I too do not read it, don't give a monkeys about it tbh. It does not even register on my radar as an amusement until it riles anyone or any group up to the extent we see on here for example.
I have a mental picture of the sweaty little group of hacks knocking that piece of code up, slapping each other on the back, without the slightest idea of the hypocrisy of what they are doing. For every piece of offensive, self righteous, pigeon holing nonsense that they think the Daily Mail stands for, they have replicated in the questions they ask in their mock survey. Well done.
It is not for me, yet those who seem to care most about diversity and free speech seem to be those who get so outraged against something they don't stand for.
What is clear though is that they are making a success of it. They have adapted to the digital age far better than anyone else, and as a result have virtually cornered the digital market. Their website receives over 9 million hits a day, more than double their closest digital rival (Guardian), and continues to grow y/y by 30%.
Whether you like what they do (I don't), there clearly is a market who do.
Both the Mail and the Guardian have cracked the US market, albeit the Mail online is generally a different animal to the print version and focused more on celebrity than politics. Arguably the Guardian's success is more remarkable, since they start from a much lower print sale but are hammering the other UK nationals (leaving aside pay wall issues).
It is not for me, yet those who seem to care most about diversity and free speech seem to be those who get so outraged against something they don't stand for.
What is clear though is that they are making a success of it. They have adapted to the digital age far better than anyone else, and as a result have virtually cornered the digital market. Their website receives over 9 million hits a day, more than double their closest digital rival (Guardian), and continues to grow y/y by 30%.
Whether you like what they do (I don't), there clearly is a market who do.
It's like the Wonga.com of the newspaper world. There's a market but they're pretty much devoid of moral guidance in its exploitation.
I do think it's true that people on the left and the right spend time looking for things to be outraged by and the Daily Mail sates both sides' appetite for that. I don't think it's the case that all of its readers spend their days foaming at the mouth with rage at immigration but there is a slightly dangerous element to being drip fed things to be pious and angry about on a daily basis, especially when it's reaching so many people. Not that it should be stopped, that would be anti free speech, we just need to ensure that the population are well educated enough to form their own opinions even if they do go to the sidebar of shame for some titilation or to be outraged at its misogyny.
Anyway, it's seriously backfired on them. Almost everyone on both sides of the political divide are laying into them and it's allowed Ed M to look sympathetic and prepared to stand up to bullies.
The Mail celeb stuff on the internet is great. Plenty of TOWIE updates.
The best thing about it is the "oh look at the 15 year olds in bikinis" on the "sidebar of shame" are always next to some raging polemic against paedophiles.
I don't blame the Daily Mail for pandering to their reader's views. you just need to read the comments online to see what their readership really think. The same can be said of Grauniad which panders to its own public, and their comments section is usually just as biased and filled with prejudice, albeit of a different flavour.
What has to be said though is that the Mail went way over the line this time and the editor needs to grow a pair and publicly defend it or admit the mistake and apologise for it. Even the likes of Piers Morgan stood up.
Ah, the left, quick to criticise the Mail for an article about the possible influence a marxist father could have had on his son, a potential future PM of this country, but happy to let MP's and others slate and disgrace the memory of an old woman and try to disrupt her funeral.
If you dont like the damn paper, dont buy it, I wouldnt dream of buying the Mirror, The Granuaid or Morning Star, neither would I visit a website to see how much they hated me, neither do I give a flying that they would/do.
Feel free to criticise the paper for something they did years ago (rightly so, as you ask, they should always be reminded) but, try this link and then tell me none of you have ever used any of the products or services listed.
If they had just questioned the political influence that Milliband senior had had on his son then that would have been absolutely fine - but they didn't.
They said that the bloke - based on a single diary entry when he was 17 years old - "Hated Britain" - completely unjustifiable and over the top.
They actually ruined a good story because it would be interesting to know what strands of his Father's philosophy that Ed Milliband holds on to, but they could not help themselves.
