PDA

View Full Version : Curious About British Publication


cavuman1
6th Mar 2018, 22:36
Of late I have noticed that The Drudge Report features numerous links to Daily Mail stories. To my further amazement, the Columbia Broadcasting System, CBS, formerly the "Tiffany Network", cites many stories from "The Wail" and even runs an hour long show at ten P.M. called "Daily Mail TV." Am I mistaken or improperly prejudiced against The Daily Mail, or is it, in fact, a scandal sheet of poor reportorial repute as is our National Enquirer? :bored:

Enquiring minds want to know... :confused:

- Ed ;)

Jetex_Jim
7th Mar 2018, 05:48
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Support_of_fascism

Some on JB love the Mail but it does have a bit of 'form'.

The "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" article by Lord Rothermere
Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Mail's editorial stance towards them in the early 1930s.[36][37] Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them.[38] 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".

Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists.[40] Rothermere wrote an article titled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" in January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine",[41] and pointing out that: "Young men may join the British Union of Fascists by writing to the Headquarters, King's Road, Chelsea, London, S.W."[42]

But I like this comment from the Spectator.
The Spectator condemned Rothermere's article commenting that, "... the Blackshirts, like the Daily Mail, appeal to people unaccustomed to thinking. The average Daily Mail reader is a potential Blackshirt ready made. When Lord Rothermere tells his clientele to go and join the Fascists some of them pretty certainly will."[43]

Jetex_Jim
7th Mar 2018, 06:10
More from wiki on the Mail
Following the November 2015 Paris attacks,[113] a cartoon in the Daily Mail by Stanley McMurtry ("Mac") linked the European migrant crisis (with a focus on Syria in particular[114]) to the terrorist attacks, and criticised the European Union immigration laws for allowing Islamist radicals to gain easy access into the United Kingdom.[115] Despite being compared to Nazi propaganda by The New York Times,[116] and criticised as "reckless xenophobia," and racist, the cartoon received praise on the Mail Online website.[117] A Daily Mail spokesperson told The Independent: "We are not going to dignify these absurd comments which wilfully misrepresent this cartoon apart from to say that we have not received a single complaint from any reader".[113]

"The Daily Mail's cartoon is precisely the sort of reckless xenophobia that fuels the self-same fear and hate loved by those responsible for atrocities in Paris, Beirut, Ankara and elsewhere.
Now more than ever is the time to stand together in defiance of the perpetrators of violence with all of their victims and reject this disturbing lack of compassion".
Kate Allen, the director of Amnesty International UK, The Independent[112]

Racism accusations
There have been accusations of racism against the Daily Mail.[136] In 2012, in an article for The New Yorker, former Mail reporter Brendan Montague criticised the Mail's content and culture, stating: "None of the front-line reporters I worked with were racist, but there's institutional racism [at the Daily Mail]."[12]

WilliumMate
7th Mar 2018, 06:28
In the early 30s Rothermere (Mail) and Beaverbrook (Express) joined forces in an attempted putsch against the sitting PM Stanley Baldwin. Beaverbrook championed Winston Churchill while Rothermere supported Oswald Mosley who incidentally was a former Labour MP and minister. They formed the United Empire Party that had a couple of good by-election results. The turning point was a by-election in the St Georges Division in Westminster which, after a speech by Baldwin which included the damning line of newspaper proprieters having 'power without reponsibility - the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages', was won by Duff-Cooper therefore securing Baldwin in No 10 and seeing off Rothermere and Beaverbrook.

Fast forward to 1934 when for six frantic months the Mail supported Mosley's Blackshirts causing their membership to peak at about 50,000. After a rather violent rally at London Olympia and the subsequent public disgust the Mail dropped any support as did 45,000 of Mosely's members. Two years later in 1936 Mosely led 2000 supporters on a march through the East End's Jewish communities and faced with an estimated counter demonstration of 100,000 people took a good shoeing or simply ran away.

