Bolitics The New Condem Government

[peterms]

The Mail's campaign on the Lawrence murder has been exemplary.

 

Why did it change from the original stance of taking little notice of the murder, then seeking to knock the campaign of support?

 

Well, it seems to be down to Dacre having realised that Neville Lawrence had once worked for him in a personal capacity.  Perhaps like the way the Times' very good campaign on cycle safety was prompted by the death of one of their staff, killed by a lorry (I think it was) on the way to work.

 

You could put it down as a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.  In Dacre's case, it seems that the whole line of the paper was changed because he felt a personal connection to Neville Lawrence.  The use of this powerful personal patronage in support of a good cause is the mirror image of the way it is routinely used for bad.  Fall out with him, do or be or support someone he disapproves of, and he will crush you with his mighty organ (oo-er, missus).

 

This is not the kind of press I want to see.

 

Story here.

 

The Daily Mail’s initial coverage of the Stephen Lawrence murder

A lot of rumours and half-truths have been buzzing around Twitter and comment threads about how the Daily Mail initially reported the Stephen Lawrence case, and why Paul Dacre allegedly changed from being hostile towards it to one of its biggest champions.

In 1997 The Observer and Guardian newspapers covered the Daily Mail’s famous ‘Murderers’ headline in some detail and commented on the fact that the headline marked a significant departure from the Mail’s coverage of the murder up until that point. A Guardian editorial published on the 15 Feb 1997 comments:

The Daily Mail editorial quoted by the Guardian above seems very ironic given the role of the Daily Mail in becoming the ‘professional protester’, giving publicity to the case through the ‘Murderers’ headline and in particular Paul Dacre’s grandstanding video ‘interview’ on the Mail website which was also published in full in the Mail’s print edition. An edition which was a virtual commemorative Stephen Lawrence edition – followed up with exclusive interviews with both parents of Stephen Lawrence.

Cynics can also point to a very belated conversion by the Mail. Until yesterday, the Mail’s coverage of the shameful killing had been somewhat peripheral. The murder was only mentioned in three stories in the last year before the inquest, only six the previous year, and just 20 since the murder was committed. Moreover, compare yesterday’s leader with the paper’s editorial shortly after the murder which, while hoping the guilty would be caught, was quick to sneer at the supporters campaigning for the Lawrence family: “What is not helpful is the gusto with which the more militant of the anti-racist organisations have hijacked this human tragedy. The black African leader Nelson Mandela was enlisted, while on a visit here, to give publicity to the case. Racism is abominable . . . but is there not also something contemptible about professional protesters who capitalise on grief to fuel confrontation?”

Things could have perhaps turned out very differently according to an Observer article printed on the 16 Feb 1997 titled: ‘Hostile Mail changed tack on Lawrence justice campaign’. The article gives the full details of the incident that has been doing the rounds in various forms on Twitter / comment threads:

Furthermore, the Observer article also comments on the Mail not normally being sympathetic to the black victims of crime, quoting the example of:

THE Daily Mail, the newspaper which last week named as ‘murderers’ the five white youths linked to the killing of black teenager Stephen Lawrence, was originally hostile to the campaign to bring his killers to justice…

the reporter dispatched to cover the story last night told the Observer that the Mail changed its editorial line to support the close family of Stephen Lawrence when it emerged that Stephen’s father had once worked as a plasterer and decorator for Paul Dacre, the paper’s editor.

When the newspaper first covered the story in 1993, Hal Austin said he was ‘detailed’ to write a ‘knocking’ story about the Lawrence campaign, which it believed was orchestrated by a ‘rent-a-mob’, did not have the family’s approval and which it condemned in a fierce leader…

In May 1993, shortly after Stephen’s murder at a bus stop in Eltham, south-east London, the paper sent Mr Austin, a black reporter, to interview his parents, Neville and Doreen.

Stephen’s murder had ignited passions in the area. On the previous Saturday, 19 people, including five policemen, had been injured in street protests. Several rival political and anti-racist groups had contacted the Lawrences to offer their support.

The initial Mail approach was to treat the ‘campaign’ with hostility. Mr Austin, who no longer works for the Mail, said yesterday: ‘I was detailed to write a story knocking the campaign.’

