Do Mail commenters create a toxic environment for brands?
Posted by Daily Quail
September 14th, 2009
Last month, the Mail created a minor stir in the media industry by announcing that it would soon be introducing unmoderated comments under articles published on MailOnline. Most newspaper websites employ comment moderation in some form or another, checking comments before or after publication to weed out defamatory or libellous scribblings from armchair sages to protect both their own and their advertisers’ brand identities. Discriminatory, offensive, and inaccurate comments reflect badly on the content provider, regardless of whether or not the provider actually wrote them themself.
The announcement caused a bit of a fuss. Mark Trustum, director of e-commerce for Specsavers which advertises on MailOnline, said the firm would not continue to pay for advertising next to unmoderated, contraversial or offensive comments:
Unmoderated user content falls into this category and is a grey area for advertisers. It’s vitally important for us to protect our brand reputation and, therefore, as soon as we were made aware of any such content being present alongside our advertising we would immediately ask for our ad to be withdrawn.
Ben Wood, Managing Director of digital planning and buying agency (the guys who actually spend the money and buy advertising space for companies) Diffiniti agreed, saying he wouldn’t buy space for clients alongisde unmoderated comments. He explained succinctly:
Advertisers need to be sure they’re in a suitable environment.
A chorus of other media and advertising types (the people the Mail really cares about) echoed this sentiment; ad placement is a major issue in protecting brand identity. In May, Tesco and Vodafone pulled advertising from Facebook after ads were served on Holocaust denial and BNP group pages. More recently, advertisers deserted Glenn Beck’s rabid paranoid Fox News screamshow after he claimed Obama was ‘racist’. Why would any brand pay to associate itself with racism, xenophobia, and intolerance?
Why would, say, Marks & Spencer wish to advertise its Autograph Cotton Blend Trench Coat on a page that contains comments like ‘The islamic colonization of our country shows no sign of slowing down, infact [sic] it’s gathering pace as the tipping point approaches‘? Would uSwitch or Cotton Traders be happy to promote their services alongside bigoted rants such as this:
So, no patriotism allowed, no free-speech allowed, don’t mention the BNP, don’t complain about green-belt building to accommodate the influx, don’t dare say you’re a Christian, don’t complain that your local church is now a mosque, don’t be alarmed if your local town now looks like Islamabad. For Gawd’s sake, is there no end to the destruction of Englishness? When I shop in an English shop, I want to see English things ?
Unless their target market consists solely of angry xenopbobic white people, I doubt they’d be too pleased to see their brand on the same page as such bizarre outpourings of racially motivated bile.
Aside from advertising, another distinct part of the marketing mix is public relations. PR companies often send press releases to newspapers and magazines announcing new products or services in the hope of some free publicity. For example, Asda have just launched a new Asian inspired clothes range in selected stores, and you can see the resulting PR trail here. It’s not a hugely interesting story, so most newspapers have limited their articles to a few lines, rewritten from the original press release. Here’s the Guardian’s piece and here is the BBC’s version. You can tell when an article is based on a press release because all of the quotes are the same, from the same people, and it mentions specific products like the ’sequinned embellished Salwaar Kameez (or traditional suit) along with pricing. Press releases are what’s known in industry circles as dull.
Things are a little different when it comes to the Mail, however. The article itself is nearly identical to all of the others, but the major difference is found in the comments. While most other versions of this press release found on other news sites either haven’t received any user comments or don’t even have a comment section available (because it’s a boring press release, what’s to say?), the Mail has notched up 120 comments at the time of writing – two of which I’ve already mentioned above.
120 comments on an article about some new trousers and a couple of dresses.
Now, bearing in mind that Asda’s own PR company have issued this press release to newspapers to generate a bit of interest and publicity around their new clothing range, and also remembering that comments on this particular article’s are premoderated, do you think Asda would be happy to promote their brand alongside comments such as:
Roll up roll up. !! Get your Prayer mats and korans here. Britainistan 2009.
why? there are enough asian clothes shops in the asian no go ghettos
Would a supermarket chain in Pakistan start stocking levi’s and wonderbras if it was the other way around? I wonder whether in a few years’ time we’ll be seeing people putting burkas in their shopping trolleys?
Why? When our local Asda often cannot supply organic milk and free-range chicken for their regular customers!
