Daily Mail Proprietor meets avid reader and artist, Mr A. Hitler from Austria. Mr Hitler is a peaceful man who Mail readers will be delighted to learn has been given a charitable grant to help him and his fellow artists establish a series of studios and galleries across Europe. Mr Hitler has particular designs on Czechoslovakia and Poland, the Mail has earged him to expand further and we wish him well.
Lee Chater
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 366
Quote;I wonder how many of these 2.3M readers who can make their own minds up, are remotely aware of the papers history?
Which implies that if the 2.3 million know the history, then they might think twice re buying the paper, or heaven forbid, they might even think, well that is history and we have to move on otherwise we will never make progress.
Now if you are going to get pedantic, I will remind you how to spell pernicious
Which implies that if the 2.3 million know the history, then they might think twice re buying the paper, or heaven forbid, they might even think, well that is history and we have to move on otherwise we will never make progress.
Now if you are going to get pedantic, I will remind you how to spell pernicious
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
I would guess most Mail readers know the papers history, and very few of them care.
Lee Chater
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 366
I couldn't give a f(_)ck who they supported and it makes no difference whatsoever.
!5 years ago. I bought a Miele washing machine knowing it was made in Germany, my TV is Japanese and the most popular cars bought in the UK are made in the same country.
The word you correctly use is ' history' and that is exactly what it is, history.
!5 years ago. I bought a Miele washing machine knowing it was made in Germany, my TV is Japanese and the most popular cars bought in the UK are made in the same country.
The word you correctly use is ' history' and that is exactly what it is, history.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
Exactly, most Mail readers are too concerned with their income tax and running their cock substitute 4x4`s to care.
Lee Chater
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 366
There are exceptions Euro, would you believe that some people actually get by without a motorised vehicle or mobile phone ?
If you're going to lambast readership, membership, or any 'ship' on the basis of an organ or organisation's history, Warbler (and/or Euro), then there'd be precious little left!
You might be interested to trawl the archives which you're rather fond of plundering to support your opinions, and see what supported most vehemently the retention of the slave trade, fought furiously against women's emancipation, opposed the raising of the age of consent (for sex) from 13 to 16 (in the light of the traffic in child prostitutes), who railed against trade unionism, and so on. Let alone supported flogging, capital punishment, and transportation for life of slightly naughty Brits. If you'd care to list all of those, it would perhaps balance the scales a little.
A newspaper is only the mouthpiece of its current editorial - writers come, editors go, ownerships change and so, very often, do the ethics. What were once bastions of conservative little England are now, for example, in the hands of Rupert Murdoch, and Jews are now even permitted to join gentlemen's clubs (gasp!).
You might be interested to trawl the archives which you're rather fond of plundering to support your opinions, and see what supported most vehemently the retention of the slave trade, fought furiously against women's emancipation, opposed the raising of the age of consent (for sex) from 13 to 16 (in the light of the traffic in child prostitutes), who railed against trade unionism, and so on. Let alone supported flogging, capital punishment, and transportation for life of slightly naughty Brits. If you'd care to list all of those, it would perhaps balance the scales a little.
A newspaper is only the mouthpiece of its current editorial - writers come, editors go, ownerships change and so, very often, do the ethics. What were once bastions of conservative little England are now, for example, in the hands of Rupert Murdoch, and Jews are now even permitted to join gentlemen's clubs (gasp!).
That the axis industries were thrown into their respective war effort is of no surprise, and some of their magnates approached it with greater gusto than others. In essence they had little choice, and trying to draw consumer paralells is frankly just disingenious. That the Daily Mail was based in the UK denied them this excuse, and this is a critical difference, and I don't think you should lose sight of it. They made a conscious decision (without government coercion) to support, promote and finance the growth of Nazism, and it is this that I question. Even after Czechslovakia, they were imploring Hitler to invade Romania. I'm tempted to say the penny hadn't dropped, but then again, I'm tempted to say it had, which is why they embraced him so openly.
The German state, unlike the Daily Mail, has apologised.
