If anyone needs to know why the Daily Mail is a right wing rag that is a crap source for news

[muriel_volestrangler]

look at their reaction to the announcement of the British general election:



Yes, that's right: they are calling the opposition members of parliament 'saboteurs' to be 'crushed' . They previously called senior judges who ruled that parliament had to take a vote before the Brexit process started:



They are a bunch of hacks who churn out the propaganda appropriate for a totalitarian state. Never trust anything they write; never object to anyone saying "but that's the Daily Mail". They are far worse than Fox News.

Sadly, I know I will be linking to this thread in the future, when some DUer says "but the Daily Mail looks like an acceptable source to me".

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. I'd be interested in seeing how much overlap there is...

between people who link articles from the Daily Mail and people who post threads about Louise Mensch. (Since my reaction to the whole "Louise Mensch said X" thing, as someone who's been living in the UK for going on a decade, has been "lol seriously?" )

[pnwmom]

5. Laurence Tribe follows Louise Mensch. She has gotten enough things right

that a number of thoughtful people do consider her work seriously.

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. ....

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

[pnwmom]

10. You should listen to yourself. You are posing as an authority

by virtue of living in the UK.

What I remember is that Louise Mensch took the Christopher Steele dossier seriously at a time when many here were mocking it. Now she's being vindicated, with CNN's report that the FBI took it seriously as well -- and so did the judge who issued the FISA warrant.

Neither the dossier nor Mensch's reporting has to be 100% correct to be worthwhile. Both are on the right track, IMO.

(She was also correct about Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, at a time when many American progressives were under their spell. And that's why she has sources in the intelligence community.)

[OnDoutside]

19. +1

[Spider Jerusalem]

29. Louise Mensch is a crank.

She claims Russia had Andrew Breitbart killed and funded riots in Ferguson, Missouri, among other completely batshit things.

[pnwmom]

35. She says the Breitbart thing is her personal belief -- she's not reporting it.

And she has said that the demonstrations in Ferguson were a natural and justified result of what happened there. But she agrees with what Clint Watts said at the Senate Intelligence Hearing: that Russians were likely involved with the outside agitators who arrived days after the peaceful marches started.

This is part of what is known as "active measures" and it isn't limited to Ferguson or even the US.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article1251108.html

In a pattern that has played out night after night since 18-year-old Michael Brown was shot and killed Aug. 9 by Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson, nonviolent gatherings are followed by looting and riots, tear gas and rubber bullets and dozens of arrests.

No one is more frustrated than local residents and leaders.

“The people causing all the trouble, they aren’t from Ferguson,” said resident Mike Marion, 26. “They’re from all over. They’re not trying to make things better or stand up for Michael Brown. They’re just taking advantage of the situation.”

It was a sentiment shared by dozens of residents interviewed by The Star on Monday afternoon after arguably the worst violence in a week of unrest broke out the night before. While laying much of the blame for the strife at the feet of police, they say peaceful protests are being hijacked by people with other agendas.

“People of Ferguson are getting punished for the actions of outside agitators,” said Kenny Murdock, 47, who hosts a show on a St. Louis radio station.

Antonio French, a St. Louis alderman who had been documenting the protests and the security response on social media, pointed via Twitter to a small group of people who “cannot be defined as protesters/demonstrators. They are more like fighters/rebels/insurgents.”

[pnwmom]

2. Well, the House of Lords IS unelected. So that much is correct.

And The Daily Mail publishes articles about the Trumps that would never be published by Fox, such as:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4423722/Ivanka-accused-using-dad-s-presidency-profit.html

Trumponomics: Graph reveals how Ivanka's clothing sales increased by 10,700% when Kellyanne Conway promoted her on TV - as outrage grows over fact China gave her three trademarks the same day she met Chinese President

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-4423106/AP-FACT-CHECK-Trump-ignores-100-day-high-achievers.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Donald Trump's claim Tuesday that he's accomplished more than anyone at this point of a presidency flies in the face of history.

A look at a few of his statements at a Wisconsin tool company and an earlier interview with Fox:

TRUMP: "No administration has accomplished more in the first 90 days." - At Snap-on headquarters, Kenosha, Wisconsin.

THE FACTS: Trump's legislative victories are minor, surpassed by those of a variety of high achievers in the White House. The concept of a president's first 100 days (a benchmark Trump reaches next week) started with Franklin Roosevelt, because he got so much done.

[Kentonio]

4. The Lords was partly reformed years ago.

All but 92 of the hereditary peers were removed, and replaced with life peers, which is basically a non-hereditary honour given to prominent people who are usually proposed by one of the major political parties.

It's not a democratic system yet (reform proposals have been swirling around for decades), and the worst part is that there's a small number of Bishops in there too, but its not a hereditary based house any more.

[pnwmom]

6. All but 92? That is still quite a number. And the rest are still unelected. n/t

[Kentonio]

8. That's 92 out of 805.

It's certainly unelected though. In one small way that can actually be a positive in the same way that the Supreme Court is. Being unelected means the Lords doesn't tend to be populist and follow the mood of the people. Obviously that's also a negative at times too.

[melman]

11. So you're defending the Daily Fail now

That's just fantastic.