Rather than being an out and out supporter of Fascism the Mail was simply a tool Rothermere used to attack Baldwin and promote his imperial protectionist beliefs. Mosely was his useful fool.

Jetex_Jim
7th Mar 2018, 06:41
In 2012, in an article for The New Yorker, former Mail reporter Brendan Montague criticised the Mail's content and culture, stating: "None of the front-line reporters I worked with were racist, but there's institutional racism [at the Daily Mail].

Rather than being an out and out supporter of Fascism the Mail was simply a tool Rothermere used to attack Baldwin and promote his imperial protectionist beliefs. Mosely was his useful fool.

It's even possible that the editorial staff of the Mail don't actually believe in Brexit either but they do what it takes to sell newspapers.

ORAC
7th Mar 2018, 06:50
Now that the ancient history is out of the way......

Two things to consider separately are the Daily Mail and the Daily Mail online. The first is a middle of the road UK newspaper with a reducing circulation (as are all), the second is the largest online news website in the world.

It was set up with an independent manager in 2006 and operates autonomously with different reporters and news stories for each of it’s markets worldwide. It’s US edition has staff in LA and NY and concentrates on celebrity gossip. It overtook the NYT as the mos5 popular US news wedsite in 2012 - and continues to expand it’s market lead.

So the main confusion is thinking the website cited by other US news outlets is a “British”, publication. It shares a brand name, but no more than that - in the same way that the French edition of a fashion magazine such as Vogue has the same content as the US edition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MailOnline

How the Daily Mail stormed the US - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16746785)

Jetex_Jim
7th Mar 2018, 06:58
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Harmsworth,_4th_Viscount_Rothermere

And, keeping up the family tradition, The Mail Online is still chaired by the famously nondomicile current owner, great grandson of the founder.

Harmsworth held various positions in Associated Newspapers and was managing director of the Evening Standard, when the sudden death of his father in 1998 resulted in his becoming the controlling shareholder[3] and chairman of Associated and of its parent Daily Mail and General Trust just before his 31st birthday.

In 2013, Private Eye reported that Viscount Rothermere falsely claims non-dom status, in order to avoid paying tax on his stately home, Ferne House. This move saves him several millions of pounds in tax annually.[4]

He ranked fourth in the Publishing, Advertising, and PR section of the Sunday Times Rich List 2013 with an estimated wealth of £720 million.[6] In April 2015, the Sunday Times estimated his net worth at £1 billion[7] He has non-domicile tax status and owns his media businesses through a complex structure of offshore holdings and trusts.[8]

Krystal n chips
7th Mar 2018, 07:19
Now that the ancient history is out of the way......

Two things to consider separately are the Daily Mail and the Daily Mail online. The first is a middle of the road UK newspaper with a reducing circulation (as are all), the second is the largest online news website in the world.

It was set up with an independent manager in 2006 and operates autonomously with different reporters and news stories for each of it’s markets worldwide. It’s US edition has staff in LA and NY and concentrates on celebrity gossip. It overtook the NYT as the mos5 popular US news wedsite in 2012 - and continues to expand it’s market lead.

So the main confusion is thinking the website cited by other US news outlets is a “British”, publication. It shares a brand name, but no more than that - in the same way that the French edition of a fashion magazine such as Vogue has the same content as the US edition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MailOnline

How the Daily Mail stormed the US - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16746785)

ORAC.

A magnificent effort in support of the indefensible if I may say so.

Thus you may well be reaching for the smelling salts, should you be overcome by an attack of the vapours as the expression goes, when you read this.....

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

Lets remember also that, the rag invariably quotes local house prices and offers the readership a quick guide to the locality of Wisteria Avenue land when reporting ( euphemism ) on events, to ensure the readership are fully aware of the strata of society involved and why they should instinctively feel empathy for those involved.

You may recall a short lived, by the rags standards that is, campaign for a certain Kent businessman, golf player no less ( this alone made him a damned good chap ! ) and pillar of the community, who, sadly, had made a totally innocuous business deal concerning some, erm, batteries ?.