During the interview with the family, Mr Lawrence asked what would appear and made inquiries about the Mail editor. He asked if he was a tall, balding man with a house in Islington. It emerged he had worked for Mr Dacre some 10 years previously. Mr Austin advised the dead boy’s father to contact Mr Dacre directly. It is understood that there was a phone call to Mr Dacre at about this time.

‘The following day my instructions were suddenly changed,’ Mr Austin said. ‘I was told by the news desk to forget the previous instructions and that they now wanted a positive story.’ Mr Austin felt the original approach undermined the family’s case because it implied that their grievances were not to be taken seriously.

One black journalist who wrote for the paper about a sexual assault on a Tube train [who had] recently found her photograph replaced in the paper by one posed by a white, blonde model.

The Observer article also quoted another Mail ex-staffer’s cynicism of the Mail’s sudden change of heart:

‘It’s not an ethical position, it’s just expediency. I’m disappointed how many astute people are falling for it,’… ‘The Mail has a cast-iron agenda and it’s not suddenly going to get a social conscience. It’s a one-off, a personal thing. The Mail wouldn’t really care if all British blacks were pushed off the cliffs of Dover.’

It has been widely reported in the past few days that the Mail was initially hostile to the campaign that was building up around the Stephen Lawrence murder, and that Dacre supposedly changed his heart thanks to his fleeting personal connection with Stephen Lawrence’s father. However, I just wanted to clarify just what was reported at the time to correct a few versions of events that I have seen being spread, and to highlight in more detail the version of events as given by Hal Austin – a name which I hadn’t heard connected to the story before.

I also wanted to give the details from the 1997 Guardian editorial which points out not just the initial hostility of the Daily Mail towards the Lawrence story, but also how little coverage the newspaper gave the story until that headline in 1997.

Given the evidence above a cynic might suggest that Paul Dacre was more upset by the mocking, uncouth and sweary attitude of the 5 alleged murderers towards the British justice system than the initial murder of a black teenager.

 

[Awol]

 

 

 

4) VT says Cameron is evil.

 

 

I'm afraid that's bollocks mate.

 

Alright Captain Serious, whatever you want.

[drat01]

 

 

He can’t be all bad can he?

 

 

 

But he would probably tell us all that we were çunts

 

In fairness anyone who reads that rag most probably is.

 

You see thats the problem; not everyone who reads the Mail is going to be like that... Just as not everyone who reads the Guardian, The Mirror, the Telegraph, The Times, The Sun is completely the stereotype we like to perceive. 

 

It's an interesting point though Paul, because given the "history" shall we say of the Mail and it's previous links with Nazi's (albeit some time ago) and the constant flow of bile from it towards certain elements of society, would any right minded person actually buy and read it? I know when I have to endure the finer points of London Airways (AKA BA) the dishing out of the Mail is usually accompanied with a  "Oh Really?" look back from myself.

 

The media is probably one of the few areas that are very motivated by political connections and thinking, so purchasing, reading etc does disclose an interesting insight into the reader

 

(probably why Rob has his subscription to Jugs and DHUTWO monthly :-) )

Edited October 3, 2013 by drat01

[peterms]

1) The Daily Fail publishes a nasty article about Ralph Miliband.

 

2) Little Ed gets very upset and defends his father.

 

3) Cameron said Ed has every right to defend his own father and he would do the same.

 

4) Some people on VT say Cameron should express a view on whether the Mail was right or wrong to print the story, rather than seek not to upset Dacre.  Others don't think it necessary.

 

This site is pure comedy sometimes.

 

Fixed that for you.

[Awol]

Why thank you kind sir.

[peterms]

Event in London, this Sunday: The Daily Mail Hates Britain.

[villaajax]

 

 

 

4) VT says Cameron is evil.

 

 

I'm afraid that's bollocks mate.

 

 

IDS is evil. Little Dave is just a clueless, hopeless, inept puppet.

[PauloBarnesi]

Well the Mail’s links was also with the Blackshirts as well set up by Oswald Mosley, a former Labour MP? And did the Rothermore’s not derive their fortune from the Daily Mirror? What I am trying to get at is thats its always a lot murkier and confusing. And as Private Eye exposes so much of the hypocrisy of the press and politicians. To be honest they are all as bad as each other, and all we can hope for is the occasional decent parliamentarian and journalist... Its not that long ago that Dacre and New Labour were best friends. Campbell can cry wolf now, but was that really always the case? 

