It's certaintly a "don't judge a book by its cover" moment, as the rest of what constitutes news in this Paper is foaming at the mouth rubbish about liberal elites, "scum" and other such tough talking dogma.

Are we going to see a change in the Mail's targets? From worrying their readers about explodey Muslims to telling them all about law breaking black people?

_________________
The upper hand is on the other foot now.

The Mail can be nice about people of colour as long as they fit into a narrative of decent innocent victims suffering at the hands of yobs / gangs / feral youth (see especially Stephen Lawrence). And by emphasising the peaceful nature of this father at the same time as his Asian-ness, the Mail is underlining his unusualness. 'You wouldn't expect this from a Muslim, would you?' is the connotation. The Mail is demonising Muslims even as it applauds one.

The front page also allows the Mail to differentiate itself from 'racists', who in the Mail's eyes are people that commit bodily violence against, or some kind of sustained virulent persecution of, individuals who are not white. The 'symbolic racism' that appears in the Mail every day is indisputably not the same thing; the Mail (and many of its readers) don't acknowledge the link.


No. It will carry on doing both.

What we're seeing is a disoriented backlash from a paper that's been on the back foot for 5 weeks.
First NI and then Brevik.
All their heroes have been tarnished, some of their supposed enemies elevated to hero status.
They're praying like hell that the car that ran those 3 men down wasn't driven by an EDL activist.

Even now they're paralysed by lack of a handle on any facts.
They see the riots as a great opportunity to even the score, but don't know how to play it.
Hence the lack of consistency in their storytelling.
Meanwhile they're trying to coalesce a point of attack within the nebulous "liberal elite".

At present that appears to consist of Harriet Harman and comprehensive schools.
I expect a full on attempt to associate all the mails usual hate figures with the rioting, while lionising the hot air merchants of the Tory right.

Give it a month and we'll be treated to tearful recollections of the day when Boris swept the scum off the streets with his broomstick.

Don't forget also that the obvious Mail target for something it hates (Twitter / Facebook) went on to be used for things the Mail would approve of and thus showing that it wasn't just full of rioting yobs putting up pictures of themselves breaking into Dorothy Perkins.

The Mail is scared. And not of the looters and rioters.

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

Interesting. I should have phrased that 'offering an Asian man as a role model', as the only reason I knew he that he is Muslim was from the television news. Whether it's mentioned in the article, I couldn't say, because I can't locate its online version.

Re. the Mail being decent towards people of colour, I direct you to Flat Earth News (again), which validates your point:



The book also refers to the Lawrence case, saying that the Mail was initially going to run a hostile article attacking the groups who wanted a new enquiry. Then Paul Dacre realised that Lawrence's father had done some work on his house a few years earlier, and the order 'Do something sympathetic' came from the news desk.

Okay, that's it, I've just reserved the book from the library. (They only have it in large-print version.) You've convinced me it's indispensable!


You … couldn't … make … it … up!

Another way for victims who happen to be minorities to appear sympathetically in the Mail is to give them an exclusive, unpaid interview. Unhappily, many women and/or people of colour are sceptical of the Mail's intentions and resist. They expect the Mail's approval without offering anything in return. How naïve!

Today's front page:



At first I was surprised to see a Mail front page covering overseas news, but then I read the subheading and realised it's a stick for some Labour bashing.

What, they should just airbrush 1997 - 2010 from history then? just Labour are now doing. No it's not Labour bashing, its exposing the truth what happened between the Labour party and Libya and that is a good thing.

Surely in a free society you'd want that and you wouldn't want important facts hushed up and swept under the carpet? Sorry but it WAS Labour in power during those times so it's only right their actions were scrutinised.

_________________
Labour is still the shit.

Why was improving relationships with Libya, and in the process neutralising their support for terrorists which actually did affect us, a bad thing?

Do you ever actually think about the shit you spout?

Why on earth would courts in Libya give a toss about Gaddafi's links to British politicians and members of the royal family? Surely the main focus of any legal proceedings in Libya will be the brutal way in which the Gaddafi regime dealt with it's opponents. Gaddafi would only be questioned about other matters if he was tried by an international court and I think that seems extremely unlikely.

_________________
www.newshuddlines.blogspot.com

Well you're not part of a Libyan court so you don't know what their focus will be, but even if there was nothing about links to the UK, it doesn't support your claim that the headline was there to "bash Labour". Even using your logic that there will be nothing from the courts about Britain, the DM can't then bash Labour as there won't be anything to bash them with.

But even if there was, the DM is a right wing paper, so I would expect and want them to bash Labour.

Why does this site bang on about the DM all the time anyway?! Apart from chatter amongst your limited members, your message doesn't go anywhere where it might matter. In fact your message doesn't go anywhere outside of this forum full stop. I mean if you did some kind of protest outside DM HQ maybe someone might listen. But a handful of you just copy/pasting snippets from the DM or their comments, or spotting a comma or apostrophe in the wrong place isn't going to change a thing.

_________________
Labour is still the shit.

Well, the clue's in the name. Really.

If you want a longer answer (though I doubt you'll understand it) we believe that of all the daily press the Mail has the most poisonous and insidious political and social 'message', and that its agenda is to the vast detriment of fairness and justice in society.

_________________
"You may have heard the phrase, 'The flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil sets off a tornado in Texas.' Well, try this: 'The lies of a newspaper in London can get a bloke's head caved in down an alley in Bradford.' Richard Peppiatt

So why does this site bother you so much then?