Notice especially ‘Britainistan’, apparently a witty reinterpretation of Mail columnist Melanie Phillips’ own creation ‘Londonistan’, the association of ‘asians’ and ‘ghettos’, that symbol of tyrannical Islamic oppression the burkha, and the lament for ‘regular customers’, which presumably excludes anyone from Asia and the Indian sub-continent. More, you say? Ok:
I have no objection to ethnic fashion, except on those streets of some of our major cities that have gone completely to the other extreme, stocking little with any appeal to the indigenous population. Wiltshire Resident [another, pro-Asda commenter]should try Bradford if she loves Asian Fashion. She may even feel completely at home there, apart from the fact that large parts look and feel like a foreign country.
Excellent use of the ‘If you love it so much, why don’t you go live there’ argument, alongside a swipe at multiculturalism, and (bingo!) inclusion of BNP buzzword ‘indigenous’. Ok, ok, one more:
Sorry, but isn’t ASDA aware of the existing social problem of Asians failing to integrate ? I believe that this is an ill conceived idea, as our Asian residents should be adopting western clothing as the norm whilst living in the UK.
Ah, the imaginary bugbear of any self-respecting racist, social integration. Because Asians are clearly a problem group when it comes to integrating into British culture as, say, Freddie Mercury (born Farrokh Bulsara), Konnie Huq, Dev Patel, Amir Khan, Melanie Sykes, Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Meera Syal, Hardeep Singh Kohli, Cliff Richard (really!), James Caan (previously Khan), Sanjeev Bhaskar, Monty Panesar, Parminder Nagra, Nasser Hussein, Shobna Gulati, and several million more could testify (apologies to those I may have missed). Bonus points given for calling for ultra authoritarian legislation on foreign residents’ clothing – Asian residents should be forced to wear ‘Western clothing’, whatever that might be precisely. Jeans, probably. Very British.
To their (perhaps dubious) credit, the Mail did simply rehash Asda’s press release just like all the other newspapers, without adding any of their own editorial bias. But to vet, approve and publish comments such as the above is irresponsible at best, and must surely worry companies such as Asda, M&S, and uSwitch, whose brands appear next to poorly informed readers’ bile. Asda, especially, must be worried that a perfectly innocuous press release could be so utterly twisted by commenters, not only to be used as an excuse to express vile, reactionary comments about indigenous this and integration that, but also a reason for a number of commenters to announce an immediate boycott of the store altogether.
Bloggers are all too aware of the onorous responsibility they bear not just for their own posts, but for the comments that appear beneath them. Anyone who writes on the web must accept that, thanks to British libel laws, what’s written by others but hosted by you is your responsibility. If some anonymous commenter libels somebody else, and the target is of a litigious nature, they won’t go after the commenter, they’ll probably sue you.
Most newspapers are aware of this too, and take care to add clauses such as ‘The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.‘ The Mail also have two whole pages of House Rules and Terms & Conditions, forbidding ‘defamatory, malicious, threatening, false, misleading, offensive, abusive, discriminatory, harassing, blasphemous or racist‘ comments. Presumably, then, the comments quoted previously are none of the above, and are perfectly acceptable. But, while they may not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline, I can’t help but wonder whether or not advertisers feel that they create a ’suitable environment’ for brand building.
Categories: Immigration, Media |
There’s some five-star fuckwittery in those comments. “When I shop in an English shop, I want to see English things ?” Where does this person shop, exactly? Presumably somewhere that doesn’t stock French cheese, Australian lager, German wine, New Zealand lamb, Chilean fruit, or anything as exotic as pizza, stir-fry or crisps?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kevin Arscott. Kevin Arscott said: RT @JamieSport: New post on MailWatch: Mail commenters create a toxic environment for brands http://bit.ly/3iwB43 [...]
Absolutey fantastic piece! Loved it.
I was outraged when I read the seemingly innocuous article about Asda and some new clothes. The comments are something else.
And for Daily Mail to even suggest not moderating comments, I wonder what some of the comments would actually say.
Daily Mail will be digging their own grave if they allow unmoderated comments to appear, considering some of its readers are nothing more than a bunch of f**kwits.
It would be a very empty shop if it only stocked British thing, I’m thankful we have choices. If somewhere like asda makes clothing more affordable for everyone surely that would encourage intigration. Fucktards
“Jeans, probably. Very British.”
