Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think the right wing tabloids have gone too far?

456 replies

Mistigri · 04/11/2016 06:08

Reactions of the Mail, Express and Sun to yesterday's court decision on brexit:

The Mail's front page has a picture of the three high court judges with the headline "Enemies of the people". One judge is criticised for being "openly gay".

The Express says this is the UK's greatest crisis since the Second World War.

The Sun (proprietor: R Murdoch) takes to task the "foreign elites" who brought the case. Because their readers are less likely to approve of attacks on white pensioners (the other claimant), they focus their attack on the non-white woman claimant.

The Mail is the most problematic IMO; attacking the judiciary is another step on the road to facism.

How can we have any reasonable political debate in this environment?

OP posts:
Tryingtosaveup · 04/11/2016 13:38

The papers are right. We voted to leave. We should leave and the judges should not overrule the people.

PausingFlatly · 04/11/2016 13:41

Then you'll be delighted to learn the judges are not overruling the people, Tryingtosaveup.

HTH.

ItsJustNotRight · 04/11/2016 13:51

Don't read the Mail, it's shit , it prints shit and encourages the readers to think shit. It is seriously bad for your own health and the health of the country. It always has been.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 04/11/2016 13:53

Bill
I am not asking if the judge's sexuality was in the public domain. I know it is. I am asking why it was relevant to a report on a judgment on a matter of constitutional law. How does knowing the sexuality of the judge assist people in assessing if the correct legal decision was made. In what way is it relevant to the exercise of the royal prerogative by the Government.

It isn't and you know it isn't. So why did the Daily Mail consider it headline news when reporting the case?

Alfieisnoisy · 04/11/2016 14:00

The papers pander to people like Tryingtodaveup because they know that most people are incapable of understanding the ruling....they think the judges have said "no you cannot Brexit", they haven't...they have simply said it's got to go through the MPs first.

autumnintheair · 04/11/2016 14:01

Just for the sake of Balance, remembering at that time many prominent people took sides and even within families ( Mitfords) you had ardent supporters of both - does anyone know the Guardians take on the slaughter of millions at the hands of Lenin/Stalin and Mao?

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/why-are-marxists-and-soviet-apologists-regarded-as-harmless-jokers/

"when it comes to considering the two great totalitarianisms of the twentieth century the scales of opprobrium remain radically unbalanced.

There is no better demonstration of this than the disparity between continuous references to that article in the Mail in the 1930s and the utterly unremembered fact that far more recently the Guardian employed as an editor — and continues to employ as a contributor — someone who was alleged to be a paid agent of the KGB

It is undeniable that the crimes of Marxism outweighed those of fascism. Together these evil twin totalitarianisms created more human misery than any others in history. Yet how to explain the fact that while vast popular opprobrium rightly attaches to the remnants of one, the other side in that foul conflict continue to be indulged as heroes, harmless old jokers or parents whose views must not be critiqued. .

Werkzallhourz · 04/11/2016 14:02

Many of you are seeing this from the wrong end. The right-wing press are reporting the court result yesterday in the way they are because they have correctly identified that it will make a large number of people buy and read their newspapers because such statements reflect how those people feel.

These newspapers are reflecting a significant swathe of public opinion, not inducing it. To think otherwise is to make the mistake of believing the press is far more powerful than it actually is, and that it can override, eternally, people's opinions and perspectives that are founded on their day-to-day experiences and thoughts.

It is this mistake, believing that establishment thinking can uphold a hyperreal scenario through blanket coverage of "liberal" bien pensant views on media channels, that has got us into this bloody mess in the first place.

To my mind, the most dangerous aspect of the events of yesterday is that it is now perceived that the wife of a hedge-fund multimillionaire has managed to influence the course of action over the Brexit process by throwing money at the lawyers and the courts (and also that Miller declared herself a Labour supporter no less; if people like Miller are identified with Labour, Labour is fucked). All this does it reinforce the impression that the elites will use whatever financial and political tools in their power to subvert the wishes of a significant percentage of the British electorate: financial tools, I will add, that are not available to ordinary people. And what is worse is the demeanour of Miller afterwards: gleeful that she had forced her own way because she was "disgusted at the result".

