Why I hate the Daily Mail, as distilled into one edition

Seriously. You're kidding yourself if you think this isn't a British (and to a lesser extent Australian) thing.

Otm, was one of the first things I noticed when I moved away from the UK

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2013/4/2/230027/default/v1/030413-papers-daily-mail-1-329x437.jpg

How can anyone working for the Mail sleep at night when they use the deaths of 6 children to push their anti-poor agenda and defend the UK Govt Welfare reforms?

PURE. UTTER. SCUM.

Use of the word "bred", rather than "fathered", is particularly grotesque.

fuck 'em. just fuck 'em, is all.

Harold Shipman - Vile Product of Medical School
Peter Sutcliffe - Vile Product of Long Distance Lorry Driving
Jimmy Savile - Vile Product of State Owned Broadcasting (that one's possibly already been used)

Let's see.

Newspaper prints outrageous cover story.

Outraged people name it, link to it or its website, give it the publicity it wants.

Editor says thank you and carries on printing outrageous stories.

Harold Shipman - Vile Product of Medical School the NHS (fixed for Mail readers)

I've not seen anyone link to the actual piece but to a 'tinypic' of the front page that garners the Mail group exactly zero pence, but perhaps our social media circles don't cross over much, Marcello. But seriously, what would you suggest is the correct response to this situation?

the correct response is to type or use the phrase "A Good Story" at some point during the day

The correct response to this situation would be for people to stop buying the paper. But that won't happen. People stick to newspapers the way that they stick to one political party. They look at today's front page and go: "well, that's a bit much, but I'm going to buy it anyway, because I've always bought the Daily Mail and I always will buy the Daily Mail, it's my paper" and continue to read it, blindly (if that's not a contradiction).

Or else it maintains their probable root belief that welfare dependents deserve everything that's coming to them, and worse. The Mail are good at exploiting and inflaming that part of their readers' personality.

One thing's for sure; the Philpots will be the next election's Willie Horton.

The correct response to this situation would be for people to stop buying the paper.

yes but if the people involved, the left-leaning, well-meaning sorts, aren't buying the paper, what for you would be the "right" thing they should do, since you seem to think that discussing this and passing around a tinypic link of the Mail cover story is counter-productive somehow?

by which i mean, the people passing the tinypic link around ALREADY aren't buying the paper.

what purpose does sharing the link serve? The mail's mo is known, isnt changing, is working for them.

sharing the link help us being outraged by the headline, and so will click onto daily mail to read the whole thing and become more outraged. it's the same with your mail readers just the outrage is opposite

it's like people who reply-all to reply-all in work e-mail chains to tell people to stop using reply-all

what purpose does sharing the link serve? The mail's mo is known, isnt changing, is working for them.

― mister borges (darraghmac), Thursday, April 4, 2013 8:31 AM (20 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't see how even the Daily Mail could use that guy and his singularly weird lifestyle as a justification for welfare reform.

― Step not on a loose unforgiving stone on a pyramid to paradise (Tom D.), Tuesday, April 2, 2013 5:46 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^ who was that hopeless hapless naïf?

― Step not on a loose unforgiving stone on a pyramid to paradise (Tom D.), Wednesday, April 3, 2013 10:37 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm missing the point stevie. Genuinely. To remind yourselves that the dm is the other side?

This story is dm fodder. Getting all angried up when they act accordingly serves no purpose that i can see, it's not like there'll be a huge groundswell against it or they can be shamed out of it.

yes but if the people involved, the left-leaning, well-meaning sorts, aren't buying the paper, what for you would be the "right" thing they should do, since you seem to think that discussing this and passing around a tinypic link of the Mail cover story is counter-productive somehow?

Find and express a coherent and attractive counter-argument. The Left can bandy about stats until it bleeds but nobody is moved by stats. They have lost the emotional argument and if they're going to get it back they need to do a lot better than more taxes and more unions. Zoe Williams today says at the end of her column: "Don't get mad - get even." Details of how exactly this is to be accomplished are unstated.

The point is this: even Tom D couldn't believe that the Mail would exploit this story as viciously as they have. That's why the cover gets bandied about - as proof/reminder of how poisoned the discourse is. I know the Mail is a vessel of rankitude, but even I was taken aback by how baldly they spun the story into a broadside against the welfare system. Becoming aware of this isn't necessarily productive, but I don't really see the profit of sticking one's head in the sand and ignoring it, especially as the story won AN Wilson the opportunity to bloviate over his lessers on the Today programme this morning.

Where did I say anything about "sticking one's head in the sand and ignoring it"? What I'm saying is if you don't like them don't publicise them and then fewer people might buy it and they would have to close down. They are only printing what their readers want to read. If nobody wanted to read the paper it would shut down.