Superb.
Excellent post, keep up the good work.
[...] Jamie asks a related question: Do Mail commenters create a toxic environment for brands? | Trackback link | Add to del.icio.us | function [...]
An excellent post – it will be interesting to see where DMGT go with some of what’s identified here.
Having been unable to post any comments*, I’d resorted to asking mod questions speculating about how ad buyers would start to perceive some of The Mail’s, ahem, particular demographic. But, hey, I don’t think they care: from what I’m seeing, there’s a rapid descent into a version of the National Enquirer and a pitch aimed very much to the US market. Of course, this is being denied but they it would be wouldn’t it?
The Press Gazette covered this as you can see in the link:
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=44229
* I seem to have been blacklisted, probably from posting to RL’s column – if anyone knows how to get round this (apart from changing ISP!), please feel free to let me know
To be completely fair though, many of the half witted comments regarding the ASDA clothing range have been red-arrowed.
Although it’s still odd that such a non-story has earned 120 comments, with more than its far share of bizarre ramblings.
Kate, that article on PG is very interesting. I wrote a little bit about the ridiculousness of claiming most traffic isn’t from sleb stuff here:
http://www.dailyquail.org/2009/09/mailonline-does-not-focus-too-much-on.html
What you said about tone being aimed at the US market is interesting too. If you click through to the Alexa info for MailOnline in the link above, it currently records 35.9% of visitors coming from America. People talk about the Mail being good at SEO, but an important part of that (especially for advertisers) is geo-targeting, and frankly, they fail hard at that.
Btw, hypothetically, if an IP was banned from a particular site, using a proxy server (Google to find one) might allow you to access and/or comment on it. Not that I’m encouraging that, or suggesting that you use that method on MailOnline, of course.
‘So, no patriotism allowed, no free-speech allowed, don’t mention the BNP, don’t complain about green-belt building to accommodate the influx, don’t dare say you’re a Christian, don’t complain that your local church is now a mosque, don’t be alarmed if your local town now looks like Islamabad. For Gawd’s sake, is there no end to the destruction of Englishness? When I shop in an English shop, I want to see English things ?’
The above comment is so full of anger about a new clothing line in Asda that I thought I’d put into my own ramblings. I imagine that the twonk who posted the above hates the Brighton pavilion and doesn’t appreciate that not all Asians are muslims.
The last sentence of the comment is the most bewildering; the poster probably doesn’t buy televisions, telephones or penicillin as these were invented north of the border.
The South Wales Evening Post has had unmoderated comments for a few months. At 9:30am 14/09/09, the website reverted to moderated and the appended thread was deleted. I hope that you have time to read the comments that were posted. I do not expect you to publish any it.
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/southwalesnews/men-9-11-city-centre-street-brawls/article-1333978-detail/article.html
[edited to remove copyrighted material]
That thread is (or, rather, was) a pretty solid argument in favour of comment moderation, Paul.
Coincedentally, the South Wales Evening Post website belongs to the Daily Mail & General Trust Group of Companies.
Excellent summary. Anything written by J Slack or RL attracts the mis-led, misinformed or ignorant, moderated or not.
“When I shop in an English shop, I want to see English things”
Jesus, it’s very Royston Vasey, isn’t it? “This is a local shop for local people, there’s nothing for you here!”
That old chestnut, “You couldn’t build a church or sell wonderbras in Saudi Arabia” etc
Of course not; Saudi Arabia is a fascist theocratic state. So anyone who wants similar rules in Britain, against any group, wants to make Britain more like Saudi Arabia – the exact thing they claim to oppose.
Excellent post Jamie.
Good to read about this sort of thing from a different angle.
Shame on the ‘Daily Mail’ for allowing freedom of speech! How dare they, the reactionary trolls! They’ll be demanding a representative democracy next! And full credit to your good self sir for saying that debate should take place on terms laid down by private enterprise. An enlightened and progressive opinion if ever I heard one, fully in keeping with New Labour’s policy of toadying to big business at every opportunity. Free speech indeed! All debate of any kind should be ‘moderated’ to suit advertisers. How could any progressive person suggest otherwise?
