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.

Another good piece in the Guardian here:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/04/daily-mail-attack-milibands-define-labour-leader

"The Labour leader's camp say they are not intimidated. "This [row] is like Syria and Rupert Murdoch," says the aide. "Once again, Ed's breaking the rules." For all his mildness, he is a disruptive politician, most effective and engaged when shaking things up. He is not a Marxist as the Mail alleges – he wants to reform capitalism, not abolish it – but in his willingness to take on institutions such as the Mail, he is the sort of Labour leader his father might grudgingly have approved of.

And like Dacre, Miliband is stubborn. One of his heroes is the limpet-like England batsman Geoffrey Boycott. It is even possible that Miliband will outlast Dacre, who is employed on a one-year contract. Rothermere still reportedly values his editor highly, but lower down the Mail food chain, out of Dacre's eyeline, there has been dismay and weariness this week that the editor may, for once, have bitten off more than he can chew. And there has been another emotion, too. When Dacre's deputy was desperately trying to hold the line against Alastair Campbell on Newsnight on Tuesday, a source at the Mail tells me: "There was laughter."

www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/04/daily-mail-attack-milibands-define-labour-leader

Interesting article, but I think it shows how the Establishment Guardian and others on the Establishment Left are deluding themselves. They wish it was so that Ed will be able to humble the Mail.

As if some supposed lower down journalistic unease at the mail can bring down Dacre and Britain's most successful newspaper. They're dreaming and when they wake up the reality will look totally different.

Mehdi can play to the gallery on Question Time, but the Mail has removed some of his phoney shine.

Amateurs and bullies like Campbell can shout on the BBC about Dacre being a coward and he can wag his finger and jab and challenge Dacre to a duel, but the self-inflated fantasist is like Don Quixote challenging a windmill to a duel.

How much the Labour Party now need the wisdom and calm thinking of McBride, but what's stopping them from using him is their ego and wounded pride.

The Guardian journalist says

'When Dacre's deputy was desperately trying to hold the line against Alastair Campbell on Newsnight on Tuesday, a source at the Mail tells me: "There was laughter."

But was it laughter at Campbell's bombastic, finger-jabbing charade and the knowledge that there is nothing behind the facade?

From that Guardian piece

'Eighty-nine years ago this month, under the headline "Moscow orders to our Reds: great plot disclosed", it published the infamous Zinoviev letter, later shown to be a forgery, suggesting subversive forces were at work in the Labour party. Four days after the story ran, the first-ever Labour government was thrown out of power.'

But I can't believe that govt lost the election because of the 'infamous Zinoviev letter' (any more than I believe The Sun won the 1997 election for Labour )

lower down the Mail food chain, out of Dacre's eyeline, there has been dismay and weariness this week that the editor may, for once, have bitten off more than he can chew. And there has been another emotion, too. When Dacre's deputy was desperately trying to hold the line against Alastair Campbell on Newsnight on Tuesday, a source at the Mail tells me: "There was laughter."

no, not at Campbell, claig

Would love to be a fly on the wall at Mail meetings.

claig Campbell isn't a facade. Yes he has a personal vendetta against the Mail but people listen to him, and people will be far more willing to listen to him than Mail editors. Such is the reputation of the press nowadays.

Gawd, it's still dragging on. I just turned on BBC find Ann Leslie defending the Mail. They are going to run out of employees to send on TV soon. We'll have Betty the Daily Mail tealady on Sky news next.

Anyway, according to Ann Leslie the Mail isn't anti-Semitic as it loves Israel, the Mail isn't damaged, Ed Miliband is damaged as he's childish and whiney and so on. The presenter kept pressing her on the 'the man who hated Britain' headline, the thing that sparked all this off. She eventually had to concede that 'the headline was very silly'. But they ain't apologising.

Would love for one of them (the writers on tv) to slip up and apologise. Might finally smoke Dacre out of his whole. Unless he imploded in pure rage :o

I like Ed and so far it looks like he has principles and conviction and that is what all of us want in politicians. I like the fact that he has distanced himself from the Blairites, whom I don't think had principles. I woud like a real alternative in politics, one based on principles, even though I prefer the principles of the Mail.

But, as I look at the total ineptness and self-delusion of Labour's strategists, spinners, bullies and bounders, and see Ed being sucked into the Mail's web, then I can only see Ed being the loser.

Looking at the bombastic posturing of some of their advisers and thinkers and communicators, I can only think that New Labour can only have been in power for such a long time due to the backing of Murdoch, and as soon as he dropped them, they were history.

I wonder how much of their soul they sold to Murdoch, I wonder how far they sold their loyal supporters and the people as a whole down the river.

We have seen what Mehdi is like and we have seen the letter he wrote to "Dear Mr Dacre", where he said

"For the record, I am not a Labour tribalist and am often ultra-critical of the left – especially on social and moral issues, where my fellow leftists and liberals have lost touch with their own traditions and with the great British public."

