They were journalists from the sister paper, Mail on Sunday, trying to get relatives to talk about the Mail's story/editorial.
Aliwibble - As I stated it was his uncle's memorial, I assume you are clarifying earlier posts.
To be fair to the editor of the MoS, two journalists have been suspended and he has "apologised unreservedly for a reporter intruding into a private memorial service".
They couldn't do anything else BUT apologise doesn't meant they mean it.
True. Having read further, it seems that the apology wasn't initially forthcoming. I think this will backfire spectacularly on The Mail when it comes to deciding now on who will regulate/monitor the media. Just can't see them being trusted to regulate themselves as they want.
If Labour wins the next election, they would have been in favour of tougher regulation, but now it will be easy to portray any such action as personal revenge by Milliband.
I read one on the plane coming back from holiday. Really made me depressed, it is so full of hate and loathing. I guess that they had to go for Milliband senior because they've got so much hate they need to spread it around a bit. Backfired this time. It used to be my Dad's favourite paper, but he's had enough of it too!
I must say the Independent on Sunday, once you strip out the actual politically slanted news bits (mind you it's the Jock version) is a great read. The feature articles keep you occupied for a good couple of hours.
They were journalists from the sister paper, Mail on Sunday, trying to get relatives to talk about the Mail's story/editorial.
Aliwibble - As I stated it was his uncle's memorial, I assume you are clarifying earlier posts.
To be fair to the editor of the MoS, two journalists have been suspended and he has "apologised unreservedly for a reporter intruding into a private memorial service".
They couldn't do anything else BUT apologise doesn't meant they mean it.
True. Having read further, it seems that the apology wasn't initially forthcoming. I think this will backfire spectacularly on The Mail when it comes to deciding now on who will regulate/monitor the media. Just can't see them being trusted to regulate themselves as they want.
If Labour wins the next election, they would have been in favour of tougher regulation, but now it will be easy to portray any such action as personal revenge by Milliband.
Again true, but it looks like Milliband has support from across the political divide on this. That's why I say the Mail have shot themselves & all the other newspapers in the foot with this. No one with any sort of moral compass is now going to have much of an issue with tougher regulation. Labour aren't going to have to win the next election for this to happen.
Though I haven't read it in years and actually have no idea what sort of content you will find in it. Infact the last time I read a newspaper was probably about 3-4 years ago. Not sure why people bother in this day and age really.
Though I haven't read it in years and actually have no idea what sort of content you will find in it. Infact the last time I read a newspaper was probably about 3-4 years ago. Not sure why people bother in this day and age really.
They are still,politically extremely powerful here in OZ. Back in 2007 the rags decided it was tine for Howard to go, and it happened. Recently the daily hatred for Gillard, followed by Rudd, spewed out by the rags managed to help get hem thrown out. Is there a balance of politics in UK newspapers nowadays?
Though I haven't read it in years and actually have no idea what sort of content you will find in it. Infact the last time I read a newspaper was probably about 3-4 years ago. Not sure why people bother in this day and age really.
They are still,politically extremely powerful here in OZ. Back in 2007 the rags decided it was tine for Howard to go, and it happened. Recently the daily hatred for Gillard, followed by Rudd, spewed out by the rags managed to help get hem thrown out. Is there a balance of politics in UK newspapers nowadays?
Yes, some newspapers have allegiances to political parties. The Grauniad urged its readers to vote Lib Dem at the last general election; the Mirror has always been staunchly Labour; the Independent consistently stands, well, independent. The Sun - if you count it as a newspaper - allied itself to Labour under Blair, and reverted to Tory under Brown. Most other papers are either vociferously Tory, or Conservative by default, with the Mail the most rabid.
I take an interest in Australian politics because I have a ladyfriend there and have visited her in Melbourne. I liked The Age newspaper.
I was reading about this whole Ed Miliband campaign against his dad thing and some people have claimed the Mail were motivated by anti-semitism. This begs the question for me, can you ever criticise or say anything negative about a Jewish person without being classed an anti-semite
Don't get me wrong, what they did was vile and it has backfired on them in my opinion, but to say they were motivated by the fact he is Jewish is absolutely ridiculous.
Anyone who thinks that Jews, Black people, gays and Charlton supporters are exempt from criticism is guilty of making sweeping misjudgements similar to those made by the racists and bigots themselves. But criticism based solely on race, creed, religion or colour is plainly unacceptable in a civilised society.
Can a newspaper which counts Melanie Philips as a principle columnist really be described as anti semitic?
Exactly.
To be fair Miliband is distancing himself from the allegations, but it does raise questions about how impossible it is to criticise some people, because if you do, boom, out comes the race card.
For example, the DM is equally happy to demonise a white single mother with 42 kids claiming benefits as they are a black woman etc. It's just a hate filled paper, not particularly targetted at anyone, well not based on race at least haha.
