Jobs & Education1 min ago
Why Weren't The Guardian And The Mirror Critised At The Time?
24 Answers
http://
/// "I'm disappointed we didn't hear the same outrage when the Guardian attacked David Cameron's father when he passed away after a completely spurious piece or the Mirror went through the dustbins of David Cameron to unearth the nappies of his disabled son, who has also passed away now. It seems to me that this should apply across the field." ///
/// "I'm disappointed we didn't hear the same outrage when the Guardian attacked David Cameron's father when he passed away after a completely spurious piece or the Mirror went through the dustbins of David Cameron to unearth the nappies of his disabled son, who has also passed away now. It seems to me that this should apply across the field." ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
From the link I would entirely agree.
The notion of raiding a dustbin to check on the manufacter of a disabled child's nappies is utterly repellent.
I think that any politician is fair game for a caning in the papers, which is fine because they are aware of the situation when thet sign up, but to drag in families, deceased of living is simply not acceptable, and all papers, from all political spectra, should be dealt with severely for doing so.
The notion of raiding a dustbin to check on the manufacter of a disabled child's nappies is utterly repellent.
I think that any politician is fair game for a caning in the papers, which is fine because they are aware of the situation when thet sign up, but to drag in families, deceased of living is simply not acceptable, and all papers, from all political spectra, should be dealt with severely for doing so.
Well, the Mirror was a criticism of Mr Cameron not his dead father and said he wasn't using disposable nappies for his child, which they could prove. It was a criticism of Cameron not buying environmentally friendly nappies not a criticism of his disabled child.
The Guardian one said his father was a legal tax avoider. It had documents to prove it. It was true.
The Mail took a phrase out of context by a youth and made an interpretation of the words which everyone except Paul Dacre believes to be untrue.
So there wasn't any fuss because both claims were true and provable.
Being called Britain hater is a bit more serious than being called a wrong nappy buyer, which is why no fuss was made of it at the time.
The Guardian one said his father was a legal tax avoider. It had documents to prove it. It was true.
The Mail took a phrase out of context by a youth and made an interpretation of the words which everyone except Paul Dacre believes to be untrue.
So there wasn't any fuss because both claims were true and provable.
Being called Britain hater is a bit more serious than being called a wrong nappy buyer, which is why no fuss was made of it at the time.
Just to set the context, we should see the stories Shapps is complaining about, don't you think?
http://
The Mirror were accusing Cameron of prating about his own Green values, whilst being rather less than green at home - double standards, or hypocrisy. Whilst distasteful, and being honest a relatively trivial manner bin diving has been used many times before, and will, I am sure, be used again in the future.
The story about Camerons father, investigated by The Guardian centres on how Cameron senior amassed the family fortune - through entirely legal and canny investing, I would say. However, Cameron, again through politicking, was banging on at great length about tax loopholes and investment funds that exploited them; so again the charge is one of hypocrisy, something very much in the public interest.
http://
However, both stories are something of non-stories, to be honest; Which is probably why they never gained the same kind of traction as this story by the Mail regarding Milibands Father.
Now - Miliband has referred to his father, frequently. Has used him as an example - Jewish emigre to the UK made good and all that. It is entirely right and proper that people examine his fathers politics and the extent to which they might influence Ed Milibands policies.
What has so incensed many though is the deliberate smearing of the father. To claim that Miliband senior "hated" Britain- based around diary jottings of a 17 year old jewish emigre newly arrived to these shores, on the run from the expanding Nazi presence and with confusing signals about Nazism emanating from the British establishment is plainly an attempt to smear Miliband senior out of nothing, and to smear Ed Miliband by association.
To then go on and to further explain that Ralph Milibands "disdain" for establishment cornerstones - Clubs, Church, Army, Eton, Oxbridge and all of that - was evidence of a "hatred" of British values is ridiculously stupid. Millions of UK citizens at the time would have shared similar sentiments!
And to then go on and describe Miliband senior as leaving an "evil legacy" is equally offensive and equally stupid too.
The Mails true agenda shines through - they have robustly rejected any notion of greater regulatory powers and scrutiny over the press, and that is what all of this spat is all about.
http://
The Mirror were accusing Cameron of prating about his own Green values, whilst being rather less than green at home - double standards, or hypocrisy. Whilst distasteful, and being honest a relatively trivial manner bin diving has been used many times before, and will, I am sure, be used again in the future.
The story about Camerons father, investigated by The Guardian centres on how Cameron senior amassed the family fortune - through entirely legal and canny investing, I would say. However, Cameron, again through politicking, was banging on at great length about tax loopholes and investment funds that exploited them; so again the charge is one of hypocrisy, something very much in the public interest.
http://
However, both stories are something of non-stories, to be honest; Which is probably why they never gained the same kind of traction as this story by the Mail regarding Milibands Father.
Now - Miliband has referred to his father, frequently. Has used him as an example - Jewish emigre to the UK made good and all that. It is entirely right and proper that people examine his fathers politics and the extent to which they might influence Ed Milibands policies.
What has so incensed many though is the deliberate smearing of the father. To claim that Miliband senior "hated" Britain- based around diary jottings of a 17 year old jewish emigre newly arrived to these shores, on the run from the expanding Nazi presence and with confusing signals about Nazism emanating from the British establishment is plainly an attempt to smear Miliband senior out of nothing, and to smear Ed Miliband by association.