Did the New Labour gang write a similar letter to Dear Mr Murdoch?

Are they cut from the same cloth as Mehdi?

In this battle between bombasts and the principled paper of the people, we may learn many truths that have hitherto been concealed.

I can only think that New Labour can only have been in power for such a long time due to the backing of Murdoch, and as soon as he dropped them, they were history

other way around, claig - he was very good at seeing which way the wind was blowing, & moved accordingly. He didn't make it happen - he moved because it was clear what was going to happen - both ways

Yes, you are right, it was both ways. The Tories were so discredited that even I voted for Blair to kick the Tories out, and Murdoch knew the way the wind was blowing so he did a deal with Blair.

I think this is a very sensible, balanced piece and worth a read

blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/the-daily-mail-is-disreputable-twisted-tendentious-and-malignant-thank-heavens-for-that/

"Your beef is less with the Mail than with the Great British public. Many of them are sods, you see"

Beautifully put

In fact this entire paragraph hits the spot

'The Mail’s politics are not my own but it is a mistake to assume that the Mail leads its readers. If the Mail is an opportunistic, hypocritical, hyper-censorious newspaper that may be because there are many opportunistic, hypocritical, hyper-censorious people in this country and I see no reason why they should not be permitted a newspaper that reflects their passions and prejudices No-one else need read it. The Mail does not so much make the political weather as reflect it. It is powerful because it is read by millions not because it is a corrupting influence on millions of British people. Your beef is less with the Mail than with the Great British public. Many of them are sods, you see.'

Yes, that is good

TheOne, the author makes a few points in that paragraph that are spot on, such as the Mail follows its readers and does not lead them, which is why its readers like the paper.

But unfortunately, he also makes some points, as highlighted in bold by you, that appear on first reading to be so far off base as to suggest that he is either joking or referring to a paper known as the Guardian.

He is right that the Mail is not much of a fan of Cameron, and neither are its readers. While Tory Party membership has plummeted under Cameron, I bet that Mail readership has increased. The Daily Mail's readers are not Tories because the Tories do not reflect their views, but they are Mail readers because the Mail reflects their views. That is why it is a huge mistake for Miliband's advisers to attack the Mail. They should stick to attacking the Tories, because the Mail's readers haven't got much time for them either, but if they attack the Mail, then they attack the people, and then there can only be one winner.

What the author does not spell out is why Labour want to attack the Mail. It is not really to do with the reasons they state, because even if the Mail apologised, that would not be enough for them, because they want to influence its culture and change its culture. But its views are not Tory views, they are instead the vies of millions of ordinary people and that is why Labour will fail.

The advocates of press regulation and Labour attacks on the Mail pretend that their motives are to protect the weak and powerless, but their real objective is to stifle the opinions and concerns of millions of ordinary Mail readers and stop the Mail reflecting those concerns such as the concerns over the Liverpool Care Pathway, EU climate policy, secret courts and all the other policies that ordinary Mail readers are concerned about.

They want to silence political opposition, the only real opposition to the consensus of parties that are all the same.

The Mail knows that, and it also understands that when the people understand it as the fight over press freedom heats up, then the people will back the Mail against the career politicians and the special interest lobbyists.

'Many of them are sods, you see'

Yes that sums it up. That is what the Establishment thinks of Mail readers and millions of ordinary people, and that is why 25% of the people voted for the anti-establishment party - UKIP.

The more they insult the Mail and Mail readers, the more ordinary people will join together in solidarity.

Polly Toynbee is spot on when she said

"Politicians and journalists are equally reviled, so standing outside the establishment is the place to be."

But it is the Mail and its millions of readers who are outside the establishment and it is the career politicians, the chateaux and the characters who have emerged from the nooks, crannies and shadows to give the Mail a gleeful kicking, who are the establishment.

There are plenty of nice people who work for the Daily Mail.

Even some longstanding MNetters!

Its about the prevalent culture, not the individual workers.

True DeFarge and I can imagine that there are times when they are embarassed about it. However, it must be an excellent experience as a journalist. Journalists have to follow the house opinion to a certain extent in their writing and I like to think that a good deal of the Mail hacks aren't xenophobic misogynists.

The Spectator piece does show a different viewpoint on the subject, thanks for that nancy but I wouldn't underestimate the influence it has on its readers. As do all newspapers of course. Some of the nastiest bigots I have come across are Express readers.

Of course a reader chooses the paper, not the other way round, but a bit more responsibility from the paper on what it chooses to feed a reader would be nice.

the author makes a few points in that paragraph that are spot on, such as the Mail follows its readers and does not lead them

Up to a point. The truth is out there; you just have to read widely. Most people don't, and why should they?

If you report news in a particular way, and you've mentioned Liverpool Pathway, then the people who read it will become concerned. Or scared, to put it another way.