Taken from Wiki: "Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Mail's editorial stance towards them in the early 1930s. Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them. In it, Rothermere predicted that "The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany". Journalist John Simpson, in a book on journalism, suggested that Rothermere was referring to the violence against Jews and Communists rather than the detention of political prisoners. Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists.[36] Rothermere wrote an article entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine". This support ended after violence at a BUF rally in Kensington Olympia later that year."
So you can see how this brave campaigning organ might be vulnerable to accusations of anti-semitism. Some stains just show through.
By that rationale, every single German must still be anti Semitic because they were in the 1930s. Society has moved on and with it, the papers. I'm sure you'd see a lot of newspapers writing about the benefits of electric shock therapy for homosexuals. Doesn't mean that these days they are raving homophobes.
It's good to know who reads the daily hate mail on here though, so I know to know to ignore their opinion on everything.
The Mail certainly knows a thing or two about hating Britain. It slags it off everyday. Unlike the Mail, I'm fond of this country - and not just its past.
Can a newspaper which counts Melanie Philips as a principle columnist really be described as anti semitic?
Of course it can be, I just don't think this particular article was motivated by anti-semitism.
Saying a paper can't be anti-Semitic because they employ a Jew is like trotting out the old "I have loadsa black friends" to deflect accusations of racisim.
Those of you slating the Daily Mail - have you ever read it or are you just basing your opinions on what you THINK it says?
Did it or did it not post a picture of a dead war Heros gravestone and state he hated our country ? Did or didn't its sister paper infiltrate the memorial of another deadman to extract quotes from unknowing mourners ?
It's good to know who reads the daily hate mail on here though, so I know to know to ignore their opinion on everything.
The Mail certainly knows a thing or two about hating Britain. It slags it off everyday. Unlike the Mail, I'm fond of this country - and not just its past.
Just to clarify my observation regarding Melanie Philips does NOT mean I read the paper.
I just think some of the criticism of it has veered from legitimate to surreal.
SE9 - I didn't see the article you refer to as I don't buy the paper every day, so can't comment, but I bet many of the people who are slating the Mail for the same article haven't read it either and are basing their opinion on what they have heard elsewhere.
My missus usually buys the Mail and The Mirror on a Saturday. They're both shit and on the rare occasion I flick through them there is literally nothing I stop to read.
SE9 - I didn't see the article you refer to as I don't buy the paper every day, so can't comment, but I bet many of the people who are slating the Mail for the same article haven't read it either and are basing their opinion on what they have heard elsewhere.
My sister in London buys it. Every time I'm over, usually once a year, I have a pick throught it. I also sometimes look on line.....mainly for a perv, but do scan through some articles. It' a rag I would never ever buy or read for my education.
Comments
Just ignore the headlines and Melanie Phillips who some might say is a racist
Papers have agendas depending on their political persuasion, The Guardian and Mirror might be fantastically insightful papers but I wouldn't know.
But if you really have so much venom for a 60p rag you need to get a life
So up your pipe Algarve, BFR et al
:-)
Just sadly can't justify the cost of buying it.
I must say the Independent on Sunday, once you strip out the actual politically slanted news bits (mind you it's the Jock version) is a great read. The feature articles keep you occupied for a good couple of hours.
Though I haven't read it in years and actually have no idea what sort of content you will find in it. Infact the last time I read a newspaper was probably about 3-4 years ago. Not sure why people bother in this day and age really.
I take an interest in Australian politics because I have a ladyfriend there and have visited her in Melbourne. I liked The Age newspaper.
Don't get me wrong, what they did was vile and it has backfired on them in my opinion, but to say they were motivated by the fact he is Jewish is absolutely ridiculous.
Can a newspaper which counts Melanie Philips as a principle columnist really be described as anti semitic?
To be fair Miliband is distancing himself from the allegations, but it does raise questions about how impossible it is to criticise some people, because if you do, boom, out comes the race card.
For example, the DM is equally happy to demonise a white single mother with 42 kids claiming benefits as they are a black woman etc. It's just a hate filled paper, not particularly targetted at anyone, well not based on race at least haha.
"Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Mail's editorial stance towards them in the early 1930s. Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them. In it, Rothermere predicted that "The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany". Journalist John Simpson, in a book on journalism, suggested that Rothermere was referring to the violence against Jews and Communists rather than the detention of political prisoners.
Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists.[36] Rothermere wrote an article entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine". This support ended after violence at a BUF rally in Kensington Olympia later that year."
So you can see how this brave campaigning organ might be vulnerable to accusations of anti-semitism. Some stains just show through.
Saying that, I don't believe the piece was anti-Semitic and think people are just trying to find things to punish the Mail further with.
The Mail certainly knows a thing or two about hating Britain. It slags it off everyday. Unlike the Mail, I'm fond of this country - and not just its past.
Saying a paper can't be anti-Semitic because they employ a Jew is like trotting out the old "I have loadsa black friends" to deflect accusations of racisim.
I just think some of the criticism of it has veered from legitimate to surreal.