Man and son held after 'ricin find'

    Times... Man and teenage son held after ricin found

    Independent
    ... Father and son held after 'ricin find'


    So the Daily Mail (and the right wing Telegraph funnily enough) were the only ones who mentioned White Supremacists in their headline, and the fact that the victims would've been ethnic minorities.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    After reading those articles, all I see is an over-sensationalised headline based on massive, sweeping assumptions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Yes, I did notice that. Can't remember what the pieces were about but was rather surprised that anything from the Mail had made it to the shortlist.

    Found it:

    In 2009 (http://www.private-eye.co.uk/paul_foot.php), two Mail journos, Stephen Wright and Richard Pendlebury, were shortlisted for exposing this charming character:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054496/Lawyer-centre-Scotland-Yard-race-war-convicted-conman-suspect-legal-qualifications.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054481/Liar-crook-friend-billionaires-royalty--meet-lawyer-whos-tearing-Met-apart.html

    Just goes to show that not all the hacks at the Mail tow the "they took errrr jerrrrbbss" party line and that they do occasionally practice the art of good journalism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But would it have got as many inches had he been white?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bear in mind it was the Mail who broke the Stephen Lawrence story and led the way (including quite happily inviting the alleged killers to sue them after they said they were the killers)

    Though if we're talking about revolting papers the Guardian must be high up there with various articles such as an apolgia for despotism

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/nov/26/cuba-raul-castro-human-rights

    or its the claim that the Serbs were not even partly responsible and that the ethnic cleansing didn't really matter

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/14/itstimetoendserbbashing

    Not to mention the most revolting article I've ever seemn (sadly before the internet) when a Guardian journalist wrote it was alright to murder RUC men because because they were either planters or traitors. The Guardian never entered our house again, not helped by the fact my Dad had the day before gone to the funeral of one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bear in mind it was the Mail who broke the Stephen Lawrence story and led the way (including quite happily inviting the alleged killers to sue them after they said they were the killers)

    Though if we're talking about revolting papers the Guardian must be high up there with various articles such as an apolgia for despotism

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/nov/26/cuba-raul-castro-human-rights
    We'd better not forget the Telegraph either then, and their disgraceful support of equally odious dictator and mass murderer Augusto Pinochet.
    or its the claim that the Serbs were not even partly responsible and that the ethnic cleansing didn't really matter

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/14/itstimetoendserbbashing
    Ditto Telegraph and Times regarding their disturbingly sympathetic coverage of Israeli ethnic cleansing and atrocities against the Palestinians.

    But instead of descending into a your-paper-is-worse-than-mine argument, I sincerely hope Flashman that you do agree with the sentiment held by many of us that the Mail is a lot worse than other newspapers in the UK and that it has a general and continuing agenda of prejudice against certain minority groups that borders on the racist.

    For all their faults, the likes of the Guardian and the Telegraph don't get anywhere near the Mail in the vile scales.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Ditto Telegraph and Times regarding their disturbingly sympathetic coverage of Israeli ethnic cleansing and atrocities against the Palestinians.

    To a certain extent I am showing the hypocrisy of those who condemn the Mail for articles but are content to brush under the carpet other papers. The Mail is not Mein Kampf or anywhere near.

    However please do not suggest Israel is anywhere near Serbian level of atrocities - I have seen the results of real ethnic cleansing and can ensure you they are not
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I dunno, it's just another daily fail for the daily mail.. That is, afterall, the selling point. Surely?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aww you'll love this one. It's from the Daily Express instead.

    The headline: BURKHA BAN: TWO-THIRDS IN FAVOUR

    First line: ALMOST two-thirds of Britons think women should be barred from wearing the burkha in public, a poll has revealed.

    Second Line: Figures from pollsters Harris show that 57 per cent of people – Muslim and non-Muslim – say they would support a ban on the head-to-toe garment like the one being considered in France.

    But they save the best for last: In a poll for the Daily Express last year, 98 per cent of voters said Britain should ban burkhas.

    Now what makes me think that one wasn't a fair poll?


    Now it what world is 57% even nearly two thirds, never mind actually two thirds as they say in the headline? It's more "just over half" than "nearly two thirds." The article is by Daily Express Reporter. I can recommend a great garment of clothing if they want to remain anonymous.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fuckin hell that is a piss poor article from the Express. Why can’t they just write “57%” in their headline, or “almost six tenths” if then wanna talk in fractions...

    Also, according to them this figure represents the number of people who support the ban on the "head-to-toe" garment.

    Why "head-to-toe"? Surely the only part of the attire that anyone could possibly object to is the bit which conceals the face?
Sign In or Register to comment.