 

I see all kinds of people buying these papers, and don’t think “Oh look its a rabid fascist” because they buy the Mail, anymore than looking at someone buying the Guardian and thinking “I bet they work for as a social worker and have a penchant for typos’. Sure some fit the stereotype, but some also don’t. And you never know some might just buy the paper for the sport

[Jon]

 And you never know some might just buy the paper for the sport

 

Guilty as charged?

[drat01]

Well the Mail’s links was also with the Blackshirts as well set up by Oswald Mosley, a former Labour MP? And did the Rothermore’s not derive their fortune from the Daily Mirror? What I am trying to get at is thats its always a lot murkier and confusing. And as Private Eye exposes so much of the hypocrisy of the press and politicians. To be honest they are all as bad as each other, and all we can hope for is the occasional decent parliamentarian and journalist... Its not that long ago that Dacre and New Labour were best friends. Campbell can cry wolf now, but was that really always the case? 

 

I see all kinds of people buying these papers, and don’t think “Oh look its a rabid fascist” because they buy the Mail, anymore than looking at someone buying the Guardian and thinking “I bet they work for as a social worker and have a penchant for typos’. Sure some fit the stereotype, but some also don’t. And you never know some might just buy the paper for the sport

Paul I know exactly where you are coming from, but I think to a large degree that idea of the media being a source for many bits of info as being somewhat outdated now, especially with other media such as 24Hr TV and Internet as suppliers of instant news and storylines.

 

The political bile of the media is one constant that has remained though and we have seen this week how far now they will push it, past what is and should be socially acceptable. The Levenson and all of the Murdoch things of late have exposed a lot of what drives these people and choosing to pay for something like the Mail would not be something I would spend my hard earned money on, given that it's key differentiator to say one of the left thinking papers is purely on political thinking.

 

Luckily I think this whole sorry episode has hit another nail into that coffin of political bias, it will never kill it off as long as we have the newspaper media but maybe they know now they have crossed a particular line, or will do so when advertising revenues are hit

 

Anyway back to Cameron et al - It seems that it's all crumbling around him now. I see that Ken Clarke has come out with a quite interesting set of quotes

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/02/ken-clarke-conservative-conference-economy

[WhatAboutTheFinish]

This is not the kind of press I want to see.

I'd be interested to hear what kind of press you would like to see? A press where the Prime Minister judges and deems what is acceptable for publication or not? You believe in government censorship? Surely in the Millliband case the press has worked perfectly. The Mail printed an opinion and the response to that opinion, other newspapers have all pitched in with their take on the story, leaving individuals with a wide variety of sources and views to formulate an idea for themself. A free press did its job, no need to get the witch hunt torches lit!

[drat01]

 

This is not the kind of press I want to see.

I'd be interested to hear what kind of press you would like to see? A press where the Prime Minister judges and deems what is acceptable for publication or not? You believe in government censorship? Surely in the Millliband case the press has worked perfectly. The Mail printed an opinion and the response to that opinion, other newspapers have all pitched in with their take on the story, leaving individuals with a wide variety of sources and views to formulate an idea for themself. A free press did its job, no need to get the witch hunt torches lit!

 

A free press should not though work outside the guidelines of what is decent - The Mail has in this case (and may others before IMO) overstepped that

[Jon]

'I agree with Nick':

 

this morning:

 

LATEST:

Deputy PM Nick Clegg says "if anyone excels in denigrating and vilifying much of modern Britain it is the Daily Mail

[Awol]

 

 

This is not the kind of press I want to see.

I'd be interested to hear what kind of press you would like to see? A press where the Prime Minister judges and deems what is acceptable for publication or not? You believe in government censorship? Surely in the Millliband case the press has worked perfectly. The Mail printed an opinion and the response to that opinion, other newspapers have all pitched in with their take on the story, leaving individuals with a wide variety of sources and views to formulate an idea for themself. A free press did its job, no need to get the witch hunt torches lit!

 

A free press should not though work outside the guidelines of what is decent - The Mail has in this case (and may others before IMO) overstepped that

 

The issue you there of course is the subjective nature of what is "decent". If comment is libellous it will end up in court, if it is in "bad taste", well, that doesn't need to be regulated. As WATF has said, the resulting public discourse will ultimately define that.