One thing's for sure; the Philpots will be the next election's Willie Horton.

It'll be forgotten by then

Plenty time for more juicy murders/ misc. outrages for us all to get our teeth into

I managed to miss that because I woke up 10 minutes after it was on, but I do wonder why AN Wilson is entitled to an opinion/platform on anything to do with poor people. The kind of asshole who pays his cleaner in cash and then sounds off about people on the fiddle.

What I'm saying is if you don't like them don't publicise them and then fewer people might buy it and they would have to close down.

I don't think many of the people who would've seen the image would've gone on to buy it, you're ascribing causalities to this action that just aren't there.

They might focus on immigration at the next election but they'll drag this out again if they can: "Vote Labour and you are paying for more VILE BENEFIT SCUM PERVERT MURDERERS!"

Wilson was just typically vile, Suzy, and the labour pol fielded to rebut was infuriatingly ineffectual.

Seems to me the more outrage, disgust, contempt etc is built up online around the lies and pov pushed by the tories and the DM the more chance there is of a non-tory gov in 2015. That simple really. A non-tory electoral result can't be taken for granted. The net is now the public forum for millions, it's where they read the views of others, consider and form their own. It's where campaigns are started, organised and grown.
If you consider that insignifigant it's clearly for ideological reasons.

What I've noticed over most of the BBC lately is that speakers with a conservative/authoritarian viewpoint are speaking without being interrupted, but contributors from the left get spoken over by both their opposite in debate *and* the presenter. Never allowed to finish a sentence, that kind of thing.

There will probably be a Tory majority in 2015. Most people, including many who are on the net, think benefits need cutting; poll figures bear that out. In the absence of a convincing argument as to why benefits don't need cutting, they will vote accordingly, perhaps because they don't trust Labour to do anything different.

Most people, huh

Wishful thinking? Projection?

Also, why would these people vote Labour if they supported tory policy on benefits. Bizarre arument you're making

Sadly, yes, most people - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/31/we-have-to-talk-why-some-want-benefit-cuts

There's reams of evidence.

We're two years from an election. The higher the percentage of eligible voters who actually vote, the worse it will be for the Tories, who are definitely earning their Nasty Party stripes while rinsing the public sector for their private gain later. That also means Labour needs to offer something beyond another iteration of neoliberalism. I'm not holding my breath, but we were castigating the Tories for offering nothing upfront before 36 per cent of 65 per cent of the nation's eligible voters gave them the nod, and we're castigating Labour for not offering an alternative right now.

That also means Labour needs to offer something beyond another iteration of neoliberalism. I'm not holding my breath, but we were castigating the Tories for offering nothing upfront before 36 per cent of 65 per cent of the nation's eligible voters gave them the nod, and we're castigating Labour for not offering an alternative right now.

^^^this

They probably won't vote, I would guess because they are so disillusioned with the choice of voting for Asda or Tesco at the next election.

The main political parties don't give a toss about any of these people; their campaigning and policies are aimed exclusively at the marginal 10% of undecided/floating voters, on the assumption that their heartland voters will probably stay with them.

Did you guys see that Edwina Currie demanded £500 contributor's fee to debate whether IDS could survive on £53/week? That was priceless.

Also, muckraking journalists would do well to start digging around Lynton Crosby and all the messaging originating from his office. Do you really think short, punchy labels like 'job snob' are original bons mots from the mind of Iain Duncan Smith and the like? Take him down, and most of the divisive, shitty rhetoric becomes about 50 per cent less difficult to debunk.

Labour did OK when they had their own Lynton Crosby, i.e. Alastair Campbell.

Lynton Crosby has dined out for a long time on that 1996 Australian election. He aint all that. In fact, the tories generally have not been all that good at converting widespread hostility to welfare into support for their party.

Why are they in power then?

Crosby came in after Coulson got booted. Considering all the attention paid to Coulson and Campbell before him, it seems a bit *tumbleweeds* not to pay attention to messaging and the methodology thereof as it pertains to the current spin doctor.

Who is a key adviser to a democratically elected politician. If people don't like that, vote the politician out.

Why are they in power then?

Yes, my theory falls down when it comes to the landslide majority the Conservatives currently enjoy in parliament.

As someone who works in a student's union shop that stopped selling the Sun/Star etc years ago, should we stop selling the Mail? Serious question.

Labour's utter failure to have any spinny response to Tory benefits policies would be baffling if I thought they had any interest in putting up any serious opposition. How hard can it be to come up with some neat phrase that summarises e.g. the fact that 60% of children living in relative poverty have at least one working parent?

God yes, student shops shouldn't sell the Mail.

They should sell proper toilet paper instead.