Bring it back to the point that started the thread. Kathy was telling us what a marvellous little paper this is. I was pointing out that they are responsible for the most dangerous and disreputable piece of editorial direction in Fleet Street history. Don't be under any illusion, this went well beyond mere flirting with fascism. We are talking about a wealthy estate here. What Rothermere paid Princess Stephanie is documented. What did he finance in Spain? Czech? This papers promotion and support of Nazism marks the low point of the British print media to my eyes. See it in context.
That Oswald Moseleys portrait (ex Labour MP) remained(s) in the Boardroom does cast a degree over the conversion process I'd suggest? but I do stand to be corrected if this is untrue. I believed it to be the case throughout the 1980's under David English? If it's still there, then say no more, if it never was, then I apologise.
The German state, unlike the Daily Mail, has apologised.
Bring it back to the point that started the thread. Kathy was telling us what a marvellous little paper this is. I was pointing out that they are responsible for the most dangerous and disreputable piece of editorial direction in Fleet Street history. Don't be under any illusion, this went well beyond mere flirting with fascism. We are talking about a wealthy estate here. What Rothermere paid Princess Stephanie is documented. What did he finance in Spain? Czech? This papers promotion and support of Nazism marks the low point of the British print media to my eyes. See it in context.
That Oswald Moseleys portrait (ex Labour MP) remained(s) in the Boardroom does cast a degree over the conversion process I'd suggest? but I do stand to be corrected if this is untrue. I believed it to be the case throughout the 1980's under David English? If it's still there, then say no more, if it never was, then I apologise.
You like horse-racing, Warbler - probably rather a lot. Would you disassociate yourself from it now that I can tell you that one of its former great patrons, Lord Bentinck, resisted by more foul than fair means, using Press and Parliamentary pressure, the overhaul of Victorian child prostitution? Everything is history at some point.
Over sixty years since the end of the last world war, Rothermere is dead and things move on a bit - as Colin has obliquely pointed out, people have no conscience about buying consumer goods made by countries with records for the most appalling war crimes (not just WWII, either - think of the 'Rape of Nanking' and then feel free to buy all of your Japanese goods without the slightest qualm, and yes, they do come highly recommended from time to time by forum members).
I can't see how Colin's remarks are at all disingenuous - far from it, you've sought to draw a parallel between the historical ownership of the Daily Mail and its past promotion of pro-Nazi ethics with its editorial stance today (hardly in the rabid BNP camp, I would venture), so it's quite reasonable, I think, to draw, say, a parellel with Dow Chemicals and the production of both Agent Orange and napalm and its current continuing financial success, or with Krupp (still a star at arms shows, thank you) and the production of Zyklon-B, and a number of current Japanese car makers who historically manufactured the Zeros which kamikazed the Americans at Pearl Harbour, and which also made the Japanese fleet which sunk so many unarmed merchantmen at sea.
There's an endless list of unfortunate histories, if you want to look for them. Plucking the Mail out as an example - well, why not attack the Daily Worker for its relentlessly pro-Russian stance both during and AFTER the war, when it well knew the horrors that Stalin was perpretrating upon the 'glorious comrades' of the USSR? You have to go for them all, if you're going at all - not just select one item for castigation.
Over sixty years since the end of the last world war, Rothermere is dead and things move on a bit - as Colin has obliquely pointed out, people have no conscience about buying consumer goods made by countries with records for the most appalling war crimes (not just WWII, either - think of the 'Rape of Nanking' and then feel free to buy all of your Japanese goods without the slightest qualm, and yes, they do come highly recommended from time to time by forum members).
I can't see how Colin's remarks are at all disingenuous - far from it, you've sought to draw a parallel between the historical ownership of the Daily Mail and its past promotion of pro-Nazi ethics with its editorial stance today (hardly in the rabid BNP camp, I would venture), so it's quite reasonable, I think, to draw, say, a parellel with Dow Chemicals and the production of both Agent Orange and napalm and its current continuing financial success, or with Krupp (still a star at arms shows, thank you) and the production of Zyklon-B, and a number of current Japanese car makers who historically manufactured the Zeros which kamikazed the Americans at Pearl Harbour, and which also made the Japanese fleet which sunk so many unarmed merchantmen at sea.
