Posted by Daily Quail
March 4th, 2009
Hello everyone.
I’m Jamie. By day, I am just another disillusioned low-level pleb working in the media industry, trying to scrape enough money to keep a roof over my head in the most expensive city in the world, London. But at night, I don a feathery cloak and beaked mask to swoop through the dirty, neon-lit streets of the tabloid wasteland, seeking out the most misguided, inaccurate, fear-mongering and downright deceitful journalism in Britain today.
I have been blogging since September 2008 at The Daily Quail, where I parody the worst articles from The Mail. I believe that satire can be a powerful tool to highlight just how absurd much of what is passed off as ‘serious journalism’ really is. All too many people think that what they read in the papers is true and/or objective, but, sadly, this just isn’t the case – especially in the case of The Mail, a paper which purports to uphold the traditions and values of Britain but in reality does little more than encourage intolerance and erode any chances this country has of making real progress in the 21st Century. If I can get the odd person to laugh (by proxy) at The Mail, I’m happy.
I know full well that there will always be news sources as malign as The Mail and there’s not much we can do about it. But if we can change the mind of even a few of readers, and open their eyes to the possibility that perhaps immigrants won’t give you cancer, that science isn’t something to be feared and the BBC doesn’t want to steal your children, the world will be a better place.
I will be writing about The Mail’s coverage of the Beeb and that great Satan, Commercial Media (the kind that competes with Northcliffe and DMGT anyway). As with so many other issues, it pursues an incessant and utterly biased agenda against particular facets of media – the internet especially – that it knows will a) alarm the highest possible number of readers and b) keep its readers yearning for an imagined golden age of the wireless, before people were given the opportunity to express themselves as part of a global platform of free speech. Why does it do this? Because modern media is disgracefully socialist and liberal. And also because The Daily Mail would sell more copies if those horrid internetz weren’t here.
Hopefully I can bring the odd insight and a few relevant skills to this area from my day job, wherein I work with the bewildering multitude of channels, platforms and mouthpieces that are collectively known as ‘media’. It’s an area of constant innovation, progress and evolution, all of which present an exciting world of nearly limitless possibilities for the freedom of speech and expression, and all of which The Mail wishes would just go away.
Lastly, I’d like to say I’m honoured to stand (or sit as the case may be) alongside such a splendid band of sages in the quest to bring that leeetle bit more balance and honesty to the coverage of news in Britain, whether it be on- or offline. Tally ho!
Categories: Housekeeping |
Tags: editors | 4 Comments
Posted by Dave Cross
March 4th, 2009
Who am I?
I’m Dave Cross. I’m a geek who lives in Balham and I’ve been blogging on various topics at davblog since 2002.
I’ve always been interested in politics and the media and I run a few web sites that cover those subjects. You might have seen the Battersea MP Blog, Planet Westminster, Political Web (which is, unfortunately, currently a bit broken) and my list of newpaper web feeds.
The Daily Mail has always interested me. My parents read it when I was growing up so it was the first newspaper that I read regularly. It wasn’t long before I began to question some of the things it was printing and as I got older I became equally fascinated and appalled by what the paper was telling its readership.
What will I be writing about?
“Write what you know”. Isn’t that what they tell aspiring writers? I make my money using computers and I spend far too much of it on consumer technology. So those are the two areas that I’ll be concentrating on
There’s plenty to choose from here. Most Mail writers seem to have an innate distrust of technology. That distrust leads to fear and if there’s one thing that the Mail excels at, it’s telling their readers what to be scared of. Whether it’s Petronella Wyatt overstating the problems of Wikipedia, the dangers of letting children talk to each other over the internet or (from just last month) how Facebook gives you cancer, the Mail’s technology pages are full of misunderstandings, misinformation and (not to beat around the bush) lies.
In addition to that I’ll be involved in a lot of the practical geekery that keeps the site up and running. I’ll also be helping out with admin stuff and general strategy (along with Tim and BigDaddyMerk).
Why am I doing this?
Probably for very similar reasons to the other people involved. The Mail reinforces the fears and prejudices of its readers. Many of these fears and prejudices have no rational basis, so the Mail needs to lie to its readers. I want people to realise how little of the Mail’s output can be trusted.
In particular, I believe that technology can be a powerful force for good and if the Mail stopped treating it as something to be feared and encouraged its readers to embrace it, then many people’s lives could be improved.
Why have you chosen your specific beat and/or what skills and expertise can you bring to it?
I’ve chosen to cover technology because it’s what I know. It’s therefore a subject where I can probably detect more of the Mail’s lies than I could in any other area. It’s also a subject where they talk an awful lot of nonsense. So it’ll be easy to find things to write about.
Categories: Housekeeping |
Tags: editors | 4 Comments
Posted by Tim Ireland
March 4th, 2009
What’s about to happen?
Huzzah! I get to go first, because it’s my job to tell you that a brand new Daily Mail Watch is open for business from today.
