Yeeees but....you say racism, xenophobia, brexiteers...blah, blah.
But they aren’t talking to thin air. People are buying this, it resonates with them on some level. Migration is a very unpopular policy in the U.K., I think it’s something like 75% of people want migration reduced substantially.
And we know that 52% voted leave, that people had concerns about high levels of low skilled, low waged workers coming from the EU.
We know frequently these concerns are greatest in the least privileged areas amongst the poorest people.
Essentially people who rail against the Daily Mail are against these attitudes being voiced and want to see them censored and denied and erased.
That’s rather a sinister attitude IMO, especially when you consider that the people complaining are usually the wealthier better educated members of society who benefit from migration and aren’t severely affected by the down sides like housing shortages or stretched services.
So you have to think OP, do you think inconvenient viewpoints should be censored? Even if we know they’re popular or address concerns people have? Do you want a press which is directed and guided by the elite to give a particular viewpoint which they endorse?
You might want to go back and look at the sort of regimes that have had that kind of press system in the past. Believe me it is never pretty.
I actually find it incredibly disturbing that so many people these days are keen advocates of this sort of system. I don’t understand why so many people think it is desirable that we should have a press in which they would never see anything they disagreed with or disapproved of. It’s quite frightening...