Dacre speaks!

[claig]

Great article full of great points. Too many to list, but this is just a sample.

"our crime is more heinous than that.

It is that the Mail constantly dares to stand up to the liberal-Left consensus that dominates so many areas of British life, and instead represents the views of the ordinary people who are our readers and who don’t have a voice in today’s political landscape — and are too often ignored by today’s ruling elite.

The metropolitan classes, of course, despise our readers with their dreams (mostly unfulfilled) of a decent education and health service they can trust, their belief in the family, patriotism, self-reliance, and their over-riding suspicion of the State and the People Who Know Best."


...


"No other newspaper campaigns as vigorously as the Mail and I am proud of the ability of the paper’s 400 journalists (the BBC has 8,000) to continually set the national agenda on a whole host of issues.

I am proud that for years, while most of Fleet Street were in thrall to it, the Mail was the only paper to stand up to the malign propaganda machine of Tony Blair and his appalling henchman, Campbell."

.....


"The BBC is controlled, through the licence fee, by the politicians. ITV has to answer to Ofcom, a Government quango.

Newspapers are the only mass media left in Britain free from the control of the State."

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2455256/PAUL-DACRE-Editor-Mail-answers-papers-critics.html

[claig]

'Do you think that article about Lucy Meadows was acceptable?'

Littlejohn did not know what would happen and it is not clear that Lucy ended her life due to Littlejohn's article. I do believe that Littlejohn is entitled to his view even if people disagree with it.

[claig]

"Or do you not care because they're trying to make a better country for children and adults without having any migrants, benefit people, gays or transsexuals in it?"

The Mail is not anti migrant, benefit people, gays or transexuals.
Portillo and Tebbit have foreign roots, Duncan Smith was on benefits once, some of the Mail's most senior journalists are gay, and the Mail is not anti transsexuals.

[nennypops]

If you seriously think that the Mail is not anti immigrants, people on benefits, gays and transsexuals, you are blinkered to an absolutely astonishing extent. Just have a look at Mail Online and notice how they structure their reports and, in particular, their headlines to wind their readers up on those topics and then sit back and allow uncensored bigoted comments through in their droves.

What actually bemuses me is the massive list of people and things that the Daily Mail irrationally hates. Think about it: foreigners (especially immigrants), J K Rowling, people on benefits (even if they are on benefits because they've been made redundant and there are no jobs), the disabled, Charlotte Church, the BBC, the NHS, the church, Jonathan Ross, gays, transsexuals, most of the Royal Family, the Olympics, Jack Whitehall, teachers, Facebook, Twitter, the police, doctors, lawyers, ambulance men and women, firemen, the Middletons, overweight people, underweight people, Channel 4, schoolchildren, students, scientists, people who work in local government, social workers, the Met Office - and that's just the tip of the iceberg. They really seem to want their readers to live in a constant state of hate and fear, particularly about the UK. And then they dare to slag off someone else for hating Britain!

[moondog]

In the Guardian it's 'free speech'. In the DM it is 'uncensored bigoted comment'. How the hand wringing liberals hate it when the masses just won't think as they are expected to.

[claig]

The Mail does not hate people. If they hated all those people then they wouldn't have any readers left, they wouldn't be Britain's second highest selling paper and their website wouldn't be the world's number one news site.

This looks like a case of what the psychologists call projection. The real haters are those who hate the Mail, Britain's second highest selling newspaper.

The real fearmongers are the scammers who try to deceive the public that we have passed the "tipping point" and will suffer "catacyclsmic catastrophic climate change".

There is no hate in the Mail. But there is anger at some of the millionaires in Parliament who flipped their homes, claimed for bath plugs and did not listen to the wishes of the people they claim to represent. That is why some of those people jab their fingers at the Mail, accuse it of being hateful and are desperate to "change its culture".

[PetiteRaleuse]

The Mail not only hates those groups but it also despises its readership. The way it deliberately sets out to manipulate its readers shows zero respect for your intelligence. You can almost see the scorn for its readers jumping off the page. Women are the core readership and that is the group it tries to manipulate the most.

[claig]

I don't recognise this description of Britain's second highest selling newspaper and the world's leading online news site.

