Does what it says on the tin. It's a Daily Mail editorial.
Ignore any hypocrisy, just make your point to pander to your readership and keep on making it. Yes, we have a heritage that included fawning support for a regime that "totally crushed freedom of expression" and "supported an ideology that caused untold misery in the world", but if we keep ignoring the hypocrisy, so will our readers.
There's good and bad - and that's not a left/right thing - within most newspapers. They have the ability to be tremendous powers for good and to enlighten their readers. Unfortunately, they also tend to have an agenda set by their owners which has to be adhered to and you can bet your life that that won't often be one that is in the best interests of the majority of us. It will be all about them and those closest to them.
Did I just read someone saying newspapers have 'powers for the good and to enlighten people' in connection with the Daily Mail? Sorry, no. This has all sprung up because Milliband bit back, but it's just a normal day for the Mail in their ongoing policy to cloud the minds of their readers into a dark paranoid 'modern is bad, old is good and socialism is perverse' universe. Nice to see them being hung out to dry, but until they suffer the fate of the NOTW, it's all wáter off a ducks back for them.
Did I just read someone saying newspapers have 'powers for the good and to enlighten people' in connection with the Daily Mail? Sorry, no. This has all sprung up because Milliband bit back, but it's just a normal day for the Mail in their ongoing policy to cloud the minds of their readers into a dark paranoid 'modern is bad, old is good and socialism is perverse' universe. Nice to see them being hung out to dry, but until they suffer the fate of the NOTW, it's all wáter off a ducks back for them.
Ken - think you should actually go back and read my last post again. I was quite clear in what I said, but you appear to have skim read!
As for the above video I, thankfully, had never heard of Condell before now. I had a look at his site just to see if this was a one-off rant and to try and understand where he was coming from. Apparently he's a comedian...obviously one of the really trendy ones...who aren't funny. Also very confused. A stream of vile videos with his talking head rants, but who states in his bio that..."I'd say the purpose of life is joy in the present moment, and anyone who tells you different is a lying conniving arsehole!"
I can't see any joy in this lying conniving arsehole's life at all.
Guilty as charged! Though the point I made about using the word enlightenment in connection with the DM is a bit unlikely. Still, I admit I misread your post.
Guilty as charged! Though the point I made about using the word enlightenment in connection with the DM is a bit unlikely. Still, I admit I misread your post.
They deserve huge credit for the sheer balls they took over the Stephen Lawrence murderers. That was a massive call to take and they were standing on their own.
Personally, I don't think the modern day Mail would take such a stance. Do others agree / disagree ?
In fact, would any modern day press outlet go out on a limb calling a group of people Murderers (sue us if not true) ?
The way I remember it was that the Mail were going to do their usual hatchet job on the Lawrences but someone senior in the paper realised he knew Neville Lawrence as he'd done some work on his house. So the hatchet job was pulled and instead they did some real investigation. Fair play to them for that, though their first instincts were bad. (Remember there were actually quite a few racist murders in the area at the time, Rolan Adams was killed in Thamesmead and the papers insinuated he was a gang member.)
Would they do the same now? If it was a racist killing of someone identifiably British, regardless of colour, I think they might. If it was an Iraqi asylum seeker, they'd be doing everything to demonise them I reckon.
On the success of the Mail Online, it's because they have loads of pictures of celebrities (including celebrities' kids under 16) in swim wear etc. They keep a lot of this out of the dead tree edition because the majority of its readership is female.
That Pat Condell seems like a fairly terrifying & psychotic hypocrite - a thoroughly unpleasant man
That said, the idea that The Guardian represents the entire British Left is ludicrous
I think *all* newspapers are essentially ugly
Terrifying and psychotic? You are easily scared, how do you walk the streets if you think he is terrifying?
He's terrifying in the same way that his best buddy Richard Dawkins is terrifying - so much hatred and self-serving reductive smuggery in the guise of 'intellectualism'. I fear for those who might be taken in by his rhetoric, and I especially fear for those who have to suffer the spread of these abysmal, intolerant and above all deeply stupid attitudes
He's quite patently Islamophobic, and quite patently unprepared to give an inch to Left-wing attitudes. In fact he resorts to some fairly unsightly ad hominems when confronted with either.
