The problem with the Daily Mail

I have a confession: sometimes I quite like some of the things written in the Daily Mail. Occasionally their articles bring a refreshing perspective, defending something of value from a ‘traditional’ viewpoint against what at times feels like the onslaught of political correctness. (You can easily find out whether the paper would like you, and whether you should read it.)

But not this week. The article about Ed Miliband’s father, Ralph, a Marxist academic, crossing all sorts of lines and had all sorts of problems.

1383637_599076526800316_837193158_nFirstly, it was inaccurate. The only substantial piece of evidence to support the headline was a quotation from Ralph’s diary…when he was 17. What 17-year-old doesn’t hate everything at some point? Those who knew him say he was an engaging if quirky person, and that, as a Marxist, he opposed what was happening in the Stalinist Soviet Union. But to believe in socialism isn’t to hate Britain—it is merely to hate the Daily Mail’s vision of Britain. Perhaps it means hating the idea that people with money and control of the print media should determine what people believe and who they should vote for.

Secondly, it was hypocritical. Whilst ‘Britain-hating’ Miliband Senior was serving in the Royal Navy, the Daily Mail was campaigning against German Jews, and the paper’s owner was writing to Hitler to congratulated him on his annexation of Czechoslovakia and urge him to capitalise on the “triumph” with a march into Romania. His great-grandson still owns the paper.

But the hypocrisy extends to the present day. According to the Mail:

Put to one side that Mr Miliband’s close involvement with degenerates such as Damian McBride gives him scant right to claim the moral high ground on anything.

And guess who serialised the writings of this ‘degenerate’? You guessed it: the Mail!

And does anyone else find it more than a little grating that, when reading an article on the sexualisation of society through online pornography, the page is surrounded by pictures of celebrities in bikinis?

Thirdly, it was corrupting. Nick Baines laments the way that much political rhetoric corrupts language, but I think there is something more serious going on here: the corruption of democacy. Winston Churchill once commented:

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

The reason for this is that democracy relies on people considering the issues, critically evaluating the alternatives, and voting accordingly. Often this doesn’t happen—and it is much less likely to happen if people are reading the Daily Mail, or other papers with an explicit agenda to support a particular party or political line. Nick Palmer, former Labour MP for Broxtowe, commented to me:

I wish there was a newspaper that didn’t see it as their main objective to campaign for anything, and would just try to report the facts objectively.

That is why I love reading The Week. In each edition, it explores a Briefing on a key issue from all sides, and invites you to make up your mind.

But here’s an idea. Television broadcasters are obliged by law to be impartial, and to give equal space to representative differing viewpoints, and get into trouble when they don’t. Why isn’t the same true for print broadcasters? If anything, it is much more important for newspapers than TV, since people are much more tribal about the paper they read.

Imagine if all newspaper reporting was politically balanced? It could help to make politics less conflictual, less rhetorical, more focussed on issues and less on impressions. Politicians would have an incentive to win the argument, not just the war of words.

Despite Ed Milibands’s protests to the contrary, this episode actually strengthens the case for tighter regulation. And a rule about impartiality could be just the regulation we need.

Signup to get email updates of new posts
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.

Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

For other ways to support this ministry, visit my Support page.

Comments policy: Do engage with the subject. Please don't turn this into a private discussion board. Do challenge others in the debate; please don't attack them personally. I no longer allow anonymous comments; if there are very good reasons, you may publish under a pseudonym; otherwise please include your full name, both first and surnames.

2 thoughts on “The problem with the Daily Mail”

  1. A nice and balanced piece puts it all in a good context, I particularly like the notion that the print media should be unbiased but would despite the notion that the broadcast media is unbiased in its presentation


Leave a comment