Time For The Daily Mail To Apologise?

[sp1814]

A YouGov poll reveals that 69% of the nation thinks that the Daily Mail owes Ed Milliband an apology for trashing his father.

And more tellingly, 57% of the paper's own readership think the same.

In what other circumstances could a national paper get away with dancing on the grave of a war hero?

[mikey4444]

Brenden...if I have offended you, than that wasn't my intention. But the question in my last paragraph still stands...are you happy and content that your newspaper of choice should initiate a smear campaign against someone, by attacking his dead father ?

[OILhead]

The Mail on Sunday apologised for the reporters going to the memorial event, but throughout all that everyone was very clear to point out that the DM and the MOS are two different papers and the MOS was apologising for the reporters at the memorial and that was it. So no the DM has not apologised.

Not sure that they should as they would not mean it and it would not change anything so really what is the point of an empty meaningless apology that would really just be aimed to placate people other than the Miliband family rather than show any sort of remorse or putting their hands up to admitting that they misjudged it?

[mikey4444]

It isn't looking too good for an outright victory for Dave in 2015. It is highly unlikely that the LibDems will be able to help him out again. They have discovered that there isn't a long spoon available to sup with the Devil again. Also he has the UKIP effect to cope with.

But I would agree that there is still 18 months to go and he may be able to improve his chances in the meantime. I am by no means complacent about a Labour win. A week is said to be a long time in politics, but 18 months is a lifetime !

[emmie]

didn't some papers have disgraceful headlines on the death of Mrs T, didn't some people hold parties and glorify her passing, that is reprehensible to me, i have been told that is not the right analogy but i think it is.
I am not defending the mail either, i don't often read it, i try and do the c/w because i like it, but never read it on line, but i do think this has been such a massive overreaction, haven't we got enough to deal with already...

[emmie]

the Lib dems are a shackle that Tories didn't want, they did so and now it's come home to roost, David Cameron may not get a majority vote in 2015, but i still can't see Labour gaining an outright win, they will need the ankle biters and their flock to steer them through. They have a duff leader in Milliband and in Clegg.

[emmie]

we had 13 years of Labour, they had real chances of major improvements, yes the coalition have been in the 3 years, but they are decidedly hampered by Clegg, some of the policies that could have got through did not get his nod or his party, so it's an impasse.

[Brenden]

Mickey, I am not offended in any way, because I did not find you posts offensive - I am a big girl with broad shoulders. Yes I am happy with the newpapers I read (or peruse) because as I stated I do not believe in all I read. In answer to your last question, I have stated on another post that I would assume (hopefully) that the DM has evidence to back up this story, if not then they must rightfully face the consequences and hang their heads in shame.

[grumpy01]

Re 2015.Is it too much to hope that as Peter Hitchens wrote in MOS we could have a box on the ballot paper that says None of the above.Also,saw a clip of the most annoying politician in Britain,Danny Alexander, on t.v. this morning.Every time I see his smug face my televison screen is in grave danger.

[OILhead]

I don't think that this is a massive over reaction - this goes to the heart of the standards and ethics of the press, which is particularly relevant at the moment with the discussions about press regulation and the recommendations of Leveson that are ongoing - we need a free press which can carry out investigations such as that into the expenses scandal, but with great power comes great responsibility and it is irresponsible journalism like this could reduce the freedom of the press. To me that makes this a very important story and not an over reaction at all.

Press stories like this might also impact on who goes into politics (would you knowing might open your family to scrutiny) which potentially means an even smaller pool who are willing to go into politics when want we need is a wider and more diverse group of people.

[mikey4444]

The people who have told you that your analogy is not right are correct.

If Carol Thatcher decided to enter politics, it would be entirely wrong to attack her mother as a way of smearing her. Of course, her famous mother could hardly be ignored and I am sure that there would be an attempt to use Mrs T, in favour and against any attempt that Carol might make in politics.

But my central point still stands. The DM attempted to smear ED and the Labour Party. It has backfired in their faces, and I suspect that they won't try such nonsense again in the very near future.

Also I don't see the difference between the DM and the MOS. They are both cut from the same cloth and owned by the same man. Perhaps I am cynical but when the News of the World was dropped by Murdoch because it was far too toxic, and the Sunday Sun was set up in its place, was anybody fooled ?

[mikey4444]

Thanks Brenden...I always thought you were a chap ? !

[joggerjayne]

// Time For The Daily Mail To Apologise? //

No.

Red Ed could have knocked this on the head on Day 1 by saying ... my dad was a good man, he fought in the War, he had certain opinions, times have moved on and I don't agree with all of his opinions. The End.

But no.

Ed had to go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on ...

It is Red Ed, not the Mail, who has created this ludicrous side show.

I don't often side with the Mail, but I do over this.

Besides ... are we forgetting that what what the Mail said was rude ... but true?

[emmie]

the people who go into mainstream politics are careerists, they are not in in for the short haul, some politicians in the long distant past had scruples, but if you actually read your history on British Politics, you will see running right through it, greed, salacious behaviour, and a willingness to sell their souls to hang on to power. Their honest intentions of doing good, helping the electorate may well be assailed by some of the toadies they surround themselves with, fame in whatever form is a very seductive mistress, and the longer they stay in being fawned and pawed over the more distant they become from real life, rather akin to the Hollywood in crowd.

[weecalf]

Is it not a case of all publicity is good publicity. Ed gets in the news .Mail sells more papers .Give us a break .Ed knows well enough that politic is a dirty game .If you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

[emmie]

JJ is correct, and mikey, don't tell me what to think please...

[mikey4444]

JJ..you have missed the point here. Whether what the DM wrote was true or not, is not at issue. It was an opinion anyway, not a fact. But the DM ran the story as a smear campaign, not a campaign of information.

[Brenden]

Mickey, do you think that if a left wing paper had information of this kind on a conservative they would not print it - God I must be getting old.

[mikey4444]

emmie...I wouldn't dream of telling you what to think but if I think what you say is wrong, would you ban me from saying so ? Because that is all I was doing. I would defend your right to an opinion, and also your right to reply.

[emmie]

Brenden, they would, all papers have their own agenda and the Guardian is no different. Having read the paper any number of times in the past, thinking i really should get to grips with all this highbrow stuff, realised just how slanted some of their reporting is, bit like the BBC.

[emmie]

what makes me laugh is how many times i have seen the same info on here about Lord Rothermere, once owner of the Mail i believe, so that is casting aspersions on the paper as is is now to some extent, and it's readership, not that we are closet Nazis, but that we follow somehow sheep like on their every word, which i do not believe is true. How Lord Rothermere was a Nazi supporter, sympathiser, so were many including Moseley, and how often the people who read the mail are rabid right wingers, knuckle dragging morons, gosh how do we do it all i wonder.