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

'how he doesn't do any research'

Littlejohn doesn't need to do "research" to know that some of the highly paid hypocrites are lying, it's as evident as the nose on their face, and he has the people's instinct to see it and express it and that is why he is such a highly paid and effective journalist.

He has the natural instict to see that the socialist Emperor has no clothes and he can display it and portray it and make the people laugh in recognition of the truths that he reveals. He makes plain their game and that's why he is so widely read by the people.

'Shouldn't the Press think about what effect their stories will have on real people?'

Shouldn't New Labour think about what effect their wars had on real people?

Should the Mai not be allowed to offend anyone, not even the home flippers and hypocrites who cheat and deceive the people? Is that why they want to focus on the Mail's stories about some overweight or balding celebs in order to deflect from the crimes and injustices that they themselves have committed?

'We're talking about the Mail, not Labour. Different things surely?'

They are not different things, because as Dacre said, the Mail is "their most vocal critic". It exposes their lies and deceptions and challenges them to be truthful. they want to "change its culture" so that they can shut it up and stop millions of people seeing what they have done.

As Dacre so perceptively said:

"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."

The Mail stands in opposition to them and therefore what they are is crucial to what the Mail is.

Kim, nearly all newspapers report like that. it's how a journalist is trained. it's about painting a picture.

So: age, property price, description of area 'leafy 'run down' etc, job, number of kids, car and - if it's a red top - hair colour!

'How many articles does it publish criticising mothers who want to work?'

It doesn't do that. It doesn't criticise the mothers who are MPs or in the House of Lords and who want to work. But it also stands up for the mothers who want to stay home to look after their children, if that is their choice, and it gives a voice to those women and demands that they also receive equal benefits and tax treatment.

I have a friend with severe mental health problems that the Observer did a double page spread on. I loathe the Observer but not because of the article (ridiculous as it was).

Don't reduce everything to the personal.
It weakens any argument or points you may have.

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?

Who ever said that there was anything wrong with it? However, it is to say the least fairly pathetic to keep denying it and to keep pretending to be a man of the people and a UK resident.

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

Sure they can. And other people can call them out for spreading lies, hatred and prejudice. Deal with it.

Littlejohn doesn't need to do "research" to know that some of the highly paid hypocrites are lying

But when he is citing supposed facts, he does need to do research. Or don't you care if journalists base entire articles on "facts" that are the reverse of the truth and mislead their readers?

OK, moondog, if you can't debate rationally but only by making unpleasant personal attacks, I'm not engaging with it.

That's what happens in the world of newspapers.
Anyone who reads a story about anything of which they know a little, knows that things are omitted/added/stretched/rearranged to suit the remit of the publication.

That will be the case whether we are talking breeding habits of sloths or the bombing of Damascus.

Did you not work this out years ago?

Rightyo then.

You don't have to believe in it Kim.
I don't believe in many things.
Ready meals, diet foods, cruises, nylon underwear, personalised number plates, Polly Toynbee. The list goes on...... Don't want to ban them though.

'it is to say the least fairly pathetic to keep denying it and to keep pretending to be a man of the people and a UK resident.'

The Mail reader doesn't care who you are and how rich you are and where you went to school, all the Mail reader cares is about is do you stand up for and respect the views of ordinary people.

Jacob Rees-Mogg went to Eton and Oxford and Littlejohn left school at 16, but they are both principled champions of ordinary people.