There's an endless list of unfortunate histories, if you want to look for them. Plucking the Mail out as an example - well, why not attack the Daily Worker for its relentlessly pro-Russian stance both during and AFTER the war, when it well knew the horrors that Stalin was perpretrating upon the 'glorious comrades' of the USSR? You have to go for them all, if you're going at all - not just select one item for castigation.
Without checking them all out, I think from memory Mitsubishi made the Zero, but it goes to the very heart of the point I was making. These were industries thrown into a war effort for their respective side. Dow I believe are American? if they are? that they should produce a defoliating chemical for the American military is of no surprise. The Daily Mail, simply weren't. I do believe its that straight forward. They chose to do it, they weren't whipped up into a national frenzy, nor requisitioned etc In my eyes there's a very clear distinction.
As reagrds the idea that it's "hardly in the rabid BNP camp" I'd be tempted to disect that a little. Let's drop the emotive word "rabid" for that is what it is, and see what we're left with? Is the paper so far removed from the concept of British Nationalism? The key word then appears to be "party" as that implies an affiliation.
The Daily Worker like many Stalinist sheets doesn't pretend. Take it or leave it, fight it or resist etc Nationalist papers like the Mail have a much more sordid history in terms of influence, and financing of projects and much more sinister in terms of their reach. I suspect now that Lee didn't know what I've told him tonight? who knows perhaps Kathy doesn't? I'm pretty certain if I dug the Rothermere lineage out you'd find that in terms of appointments and influence it didn't finish in the 1940's and could be traced back to today?
I try and return again to the issue that started this. Kathy told us what a marvellous little paper it is, you continue to enjoy Kriz, I believe its disreputable and grubby
ps
Who's Colin?
As reagrds the idea that it's "hardly in the rabid BNP camp" I'd be tempted to disect that a little. Let's drop the emotive word "rabid" for that is what it is, and see what we're left with? Is the paper so far removed from the concept of British Nationalism? The key word then appears to be "party" as that implies an affiliation.
The Daily Worker like many Stalinist sheets doesn't pretend. Take it or leave it, fight it or resist etc Nationalist papers like the Mail have a much more sordid history in terms of influence, and financing of projects and much more sinister in terms of their reach. I suspect now that Lee didn't know what I've told him tonight? who knows perhaps Kathy doesn't? I'm pretty certain if I dug the Rothermere lineage out you'd find that in terms of appointments and influence it didn't finish in the 1940's and could be traced back to today?
I try and return again to the issue that started this. Kathy told us what a marvellous little paper it is, you continue to enjoy Kriz, I believe its disreputable and grubby
ps
Who's Colin?
I don't take the Daily Mail or any other national, Warbler - so you can stuff your sweeping and patronising assumptions about me. I've engaged in enough discussions on here that I would've thought indicated to you that I think for myself.
Dow was under no governmental DEMAND to provide the US military with napalm or Agent Orange. The USA doesn't force its industries into working for its aggressive ambitions. That's communism and fascism - not democratic capitalism. Dow made a fortune out of these ventures, which had catastrophically immediate effects on the Viets but, in the case of Orange, long-lasting carcinogenous effects on both sides of the conflict for years to come. In fact, its contamination of hundreds of miles of ground continues to cause cancers in the native people, including newborns. But, even with all of that, it's still a high flyer on the American stock exchange, not even considered a 'dirty' investment.
Sorry, you can't airily sweep pro-Communist editions under the carpet to suit your excoriation of the Mail, and your personal political bias. Now you really ARE sounding like Big Brother! Oh, we all know what the Daily Worker was like, so don't worry about it? Are you kidding? The Daily Worker DENIED the existence of the gulags, for God's sake! That's like denying the Holocaust - in fact, the gulags formed much of Stalin's own holocaust, with probably as many people dying (we'll never know exact numbers for that, either) in his brutal pogroms. I'm surprised that you can't or won't be objective enough to treat the opposite spectrum of propaganda with the same sneering derision you have for the Mail.
And, while we're at it, why stop with the Mail? Why not the Sun, the Mirror, the Star, with their bite-size rants, free of any attempt at balanced analyses, their tits 'n' ass double standards of 'morality', their right-wing crowd-pleasing bilge? Are you setting them aside simply because they waved the right flag at the right time? If so, then your argument's not that you can't stand right-wing tosh. It's that you can't stand a certain paper's right-wing tosh.
