The Daily Mail

[Kromovaracun]

Did anyone else read Rick Dewsbury's piece in the Mail about the opening ceremony?

Here's a link if you didn't:

http://www.dailymail....tml?ito=feeds-newsxml

Now, Dewsbury naturally enough has the right to express his opinion. But I (and all other ABers) have the right to express mine too - I think this one of the nastiest pieces of gutter journalism I've ever read, and I sincerely hope those who read it are able to recognise the Mail as the awful purveyor of nonsense that it is. It's one of the most confused, rambling, contradictory opinion pieces I have ever read.

Is there any hope that the British public will ever see this newspaper for what it is? Will they do anything about it?

[Kromovaracun]

For one thing, Dewsbury argues that the scene with the mixed race couple 'was supposed to be a representation of modern life in England but such set-ups are simply not the 'norm' in any part of the country.' Interestingly, this is a change in wording from the original article (which I took the liberty of copy-pasting), which originally read: 'it is likely to be a challenge for the organisers to find an educated white middle-aged mother and black father living together with a happy family in such a set-up'. So I think it's clear what he means, and both statements are bizarre in the extreme.

What exactly is 'abnormal' about a mixed race couple? You see them all the time. I'm seriously dumbfounded by his statement and think it's extremely telling that the Mail didn't have the courage to keep his original statement up.

Secondly, the original article has also been edited to include the following comment on the mixed race couple, which was not there before: "If it was intended to be something that we can celebrate, that two people with different colour skin and different cultural heritages can live harmoniously together, then it deserves praise." But then goes on to imply that this display was unacceptable because it endorsed multiculturalism. How exactly are these two things different?

[daffy654]

Interesting blog here that is linked to that story.

[daffy654]

http://botherer.org/2...means-racism-is-fine/

[jake-the-peg]

Isn't it a shame the so cialled "patriots" of he right can only take pride in the countries military victories and not in the countrys pioneering work in helping their contrymen who were sick and could not afford treatment?

The NHS is one of this country's towering achievements in the 20th Century and fully deserved to be celebrated along with the Right wing values of the Industy of the Victorians

We even had the armed forces raising the flag! - seems they have no interest in balance - just seeing their own values have sole airing - anything other than total adherence to their values is "lefty crap"

Anybody else suspect that if Churchill had broght in the NHS the Mail would be cheering it to the rafters?

[sp1814]

Kromovaracun

On the bright side, have a look at the article again, and sort the comments into 'Best rated' order.

All the top rated responses have torn the article and the author to pieces.

Brilliant.

[Kromovaracun]

Thanks Daffy - it's good to see someone took scans of the complete article and are able to compare it to the heavily edited version now at the site. The Mail's cowardice is outstanding. What utter spinelessness.

[LazyGun]

@Kromo I was hoping to read the article, but the link is broken, for me at least.. just get the "Im sorry the page no longer exists" message.

I read the blog link posted by daffy which made interesting reading. Does make you wonder what happens with the preview and editing process when such articles seem to slip through....

[sp1814]

Good Lord!

They've pulled the article!!!

I assume the volume of negative feedback, and the overt racism in the story must've been brought to the sub-editor's attention.

Wonder if it made the paper version of the paper - images of Daily Mail staff running around every newspaper shop in the country, tearing the page out and stuffing it into their mouths.

[Kromovaracun]

Lazy Gun and anyone else who wants to read the original article:

Go to the blog post Daffy posted. The author has posted screenshots of the original article in full, and also listed the changes much more competently than me.

If any of you have facebook, please do share that link. It's important that people know just how craven and low the Mail's editors and authors are.

[TheNovice]

my political beliefs lay to the right of centre but the mail is quite simply the most awful newspaper out there bar none. So negative about everything and vindictive in its reporting. Except for Patrick Collins their leading sports journalist their contributors are the lowest of the low.

[Gromit]

The Mails readership has now dropped below 2million. This year its readership was down by 6% (or 287,000 readers).

[youngmafbog]

Will they do anything about it? Not buy it perhaps ? This is supposed to be a free country meaning we all have to put up ith hings somethimes repugnats. But the alternative is to censor everything (inclding this site). Do you want that?

See you are in your usual blanket 'those on the right dont want the NHS' Jake. Since when? Many right wingers (most of the pulic compared to your political stanace) are in approval of the NHS. They want it run correctly with no waste no 5 a day co ordinators or shirkers, but what is wrong with that?

[Kromovaracun]

"This is supposed to be a free country meaning we all have to put up ith hings somethimes repugnats. But the alternative is to censor everything (inclding this site). Do you want that? "

No, I don't.

And I completely disagree with your argument. Freedom of speech does not leave us in a state where we choose between either putting up with what someone else is saying or just censoring everything. The Mail are the people who have censored Dewsbury's article - not me. I wish they'd had the backbone to keep it up, but apparently they don't. Rick Dewsbury is entitled to his opinion - I said so explicitly in my OP, and it's the Mail that's takin it away. But I am also entitled to mine, which is that his piece was an incredibly stupid distortion of the truth. I also find the response of the Mail's editorial team cowardly and think people deserve to know about it.

That's how free speech works. A situation where we all just passively have to listen to what other people say without any right of response or ability to critique it would not be freedom of speech. There does seem to be a common perception that attacking what somebody has said is the same as attacking their right to say it - it's incredibly frustrating, and I've no idea where it comes from.

Personally, I think the Mail has more than earned a drop in sales and all the criticism it gets - which is why I'm intrigued by Gromit's figures. I hope it goes down further, and I'm hoping that articles like this serve to further discredit the paper.

[Kromovaracun]

"takin it away"

*taken it away.

[Ann]

Was it in Saturdays Daily Mail or The Mail on Sunday?

[Gromit]

Kromovaracun

The bad news - the Mails website is the most popular newspaper website in the world, by a long way. Easily beating BBC News.

http://www.pressgazet...1&storycode=49736&c=1

[Kromovaracun]

Hmm. How disappointing. It's frustrating how that will be interpreted, too. The popular stance is not always the correct one.

--

I know it's a long time ago now, but I always think it's worth repeating on any discussion of the Daily Mail :

""I urge all British young men and women to study closely the progress of the Nazi regime in Germany. They must not be misled by the misrepresentations of its opponents. The most spiteful distracters of the Nazis are to be found in precisely the same sections of the British public and press as are most vehement in their praises of the Soviet regime in Russia. They have started a clamorous campaign of denunciation against what they call "Nazi atrocities" which, as anyone who visits Germany quickly discovers for himself, consists merely of a few isolated acts of violence such as are inevitable among a nation half as big again as ours, but which have been generalized, multiplied and exaggerated to give the impression that Nazi rule is a bloodthirsty tyranny."

~ Lord Rothermere, published in the Daily Mail, 10 July 1933 (incidentally a full year before the Mail's more infamous 'Hurrah For the Blackshirts!' leader, which came in July 1934. The Mail maintained this editorial stance until the outbreak of hostilities.)

"I should like to express the appreciation of countless Germans, who regard me as their spokesman, for the wise and beneficial public support which you have given to a policy that we all hope will contribute to the enduring pacification of Europe. Just as we are fanatically determined to defend ourselves against attack, so do we reject the idea of taking the initiative in bringing about a war. I am convinced that no one who fought in the front trenches during the world war, no matter in what European country, desires another conflict."
~Adolf Hitler, writing in response to Rothermere.

[Zeuhl]

^
That Hitler chap seems like a good sort.

And his commitment to 'the enduring pacification of Europe' was so well-meaning.

I wonder what happened to him?