All this is such bad PR for the remain or soft Brexit case, that I'd be banging my head against the wall if I were a remain MP and seriously considering my career options. It's pushing something that may very well explode. There is serious anger out there about the way the country has been governed for the last twenty years, and there has been nothing to release the growing pressure apart from the Brexit result. If remain MPs start to fudge, then woah ... we will see de-selections, anger rising even further, and may very well end up in circumstances that could provoke civil unrest and a desire to overthrow the entire establishment. It is starting to look very much like the elites vs. the people across a whole range of economic and political issues.

The Daily Mail and the Sun have rightly realised this, probably because their market research is better than other papers, and are going to ride it all the way to fat profits.

Again, they've taken the judge angle because public concern over the politicisation of British judges has been brewing for some time, particularly in cases that involve the EU, migration and the family courts.

It's a perfect storm, really. We best hold onto our hats.

PausingFlatly · 04/11/2016 14:04

And now a Tory MP has quit: Tory MP Stephen Phillips quits over 'irreconcilable differences'

He says irreconcilable policy differences with the Tory party mean he is "unable properly to represent the people who elected me".

Not clear whether May's reaction to the legal ruling is part of that, but he has previously criticised her for ignoring the views of Parliament and trying to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.

Werkzallhourz · 04/11/2016 14:06

I''ll just add ... it really doesn't help that a very silly woman who works for GOSH on last night's QT said that she hoped Brexiters' children got ill and then couldn't get treatment for their children because the lack of EU funding for research.

It just makes remainers look like evil lizards that want babies to die.

WLF46 · 04/11/2016 14:09

Is anyone stupid enough to take anything they read in a newspaper at face value? Newspapers are not obliged to be impartial or report the truth, they are designed to sell as many copies as possible to whichever section of the public they are targeted at.

Today's Daily Star leads with "Ed Balls Strictly 'Sexting' Shock" - at least the other newspapers are covering an actual news story.

CocoaX · 04/11/2016 14:09

But the anger about austerity and the government over the last twenty years is not to do with EU policies, surely? It is to do with domestic politics. How is Brexit goes to reduce inequality and poverty if the country is paying however much for lawyers to disentangle 40 years of law, international companies are demanding subsidies to stay and top academics and researchers are going elsewhere. How is Brexit going to solve economic and social problems because it seems to just be going to create new ones?

Elendon · 04/11/2016 14:10

Absolutely right Mistigirl great post! Completely agree.

I think the government will drop the Supreme Court action, because if they win, then it may well go to the European Court of Justice (which is probably where the Northern Irish action is heading).

It simply is a matter of democracy and sovereignty within Parliament. And for the tabloids to denounce it in racist and homophobic terms is quite frankly, disgraceful

unexpsoc · 04/11/2016 14:10

BillSykes

"I am still of the opinion that it was included with the intent to imply where his politics might lie rather than homophobia."

Let me just stop you there. Assuming that somebody's sexuality must have an impact on where his politics lie is IN AND OF ITSELF homophobic. Try it this way - if they had pointed out he was Black, and therefore a liberal, would that have be acceptable? No, it wouldn't.

Well done you. I bet you are brilliant at parties. "Oh, I have a gay friend too. Marvellously funny, aren't they?".

BillSykesDog · 04/11/2016 14:12

BillSykes I am waiting to hear you defend that front page filled with Foriegn lorry drivers on their phones or indeed sensationalising a story about child refugees by including an older translator and using an age app to assess their ages that makes me 40

Um, do you mean the false story that he was a Home Office interpreter? Because the Home Office confirmed that he was not and even the charity who tweeted the claim in the first place admitted it wasn't true. And the same man had already been interviewed insisting he was a child refugee? But hey, accuracy doesn't matter as long as the person speaking agrees with you right!

And as far as the lorry drivers go, there is a valid question if laws to prevent driving offences don't act as a deterrent for those who live or hold their driving licence abroad.

Anyway, it has very, very little to do with any sort of genuine concerns about editorial accuracy or freedom from bias. It's just a concerted campaign to censor and silence any dissent.