I think it's quite possible to be concerned with the Palestinians' fate while not being anti-semitic. I have an incredible respect for the culture and traditions of the Jewish people. I work with plenty of Jewish kids and find them to be universally raised in a spirit of intellectual inquiry and supportiveness.
I find it quite amusing that a self-proclaimed atheist warrior like Condell is rigorously defending a religion (albeit that it is, by certain definitions, a race as well) - makes me wonder if he might not have ulterior motives.
You mean he may hate extreme islamists that hate all non believers? That would be very intolerant. I presume you are supportive of sharia law, female mutilation, restrictions on female dress etc etc
hamas, Hezbollah and their brothers in arms (and their supporters in a consensual way) murder Christians and other different religions or non believers on a daily basis in Islamic countries? Do you put your fingers in your ears and hum the red flag when there are reports on tv of massacres of Christians in churches in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon? Do their lives mean less than the occasional (also wrong) shooting of a stone thrower by Israeli troops? They get less coverage on BBC than one shot Palestinian, so it would appear they do.
His words, slightly paraphrased: "They all want the Jews gone". He's not distinguishing between the extreme minority of violent jihadists and the peaceful majority. The regressive (by contemporary standards) aspects of Sharia law are in many places in the process of reform, I believe.
Obviously all killing is terrible and all ideological killing is terrible & deluded
Explain "and their supporters in a consensual way" - what do you mean by their supporters?
You and your chums that cannot bring themselves to criticise any aspect of a vile ideology for fear of...... I don't know what, but if Christians were running round the middle east murdering muslims I am sure you would have plenty to say. But so far no condemnation of thousands of Christian deaths, some burnt in their churches, from the usual Islam apologists. It is a vile religion that seeks division amongst people and terror amongst its own proponents to scare young girls into following mantra from days tankfully long gone, whilst rewarding those id iot or gullible enough to throw their young lives away with false promises of virgins. Sounds more like a cult than a religion to me and I still see no signs of criticism of any aspect of it from you, which makes me think you believe in it?
If Christians were running round the Middle East murdering Muslims, huh? Did you watch that Wikileaks video 'Collateral Murder'?
Let me be unambiguous. ANY sort of ideological murder is evil, whether it's wrought by NATO or Hamas. Your generalisations about Islam are little short of ignorant. Personally, I think there's plenty to be said for some of the theological and cultural aspects of Islam, especially considering certain reformist or spiritualist trends.
Those idiot or gullible enough to throw their young lives away with the false promise of virgins could well apply to the Western military, the promised virgins being the teenpop stars fetishised in the media.
Haha spurious comments at best linking the two virgin issues. I will let you get on with your apologising for your own reasons, as long as you wish to live under sharia law, which you seem to be suggesting, then feel free to, there are plenty of countries that could meet your desires.
So presumably Guardian media group director Grant Hoberman is one of the "self hating Jews" that Pat Condell describes?
And I guess the BBCs hatred for Jews was put on temporary hold when they appointed a certain Michael I. Grade as chairman?
So you feel the guardian and the BBC are balanced in their treatment of the subject? There were Jews involved in the nationalist socialist party, at first, in Germany. Do you think Islam is force for good then? I am not talking about in medieval times, I am talking about now.
Your argument is unfortunately committing the fallacy of presuming I would want to live as a Muslim under strict Sharia Law simply because I have defended the rights of the Islamic community to do so. If I defend the rights of a Millwall fan to support Millwall, does that make me a Millwall fan as well?
Yours is the atrocious and half-baked rhetoric of the ten-a-penny media bigot, and it depresses me to see it pursued so ardently.
It does seem strange that someone on the right of the political spectrum is the only one defending the jewish right to remain in Israel, the irony is obviously lost on the left as they have different agendas now.
I will defend the Jews' right to remain in Israel. I'm confident that in the long run, negotiations will occur to bring about a peaceful resolution. I think official recognition of the Palestinian state by all concerned would be a good start. Dismantling Israel a) isn't going to happen and b) would be a retrograde step, a shameful act of anti-semitic bigotry - but I think Israel contributes to its own present downfall by defining itself in such antagonistic and oppositional terms
Is any media outlet completely balanced? As for religion, I can't think of any of them, throughout time, whose extreme elements haven't been the worst of the worst.
So presumably Guardian media group director Grant Hoberman is one of the "self hating Jews" that Pat Condell describes?
