Red Ed [Miliband]’s in a strop with the Mail […] what has made him vent his spleen — indeed, he has stamped his feet and demanded a right of reply — is a Mail article by Geoffrey Levy on Saturday about the Labour leader’s late father, Ralph, under the arresting headline ‘The Man Who Hated Britain.’
‘An evil legacy and why we won't apologise’ MailOnline 1st October 2013
THE PAPER THAT HATES BRITAIN
Paul Dacre's pledge to ‘tweak the noses of the liberalocracy which effectively run Britain’ is a homage to his reactionary newspaper. So what does the Daily Mail really believe in? The answer should disturb everyone who loves this country
On a hot summer day, a middle-aged paper made its way alone out from under a rock in Central London to mark a lifelong obsession.
Solemnly, it stood at the grave of a spinning Britannia and said, in its own words:
“The way stateless Jews from Germany are pouring in from every port of this country is becoming an outrage. The number of aliens entering the country through the back door is a problem to which the Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed.” [1]
The
year was 1938. The paper was the Daily
Mail,
a spiteful chancer that would flee from this story just a few years
later to join in with the condemnation of the Nazi Holocaust.
The Daily Mail, today edited by Paul Dacre, died and went to heaven in 1968, soon after Enoch Powell gave his ‘rivers of blood’ speech. It was soon after scaled down to tabloid format, offering what might be termed ‘Cynicism For A Social Age.’ In this form, the venerated national moralizer and emetic continued to espouse its lifelong Populist cause, representing “the views of millions of ordinary Britons.”
One
voice, however, noted how, in its attempts to control who ‘counted’
in this British population, the Daily
Mail
was vehemently pursuing a lost cause. It was that of a longstanding
senior news reporter at the Mail.
He did not mince his words.
“They phoned me early one morning and told me to drive about three hundred miles to cover a murder. It was a woman and her two children who’d been killed. I got an hour and a half into the journey, and the news desk called me on my mobile and said, “Come back.” I said, “Why’s that?” They said, “They’re black.” [2]
As
Paul Dacre once commented:
“Racism appalls [sic] me and I wish I could get more black and
Asian reporters working for us, but they don't come into journalism.”
In
the explosive interview, given to British
Journalism Review
in 2002, Dacre revealed how obsessed he was with maintaining his
paper’s “conservative with a small c” legacy.
“I shall go to my grave believing that children need a father and mother and a stable upbringing. I am not saying that people who grow up in single families don't have wonderful mothers or wonderful dads, but I believe children should be conceived in love and, in an ideal world, have a father and a mother. The breakdown in that belief is responsible for a lot of the unhappiness in the 21st century.”
How
proud his ‘family-centric’ Daily
Mail
must have been to hear him describe readers’ interests when
responding to the Leveson Inquiry
in 2011:
“The Hampstead liberal with his gilded life-style understandably enjoys the Guardian – a paper that deals with serious issues. But does he or a judge have any right to deny someone who works ten hours a day in a Sunderland call centre and lives for football, the right to buy a paper that reveals the sexual peccadilloes of one of his team's millionaire married players.”
Dacre mentioned his interest in
football player’s peccadilloes just minutes after criticizing Daily Express owner Richard ‘dirty’ Desmond
for having made his money from pornography. Meanwhile the Daily
Mail’s
ferocious defence of marriage is evident from articles like “I feel guilty for ogling girls in mini-skirts. Yet no one would call my wife a dirty old woman for fancying a handsome cricketer.”
The newspaper’s stance on liberals is uncompromising. “Leftie bishops, liberal judges, a biased BBC” were all listed in an article which attacked many of Britain’s national institutions by claiming they were dominated by liberals (such as former Conservative Party chairman Lord Patten, who was: “several degrees to the Left of what used to be called ‘Right-wing Labour’”).
Another article, this time attacking the cherished National Health Service, said: “Members of tribunals are trained to be concerned only with upholding the rights of perceived ‘persecuted minorities’. Their verdicts are guided by the doctrines of ‘sexism’, ‘racism’ and a litany of fashionable ‘phobias.’” Still another: “How Labour threw open doors to mass migration in secret plot to make a multicultural UK.”
This is the publication that profits from its position as the second best selling newspaper in a country whose non-white population is over 9 million.
As
for the diverse country that buys it and pays its keep, the newspaper
wrote in its RightMinds section in 2009:
“It is hard not to reach the dismal conclusion that a society faced with violence in pursuit of the goal of overturning Christian values and conquering Britain for Islam [The Mail referring here to a protest against Israel’s military action in the Gaza Strip] turns tail and runs away - while at the same time coming down like a ton of bricks on any expression of those Christian values which underpin British society, in the interests of ‘equality and diversity’.