Dow was under no governmental DEMAND to provide the US military with napalm or Agent Orange. The USA doesn't force its industries into working for its aggressive ambitions. That's communism and fascism - not democratic capitalism. Dow made a fortune out of these ventures, which had catastrophically immediate effects on the Viets but, in the case of Orange, long-lasting carcinogenous effects on both sides of the conflict for years to come. In fact, its contamination of hundreds of miles of ground continues to cause cancers in the native people, including newborns. But, even with all of that, it's still a high flyer on the American stock exchange, not even considered a 'dirty' investment.
Sorry, you can't airily sweep pro-Communist editions under the carpet to suit your excoriation of the Mail, and your personal political bias. Now you really ARE sounding like Big Brother! Oh, we all know what the Daily Worker was like, so don't worry about it? Are you kidding? The Daily Worker DENIED the existence of the gulags, for God's sake! That's like denying the Holocaust - in fact, the gulags formed much of Stalin's own holocaust, with probably as many people dying (we'll never know exact numbers for that, either) in his brutal pogroms. I'm surprised that you can't or won't be objective enough to treat the opposite spectrum of propaganda with the same sneering derision you have for the Mail.
And, while we're at it, why stop with the Mail? Why not the Sun, the Mirror, the Star, with their bite-size rants, free of any attempt at balanced analyses, their tits 'n' ass double standards of 'morality', their right-wing crowd-pleasing bilge? Are you setting them aside simply because they waved the right flag at the right time? If so, then your argument's not that you can't stand right-wing tosh. It's that you can't stand a certain paper's right-wing tosh.
K
Kathy
Guest
Anyone would think I read The Daily Mail every day. :blink:
I do occassionally read it along with about 5 other newspapers. Isn't great to be labelled due to a *very* small minority on this forum! <_<
I do occassionally read it along with about 5 other newspapers. Isn't great to be labelled due to a *very* small minority on this forum! <_<
Lee Chater
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 366
Quote Warbler; I try and return again to the issue that started this. Kathy told us what a marvellous little paper it is
Where did she do this Warbler ?
Where did she do this Warbler ?
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
It`s not Paddy McGuinness live on DVD is it?
My nephew got this yesterday
h34r: What next, Tommy Cannon?hereOriginally posted by Kathy@Dec 23 2006, 06:41 PM
I thought I would take the liberty of telling you about something they are doing for children's charities if anyone is remotely interested.
Details can be found here:
Daily Mail £100k Charity Donation
In short, they have £100k to give away to one of 10 children's charities. All of them appear to be very worthy causes.
I think you can vote by phone or via the internet.
Thank you
Lee Chater
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 366
So you interpret that as Kathy claiming it was a marvellous paper....
It just shows how simple writing can be misconstrued.
It just shows how simple writing can be misconstrued.
Don't see why not? She's certainly promoting the paper and inviting us to consider them favourably in doing so. Admittedly she's not defending their editorial and journalistic content, that's what others chose to do, though I'm not sure that saying that they're not as "rabid" as the BNP was a defence I'd like to rely on.
For the record Kriz, I do differentiate between the tits and arses right wing popularist press, and one that openly supports and funds the nazi party. If you can't see the distinction then I'm dissapointed. Put simply, one kills millions, the other might chase the odd individual to their grave, and indulge in many an unsavoury stunt, but context is critical. Personally I think there's a world of difference between something that feeds off the Beckhams et al, and something that covertly pedals a dangerous political philosophy. To a large extent the Mail's been given something of a clean run at it, since their principal 'mid range' rival is hopelessly obessessed with a dead Princess, they are however frequently foremost in the vanguard when it comes to running any 'race' or race related story which is clearly designed to appeal to a certain reactionary instinct in the population
All I was doing before anyone went running away with some idea about the lovely benevolence of the Daily Mail, was point out their tradition, and that under their own direction, so with seemingly no excuse other than conviction in their believe, they probably represent the low water mark of British journalism
For the record Kriz, I do differentiate between the tits and arses right wing popularist press, and one that openly supports and funds the nazi party. If you can't see the distinction then I'm dissapointed. Put simply, one kills millions, the other might chase the odd individual to their grave, and indulge in many an unsavoury stunt, but context is critical. Personally I think there's a world of difference between something that feeds off the Beckhams et al, and something that covertly pedals a dangerous political philosophy. To a large extent the Mail's been given something of a clean run at it, since their principal 'mid range' rival is hopelessly obessessed with a dead Princess, they are however frequently foremost in the vanguard when it comes to running any 'race' or race related story which is clearly designed to appeal to a certain reactionary instinct in the population
All I was doing before anyone went running away with some idea about the lovely benevolence of the Daily Mail, was point out their tradition, and that under their own direction, so with seemingly no excuse other than conviction in their believe, they probably represent the low water mark of British journalism
I'm not aware of any Nazi party being in power at present, Warbler, or killing millions. Religious fanaticism's managing to do that quite nicely at present instead.