It wasnt based on a diary entry when he was 17, that was merely his statement of allegiance to Marx and "The workers" it was based on confirmed comments from RM, published in his biogrpaphy, that he sometimes wished we had lost world war II, and he detested our defence of "The F****** Falklands". If thats not a man who is at least uncomfortable with his country, then I dont know what is, maybe hated were the wrong words, but anyone quoting those comments to me would get short shrift.
Uncomfortable enough to fight the Nazis whilst serving in the Royal Navy ?
It is not for me, yet those who seem to care most about diversity and free speech seem to be those who get so outraged against something they don't stand for.
What is clear though is that they are making a success of it. They have adapted to the digital age far better than anyone else, and as a result have virtually cornered the digital market. Their website receives over 9 million hits a day, more than double their closest digital rival (Guardian), and continues to grow y/y by 30%.
Whether you like what they do (I don't), there clearly is a market who do.
Both the Mail and the Guardian have cracked the US market, albeit the Mail online is generally a different animal to the print version and focused more on celebrity than politics. Arguably the Guardian's success is more remarkable, since they start from a much lower print sale but are hammering the other UK nationals (leaving aside pay wall issues).
Just had a look at the Guardian's circulation figures and they really are appalling. Only the Independent has less of the daily nationals. I guess a lot of natural Guardian readers (the youngish etc) are more likely to get their news online?
Ah, the left, quick to criticise the Mail for an article about the possible influence a marxist father could have had on his son, a potential future PM of this country, but happy to let MP's and others slate and disgrace the memory of an old woman and try to disrupt her funeral.
If you dont like the damn paper, dont buy it, I wouldnt dream of buying the Mirror, The Granuaid or Morning Star, neither would I visit a website to see how much they hated me, neither do I give a flying that they would/do.
Feel free to criticise the paper for something they did years ago (rightly so, as you ask, they should always be reminded) but, try this link and then tell me none of you have ever used any of the products or services listed.
If they had just questioned the political influence that Milliband senior had had on his son then that would have been absolutely fine - but they didn't.
They said that the bloke - based on a single diary entry when he was 17 years old - "Hated Britain" - completely unjustifiable and over the top.
They actually ruined a good story because it would be interesting to know what strands of his Father's philosophy that Ed Milliband holds on to, but they could not help themselves.
It wasnt based on a diary entry when he was 17, that was merely his statement of allegiance to Marx and "The workers" it was based on confirmed comments from RM, published in his biogrpaphy, that he sometimes wished we had lost world war II, and he detested our defence of "The F****** Falklands". If thats not a man who is at least uncomfortable with his country, then I dont know what is, maybe hated were the wrong words, but anyone quoting those comments to me would get short shrift.
Uncomfortable enough to fight the Nazis whilst serving in the Royal Navy ?
The remarks were made after he had served, so no doubt his political views had skewed enough to make the remark about losing WWII, if people are comfortable with someone saying that, despite them serving in the forces, then fine, I'm not. I am sure there are people of marxist/communist leanings in the current forces who disagree with the reasons for recent wars in the middle east, but to say you wished you would lose is deplorable IMO.
It is not for me, yet those who seem to care most about diversity and free speech seem to be those who get so outraged against something they don't stand for.
What is clear though is that they are making a success of it. They have adapted to the digital age far better than anyone else, and as a result have virtually cornered the digital market. Their website receives over 9 million hits a day, more than double their closest digital rival (Guardian), and continues to grow y/y by 30%.
Whether you like what they do (I don't), there clearly is a market who do.
Both the Mail and the Guardian have cracked the US market, albeit the Mail online is generally a different animal to the print version and focused more on celebrity than politics. Arguably the Guardian's success is more remarkable, since they start from a much lower print sale but are hammering the other UK nationals (leaving aside pay wall issues).
Just had a look at the Guardian's circulation figures and they really are appalling. Only the Independent has less of the daily nationals. I guess a lot of natural Guardian readers (the youngish etc) are more likely to get their news online?
