Well done Ed Miliband for speaking out about the Daily Mail's article on his father

[claig]

The Daily Mail used a low tactic of accusing Ed miliband's father of hating Britain.

I think it was a nasty thing to do. Just because someone is a Marxist and may criticise some aspects of the country or its instiutions does not mean that they hate Britain.

'Actually you'd be surprised, she has very little positive to say about thatcher.'

Yes and that just shows that Mail readers are all different. One of the Mail's leading commentators is Peter Hitchens and he so despises the Tories that he tells us not to vote for them, and we don't mind, because we know that in some ways he is right because they are the millionaires who ignore us when they are in power and only court us when they need us and tell us that if we don't vote for these millionaires then we will get Miliband instead.

"However, I will say again an again that the mail is dangerous, manipulative, dishonest and really dislikes a lot of what it means to be British. Clegg put it perfectly yesterday and I never agree with him."

It is not dangerous. That is an image that is portrayed by people like Clegg who said he was against tuition charges and then was part of a government that tripled them. When it comes to manipulative and deceitful, then Clegg lecturing the Mail and by implcation its millions of readers, really takes the biscuit.

Everybody knows what the Mail stands for and it doesn't bend with the wind. It is often against Cameron and supported Brown in his policy against the proliferation of casinos, because the Mail stands by its principles. While Paddy Ashdown said it was a "bad day for Britain" when the Commons voted over Syria, the Mail's editorials were against attacking Syria. The Mail does not kowtow to the wishes of the political class and even has one of its most popular commentators, Hitchens, lambasting "Slippery Dave" and "Blair of Baghdad" every week.

The Mail stands by its principles and stands by the people and not the political class, and that is why it sells so many copies and is so feared by the career politicians.

Dacre is a kingmaker because he is the voice of the people to the millionaires in the Palce of Westminster.

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep, no I was opposed to the Liverpool Care Pathway as are lots of other Mail readers, and the Mail doesn't go anywhere near far enough in spelling out why.

Nearly everybody I know is worried about hospital treatment of their elderly relatives. People say to me, "I never believed all the stories in the press about our hospitals" but now I do, when unfortunately their relatives and loved ones are hospitalized.

No one will talk about the real unarticulated fears of the public over this, not even the great Daily Mail, although it is the paper that gets the nearest to articulating it.

'Come off it, the Mail is an establishment paper and always has been.'

It is not. If it was then I and millions of others wouldn't be reading it. The BBC is the establishment, not the Mail. The establishment, Clegg and all the rest of them dislike the Daily Mail. All the right-on comedians hate it and mock it, but us the people buy it in our millions and by denigrating the Mail, they denigrate us.

Oh well we couldn't stay in agreement for three days in a row. Nevermind, we managed for a good while :-)

Exactly. It doesn't voice people's fears so much as tell people what they should be fearing. Generally that is. Granted there have been times when I've applauded it, e.g the Lawrence case. Ok, one time.

You don't think it's a little bit dangerous that one organ can print whatever it wants, and 2 million people will believe it without question?

That's a lot of power to hand to one organisation. What if it fell into the hands of someone less principled than Dacre?

Hester even a stopped clock is right twice a day...

I still think "us" is far too generalised.

I hate the way it portrays women. I hate the way it represents foreigners. I hate the way it fails to differentiate between illegal immigrants and political asylum seekers. I hate the way it portays everyone on benefits.

And I HATE the way it categorises everyone who doesn't vote Tory as "the Left".

'You don't think it's a little bit dangerous that one organ can print whatever it wants, and 2 million people will believe it without question?'

They don't believe it without question. They were against its article about Ed's father, they thought that the Mail had gone too far. Hitchens tells us not to vote for the Tories but we ignore him and often still have to vote Tory, just to stop an even worse alternative.

The Mail sells because it is in tune with us on many issues. It does not lead us, it follow us. That is why it is so successful, it has its finger on the pulse because it actually listens to us unlike the out-of-touch elite with their phoney Big Conversations, where the outcomes have already been decided before they even asked us.

We are against spin and the spinners, which is why we don't like to see them getting publicity on our BBC in order to enhance their image and sell us their books.

We like Hitchens because he doesn't try to spin us by telling us to vote Tory, because we know that they are only the best of bad bunch.

The Mail tells it like it is and we like that and we agree or disagree with it, and Petite's mother who is a proud reader chooses not to have much of a good word to say about Thatcher even if the Mail does.