 

Wanting to control the press according to subjective criteria is a very anti-democratic instinct and is, imo, an argument advanced by people who haven't really thought through the potential consequences.

 

I believe Lenin used to call them "useful idiots".  He was right.

Edited October 3, 2013 by Awol

[peterms]

 

This is not the kind of press I want to see.

I'd be interested to hear what kind of press you would like to see? A press where the Prime Minister judges and deems what is acceptable for publication or not? You believe in government censorship? Surely in the Millliband case the press has worked perfectly. The Mail printed an opinion and the response to that opinion, other newspapers have all pitched in with their take on the story, leaving individuals with a wide variety of sources and views to formulate an idea for themself. A free press did its job, no need to get the witch hunt torches lit!

 

 

What an unattractive choice you offer.

 

Do I want the enormous power and influence of the press to be subject to the whims and fancies of Murdoch, the Barclay brothers and the Harmsworth clan, or David Cameron?  Which extreme right-wing, narrow-minded beneficiaries of inherited wealth and taxdodging should dictate our news?  Which particular individuals within the tiniest sub-section of the moneyed elite will it be?  Do you wish to be hung with piano wire, or barbed wire?

 

Neither, thanks.

 

I'd prefer to see the media operate within agreed rules which enable redress and correction.  If you caricature that as state control, then you're quite wrong.

[peterms]

The issue you there of course is the subjective nature of what is "decent". If comment is libellous it will end up in court

You must know that's not true.  I'm sure you're aware of all the reasons why it just doesn't work that way.  Did the whole Leveson inquiry pass you by?

[Awol]

 

The issue you there of course is the subjective nature of what is "decent". If comment is libellous it will end up in court

You must know that's not true.  I'm sure you're aware of all the reasons why it just doesn't work that way.  Did the whole Leveson inquiry pass you by?

 

No it did not. Is it not the case that a whole raft of former Murdoch stable journo's are awaiting trial for illegal practices?

[drat01]

 

 

 

This is not the kind of press I want to see.

I'd be interested to hear what kind of press you would like to see? A press where the Prime Minister judges and deems what is acceptable for publication or not? You believe in government censorship? Surely in the Millliband case the press has worked perfectly. The Mail printed an opinion and the response to that opinion, other newspapers have all pitched in with their take on the story, leaving individuals with a wide variety of sources and views to formulate an idea for themself. A free press did its job, no need to get the witch hunt torches lit!

 

A free press should not though work outside the guidelines of what is decent - The Mail has in this case (and may others before IMO) overstepped that

 

The issue you there of course is the subjective nature of what is "decent". If comment is libellous it will end up in court, if it is in "bad taste", well, that doesn't need to be regulated. As WATF has said, the resulting public discourse will ultimately define that.

 

Wanting to control the press according to subjective criteria is a very anti-democratic instinct and is, imo, an argument advanced by people who haven't really thought through the potential consequences.

 

I believe Lenin used to call them "useful idiots".  He was right.

 

I think Peter has suitably answered your point

[tonyh29]

PauloBarnesi, on 03 Oct 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

 

markavfc40, on 03 Oct 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

 

PauloBarnesi, on 03 Oct 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

He can’t be all bad can he?

 

 

 

But he would probably tell us all that we were çunts

 

In fairness anyone who reads that rag most probably is.

 

You see thats the problem; not everyone who reads the Mail is going to be like that... Just as not everyone who reads the Guardian, The Mirror, the Telegraph, The Times, The Sun is completely the stereotype we like to perceive. 

 

 

totally agree

 

But I fear you are wasting your breath

[peterms]

 

 

The issue you there of course is the subjective nature of what is "decent". If comment is libellous it will end up in court

You must know that's not true.  I'm sure you're aware of all the reasons why it just doesn't work that way.  Did the whole Leveson inquiry pass you by?

 

No it did not. Is it not the case that a whole raft of former Murdoch stable journo's are awaiting trial for illegal practices?

 

 

But that has nothing to do with the ability of people to gain effective redress for lies and smears printed about them, or the extreme lack of balance and fairness in the papers, or the way they are used as a battering ram to promote the interests of a tiny minority.

 

It's just about whether they have broken the criminal law.