To then go on and to further explain that Ralph Milibands "disdain" for establishment cornerstones - Clubs, Church, Army, Eton, Oxbridge and all of that - was evidence of a "hatred" of British values is ridiculously stupid. Millions of UK citizens at the time would have shared similar sentiments!
And to then go on and describe Miliband senior as leaving an "evil legacy" is equally offensive and equally stupid too.
The Mails true agenda shines through - they have robustly rejected any notion of greater regulatory powers and scrutiny over the press, and that is what all of this spat is all about.
I agree with LazyGun, both are none stories. The Mirror one should not have been printed because a politicians young children should not be the basis of a story, even if it were an attack on Cameron and not a smear of the child.
The Guardian one seems fair game. It didn't accuse Cameron's father of anything illegal. The Government said it was closing Tax Avoidance loopholes. It is legitimate to point out Cameron was the beneficery of such loopholes. The point of that article was not to tarnish the name of Cameron's dad, but to question the commitment of Cameron to stop Tax Avoidance.
The Guardian one seems fair game. It didn't accuse Cameron's father of anything illegal. The Government said it was closing Tax Avoidance loopholes. It is legitimate to point out Cameron was the beneficery of such loopholes. The point of that article was not to tarnish the name of Cameron's dad, but to question the commitment of Cameron to stop Tax Avoidance.
I could not have put it better myself.
AOG - the difference between these stories and the Daily Mail one is that the Mail used intemperate language. Those who fight for their adoptive country cannot really be accused of hating it.
Also, having left wing opinions is not in itself 'an evil legacy'.
Finally - it should be noted that the ones who are shouting the loudest are Daily Mail readers.
Have a look at the top rated answers on this thread:
http://
AOG - the difference between these stories and the Daily Mail one is that the Mail used intemperate language. Those who fight for their adoptive country cannot really be accused of hating it.
Also, having left wing opinions is not in itself 'an evil legacy'.
Finally - it should be noted that the ones who are shouting the loudest are Daily Mail readers.
Have a look at the top rated answers on this thread:
http://
AOG, what is your complaint , if any? Two stories which suggest hypocrisy, and with convincing evidence, one a mindless smear with no real evidence at all; rather the opposite case , in fact.
Do you yourself think that having views which you would describe as left wing constitute an evil legacy to the holder's children? Or would you dissociate yourself from such an opinion in this case or any other? (I ask because it is always good to know how much you support material that gets cited)
Do you yourself think that having views which you would describe as left wing constitute an evil legacy to the holder's children? Or would you dissociate yourself from such an opinion in this case or any other? (I ask because it is always good to know how much you support material that gets cited)
Just to add - Mehdi Hasan absolutely nailed the reasons why people feel revulsion over the Mails attempted smear in his recent appearance on Question Time. Oftentimes he says stuff I disagree with, but in this particular case he got it dead right, I think.
http://
http://
so no revulsion at the news when Mrs Thatcher died, tv news and papers showing people having parties and wearing t shirts bearing unsavoury slogans, and indeed when she was ill, lovely people eh ? not sure how that is different. Photo in the paper of Ed Milliband standing next to a bloke wearing a witch is dead t shirt, or some such charming message, Ed smiling cheesily, how does that sit with him now i wonder. I suppose the saving grace he wasn't wearing one. One may have not liked her or or policies, but the level of vitriol poured on her was beyond anything i have ever witnessed save for the current case of Jimmy Savile and he was a paedophile.
@Emmie You are still trying to defend the indefensible by using a false analogy.
Thatcher herself was a politician and possibly the most influential modern day prime minster. She was also incredibly divisive and hated by many. How on earth does this even remotely compare to smearing the reputation of a dead academic?
And even were your strawman analogy correct -which it is not, not even remotely - Since when does the language and attitudes of the playground - this tit for tat defence that you appear to be trying to justify - ever have any merit in the grown up world of adulthood and politics?
Trying to defend the DM over this whole issue reeks of partisanship and apologist behaviour.
And as for this pathetic comment about David Miliband accepting the Daily Mails shilling, as if that somehow reduces the crassness and viciousness of the DM , don't be silly. Most politicians will exercise the opportunity to use the platform of a large circulation media outlet to get across their views. They might dislike the paper and its proprietor, but they will swallow that dislike and carry on. Thats pragmatism, thats politics.What its not is some kind of justification or mitigation for this non-story smear campaign by the Daily Mail, and its editor, Dacre.
Thatcher herself was a politician and possibly the most influential modern day prime minster. She was also incredibly divisive and hated by many. How on earth does this even remotely compare to smearing the reputation of a dead academic?
And even were your strawman analogy correct -which it is not, not even remotely - Since when does the language and attitudes of the playground - this tit for tat defence that you appear to be trying to justify - ever have any merit in the grown up world of adulthood and politics?
Trying to defend the DM over this whole issue reeks of partisanship and apologist behaviour.
And as for this pathetic comment about David Miliband accepting the Daily Mails shilling, as if that somehow reduces the crassness and viciousness of the DM , don't be silly. Most politicians will exercise the opportunity to use the platform of a large circulation media outlet to get across their views. They might dislike the paper and its proprietor, but they will swallow that dislike and carry on. Thats pragmatism, thats politics.What its not is some kind of justification or mitigation for this non-story smear campaign by the Daily Mail, and its editor, Dacre.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Shopping & Style23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.