Wouldn't be surprised if they drop the print edition at some point in the next 5 years.
They are trying to brand themselves as the Anglosphere's leading leftwing website and doing quite well. Sadly, it's at the expense of good journalism - loads of click and bait article s designed to get traffic up.
Ah, the left, quick to criticise the Mail for an article about the possible influence a marxist father could have had on his son, a potential future PM of this country, but happy to let MP's and others slate and disgrace the memory of an old woman and try to disrupt her funeral.
If you dont like the damn paper, dont buy it, I wouldnt dream of buying the Mirror, The Granuaid or Morning Star, neither would I visit a website to see how much they hated me, neither do I give a flying that they would/do.
Feel free to criticise the paper for something they did years ago (rightly so, as you ask, they should always be reminded) but, try this link and then tell me none of you have ever used any of the products or services listed.
If they had just questioned the political influence that Milliband senior had had on his son then that would have been absolutely fine - but they didn't.
They said that the bloke - based on a single diary entry when he was 17 years old - "Hated Britain" - completely unjustifiable and over the top.
They actually ruined a good story because it would be interesting to know what strands of his Father's philosophy that Ed Milliband holds on to, but they could not help themselves.
It wasnt based on a diary entry when he was 17, that was merely his statement of allegiance to Marx and "The workers" it was based on confirmed comments from RM, published in his biogrpaphy, that he sometimes wished we had lost world war II, and he detested our defence of "The F****** Falklands". If thats not a man who is at least uncomfortable with his country, then I dont know what is, maybe hated were the wrong words, but anyone quoting those comments to me would get short shrift.
Uncomfortable enough to fight the Nazis whilst serving in the Royal Navy ?
The remarks were made after he had served, so no doubt his political views had skewed enough to make the remark about losing WWII, if people are comfortable with someone saying that, despite them serving in the forces, then fine, I'm not. I am sure there are people of marxist/communist leanings in the current forces who disagree with the reasons for recent wars in the middle east, but to say you wished you would lose is deplorable IMO.
I just think it's easy for a newspaper to say "he hated his country" but what have most of us ever really done for our country ? Significantly less than this man I'd imagine.
Ah, the left, quick to criticise the Mail for an article about the possible influence a marxist father could have had on his son, a potential future PM of this country, but happy to let MP's and others slate and disgrace the memory of an old woman and try to disrupt her funeral.
If you dont like the damn paper, dont buy it, I wouldnt dream of buying the Mirror, The Granuaid or Morning Star, neither would I visit a website to see how much they hated me, neither do I give a flying that they would/do.
Feel free to criticise the paper for something they did years ago (rightly so, as you ask, they should always be reminded) but, try this link and then tell me none of you have ever used any of the products or services listed.
If they had just questioned the political influence that Milliband senior had had on his son then that would have been absolutely fine - but they didn't.
They said that the bloke - based on a single diary entry when he was 17 years old - "Hated Britain" - completely unjustifiable and over the top.
They actually ruined a good story because it would be interesting to know what strands of his Father's philosophy that Ed Milliband holds on to, but they could not help themselves.
It wasnt based on a diary entry when he was 17, that was merely his statement of allegiance to Marx and "The workers" it was based on confirmed comments from RM, published in his biogrpaphy, that he sometimes wished we had lost world war II, and he detested our defence of "The F****** Falklands". If thats not a man who is at least uncomfortable with his country, then I dont know what is, maybe hated were the wrong words, but anyone quoting those comments to me would get short shrift.
Uncomfortable enough to fight the Nazis whilst serving in the Royal Navy ?
The remarks were made after he had served, so no doubt his political views had skewed enough to make the remark about losing WWII, if people are comfortable with someone saying that, despite them serving in the forces, then fine, I'm not. I am sure there are people of marxist/communist leanings in the current forces who disagree with the reasons for recent wars in the middle east, but to say you wished you would lose is deplorable IMO.