There are things to be gravely concerned about in the NHS. For instance, a friend is currently in a hospital in failing measures that has seriously fucked up. I'm treading a line between supporting her husband and encouraging him to complain. Actually, I've said nothing about a complaint though I'm dying to, because this is not the time.

I was struck by the Liverpool Pathway threads here where people who knew, whether as practitioners or relations, said the Liverpool Pathway was not as portrayed in the Mail.

Most of us fear death and thankfully most of us aren't familiar with suffering until the end.

But some very dignified and informed posts made me understand that in many cases death without help is painful, undignified and miserable.

When I say help, I'm not talking about killing people. I'm talking about easing their pain and treating them with dignity.

I'd rather people weren't scared of that mercy, but were scared of the kind of thing my friend and her DH are going through.

When the Mail reports about that kind of cock-up, all power to them. But Liverpool Pathway? It's a cheap shot aimed at terrifying people.

petiteraleuse I don't think most people are bigots. I think all of us are fearful of the unknown and even the smartest of us is easily manipulated.

I cringe at some of the things I believed 20 or 30 years ago. I was naive. Still am on certain subjects, but because they're blind spots, how would I know?

Because I'm a journalist I'm in the privileged position of not only being exposed to a lot of different people and situations, but my naturally bolshy family disposition has been honed by my training.

I do realise that paragraph makes me sound a right patronising cow. If the cap fits, and yes, it does.

I have absolutely no hard evidence for this, but I also take pride in the fact that apparently journalists are some of the most liberal people going. With a few exceptions, obviously

Anyway, my mum is coming to stay in about an hour. She's going to be so disappointed that I've bought the Telegraph. She likes the Review section's TV guide but much prefers the Mail's Weekend.

I have to agree, it's good and the stories suit her much better.

But I have a special reason for getting the Telegraph and with Austerity Britain and all that, I can't go throwing money away on two Saturday papers

limitedperiodonly, that is your view and it is also the view of the Medical Establishment and presumably Labour who were instrumental in bringing that policy in.

But it is a grave mistake to believe that it is the Mail that influences its readers; it really is the other way around, and the Mail does not voice the true extent of the feelings of millions of ordinary members of the public, it does not reflect the true extent of the things said in pubs and cafes and on street corners all over the land. It voices many of the public's concerns, but goes nowhere near far enough to reflect the true concerns of millions of people. But Mail readers buy the Mail in their droves simply because it is the paper that at least voices some of their real concerns.

The stark and sad reality is that the people do not trust many of their politicians, they do not trust the people who were in charge when thousands of people were dying unnecessarily in our hospitals of dehydration and when the newspapers were not reporting it but when people on street corners were already talking about it. They do not trust the people who were in power when there were gagging orders in place to prevent the true grim reality being revealed in our public press.

Mail readers don't trust some of these politicians and their only resort is to hope that they can trust the Mail to voice their concerns, and that is why many people wrote in to the Mail about their experiences and their families experience of the Liverpool Care Pathway, and the Mail did begin to publicise their stories which were dismissed by the establishment and the liberal media as irresponsible scare stories by people who did not have a clue.

"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

The public no longer trust many of their politicians and representatives. That is why they rely on their newspapers to fight their cause and expose what is going on, just as the papers eventually exposed the scandal over expenses of their elected representatives. The public knows that without their papers, these scandals will never be exposed.

That is why Mail readers like the Mail because it expresses to a partial extent their true concerns.

That is why a free press is not a theoretical luxury, it is a necessity.

And that is why the attempts to prevent open exposure and political opposition, by regulation of our free press, to some things that are going on and will continue to go on in the future will ultimately fail.

I don't agree with your views, claig, but I respect your right to hold them.

What I would say is that you are unfailingly polite; much more polite than I am and definitely much more polite than other right-wing posters I won't mention.

btw I can be right-wing on some subjects too. I think it's called liberalism

How many stories did the high and mighty intellectual Guardian newspaper or even our unbiased, impartial publicly funded BBC publish of family members who died of dehydration in our hospitals?

I bet it is nowhere near the amount published by the Mail, and the ones published by the Mail are only a fraction of the ones that actually occurred.

We vote these people in, we know they get perks and expenses and can get lucrative directorships when they finish their political careers and we know that some of them have chateaux, and some of them may even be 'cabs for hire'.

We can put up with all of that, but we can't accept our relatives dying unnecessarily in our hospitals of dehydration or anything else. There is a limit to what the public can put up with and we keep buying copies of our papers as long as they keep reflecting our concerns that something should be done about it.

I always enjoy chatting with claig as she is always polite, you are right limited

And I also agree that most people are not bigoted. But they are influenced by their papers. I'll go back to my mum. She is a DM reader, and it plays on her fears and axaggerates them. She is convinced that most rape victims are liars. The Mail never says that most rape victims are liars, but it gives disproportionate coverage of cases where the accuser has proven to be lying. This is massively unfair on women in general, and rape victims in particular.