"Give them this day, their Daily Hate"

TonyH Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:46:12 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

A brilliant article by Polly Toynbee this morning draws our attention to the words of Lord Northcliffe at the end of his life when asked about the success of his newspaper, The Daily Mail: “I give them a daily hate”.



And in that one sentence he sums up what the Daily Mail is, what it stands for and what it does to the country. It breeds hate.

I often wonder at what point will people realise that enough is enough with these (angry) clowns.

Now, I’m no apologist for a government that makes mistakes – every newspaper has a duty to hold those in power to account but isn’t it something else entirely purposefully create a sense of deterioration even when they have to lie about it?

Nor am I saying that everything they do is wrong – the sports coverage and small business coverage is excellent. The issues raised for consumers on a Sunday is also very well researched, for example.

But those two qualifiers aside – how is it possible that we allow the national conversation to be partially poisoned by an editorial team institutionally geared to create hate even when it is manufactured?

We must be mad to shrug our shoulders and accept that this is par for the course. Take, for example, the Labourhome article written here by Tom Harris which prompted Mail coverage and Polly’s article. The deception is naked and ugly and there for all to see.

Mail writer James Chapman has told an outright lie when he wrote that Harris ‘demanded’ to know why Briton were so miserable. He made no such ‘demand’.

The Mail comment leader that day was another package of complete lying flummery to suggest that Harris had “told millions of hard-pressed families that they should stop being 'so bloody miserable'” [my emphasis]. You can see he clearly did not (not least because I’m doubtful Harris gets that many visitors).

We all remember of course, Diana Appleyard’s call for Polish horror stories and the hilarity of the Mail screeching about bias at the BBC – this is not something that has to be proven anymore. The debate is over – the Daily Mail editorial direction is clearly deceitful and clearly poisonous.

I know some goon will say: "Well if you don't like it don't read it" but they would be missing the point.

The question is, will there ever be recourse for those of us who don’t want to see the public stupefied into hateful ignorance any further?

While the entire blame for the plummeting level of debate in Britain can’t go to the Mail, a stupefied, ignorant and uninformed citizenry is a greater threat to this democracy as a whole than Al Qaeda.

We (Labour, Tories and LibDem alike) can’t do nothing, surely?



tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
"Give them this day, their Daily Hate" | 12 comments (12 topical)

Some balance please... (#1)

by Floating voter on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:48:01 PM GMT

Put your own house in order first - it seems to me that with those on the left it is either follow collective policy or be prepared for ad hominem attacks and personal vilifcation.

This blog subject is just another example of that - bashing the Daily Mail for Toynbee herself admits in the article that the Mail was justified. After pointing out that it laid into Harris for wondering why people were miserable, she than says "Half the population has had little growth for five years, and a third - including skilled workers - has suffered a real fall. Homeowners saw their capital rise - but that may turn to dust.". So it is no real surprise that when a minister pops up and says "Why aren't you all happy?" that he gets a honest answer.

If you want another example, look at Yasmin Albhi-Brown's rant earlier this month

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-a-lament- for-the-death-of-the-left-as-a-political-force-838215.html

"Almost more depressing is the sight of black and Asian Britons following the wind blowing the Tories to victory. Boris has recruited Afro Caribbean "leaders" who believe in physical chastisement and smart young Asians who deny the existence of racism and want an end to political correctness. The more old-fashioned Uncle Toms and their female equivalents are now expediently making themselves known to the Tories and right-wing think tanks." 

If anybody on the right used phrases like "Uncle Toms" to describe afro-carribean men then that outcry would be deafening. 

The real problem here is that the left-leaning intelligentsia are hurt and baffled by the fact the thet public seem to be turning away from the left and in their bafflement and confusion they are lashing out, striking at any contrary message, telling any of us with opinions that vary that we are fascists, deluded, greedy or nasty.

If they really want to look the cause of their problems in the eye, then either a mirror or a group photo of the cabinet might be a good place to start. 


Re: Some balance please... (#2)

by e10rifles on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:56:42 PM GMT

The contributor makes the common mistake of conflating "New Labour" with "the left".

A basic error really.


[ Parent ]

Re: Some balance please... (#5)

by Floating voter on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:00:36 PM GMT

" The contributor makes the common mistake of conflating "New Labour" with "the left"."

Sorry!

I made the mistake of conflating Labour with New Labour.......

 

"A basic error really."

 

My apologies  :-)

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Some balance please... (#3)

by TonyH on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:27:05 PM GMT

The Mail might have been justified in answering the question as honestly as it was put: Why are people so bloody miserable?

That's not what they did. They called it a bazaar outburst and lied about the author's sentiment and demeanour.

That is the deceit.

You ask us to put our own house in order first – “collective policy or ad hominem attacks”…your conceit is almost infuriating. You will not see a blog as open as this one. Conservativehome does not let Labour bloggers write their own posts. Far more people use their own name. The Labour Party does not use Labourhome as a tool of the party and there is plenty of dissent from the Government and respectful disagreement with each other.

Just look at the blogs on 42 days, grammar schools, the US presidency or any issue you like. Nobody purposefully sets out to nakedly misrepresent someone else's position - and where there is a flasehood or mistake, it's clarified. Go on - do some reading!

Predictably, you’ve completely missed the point. The point I made was not about the Labour Party’s problems but the plummeting level of discussion in the country where people idiotically mislead and misrepresent issues and get away with it. I even criticised when it happens to other parties. Did you even read the post before blurting out your condemnation of “the left”?

What is vexing, floating voter, is that the machinery of political problem solving has become a broken, useless discussion where people entirely miss the point in favour of partisan hackery – like you have.