You refuse to even ADDRESS the Daily Worker's post-war promotion of Communism, published in the full knowledge of what the Soviet Union did and continued doing right into the 1960s with its filthy gulag system.
I understand perfectly what you're saying viz. the Daily Mail (the paper's excoriation has been an annual favourite on this forum for years), but what I don't understand is why, when I give you an example of an equally outrageous organ of propaganda which supported an EQUALLY vicious, brutal regime, you're quiet as a church mouse. Why? Because you support its views? If you have the honesty to answer 'yes' to that, then why deny Kathy her honesty to enjoy a right-wing newspaper, no matter how tarnished its past ownership has been? That the paper is soliciting funds for a Christmas Appeal is not the issue, is it? The Worker used to solicit for membership to the Communist Party, extolling the virtues of comradely cooperation and the vicious evils of capitalist self-interest, while wilfully overlooking the thousands it knew fine well were dying through cold, starvation and illness while undergoing forced slave labour throughout the Soviet Union.
And it amazes me that you see nothing ethically hypocritical about red tops which promote their income with photographs of half-nude women, while pontificating on the evils of prostitution. Double standards worthy of an award from Private Eye.
You refuse to even ADDRESS the Daily Worker's post-war promotion of Communism, published in the full knowledge of what the Soviet Union did and continued doing right into the 1960s with its filthy gulag system.
I understand perfectly what you're saying viz. the Daily Mail (the paper's excoriation has been an annual favourite on this forum for years), but what I don't understand is why, when I give you an example of an equally outrageous organ of propaganda which supported an EQUALLY vicious, brutal regime, you're quiet as a church mouse. Why? Because you support its views? If you have the honesty to answer 'yes' to that, then why deny Kathy her honesty to enjoy a right-wing newspaper, no matter how tarnished its past ownership has been? That the paper is soliciting funds for a Christmas Appeal is not the issue, is it? The Worker used to solicit for membership to the Communist Party, extolling the virtues of comradely cooperation and the vicious evils of capitalist self-interest, while wilfully overlooking the thousands it knew fine well were dying through cold, starvation and illness while undergoing forced slave labour throughout the Soviet Union.
And it amazes me that you see nothing ethically hypocritical about red tops which promote their income with photographs of half-nude women, while pontificating on the evils of prostitution. Double standards worthy of an award from Private Eye.
K
Kathy
Guest
The start of the thread was a little misleading as The Mail seemed to be promoting the RBS and what they were doing rather than physically putting up the £'s. I actually put up the thread due to the e-mail I received from The NSPCC. <_<
Warbler, I brought The Racing Post today, and may buy The Times tomorrow. I am a little unpredictable on my paper buying habits to be honest. Sometimes, it's just whatever the local paper shop has available at the time I want to buy a paper.
I did try and alter the tense Kriz, realising that I'd slipped into the present. Despite being offered the chance to amend the post it didn't seem to accept it, so I'm left marooned in the 1930's as present.
The reason for not addressing the anology with the Dail Worker is really quite simple. I just don't believe they're like for like comparisons. That's not to say that comparisons don't exist, just that the Daily Mail isn't it.