I just think it's easy for a newspaper to say "he hated his country" but what have most of us ever really done for our country ? Significantly less than this man I'd imagine.
No doubt in my mind the headline was designed to grab attention, it did.
Ah, the left, quick to criticise the Mail for an article about the possible influence a marxist father could have had on his son, a potential future PM of this country, but happy to let MP's and others slate and disgrace the memory of an old woman and try to disrupt her funeral.
If you dont like the damn paper, dont buy it, I wouldnt dream of buying the Mirror, The Granuaid or Morning Star, neither would I visit a website to see how much they hated me, neither do I give a flying that they would/do.
Feel free to criticise the paper for something they did years ago (rightly so, as you ask, they should always be reminded) but, try this link and then tell me none of you have ever used any of the products or services listed.
They're trying to associate Miliband's politics of today with his dad's diary entry, one of a 17 year old kid. His dad may have had an influence, but this is scraping the barrel at best. And I'm no apologist for Ed Miliband, trust me.
The remarks were made after he had served, so no doubt his political views had skewed enough to make the remark about losing WWII, if people are comfortable with someone saying that, despite them serving in the forces, then fine, I'm not.
I'm not sure exactly what he said about wishing that Britain had lost WWII and more importantly in what context that statement was made. It's easy to quote comments out of context so that they appear to say something that the original author did not intend.
Ah, the left, quick to criticise the Mail for an article about the possible influence a marxist father could have had on his son, a potential future PM of this country, but happy to let MP's and others slate and disgrace the memory of an old woman and try to disrupt her funeral.
If you dont like the damn paper, dont buy it, I wouldnt dream of buying the Mirror, The Granuaid or Morning Star, neither would I visit a website to see how much they hated me, neither do I give a flying that they would/do.
Feel free to criticise the paper for something they did years ago (rightly so, as you ask, they should always be reminded) but, try this link and then tell me none of you have ever used any of the products or services listed.
If they had just questioned the political influence that Milliband senior had had on his son then that would have been absolutely fine - but they didn't.
They said that the bloke - based on a single diary entry when he was 17 years old - "Hated Britain" - completely unjustifiable and over the top.
They actually ruined a good story because it would be interesting to know what strands of his Father's philosophy that Ed Milliband holds on to, but they could not help themselves.
It wasnt based on a diary entry when he was 17, that was merely his statement of allegiance to Marx and "The workers" it was based on confirmed comments from RM, published in his biogrpaphy, that he sometimes wished we had lost world war II, and he detested our defence of "The F****** Falklands". If thats not a man who is at least uncomfortable with his country, then I dont know what is, maybe hated were the wrong words, but anyone quoting those comments to me would get short shrift.
Uncomfortable enough to fight the Nazis whilst serving in the Royal Navy ?
The remarks were made after he had served, so no doubt his political views had skewed enough to make the remark about losing WWII, if people are comfortable with someone saying that, despite them serving in the forces, then fine, I'm not. I am sure there are people of marxist/communist leanings in the current forces who disagree with the reasons for recent wars in the middle east, but to say you wished you would lose is deplorable IMO.
I just think it's easy for a newspaper to say "he hated his country" but what have most of us ever really done for our country ? Significantly less than this man I'd imagine.
No doubt in my mind the headline was designed to grab attention, it did.
Completely agree - but you have to ask yourself if there are any limits to what's acceptable in order to achieve an grabbing headline ?
It wasnt based on a diary entry when he was 17, that was merely his statement of allegiance to Marx and "The workers" it was based on confirmed comments from RM, published in his biogrpaphy, that he sometimes wished we had lost world war II, and he detested our defence of "The F****** Falklands". If thats not a man who is at least uncomfortable with his country, then I dont know what is, maybe hated were the wrong words, but anyone quoting those comments to me would get short shrift.
Yes it was (except that he was actually 16) according to the biographer himself:
"It is a strange to read words taken from a biography you have written, but distorted as the basis of a vicious and offensive attack on its subject. This has been my experience since the publication of the ludicrous article by Geoffrey Levy in the Daily Mail on Saturday describing Ralph Miliband, Ed Miliband's father, as "the man who hated Britain".