And as for Mail commenters speaking of Islamic colonisation, well I ask you?! A trip to Birmingham, Bradford, Luton, Burnley, Oldham, Blackburn, Tower Hamlets, Newham etc etc would quickly establish what utter nonsense that is. And the tiny handful of Muslims who have settled in this country have integrated so successfully into British society that you hardly notice them anyway. And to suggest that the burka is a symbol of tyrannical Islamic oppression is yet another instance of DM trollery. As most commenters on this site would attest, the burka is in fact a symbol of enlightenment and progress, freely chosen by all those who wear it. I don’t know, where would I be without this site to put me right?!
Not entirely sure what you’re talking about Neander, but I’ll try to address your points anyway.
Shame on the ‘Daily Mail’ for allowing freedom of speech!
They don’t. That’s the point. The quoted comments were all pre-moderated. Many more on other articles never even see the light of day if they’re not 100% in agreement with the author.
full credit to your good self sir for saying that debate should take place on terms laid down by private enterprise
I think most readers would be able to see from the post that the point is whether or not companies are aware of the manner of comments their brands appear alongside, and whether they would feel such opinions create a suitable environment for advertising. The companies themselves do not lay down the terms of debate, the commenters do. Brands are quite free to withdraw or disassociate themselves if they wish. Surely you would agree that companies trading in a free market should have the right to withdraw advertising from environments that may prove toxic to their brand? Or do you believe that they should be forced to advertise blindly, and pay money to websites without knowing what content they might appear alongside? If that’s what you’re suggesting, I suppose it’s an admirably egalitarian stance to take.
I’m not entirely clear on why you mention Islamic colonisation as the article in question is quite clearly about Asian inspired, not Islamic, clothing. Perhaps you are referring to a different article or newspaper?
Ditto your point about Muslims integrating into British society, and the burkha (or niqab, I think you are referring to) being a symbol of enlightenment and progress – no mention was made either in my post or the original article of either of these things. I think you may have confused this discussion with something else you read somewhere.
Thanks for commenting.
[...] Do Mail commenters create a toxic environment for brands? | Daily Mail Watch Ah, the imaginary bugbear of any self-respecting racist, social integration. Because Asians are clearly a problem group when it comes to integrating into British culture as, say, Freddie Mercury (born Farrokh Bulsara), Konnie Huq, Dev Patel, Amir Khan, Melanie Sykes, Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Meera Syal, Hardeep Singh Kohli, Cliff Richard (really!), James Caan (previously Khan), Sanjeev Bhaskar, Monty Panesar, Parminder Nagra, Nasser Hussein, Shobna Gulati, and several million more could testify (apologies to those I may have missed). Bonus points given for calling for ultra authoritarian legislation on foreign residents’ clothing – Asian residents should be forced to wear ‘Western clothing’, whatever that might be precisely. Jeans, probably. Very British. (tags: dailymail business race migration) [...]
Great post. I’m all for unmoderated comments though. Let their readers expose themselves as the full, unedited, racist cunts they are, and the Mail take a few law suits for the team on behalf of its loyal readers.
Mailwatch is terrific – I love the idea that there are people so stupid out there that a pair of jeans bought in Peacocks and made in Malaysia are ‘English clothing’.
But you’re right to point out that you’re not just dealing with stupidity but racism, and that’s what that paper panders to.
Am I missing something with the unmoderated comments? I thought it might be a good thing – previously if you post anything too anti-Mail, daring to criticise the shoddy journalism etc, it just wouldn’t be posted. Now maybe some of the excellent points which mailwatch raises can go directly to the Mail readers…?
It sounds too good to be true, so probably the answer is going to be yes, I’m missing something here. *looks rueful*
BareNakedLady – you’re not missing anything, it’s an interesting issue without a clear solution!
Personally, I’m all for the Mail having unmoderated comments, but then I have a vested interest (ie, I want to see them humbled/corrected in their comment threads). Putting aside my distaste for the Mail for a minute, I don’t objectively think it’s a good idea for newspaper websites in general to abandon moderation. As much as I value free and open debate, the reality is that there are going to be trolls, defamation, personal attacks, and so on, cropping up every single day. Some form of moderation is needed, be it retro-active, automatic, or whatever. MailWatch has it, for example, and you’d never notice it unless you said something seriously abusive or irrelevant.