[ Parent ]

Re: Some balance please... (#4)

by snowflake5 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:59:16 PM GMT

"You will not see a blog as open as this one. Conservativehome does not let Labour bloggers write their own posts."

Conservative Home doesn't even let Conservatives write their own posts/blogs let alone visiting Labour people! ConHome is tightly controlled by Montgomerie and co, and all the articles on it are commissioned by him and selected to project a certain stance.


[ Parent ]

Re: Some balance please... (#10)

by alexswanson on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:49:41 PM GMT

Conservative Home doesn't even let Conservatives write their own posts/blogs let alone visiting Labour people!

 

ConservativeHome runs articles approved by the people that run it; what else would you expect? But comments are allowed so far as I can see as freely as here, and NorthernMonkey for example posts left-wing comments quite regularly.

 

As a general issue, I am staggered at the lack of self-awareness being shown here.  For really mindless, malicious hatred you cannot do better than a socialist. Look at the flak for example aimed at "Mad" Nadine Dorries for the apparently horrendous crime of trying to save the lives of unborn children.

 

LabourHome is in general not bad - and certainly, I must admit, better than I was expecting to encounter when it first started up, but in general my experience is that Labour people usually sign up enthusiastically to the idea that Conservatives are "evil" , "racist" , "homophobic", "xenophobic", and "selfish" and when allowed to do so comment appropriately.

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Some balance please... (#11)

by TonyH on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:09:15 PM GMT

Labour people usually sign up enthusiastically to the idea that Conservatives are "evil" , "racist" , "homophobic", "xenophobic", and "selfish" and when allowed to do so comment appropriately.
 
I'm sure it does on occasion. But don't Conservatives equally accuse Labour supporters of being "feeble minded", "marxists", "PC spouting", "anti-semitic", "authoritarian", "anti-US" etc etc.

Indeed some people boast about their mischief..

Was it not you, Alex, who boasted at 12.09pm on this Conservativehome thread about your stomach and ability to go “winding up the lefties?”

We forgive you, you old scamp!


[ Parent ]

Re: Some balance please... (#6)

by Floating voter on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 03:14:42 PM GMT

"Did you even read the post before blurting out your condemnation of “the left”?"

Yes I did and I read the whole of Toynbee's article as well. 

 

"You ask us to put our own house in order first – “collective policy or ad hominem attacks”…your conceit is almost infuriating"

 My conceit? I tell you how it appears to me and you then provide a perfect example of what I'm talking about by giving me both barrels!

 

"The Labour Party does not use Labourhome as a tool of the party and there is plenty of dissent from the Government and respectful disagreement with each other."

I never mentioned Labour. Show me the sentence in which I said "Labour". It'll be a long search.


[ Parent ]

Re: Some balance please... (#7)

by TonyH on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 04:04:08 PM GMT

I never mentioned Labour. Show me the sentence in which I said "Labour". It'll be a long search.

Not that long really, about four seconds.

 “I made the mistake of conflating Labour with New Labour.......”

[Labour mentioned twice in an admission of what your original post was about]

“The real problem here is that the left-leaning intelligentsia…”

“If they really want to look the cause of their problems in the eye, then either a mirror or a group photo of the cabinet might be a good place to start.”

You can see why I thought it was an attack on the Labour Government.

Floating Voter – I’m ok with valid attacks on Labour – I’m not precious, but when the post was about the deceitful, attacking nature of the Daily Mail and how that has a massive and negative  effect on the national conversation, can you not see how I might be irked that your contribution to that national conversation was both beside the point and needlessly attack minded of a group who are not to blame?

Unless, of course, you believe that the "left-leaning intelligentsia" are the ones who are to blame for the newspaper philosophy that bad news sells and it doesn't matter if you make it up? I'd like to hear a cogent argument for that...

It was conceited to accuse the posters on this site of not having our house in order compared with the Daily Mail – especially when you have more freedom to clarify or correct anything here than on any other popular outlet.

It was a bit rich and arrogant, so yes, conceited, that you accuse collectivism to a site which harbours and indeed welcomes your opinion and dissent alongside disagreements we have with each other. I gave “both barrels” to the substance of what you had said - not who you are, so it wasn’t ad hominem either.

You got “both barrels” because the post was about clear deceit and the institutional breeding of hatred and malcontent and how it renders the national conversation a broken, useless and attack fed crock.  As if to prove my point, you saddled up with an attack which was both beside the point and a demonstration of uninformed, incidental prejudice which has become the hallmark of what we read in newspapers every day.


[ Parent ]

Re: Some balance please... (#8)

by Floating voter on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 06:10:08 PM GMT

"Not that long really, about four seconds."

Ha ha very funny. I was referring to my original post not the one I was in the process of making.

"Labour mentioned twice in an admission of what your original post was about"

No - that was a different post. My original is #1 whereas the one you're referring to is #5 because e10rifles made comment #2.

This is exactly what I was complaining about. You're twisting an mis-representing what I said to attack me. What you don't seem to realise is that all the posts are here for all to see. Others can judge for themselves.


[ Parent ]

Re: Some balance please... (#9)

by TonyH on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 07:52:08 PM GMT

Others can judge for themselves.

Indeed.


[ Parent ]

Crosswords (#12)

by spiderlounge on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:52:27 PM GMT

I'm afraid I have to completely dissagree with one part of this article - the sports coverage in the Mail is actually pretty useless. I can't count the number of times I've been able to pick them up on glaring factual errors.

I have managed to convince my Grandmother to stop reading the Mail and read the Express (aka the Daily Madeleine) instead, which is a minor victory of sorts. The problem is she buys it for the crosswords but still becomes influenced by the contents of the paper. She is not alone.


"Give them this day, their Daily Hate" | 12 comments (12 topical)