The sole basis for this assertion was a diary entry at the age of 16 in autumn 1940, where Ralph Miliband wrote that "the Englishman is a rabid nationalist" and, "when you hear the English talk of this war you sometimes almost want them to lose it to show how things are." Such sentiments might sound shocking, but they need to be put into their real context."
Ah, the left, quick to criticise the Mail for an article about the possible influence a marxist father could have had on his son, a potential future PM of this country, but happy to let MP's and others slate and disgrace the memory of an old woman and try to disrupt her funeral.
If you dont like the damn paper, dont buy it, I wouldnt dream of buying the Mirror, The Granuaid or Morning Star, neither would I visit a website to see how much they hated me, neither do I give a flying that they would/do.
Feel free to criticise the paper for something they did years ago (rightly so, as you ask, they should always be reminded) but, try this link and then tell me none of you have ever used any of the products or services listed.
If they had just questioned the political influence that Milliband senior had had on his son then that would have been absolutely fine - but they didn't.
They said that the bloke - based on a single diary entry when he was 17 years old - "Hated Britain" - completely unjustifiable and over the top.
They actually ruined a good story because it would be interesting to know what strands of his Father's philosophy that Ed Milliband holds on to, but they could not help themselves.
It wasnt based on a diary entry when he was 17, that was merely his statement of allegiance to Marx and "The workers" it was based on confirmed comments from RM, published in his biogrpaphy, that he sometimes wished we had lost world war II, and he detested our defence of "The F****** Falklands". If thats not a man who is at least uncomfortable with his country, then I dont know what is, maybe hated were the wrong words, but anyone quoting those comments to me would get short shrift.
Uncomfortable enough to fight the Nazis whilst serving in the Royal Navy ?
The remarks were made after he had served, so no doubt his political views had skewed enough to make the remark about losing WWII, if people are comfortable with someone saying that, despite them serving in the forces, then fine, I'm not. I am sure there are people of marxist/communist leanings in the current forces who disagree with the reasons for recent wars in the middle east, but to say you wished you would lose is deplorable IMO.
I just think it's easy for a newspaper to say "he hated his country" but what have most of us ever really done for our country ? Significantly less than this man I'd imagine.
No doubt in my mind the headline was designed to grab attention, it did.
Completely agree - but you have to ask yourself if there are any limits to what's acceptable in order to achieve an grabbing headline ?
Its a newspaper, its free to write what it wants, as long as its within the law, I dread to think what the Morning Star or Socialist Worker papers may have written about Lady Thatchers death that could be deemed acceptable/unacceptable. I have no proof that they did anything, but I doubt it would have bothered those on CL like this, if so.
Ah, the left, quick to criticise the Mail for an article about the possible influence a marxist father could have had on his son, a potential future PM of this country, but happy to let MP's and others slate and disgrace the memory of an old woman and try to disrupt her funeral.
If you dont like the damn paper, dont buy it, I wouldnt dream of buying the Mirror, The Granuaid or Morning Star, neither would I visit a website to see how much they hated me, neither do I give a flying that they would/do.
Feel free to criticise the paper for something they did years ago (rightly so, as you ask, they should always be reminded) but, try this link and then tell me none of you have ever used any of the products or services listed.
If they had just questioned the political influence that Milliband senior had had on his son then that would have been absolutely fine - but they didn't.
They said that the bloke - based on a single diary entry when he was 17 years old - "Hated Britain" - completely unjustifiable and over the top.
They actually ruined a good story because it would be interesting to know what strands of his Father's philosophy that Ed Milliband holds on to, but they could not help themselves.
It wasnt based on a diary entry when he was 17, that was merely his statement of allegiance to Marx and "The workers" it was based on confirmed comments from RM, published in his biogrpaphy, that he sometimes wished we had lost world war II, and he detested our defence of "The F****** Falklands". If thats not a man who is at least uncomfortable with his country, then I dont know what is, maybe hated were the wrong words, but anyone quoting those comments to me would get short shrift.