The Mail swings between opposite ends of the spectrum. For years they’ve censored anything not in direct agreement with editorial. Now, they let anything and everything through on some articles, some of it quite poisonous racism. Then, when they do vet comments, really nasty stuff like the above still gets through! They just can’t get it right.
In my post, I’m looking at things from an advertiser’s point of view. Currently the Mail is treated like any other newspaper when agencies are buying ad space (aside from the fact it’s the most expensive ad space in the market) and my point is that it shouldn’t be. Companies should be aware of what sort of content their brand is associating with, but at the moment they are not. Brands are well aware of what they’ll be dealing with in The Sun or The Star for example, but the Mail is still treated as a mid-market, middle-class respectable read – which, especially online, it isn’t.
What I would like to see is some responsibility, both in content and moderation. Sadly, I don’t think it’ll happen because of criticism from readers or pundits, but if advertisers start to complain, they’ll be forced to listen. Pissing off the people who pay you for space by putting them next to Outraged Bigot from Tunbridge Wells will force a change if they’re made aware of it, and it can only be for the better.
…Jamie Sport…My dear sir, do you have some mysterious doppelganger, namely the one who wrote the original post under your name which you, the other Jamie Sport, appear not to have read? If you say that newpaper or any other, online sites should censor comments that might offend advertisers then you are indeed saying that debate should take place on terms laid down by private enterprise.
And it was you (or your doppelganger) who mentioned ‘Islamic colonisation’, in the context of taking a swipe at some DM commenter who had referred to it. And the other Jamie Sport, the one who wrote the original article, TWICE refers to the burkha, once quoting a DM commenter and the second time on his own initiative. Oh and btw, the weighty question of burkha or niqab is one that you will have to settle with your doppelganger. And I certainly did not confuse the original article, which you clearly haven’t read, with any other. The original article freely refers to Islam and attitudes towards it.
But oh my, how I loved your line…’Personally, I’m all for the Mail having unmoderated comments’, when it is perfectly clear from everything that you (or the otherJamie Sport) have written that you most certainly do NOT love the Mail having unmoderated comments and that the whole point of the original article was to condemn the Mail for its new policy.
You and whichever Jamie Sport wrote the original article need to get together and co-ordinate your posts a bit better.
I’m still at a loss as to why exactly Neander insists on coming here just to disagree with everything I write without bothering to actually discuss the post itself. I believe the last time I encountered him he was accusing me of writing in favour of ‘mass immigration’ (whatever that might mean) and complaining that it was unfair to criticise the Mail for publishing misleading statistics.
Now, once again, he pops up to willfully misinterpret virtually everything I’ve said even though I have already explained the argument in terms so simple anybody could understand them. Let me dumb it down one step further for him:
It is entirely up to the newspapers themselves if they wish to moderate comments. Most do. This is because they do not wish to host objectionable content. Advertisers pay for space on newspaper websites. Advertisers do not want to appear alongside objectionable content. If, by some misunderstanding, advertisers do appear alongside objectionable content, they have the right to withdraw their ads. The advertisers do not have the right to demand that the content is altered to suit them. This does not constitute private enterprise laying down terms for debate. It constitutes private enterprise being affected by debate. The Daily Mail is a private enterprise which takes into account the effect of the content it hosts on its commercial partners. The question raised was ‘Is MailOnline a toxic environment for brands?’, not ‘Should Asda sell burkhas?’, ‘Should private enterprise have any infuluence over newspaper content?’, or any other random topic Neander chooses to bring up. [I can't quite believe I'm having to spell out such self-evident facts]
The article does not refer to Islam, Muslims, the burkha, niqab, or colonisation. The post highlights the irrelevance of commenters bringing these things up. I dismissed them because they are irrelevent. You brought them up despite it being repeatedly mentioned that Islam has nothing to do with anything.
Finally, Neander deserves some kind of medal for taking a quote so ludicrously out of context. I said ‘Personally, I’m all for the Mail having unmoderated comments but I have a vested interest. I then said quite explicitly in the very next line that, objectively, I don’t think unmoderated comments are a good thing. Neander has literally taken what I said, reversed it, and shouted about how it doesn’t make sense. Bravo, that man, it takes some guts to tell someone they said something they didn’t when the evidence is approx 10cm away.