Unfortunately, this paragon turned out to be, what's that term again ?..guilty perhaps?.... and duly enjoyed some all American hospitality for a while.

But, and here we cannot but sing the praises of the rag too long or too loudly, thanks entirely to its tireless crusade, plastic is now banned !.....well not quite as we know, but, the rag has recently been using front page headlines to assure the readership this is the case.

Hoorah for the Mail and such public spirited action and for the environment ! ( which would be much improved if the rag ceased publication ) although many on JB would be deprived of their daily intake of literal hemlock and arsenic if it did.

ORAC
7th Mar 2018, 07:33
I wasn’t defending the DM, which I don’t buy or read, but pointing out the publication referred to b6 the original poster is a totally different beast to the UK paper to which you refer.

I don’t consider the tax arrangements of one of its shareholders to be relevant - an6 more than the ownership of the Guardian being in the hands of the Guardian Media Group, an offshore non-UK tax paying company based in the Cayman Islands......

BehindBlueEyes
7th Mar 2018, 08:02
Not defending The Guardian and not particularly bothered about Jeremy Corbin but I find it superbly ironic the way the DM attacked JC for lack of patriotism when he didn’t stand during the national anthem. This, from a business that also keeps its money overseas to avoid British tax. Bloody hypocrisy!

Nemrytter
7th Mar 2018, 08:56
The Daily Mail is a rag. A very popular rag (especially amongst a certain type of JetBlaster) but a rag nonetheless. I wouldn't even honour it by so much as wiping my ass with it. Still, it gives the gullible something to read.
Interestingly, I know several Daily Mail staff. All are left-wing Guardian readers.:}

Curious Pax
7th Mar 2018, 12:09
Two things to consider separately are the Daily Mail and the Daily Mail online. The first is a middle of the road UK newspaper with a reducing circulation (as are all), the second is the largest online news website in the world.

It was set up with an independent manager in 2006 and operates autonomously with different reporters and news stories for each of it’s markets worldwide. It’s US edition has staff in LA and NY and concentrates on celebrity gossip. It overtook the NYT as the mos5 popular US news wedsite in 2012 - and continues to expand it’s market lead.

So the main confusion is thinking the website cited by other US news outlets is a “British”, publication. It shares a brand name, but no more than that - in the same way that the French edition of a fashion magazine such as Vogue has the same content as the US edition.


Not quite. Editor of the Daily Mail is Paul Dacre. Group Editor of DMG Media (which includes the Daily Mail and Mail Online is..... Paul Dacre!

Gertrude the Wombat
7th Mar 2018, 12:38
The Daily Mail is a rag. A very popular rag (especially amongst a certain type of JetBlaster) but a rag nonetheless. I wouldn't even honour it by so much as wiping my ass with it.
Well no, the shit would transfer in the wrong direction, wouldn't it.

Sallyann1234
7th Mar 2018, 12:52
I'm rather surprised that anyone should ask for an analysis or opinion of the Mail.
Surely the ethos of the publication is open and clear for anyone to see for themselves?

racedo
7th Mar 2018, 19:31
I read Mail on line, also Drudge, also RT, also NYT, also BBC plus load of other sites.

Claiming because someone reads something implies they support it is laughable, a Jewish friend who had read Mein Kampf was more than happy to go toe to toe with those wanting censorship.

Also aware of a Catholic Bishop who had read Das Kapital and lots of the books beloved of the Communists who then happy to quote this and other books back at his Communist Interrogators.

Gertrude the Wombat
7th Mar 2018, 19:39
Also aware of a Catholic Bishop who had read Das Kapital and lots of the books beloved of the Communists who then happy to quote this and other books back at his Communist Interrogators.
A Jesuit by any chance? - they will win either side of any argument, that's what they're trained for.

I once "won" an argument with a Jesuit by saying "I'm not going to join in this argument with you, because you'll win it, because that's what you've been trained for".