Because otherwise you'd be just as upset about the false claims that the 'child refugee' was a translator. That wasn't even a matter of offence or distaste. It was an out and out lie. But nowhere near the outrage. Funny that eh?

OlennasWimple · 04/11/2016 14:13

"Openly gay former Olympic fencer", to quote the DM in full. As if any of that matters Confused

flippinada · 04/11/2016 14:14

I thought that the woman from GOSH was pointing out that lack of EU funding would have an impact on medical research into childhood illness, thereby impacting on availability of treatments, not wishing illness on anybody's children.

RedToothBrush · 04/11/2016 14:14

These newspapers are reflecting a significant swathe of public opinion, not inducing it. To think otherwise is to make the mistake of believing the press is far more powerful than it actually is, and that it can override, eternally, people's opinions and perspectives that are founded on their day-to-day experiences and thoughts.

Bollocks. The problem is that the newspapers are locked into a system where they push the boundaries bit by bit. In doing so they make it acceptable over time. People buy into it. So they can push the boundaries a bit more in order to be competitive with other publications doing the same. Each time the overton window of shock is pushed ethics go out of the window a little more. Repeat over. Its a relationship that feeds off public shock, horror and fear and is actively exploited.

It could be stopped if there were more regulation or more belief in ethics and responsibility in being a newspaper. It is the force that leads the way and drives it and is merely a reflection of the world because it is the thing that sets the agenda for people to talk about.

The bottomline is people can not talk about something if they do not know about it or are directed to it somehow. Can they?

Who is doing the directing?

Gumpendorf · 04/11/2016 14:15

It just makes remainers look like evil lizards that want babies to die.

I thought she said if current policies went ahead, the restrictions on migrant staff and the absence of EU research funding etc would mean GOSH would not be in the same position to treat them. Very different.

RedToothBrush · 04/11/2016 14:18

This
I''ll just add ... it really doesn't help that a very silly woman who works for GOSH on last night's QT said that she hoped Brexiters' children got ill and then couldn't get treatment for their children because the lack of EU funding for research.

Followed by this:
The bottomline is people can not talk about something if they do not know about it or are directed to it somehow. Can they?

Who is doing the directing?

Followed by this:
I thought that the woman from GOSH was pointing out that lack of EU funding would have an impact on medical research into childhood illness, thereby impacting on availability of treatments, not wishing illness on anybody's children.

I rest my case.

People are not even aware of it most of the time.

PausingFlatly · 04/11/2016 14:19

Werkz, the media both reflects existing opinions and helps form them. Which is why anybody spends money on advertising and advertorial.

Papers like the DM choose very carefully who they're going to pin to their bullseye target, and hold up saying: "See Them, They're the cause of all your pain and unhappiness."

PausingFlatly · 04/11/2016 14:22

Red, you said it much better than me.

PausingFlatly · 04/11/2016 14:24

Especially this bit:

It is the force that leads the way and drives it and is merely a reflection of the world because it is the thing that sets the agenda for people to talk about.

The bottomline is people can not talk about something if they do not know about it or are directed to it somehow. Can they?

Who is doing the directing?

Mistigri · 04/11/2016 14:25

the ultimate aim of the case (as the claimants have made crystal clear) is to stop Brexit.

This is perfectly true. However, the judgement was made without regard to the motivations of the claimants, but strictly on legal/ constitutional grounds.

What does the press gain from reporting this so irresponsibly? I don't agree with the PP who said that the press is just reflecting the opinions of its readers; firstly, the press does shape opinions (look at the way the Overton window has moved in the last two years) and secondly, I doubt that they do reflect the views of their readers accurately. Many Middle England Mail readers will have views that are fundamentally favourable towards ideas like the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty.

OP posts:
Draylon · 04/11/2016 14:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BertrandRussell · 04/11/2016 14:28

Just as a point of information -from Wikipedia

"Referendums are not legally binding, so legally the Government can ignore the results; for example, even if the result of a pre-legislative referendum were a majority of "No" for a proposed law, Parliament could pass it anyway, because parliament is sovereign"

Swipe left for the next trending thread