And I guess the BBCs hatred for Jews was put on temporary hold when they appointed a certain Michael I. Grade as chairman?
So you feel the guardian and the BBC are balanced in their treatment of the subject? There were Jews involved in the nationalist socialist party, at first, in Germany. Do you think Islam is force for good then? I am not talking about in medieval times, I am talking about now.
I was just pointing out two facts that would, on the face of it, appear to fly in the face of what has been stated.
I don't read the Guardian and I have never noticed the BBC being anti-Semitic. In fact I believe a whole documentary series about the Jewish people, presented by a Jewish person recently concluded on BBC2?
No I do not think Islam is a force for good, I think all religions are ludicrous.
Comments
Ignore any hypocrisy, just make your point to pander to your readership and keep on making it. Yes, we have a heritage that included fawning support for a regime that "totally crushed freedom of expression" and "supported an ideology that caused untold misery in the world", but if we keep ignoring the hypocrisy, so will our readers.
There's good and bad - and that's not a left/right thing - within most newspapers. They have the ability to be tremendous powers for good and to enlighten their readers. Unfortunately, they also tend to have an agenda set by their owners which has to be adhered to and you can bet your life that that won't often be one that is in the best interests of the majority of us. It will be all about them and those closest to them.
Up there with the DM.
That said, the idea that The Guardian represents the entire British Left is ludicrous
I think *all* newspapers are essentially ugly
Nice to see them being hung out to dry, but until they suffer the fate of the NOTW, it's all wáter off a ducks back for them.
Hilarious that the Daily Hate Mail can accuse anyone of bias.
As for the above video I, thankfully, had never heard of Condell before now. I had a look at his site just to see if this was a one-off rant and to try and understand where he was coming from. Apparently he's a comedian...obviously one of the really trendy ones...who aren't funny. Also very confused. A stream of vile videos with his talking head rants, but who states in his bio that..."I'd say the purpose of life is joy in the present moment, and anyone who tells you different is a lying conniving arsehole!"
I can't see any joy in this lying conniving arsehole's life at all.
Would they do the same now? If it was a racist killing of someone identifiably British, regardless of colour, I think they might. If it was an Iraqi asylum seeker, they'd be doing everything to demonise them I reckon.
On the success of the Mail Online, it's because they have loads of pictures of celebrities (including celebrities' kids under 16) in swim wear etc. They keep a lot of this out of the dead tree edition because the majority of its readership is female.
I think it's quite possible to be concerned with the Palestinians' fate while not being anti-semitic. I have an incredible respect for the culture and traditions of the Jewish people. I work with plenty of Jewish kids and find them to be universally raised in a spirit of intellectual inquiry and supportiveness.
I find it quite amusing that a self-proclaimed atheist warrior like Condell is rigorously defending a religion (albeit that it is, by certain definitions, a race as well) - makes me wonder if he might not have ulterior motives.
hamas, Hezbollah and their brothers in arms (and their supporters in a consensual way) murder Christians and other different religions or non believers on a daily basis in Islamic countries? Do you put your fingers in your ears and hum the red flag when there are reports on tv of massacres of Christians in churches in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon? Do their lives mean less than the occasional (also wrong) shooting of a stone thrower by Israeli troops? They get less coverage on BBC than one shot Palestinian, so it would appear they do.
Obviously all killing is terrible and all ideological killing is terrible & deluded
Explain "and their supporters in a consensual way" - what do you mean by their supporters?
And I guess the BBCs hatred for Jews was put on temporary hold when they appointed a certain Michael I. Grade as chairman?
Let me be unambiguous. ANY sort of ideological murder is evil, whether it's wrought by NATO or Hamas. Your generalisations about Islam are little short of ignorant. Personally, I think there's plenty to be said for some of the theological and cultural aspects of Islam, especially considering certain reformist or spiritualist trends.
Those idiot or gullible enough to throw their young lives away with the false promise of virgins could well apply to the Western military, the promised virgins being the teenpop stars fetishised in the media.
Yours is the atrocious and half-baked rhetoric of the ten-a-penny media bigot, and it depresses me to see it pursued so ardently.
I don't read the Guardian and I have never noticed the BBC being anti-Semitic. In fact I believe a whole documentary series about the Jewish people, presented by a Jewish person recently concluded on BBC2?
No I do not think Islam is a force for good, I think all religions are ludicrous.