'I still think "us" is far too generalised.'

When I say 'us', I am referring to the millions of Daily Mail readers only, not Campbell and McBride and many other people.

I think that's precisely what I hate about the Mail. Taking a complicated issue and reducing it to a nonsense. For example, conflating the issues with treating elderly people in hospital and the terrible treatment that we've heard about - with the Liverpool Care Pathway.

Likewise, a scholar, writer, political thinker, who writes books about political theory and comes from a Marxist perspective "hates Britain". Because writing and reading books about how things could or should be different means you hate Britain. Just ignorant.

If people don't want to spend time thinking or understanding these complicated issues, then fine. But please don't expect me to stand up and applaud the Mail for being "the voice of the people" when actually it just takes some vague prejudices and gives them a veneer of legitimacy through use of half truth and rabble-rousing.

And this might be from another thread - if so I apologise - but did you say you have a degree in applied maths? If so, how can you possibly read the Mail without jumping up and down yelling, "that's not statistically significant!!" and the like? Do you steer clear of the health section? Cause it gives me the science rage.

'What if it fell into the hands of someone less principled than Dacre? '

Then the people woud stop buying it. The people are not stupid. We know what Clegg is like and we don't believe what he says.

I love the health section because it spurs me on to google and find out if there is any truth in what it tells me. I learn from it by furthering my own research.

"that's not statistically significant"

I know that there are lies, damned lies and New Labour, so I take everything with a pinch of salt.

You take everything with a pinch of salt, you say, but many don't. Many People of my parents' generation don't question the news as much as we do now, especially as the line between reporting and comment has been blurred further and further over the years.

Interesting piece by Polly T in the Guardian. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/04/no-retreat-ed-miliband-paul-dacre-murdoch

Yes, Petite, that is a good point. I think you are right there. But at the end of the day I believe in freedom and making a case by argument and am against anyone appointing themselves as an arbiter of what people should be allowed to read or believe.

I don't want spinners like Campbell or Clegg or millionaires in chateaux to have any say in bringing about regulation of a free press.

This is why the issue of a free press is so vital for us as a nation. We must be allowed to voice our real fears and to not have them swept under the carpet by millionaires in chateaux who do not face the things we face because they have more money than us and can escape our fate. We must keep fighting for our rights and our freedom to express our concerns. It is the Daily Mail that often stands alone in voicing our real concerns in our fight for these freedoms.

"When the Mail first highlighted readers’ harrowing stories about the suffering inflicted on patients and their families in the name of the Liverpool Care Pathway, the medical establishment reacted with fierce hostility.

When we called for an inquiry into the NHS-approved guidelines on end-of-life care, we were contemptuously accused of scaremongering and interfering in matters we didn’t understand.

Complaints were lodged with the Press regulatory body, seeking disciplinary action against us

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2364743/Liverpool-Care-Pathway-abolished-Victory-decency-end-life-care.html

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2364743/Liverpool-Care-Pathway-abolished-Victory-decency-end-life-care.html#ixzz2gkZsR9PX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Apparently now the DM is demanding an apology because some people have suggested they might be motivated by anti-semitism.

You actually couldn't make it up.

Yes it was the City Editor who said they are owed an apology on the Beeb this morning. I must admit I didn't see any anti-semitism in the article but I haven't re-read it since those accusations were made. Certainly didn't strike me as anti-semitic, and the Mail in its current form has never led me to think it is anti-semitic.

I'm rather surprised at the audacity of asking for an apology for something somebody has suggested whilst at the at the same time refusing to apologise for something they've actually done?

flippinada, I don't think it is an official demand from the Daily Mail Newspaper, I think it is just the opinion of a journalist on the Mail.

ha ha at DM asking for an apology.

Yes we are vile and spread hate everywhere but how dare you suggest that we hold our knives the wrong way. How absolutely offensive of you.

I don't actually think their intention was anti-Semitic. But it's an obvious thought that would go through any observer's mind. Worth thinking about even if in this case I suspect it's knee jerk Mail crap rather than a particularly anti-Semitic attack (except in the sense that the Mail are anti everyone).

No one is arguing (here) that the press be muzzled. However what we do want is that they show some common decency and humanity. All of them, not just the Mail.

Claig, most of the press is owned by millionaires in chateaux. I wouldn't look to them to liberate you from your oppression by millionaires in chateaux.