But I do recognise the wise words of Dacre, the Mail's esteemed editor, renowned for speaking "truth to power" and exposing the hypocrisy and lies of the "metropolitan classes" and their condescension to millions of ordinary hardworking Mail readers.

"The truth is that there is an unpleasant intellectual snobbery about the Mail in Leftish circles, for whom the word ‘suburban’ is an obscenity. They simply cannot comprehend how a paper that opposes the mindset they hold dear can be so successful and so loved by its millions of readers."

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2455256/PAUL-DACRE-Editor-Mail-answers-papers-critics.html

[nennypops]

OP, you are in denial, and I am afraid that, like many Mail readers, you don't realise you are being manipulated. Just look, for instance, at the Mail's reports on the Christian B&B owners who wouldn't allow a gay couple to stay - full of dog whistles designed to work their less discerning readers up into a froth of rage. Look at the reports on Mick Philpott - deliberately written to make it look as if he was somehow typical of benefit claimants. Look at any report on immigrants or benefit claimants: all designed to bring out the haters whilst artfully forgetting to mention the great advantages which immigration brings to the country, or the fact that the bulk of the benefits bill goes on pensions, child benefit, and rent paid to private landlords. Look at the way they always artfully benefit any inconvenient facts that don't fit their agenda right at the end of their reports where they know the majority of their readers won't see them. Look at the sheer hypocrisy of going on about anorexia whilst openly inviting people to sneer at even slightly overweight people; or professing shock at people wearing low-cut dresses on TV whilst drooling over pictures of nubile 14 year olds in bikinis.

And please don't just respond to this post by denying that any of this happens. If you do, you will just demonstrate the truth of what I am saying.

[claig]

Dacre, the man renowned for speaking "truth to power" and exposing the socialist shower whose hate-filled attacks on the people's paper grow more hysterical by the hour.

[nennypops]

Littlejohn is one of my favourite Mail journalists.

Why does that not surprise me. But seriously, are you really happy for him to write articles about how the murder of five women doesn't matter? Do you not notice the sheer laziness of his columns - how he doesn't do any research, constantly relies on rehashing unfunny references to 70s sitcoms and Minder, and endlessly repeats the same unbelievably tedious "jokes" about elf'n'safety and yooman rites? As for that pretence that he's One Of Us living in a semi in Enfield when the reality is that he lives in a condominium in Florida, is anyone actually conned by it?

[moondog]

It's amusing to see the way you all scrabble for increasingly obtuse reasons to denounce the DM in the face of Claig's calm and logical rebuttal of your foaming.
Millions of readers love it and know it voices the opinion of ordinary people. If they didn't, they wouldn't buy it.

[claig]

'I thought the people's paper was the Sun?'

No. It backed Tony Blair for years, so it wasn't the people's paper. It changes its political allegiance with the wind as and when it suits its proprietor.

The Mail never changes. It is a rock of truth and a light of good that exposes injustice. It insists on speaking "truth to power" on behalf of the millions of people with no voice whichever party or leader is in power.

[nennypops]

OP, interesting that you simply can't engage with any reasoned criticism but rely instead on abusing those who produce concrete examples of what they are talking about.

[nennypops]

moondog, what rebuttal? I can simply see outright denials of basic, undeniable facts combined with somewhat odd hero worship of Dacre.

[nennypops]

rock of truth

Loving that one. No doubt that is why it keeps having to pay out thousands of pounds for libel and contempt of court. There wasn't too much devotion to truth in their articles about Chris Jefferies.

[claig]

I don't agree with everything that Littlejohn says, but I believe in free speech and a free press. He does repeat some of his jokes, presumably under the impression that the old ones are the best, but he does also have a unique and perceptive way of expressing himself that can cut through the cant and hypocrisy of some of the home flippers and reveal the truth.

"As for that pretence that he's One Of Us living in a semi in Enfield when the reality is that he lives in a condominium in Florida, is anyone actually conned by it?"

If Blair can have homes all over the world and fly in £7000 per hour private jets, then why can't the people's journalist, Littlejohn, have a place in Florida where he can enjoy some well-deserved rest in the sunshine?

[moondog]

I don't Nanny. I see a core of people fixated on what or two stories that seem to have offended them personally thus they see fit to use that as a basis for a sweeping dismissal of an entire paper.

In the world of grown ups, people and papers can say and do what they like, strange as that may seem.