Now, there is plenty to be discussed on this topic as other contributers have demonstrated, and it’s tiresome having to explain details in such excrutiating, obvious detail.
As I (or was it my doppelganger?) mentioned earlier, MailWatch does moderate comments, and irrelevent, off-topic, nonsensical comments will be deleted. Neander, if you can’t contribute anything to the discussion other than pointless accusations of hypocrisy, lying or lack of research, you might get the chance to see comment moderation in action.
An excellent article.
…Jamie Sport… I certainly rattled the bars of your cage! [snip] Go on though, succumb to temptation, you know you want to! Block this comment.
[Edited for off topic rambling]
Uhg! I’ve got sarcasm sickness from Neander’s posts…
Now that they will let you post anything, could you organise some kind of network of individuals to flood the mail articles with comments pointing out their inaccuracies? They would have to be unemotive, simple corrections with irrefutable evidence, and I don’t believe for a second they will change many peoples minds, but they might at least highlight some lies if the same facts are repeated again and again…
incedentally, i found this which has some good examples (mostly from the US i assume)
http://www.fstdt.com/Default.aspx
There’s no real point in flooding the comments with facts or pointing out inaccuracies. A lot of readers come to their conclusion then find the evidence to support it, rather than the other way round. Fact comments would just be downposted as “this does not agree with what I think therefore it’s wrong”
This was a fascinating article. Year’s back my business advertised with the Daily Mail – we bought from the Mail directly – only a small customer, but we did spend thousands of pounds.
At one stage, I had over £15,000 of advertising booked but emailed to cancel after I saw a Daily Mail “Knives are out” headline, because these kind of headlines can act as catalysts to the mentally disturbed, or young who do not accept the metaphorical presentation.
Here is a link to a thread where I have published my allegations:-
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread502051/pg1
When I go into a supermarket owned by a US congloramate with branches in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and selling mostly sweatshop produced crap from China I want to see “English things” too ?
Perhaps a good idea to get rid of the Daily Mail, drive it out of business, would be to contact or march on the advertisers and tell them that their products are on the same page as their nazi readers shouting off about foreigners, Muslims, prayer mats and stuff. Their advertising would dry up, their paper would have to be sold at a loss or put up so no one would buy it and the thing would stop being printed!
I’m not sure I understand this article, it seems to just be suggesting that the mail allowing unmoderated comments would be bad for the mail. Well… good? Anything that damages the Mail’s reputation has to be good for those of us that disagree with the political slant of the paper, right?
If nothing else I welcome more domains where completely open discussion is possible. I never liked that on, say, the guardians comment is free section quite reasonable posts about some topics (notably religious topics) would be moderated with a heavy hand. I probably won’t have the stomach to spend too much time trying to change minds on the Mail’s comment sections but at least I will be able to state my case without having to try and avoid offending the usual mail demographic.
I’m fairly sure you can buy Wonderbras and jeans in Saudi Arabia – the country’s one great shopping mall isn’t it?
And who’s to say what the women wear under the niqab?
pikeamus – I see what you mean about ‘anything that damages the Mail’s reputation has to be good’, and in most cases I’d agree completely. The way I’m looking at it with regard to comments, though, is that because the Mail (sadly) isn’t just going to disappear, we should try to highlight ways in which it could behave more responsibly. I’d actually rather see it behave reasonably than disappear altogether; if it did, all the fools reading it would only find somewhere else to infest, whereas if the Mail actually started writing responsibly, as one of Britain’s most influential newspapers it could be a force for good.
Hosting comments from BNP supporting nutcases spouting hate filled bile about Asians shopping in Asda doesn’t do anyone any favours apart from the cretins who write such stuff in the first place, and runs the risk of fostering xenophobia and ignorance in the comment threads. Idiots read this stuff and the mountains of stupid shit in the comments bolster their misguided opinion that they’re right and that others actually agree with them. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle of stupidity. But if it the very worst comments were removed, some readers might not be so inclined to react with such bigotry. That can only be a good thing.
…Jamie Sport…yes of course, it ‘can only e a good thing’ that criticism of Islam is ‘moderated’, ie almost entirely censored. As the venerable Pikeamus has pointed out, it is virtually impossible to be controversial about religion on the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ site.