This is the way a society dies.”
This
geriatric distaste for the British character certainly didn’t stop
the Daily
Mail
availing itself of the lucrative reportage there was to be had from
praising the fine Olympic Games opening ceremony this country offered
last year.
Indeed,
while ignorance of popular opinion is a charge Paul Dacre usually
aims at the ‘liberal’ press, his newspaper found itself doing
just that over the Olympic ceremony.
One article called Labour’s praise for the inclusion of “Working class history, multicultural[ism], NHS, CND, gay kissing” ‘taunts.’ Another piece commented: “NHS beds dominated the infield for so long that it seemed more a political message than a tribute to our hardworking nurses.” The paper then had to admit that this comment was out of step with what ordinary people thought, “Still, Boyle’s £27million creation dazzled, winning him thousands of new Twitter followers by the second.”
How passionately the Daily Mail must have approved of its editor’s sinister admission that his ‘Lesson One’ was that “Brains and education have little to do with the craft of journalism.”
Dacre
relished his own contribution to what he called “the chattering
classes' dyspepsia with [Daily
Mail
owner] the Rothermere press,” adding that “no day is too busy or
too short not to find time to tweak the noses of the liberalocracy
which effectively run Britain.”
Such tweaks by the Daily Mail have included:
Such tweaks by the Daily Mail have included:
- The May 1993 “How Race Militants Hijacked a Tragedy” article that downplayed the racial issues raised by Stephen Lawrence’s murder. The case had apparently been “swept into a whirlwind of high-profile publicity organised largely by anti-racist groups on the short path towards the making of a cause.” [3]
- The claim in 2011 that gay Britons were becoming McCarthyites: “schoolchildren are to be bombarded with homosexual references in maths, geography and science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to promote the gay agenda.”
- The many snide digs at diversity, claiming that pride in and respect for Britain’s wonderfully varied population is a conspiracy hatched by a tiny liberal elite. This one from 2009: “'Diversity' is just another way of persecuting decent people trying to go about their daily business... The most intolerant people in Britain are always those who preach 'tolerance' most loudly.”
Paul
Dacre himself, in his 2008 speech to the Society of Editors,
declared: “The problem is Britain's liberal class – the people
who know best and who really run this country – by and large hate
all the popular press.”
He also made plain his disdain for what he called the “subsidariat” (media outlets paid for by subsidy), which, to his mind, were nothing less than a kind of old boy network. “Large parts of the media are increasingly populated by a privileged elite of top university graduates who, too often, have only ever operated in subsidised environments.” This included, as he later said at Leveson, the “high priests of the subsidariat,” the BBC.
He also made plain his disdain for what he called the “subsidariat” (media outlets paid for by subsidy), which, to his mind, were nothing less than a kind of old boy network. “Large parts of the media are increasingly populated by a privileged elite of top university graduates who, too often, have only ever operated in subsidised environments.” This included, as he later said at Leveson, the “high priests of the subsidariat,” the BBC.
“The corporation has all but seen off ITV's news services, both nationally and locally, has crippled commercial radio, is distorting the free market for internet newspapers and now, with its preposterous proposal for 65 ultra local websites, is going for the jugular of the local newspaper industry. Lines must be drawn in the sand…
It is destroying media plurality in Britain and in its place imposing a liberal, leftish, mono culture that is destroying free and open debate in Britain.”
Given
this tirade, one is entitled to wonder whether Paul Dacre’s
anti-liberalism is actually fuelled by a giant-sized social chip on
his shoulder, or dick on his forehead.
Or perhaps Stephen Fry’s “vile bastard” does indeed, against all the odds in a country with so much to be proud of and champion, choose to stand for everything that is wrong with Britain.
Or perhaps Stephen Fry’s “vile bastard” does indeed, against all the odds in a country with so much to be proud of and champion, choose to stand for everything that is wrong with Britain.
==============================================================================
[1]
Daily
Mail,
20th
August 1938.
[2]
Nick Davies Flat
Earth News,
(London; Vintage, 2009) p. 371. [“The book, which began with a
presumption of guilt, was itself a pretty sloppy piece of journalism,
full of half-truths, anonymous sources, gossip and urban myths
presented as facts, and the very selective reporting that it accused
papers of employing.” – Paul Dacre]
[3]
Paul Harris, Peter Rose, ‘How Race Militants Hijacked a Tragedy,’
Daily
Mail,
10th
May 1993.
