Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Daily Mail Petition
20 Answers
I know we've had quite a few threads about this recently, but here's hoping it'll be the last one - and it is a new development relevant to those who are interested.
http://
A petition has been started calling upon Paul Dacre to appear on national television and debate the recent story printed by the Mail.
I'm aware that some of you (myself included) may be uncomfortable with the fact that Alistair Campbell's name is attached. But regardless of his agenda, it is still hard to deny that this is a perfectly reasonable request. Even if you think the Mail's piece was fair and legitimate, surely it is perfectly reasonable to expect our newspapers to be scrutinised? And if Dacre is in the right, surely it should be easy for him to demonstrate that he is? (Perhaps on a network other than the BBC if he feels it is too left-wing).
http://
A petition has been started calling upon Paul Dacre to appear on national television and debate the recent story printed by the Mail.
I'm aware that some of you (myself included) may be uncomfortable with the fact that Alistair Campbell's name is attached. But regardless of his agenda, it is still hard to deny that this is a perfectly reasonable request. Even if you think the Mail's piece was fair and legitimate, surely it is perfectly reasonable to expect our newspapers to be scrutinised? And if Dacre is in the right, surely it should be easy for him to demonstrate that he is? (Perhaps on a network other than the BBC if he feels it is too left-wing).
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. 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.
Why should they defend themselves on national television? If they do something illegal, such as the recent phone tappings then they should be forced to account for themselves.
Are you saying that newspapers should not be allowed to report on certain matters that come out of the woodwork surrounding politicians especially?
No it would seem that the 'Anti Daily Mailers' are more upset over this than Ed Milliband
Are you saying that newspapers should not be allowed to report on certain matters that come out of the woodwork surrounding politicians especially?
No it would seem that the 'Anti Daily Mailers' are more upset over this than Ed Milliband
Kromovaracun
/// I don't know, but I think a few thousand signatures demanding that he make an appearance himself will be a significant gesture. ///
In a petition such as this it is obvious that there will be many to sign it, not like a poll for or against.
It is almost like the Daily Mail conducting such a poll, would you accept it if the vast number of Daily Mail readers voted in support of the paper?
/// I don't know, but I think a few thousand signatures demanding that he make an appearance himself will be a significant gesture. ///
In a petition such as this it is obvious that there will be many to sign it, not like a poll for or against.
It is almost like the Daily Mail conducting such a poll, would you accept it if the vast number of Daily Mail readers voted in support of the paper?
Krom
I hope you don't mind the shortening of your name, but I have serious problems spelling the whole thing.
Just thought you'd like to see this nasty little missive from this week's Popb*tch newsletter:
As the political classes agonise over
whether the Daily Mail's ham-fisted
attempt at smearing Ed Miliband will
end editor Paul Dacre's reign (NB he
helpfully celebrates his 65th birthday
next month) its weird sibling,
mailonline, powers on.
The "Sidebar Of Shame" is a real
money-spinner. But it doesn't just
generate revenue by boosting click
rates and page impressions. It seems
some celebs - rather than complain
about press intrusion - have been
bunging the Mail five-figure sums
to ensure that they get regular,
flattering coverage down the
side of the site.
One such celeb is said to be
Made In Chelsea's Kimberley Garner.
Given the frequency of the stories
that run on the Mail's sidebar where
she appears in just her bikini, it
seems that both parties are getting
just the right amount of exposure
that a rumoured 30k should get.
I hope you don't mind the shortening of your name, but I have serious problems spelling the whole thing.
Just thought you'd like to see this nasty little missive from this week's Popb*tch newsletter:
As the political classes agonise over
whether the Daily Mail's ham-fisted
attempt at smearing Ed Miliband will
end editor Paul Dacre's reign (NB he
helpfully celebrates his 65th birthday
next month) its weird sibling,
mailonline, powers on.
The "Sidebar Of Shame" is a real
money-spinner. But it doesn't just
generate revenue by boosting click
rates and page impressions. It seems
some celebs - rather than complain
about press intrusion - have been
bunging the Mail five-figure sums
to ensure that they get regular,
flattering coverage down the
side of the site.
One such celeb is said to be
Made In Chelsea's Kimberley Garner.
Given the frequency of the stories
that run on the Mail's sidebar where
she appears in just her bikini, it
seems that both parties are getting
just the right amount of exposure
that a rumoured 30k should get.
sp1814
/// But the thing is - Daily Mail readers themselves are furious at the paper. Have you seen some of the highest rated responses? ///
Firt you say the Daily Mail readers themselves are furious, and later to say "Have you seen some"?
Precisely only some, but I guarantee if there was such a poll there would be an overwhelming in support of the paper.
/// But the thing is - Daily Mail readers themselves are furious at the paper. Have you seen some of the highest rated responses? ///
Firt you say the Daily Mail readers themselves are furious, and later to say "Have you seen some"?
Precisely only some, but I guarantee if there was such a poll there would be an overwhelming in support of the paper.
SP: No, I don't mind. It's actually a mutated version of a different username I wanted to use but didn't have enough characters, so I settled for an abbreviation.
AOG:
"Why should they defend themselves on national television? "
Because they're being criticised for something (quite justly in my view) and if they don't have the courage to defend their actions, then it just seems like they don't have an answer.
No, of course I don't think newspapers should be barred from reporting things. Frankly, AOG, that is a stupid thing to ask. If you want me to, I will explain why.
What I do think is that newspapers occupy positions of responsiblity because they are influential. They are not entitled to do just whatever the hell they want any more than anyone else is. Thus I think we are entitled to expect some minimal standards from them - e.g. reporting things that are (within reason) verifiably true. I think newspapers should be scrutinised.
If Paul Dacre evades that responsibility, then I think he is a coward. A petition large enough puts that challenge to him.
3T:
"when was he doing that then?"
The default position of the DM is being up on its high horse and looking down its nose at everyone else. Plus I'm pretty sure there's been a few accusations of cowardice in the Mail's pages over the years. I think it's high time the opportunity was seized to teach them a lesson.
AOG:
"Why should they defend themselves on national television? "
Because they're being criticised for something (quite justly in my view) and if they don't have the courage to defend their actions, then it just seems like they don't have an answer.
No, of course I don't think newspapers should be barred from reporting things. Frankly, AOG, that is a stupid thing to ask. If you want me to, I will explain why.
What I do think is that newspapers occupy positions of responsiblity because they are influential. They are not entitled to do just whatever the hell they want any more than anyone else is. Thus I think we are entitled to expect some minimal standards from them - e.g. reporting things that are (within reason) verifiably true. I think newspapers should be scrutinised.
If Paul Dacre evades that responsibility, then I think he is a coward. A petition large enough puts that challenge to him.
3T:
"when was he doing that then?"
The default position of the DM is being up on its high horse and looking down its nose at everyone else. Plus I'm pretty sure there's been a few accusations of cowardice in the Mail's pages over the years. I think it's high time the opportunity was seized to teach them a lesson.
Dacre has already wimped out once, he will not do it at the second invitation. Jonathan Staefel was savagely mauled bt Campbell, and he is a young(ish) chap.
It really would be cruel to put an old, addled, bigot, and intellectual dimwit such as Dacre through such a televisual humiliation.
But I'd like to see it.
It really would be cruel to put an old, addled, bigot, and intellectual dimwit such as Dacre through such a televisual humiliation.
But I'd like to see it.
I signed this petition (I have no delusions that it will make any difference) because I would like to see the actual substance of the mail article debated and defended - if that is possible - rather than another debate about the press's right to offend or whatever, which is the debate the DM would like us to have.
1 to 20 of 20
