Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Editor of the Daily Mail defends his newspaper

Interesting read:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2455256/PAUL-DACRE-Editor-Mail-answers-papers-critics.html

Guardian has also published Dacre's comment piece: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/12/left-daily-mail-paul-dacre

Reply 1

inspire2aspire

Good, it's entertaining to read. Come at me.

Reply 2

Darth Stewie

They didn't just "Criticise the views of red Edd's father" they claimed a world war two veteran hated Britain because of a vague diary entry when he was a teenager, they then tried to weasel out of that by claiming the reference to him hating Britain was because he was a Marxist which in their eyes is against everything British. Yes the Guardian did help with the distribution of dangerous material however i have no doubt they did so with the best intentions even if they aren't the brightest bulbs in the pack and do tend to have a warped view of the world. The Mails attack on Milliband's father was just vicious and sensationalist, everything that is wrong with the media today. They didn't do it for any reason other than to generate controversy and sell more papers, they thought they would be able to get away with it and when it became apparent the backlash they would be facing could cause serious issues they tried to slither out of trouble like a slimy snake that just-won't-die.

Reply 3

wilson_smith

This is something of a sorry state of affairs: in realising his non-argument against Ralph Miliband, and facing popular backlash, he reaches for the most ideologically distorted and instrumentalised concept in the Western political vocabulary -- 'terrorist'. An all-encompassing, alarmist justification for anything. In reality, I'm almost certain that the Daily Mail itself has incurred greater net suffering in the UK than terrorism (on the popular contemporary conception of terrorism, that is, i.e. jihadism).

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 4

pol pot noodles

In my opinion you lot tripping over yourselves to pretend to be the most morally outraged over this non-event is unbearably cringeworthy. Never in my life have I seen so many people frothing at the mouth over something that really isn't that big of a deal. The only thing I condemn is the Daily Mail snooping around at the memorial. I'd wager if the Guardian wrote an attack on David Cameron's father few would bat an eyelid.