(Well, we plan to go in and out of ‘beta’ soon after announcing our launch, falling over quite badly, and then recklessly struggling to our feet and throwing random kidney punches in pursuit of attention and some quick gains on the Wikio chart, but other than that, we’re solid.)
The purpose of the site is simple; editors will be quietly documenting outright lies peddled by the Daily Mail, and seeking to bring this culture of fear and falsehood to the attention of those Mail readers curious enough to use a search engine or browse the evil underground world of weblogs.
(Note – Our search engine kung fu is strong. Soon it will be mighty.)
I think you’re going to be genuinely impressed by the line-up about to follow, so I’ll let it speak for itself, only saying that I’m proud to be out here with these chaps today… damn proud.
(wells up)
(stiffens lip)
Right, the basic mission briefing is as follows:
Each of our editors is going to join us with an ‘intro’ post that’s designed to act as an all-purpose reference point for new readers; this will be the main link in each editor’s profile and the first stop for all new readers wondering if they should trust the person telling them that they are being lied to.
It’s going to look busy for a bit, but it should explain itself along the way, and I’ll be back to announce our exciting tipsters competition once the majority of our editors have checked in and the upper and lower flanges have been inspected for ice.
Chocks ready!
-
Who am I?
Short version: My name is Tim Ireland. I live in Guildford and I have been blogging since late 2001 at bloggerheads.com
Long version: I’m the guy who brought the ‘lies only’ strategy to the party (a similar policy is in place at The Sun: Tabloid Lies), so while you’ll see me in a few comment threads, you probably won’t see much of me in the discussions prompted by front pages (to your right). That’s where I expect most of the venting about the politics, policies and positions behind these lies will take place, but someone in my position needs to stay away from that kind of thing, lest my judgement suffer… or be falsely called into question.
(I was once half-accused of bullying by The Daily Mail, and I look forward to being called worse in the future, regardless of any efforts to remain polite and reasonable to an almost comical degree.)
Recognising that this is BigDaddymerk’s patch, I will be maintaining and promoting a position that the most constructive thing we can do is each run at a slow and steady pace and simply document clear and verifiable cases of deliberate deception. And avoid anything else that is not that.
Typically this will involve the Daily Mail newspaper making their readers angry or afraid of something that either isn’t real, or isn’t anywhere near as bad as they make out. I imagine the line will be somewhere around the ridiculous claim that this opera contained “more than 8,000 obscenities”, when they are in fact taking the number of obscenities that are sung and multiplying that by the number of members in the chorus.
-
What will I be writing about?
Like Dave and BigDaddyMerk, I will also be providing general input on the subject of politics and tactics, but my main assignment as editor is Sex & Sexuality.
Judging by the Mail’s past form, I expect to be dealing not only with lies invented by the Daily Mail, but lies invented by Christian pressure groups and the like, then faithfully or carelessly repeated by The Daily Mail.
I expect to encounter such things as fabricated outrage, homophobic agendas and paedophilia-related fear-mongering, but I would just as soon be proved wrong.
-
Why am I doing this?
People should be able to put their trust in a newspaper without the threat of being lied to or otherwise betrayed.
Many readers of The Daily Mail hold firm to certain fears (or opinions, or opinions driven by fear) because they have been lied to, and I see no need for it in a modern democracy.
I don’t expect the people from the Mail to start behaving or to suddenly withdraw from the game, but I do hope to reach those readers who might be prepared to open their mind and realise when someone is exploiting them.
It is for this reason that I will be remaining firm on the following position:
Yes, The Daily Mail’s style and standards will attract and prompt some of the uglier aspects of humanity, but we are not here to hate the readers, we are here to reach out to potentially receptive readers. The very people we need to reach will turn away if we are hostile toward them.
But if we’re calm, friendly and credible, we stand more of a chance of winning them over.
Every Daily Mail reader who turns away from the publication because the Mail staff have not met certain standards of honesty increases the pressure on them to be more honest. Simple, really.
-
Why have you chosen your specific beat and/or what skills and expertise can you bring to it?
Experience, mostly.
Not at sex, you silly person, but with analysing the structure of your typical sex-related scare story.
For instance; a story about age-appropriate sex education becomes very different when you ignore the “age-appropriate” bit and give the impression out that 5-year-olds will be watching the same film shown to sniggering 15-year-olds.
There are also many stories and ’studies’ that are fed to The Daily Mail by special interest groups, and the structure of these arrangements/relationships is equally important, especially when a shadowy pressure group puts about false claims that credible data is the work of shadowy pressure groups (like the gay mafia, and the ‘abortion industry’, who share the same meeting hall, and meet every second Tuesday and Wednesday respectively).
For the record, because I guarantee you that some people are going to (typically, anonymously) suggest otherwise, I am a happily-married heterosexual male with children, and I have no political or commercial ties to the sex trade, the abortion ‘industry’, or monsters under the bed.
But do watch out for my agnostic side, which can lead to some shortness with fundamentalists of any creed.
Cheers all.
-
UPDATE – I swear to Dog, I only just noticed the date. Onward!
Categories: Housekeeping |
Tags: editors | 11 Comments