[pnwmom]

12. Can you tell me what's wrong with the articles I posted? And show me comparable

articles from Fox?

[melman]

21. So Fox is back to being the worst thing now?

Just last week it was okay that Mensch works for them
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8910671

and besides, they have Shep Smith so...something.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8910679

[Denzil_DC]

15. I can assure you that the Mail had no objection to the House of Lords

when it felt that body served its political purposes. Now the Mail's gone full-on rabid Brexit faux-populist anti-foreigner quasi-fascist (as opposed to being politely UK middle-class faux-populist anti-foreigner UKIP-lite), that's changed and they - and people like me and Muriel - are the enemy.

The Mail's a shocking, hate-filled rag that's learned to work clickbait that draws in even people on this board. The idea that it would be defended on a supposedly progressive forum is ridiculous.

[pnwmom]

17. The poster said it was worse than Fox. I posted articles critical of Trump and asked

when Fox ever posted pieces like this. I still haven't gotten an answer

[Denzil_DC]

20. That's how propagandists work. And you've fallen for it, hook, line and sinker.

They feed you enough that attracts and titillates you, then you give them clicks and income and tell people that they're OK as an outlet, ignoring and excusing the other crap they publish.

The Mail is worse than Fox. It's more insidious.

[Ghost Dog]

23. And the Express is not much better

from what I occasionally glance at (it's the only Brit paper that makes it as far as my local bar here).

Thank dog for the information flow through the internet.

[Denzil_DC]

24. Ugh. The Express is even worse!

It's a lowbrow Mail wannabe with a less generous picture budget, and it's basically the UKIP house newspaper nowadays.

[Ghost Dog]

31. OK. Agree.

This shit gets efficiently delivered to the ex-pat colonies, I observe. Unlike the Grauniad.

[LeftishBrit]

27. It's worse

It is nowadays basically a UKIP propaganda sheet. Fortunately, it has lower circulation than the Mail.

[Ghost Dog]

30. Yeah. Poisonous. Agree

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. OK, you're the first person I refer to this OP

You're defending the Daily Mail. You should be ashamed of yourself. Don't do it. You're playing into the hands of right wing wankers. Don't go looking for ways to excuse them.

"At least Hitler loved his dogs". And yes, the Hitler analogy is appropriate, because the Daily Mail supported British fascists in the 1930s - the infamous headline was "Hurrah for the Blackshirts".

[LeftishBrit]

25. The Daily Mail is against the House of Lords right now because they gave the government some defeats

on Brexit. They never had a problem with the Lords before.

The Daily Mail occasionally publishes a reasonable news article, but its news cannot be trusted, and its editorials, especially right now, are full of frothing hate. They are anti-immigrant, pro-Brexit fanatics.

[Kentonio]

3. They're basically fascists.

They supported Hitler before WW2, and have spewed out a vile river of racism, homophobia and hate ever since. They're utterly disgusting, and can be relied on to try and sow division and social unrest at any time. Filth.

[hlthe2b]

7. While I think the entire world surely knows the truth of Fox "News", Breitbart, and to a lesser

extent, Sinclair Media and other RW crap sources in the US... I think differentiating this kind of propaganda overseas is more difficult for even "aware" Americans.

So, speak out on this and remind us--especially our Brit DUers.

[melman]

13. It's not difficult at all

Just look at the DM website. It's all right there for anyone to see.

[hlthe2b]

14. don't be condescending.... I know what DM is all about. But, not all here follow Brit media

and they do throw in JUST enough seemingly anti-Trump/anti-RW content to snooker some.

[LeftishBrit]

26. Thank you!

Will do!

[malaise]

16. +1,000

They do have good pics

[LeftishBrit]

22. Sounds right out of the fascist or Stalinist playbook

I doubt that the Hate-Mail is literally pro-totalitarianism at present - though remember that it did support the Nazis in the 1930s! - but it certainly uses the rhetoric of totalitarianism, and enjoys whipping up hatred. (The original owners actually said that they wished to inspire a 'daily hate' - this was many years before Orwell's 'Two Minutes Hate' in '1984'). Scary and dangerous!

Nearly half of us voted against Brexit - are we all 'saboteurs' to be crushed?

Americans have the RW talkshows; we have the RW tabloids.

[DetlefK]

28. Simple rule: If the newspaper includes bikini-pics of celebrities, it's not a serious newspaper.

[WinkyDink]

33. Couldn't agree more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/nyregion/bikini-moms-and-petty-squabbles-at-a-beach-club-fit-for-reality-tv.html

[WinkyDink]

32. Show me the lies. Don't show me just a slant. (Did Brexit win the popular vote, or did it not?)

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. The lies are numerous

Climate change: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2017/02/07/daily-mail-climate-change-story/#.WPdSpfnyvIU

Asylum seekers: http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com/view.aspx?index=2609

Scare stroies about things that cause cancer: http://www.anorak.co.uk/288298/tabloids/the-daily-mails-list-of-things-that-give-you-cancer-from-a-to-z.html/

The EU: https://infacts.org/tag/daily-mail/

Do not defend right wing crap. I cannot understand why any DUer feels the need to take the side of a poisonous, lying, conservative (in the worst possible way) scaremongering publication.