Uncomfortable enough to fight the Nazis whilst serving in the Royal Navy ?
The remarks were made after he had served, so no doubt his political views had skewed enough to make the remark about losing WWII, if people are comfortable with someone saying that, despite them serving in the forces, then fine, I'm not. I am sure there are people of marxist/communist leanings in the current forces who disagree with the reasons for recent wars in the middle east, but to say you wished you would lose is deplorable IMO.
I just think it's easy for a newspaper to say "he hated his country" but what have most of us ever really done for our country ? Significantly less than this man I'd imagine.
No doubt in my mind the headline was designed to grab attention, it did.
Completely agree - but you have to ask yourself if there are any limits to what's acceptable in order to achieve an grabbing headline ?
Its a newspaper, its free to write what it wants, as long as its within the law, I dread to think what the Morning Star or Socialist Worker papers may have written about Lady Thatchers death that could be deemed acceptable/unacceptable. I have no proof that they did anything, but I doubt it would have bothered those on CL like this, if so.
Comments
I have a mental picture of the sweaty little group of hacks knocking that piece of code up, slapping each other on the back, without the slightest idea of the hypocrisy of what they are doing. For every piece of offensive, self righteous, pigeon holing nonsense that they think the Daily Mail stands for, they have replicated in the questions they ask in their mock survey. Well done.
I do think it's true that people on the left and the right spend time looking for things to be outraged by and the Daily Mail sates both sides' appetite for that. I don't think it's the case that all of its readers spend their days foaming at the mouth with rage at immigration but there is a slightly dangerous element to being drip fed things to be pious and angry about on a daily basis, especially when it's reaching so many people. Not that it should be stopped, that would be anti free speech, we just need to ensure that the population are well educated enough to form their own opinions even if they do go to the sidebar of shame for some titilation or to be outraged at its misogyny.
I don't blame the Daily Mail for pandering to their reader's views. you just need to read the comments online to see what their readership really think. The same can be said of Grauniad which panders to its own public, and their comments section is usually just as biased and filled with prejudice, albeit of a different flavour.
What has to be said though is that the Mail went way over the line this time and the editor needs to grow a pair and publicly defend it or admit the mistake and apologise for it. Even the likes of Piers Morgan stood up.
I am sure there are people of marxist/communist leanings in the current forces who disagree with the reasons for recent wars in the middle east, but to say you wished you would lose is deplorable IMO.
They are trying to brand themselves as the Anglosphere's leading leftwing website and doing quite well. Sadly, it's at the expense of good journalism - loads of click and bait article s designed to get traffic up.
Shame, it used to be a good paper.
The remarks were made after he had served, so no doubt his political views had skewed enough to make the remark about losing WWII, if people are comfortable with someone saying that, despite them serving in the forces, then fine, I'm not.
I'm not sure exactly what he said about wishing that Britain had lost WWII and more importantly in what context that statement was made. It's easy to quote comments out of context so that they appear to say something that the original author did not intend.
"It is a strange to read words taken from a biography you have written, but distorted as the basis of a vicious and offensive attack on its subject. This has been my experience since the publication of the ludicrous article by Geoffrey Levy in the Daily Mail on Saturday describing Ralph Miliband, Ed Miliband's father, as "the man who hated Britain".
The sole basis for this assertion was a diary entry at the age of 16 in autumn 1940, where Ralph Miliband wrote that "the Englishman is a rabid nationalist" and, "when you hear the English talk of this war you sometimes almost want them to lose it to show how things are." Such sentiments might sound shocking, but they need to be put into their real context."
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/01/daily-mail-distorted-book-ralph-miliband
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/03/mail-on-sunday-gatecrashes-miliband-memorial-ed
Stooping even lower to send press to Miliband's memorial, it's like they have no idea what decency is.