In many respects you acknowledge as much yourself. The Mail isn't a rabid mouthpiece promoting extreme views. It's much more subtle, and necessarily so, as it camouflages itself in what you'd broadly call the mainstream complete as it is with a mass circulation, (which in my opinion makes it equally dangerous, if not more so) in any event, it's much more influential for it. This sense of disguise allows it to take up positions which need not appear extreme at face value, but instead can drip feed them in a way that I might call mood music. The mainstream doesn't rely on a diet of 'in your face' impact and 'missionary' stories that is so synonymous with other single issue(s) publications.
The Daily Worker by contrast, well if you were being polite about it, you could perhaps called it an accquired taste. The Worker doesn't really pretend to be anything and as such it lacks disguise and can be easily seen for the propoganda that is. If you were looking for a paralell, then something like 'The Flag' or the 'British Bulldog' the 'Red Hand' would be more appropriate, as these are much closer to it in terms of circulation, pitch and modus operandi. The Mail of course takes on the festiages of TV pages, sports sections features etc, where this departs from the others mentioned is that they are essentially political, 1st 2nd and 3rd and it's not difficult to spot it. That's why I believe the two to be distinct and different.
I'm not sure I've been pontificating about the evils of prostitution either.
I've always been in the legalise and regulate camp. I'm not even convinced about the alleged immorality of it. The evil that might exist to my mind owes nothing to the sex or implication that naked women are involved, I'd kind of gathered that came with the territory. So again I see no meaningful relevance between sticking some youngster in a newspaper flashing her 'threepennies' about, and fueling one up with a crack dependency to the point that some pimp can run her. I think the two things are very seperate, and wouldn't confuse them as being the same for one second.
Finally Clive, I'm sure you'll accept that the Daily Mail were hardly unique amomgst the media in campaigning over Stephen Lawrence. You'd be entitled to be concerned if they hadn't involved themselves as every other national title had, and some like the Observer, Guardian, Sun, The Metro and BBC have been notably high profile. It's one of those stories/ campaigns that pretty well lends itself to universal support across the board, and as such I don't believe that it somehow proves their credentials
The reason for not addressing the anology with the Dail Worker is really quite simple. I just don't believe they're like for like comparisons. That's not to say that comparisons don't exist, just that the Daily Mail isn't it.
In many respects you acknowledge as much yourself. The Mail isn't a rabid mouthpiece promoting extreme views. It's much more subtle, and necessarily so, as it camouflages itself in what you'd broadly call the mainstream complete as it is with a mass circulation, (which in my opinion makes it equally dangerous, if not more so) in any event, it's much more influential for it. This sense of disguise allows it to take up positions which need not appear extreme at face value, but instead can drip feed them in a way that I might call mood music. The mainstream doesn't rely on a diet of 'in your face' impact and 'missionary' stories that is so synonymous with other single issue(s) publications.
The Daily Worker by contrast, well if you were being polite about it, you could perhaps called it an accquired taste. The Worker doesn't really pretend to be anything and as such it lacks disguise and can be easily seen for the propoganda that is. If you were looking for a paralell, then something like 'The Flag' or the 'British Bulldog' the 'Red Hand' would be more appropriate, as these are much closer to it in terms of circulation, pitch and modus operandi. The Mail of course takes on the festiages of TV pages, sports sections features etc, where this departs from the others mentioned is that they are essentially political, 1st 2nd and 3rd and it's not difficult to spot it. That's why I believe the two to be distinct and different.
I'm not sure I've been pontificating about the evils of prostitution either.
I've always been in the legalise and regulate camp. I'm not even convinced about the alleged immorality of it. The evil that might exist to my mind owes nothing to the sex or implication that naked women are involved, I'd kind of gathered that came with the territory. So again I see no meaningful relevance between sticking some youngster in a newspaper flashing her 'threepennies' about, and fueling one up with a crack dependency to the point that some pimp can run her. I think the two things are very seperate, and wouldn't confuse them as being the same for one second.Finally Clive, I'm sure you'll accept that the Daily Mail were hardly unique amomgst the media in campaigning over Stephen Lawrence. You'd be entitled to be concerned if they hadn't involved themselves as every other national title had, and some like the Observer, Guardian, Sun, The Metro and BBC have been notably high profile. It's one of those stories/ campaigns that pretty well lends itself to universal support across the board, and as such I don't believe that it somehow proves their credentials