There is not a single Muslim state where you can openly say that Mohammed was a false prophet or the the Koran is a human construct, not divinely inspired. I rather suspect Jamie Sport that you want to see the same state of affairs in Britain. Doubtless you would say that such comments were ‘hate filled bile’ liable to make people ‘react with such bigotry’. Shameless reactionary that I am I persist in my belief that free speech, and never mind what advertisers might think, is a rather good idea.
Muslim state? False prophets? The Qu’ran? You’ve lost it Neander.
i think in order to actually lose it, you have to have had it to begin with.
Neander-thal.
BTW, James Caan isn’t of Asian extraction, but Jewish. Name was probably Kahn/Cahn, which is a German name, and a derivitive of Cohen.
No updates for a while now
I really enjoy reading your analysis and am worried you’ve either given up, or that the Mail has started making sense. Tell me it’s the latter, please!
I just sent this to the head of corporate PR at Visit Britain, who are running an extensive advertorial campaign on the Mail’s website. I’d encourage others to contact him as well.
elliott.frisby@visitbritain.org
——————————————————————————-
Hi Elliott. I couldn’t help but notice the disturbing proximity of the Enjoy England advertorial campaign next to the transparent racism evinced in the comments on this page.
Please see the ‘Best rated’ and ‘Worst rated’ tabs.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218955/Strictly-Come-Dancings-Bruce-Forsyth-says-nation-sense-humour-defends-Anton-Du-Bekes-slip-up.html
It seems many people posting on this sight would only welcome Asians to enjoy England provided they accept being called ‘Pakis’.
The problem with Mail moderation is the fact that it was political.
They’d post next to anything as long as it basically followed the Mails views. No matter how idiotic, rude or vile.
if you put up something sensible, and slightly left, the moderators cut it out.
It was in fact censorship.
It’s a vast improvement now. If you have something sensible to say, it goes up.
Followed by 250 red arrows!
I should add, there is a cracker on today. Real Hall of Fame Mail stuff.
They have a study that basically two thirds of incapacity benefit claimants are unable to work. 1 third have been deemed that they could, if there was a job available to handle their illness. Out of a target group of 200’000.
The Mail somehow turned this into, “1 in 6 incapacity claimants are actually too ill to work. The rest scroungers faking it”. Basically!?
Now, basic maths. Even if the 1/3rd deemed fit for work IF a disability friendly company has a job for them are all “scroungers” that’s only 700’000 of the 2.5 million on it.
The other 1.8 million, through this study, are genuinely ill. How is 1.8 million out of 2.5 m million possibly 1/6th!? It’s nearly 3/4s!
How is 130’00 out of 200’000 (as in the study) 1/6th?! That’s 2/3rd!
Words fail me.
PS.
Some of you really turn your attentions to the sham that is the Sky News website.
It’s every bit as biased and political as the Mail.
1: They only ever post Yougov Polls when the tories have made a gain. They’ve ignored every one when they have made a loss (including the last one)
2: There message board. They censor out, through moderation, every left wing comment. And post every single right wing rant they receive (I know, as I’ve posted fake ones myself to test the theory)
3:Todays news, they put a story on a pettiion for Jacqui Smith to resign. And put a link to the thing on the article! As in readers could click on a link that signed the petition! Only taken off after complaint
Sorry, it goes under the radar. FOX news is already with us.
I suggest any people of sane thought hit the message board, and see what I mean
This article always made sense. Now, based on the events of the past 48 hours or so, it seems downright prophetic.
I have only just discovered your wonderful site, having recently started an occasional MailWatch thread on our blog (great minds..fools never…etc.). Anyway, on the Mail’s ‘Crowded Britain’ article on 22nd Oct I tried posting an online comment on their use of statistics in the graph, including the missing out of India (the second most populous country on Earth) and Taiwan, all with higher densities than the UK. I also pointed out the arbitrary nature of the choice of the 10m cut-off and the usual stuff about their manipulation of stats. Guess what? They didn’t put it up. This has happen on numerous occasions & I can only remember 2 such posts (out of dozens this year) ever going up.
[...] my last post I looked at the effect controversial comments under articles on MailOnline might have on the brands [...]
[...] Do Mail commenters create a toxic environment for brands? | Daily … [...]
Dev Patel and that indian chick really rocks on the movie Slumdog Millionaire.`”-