Don't get mad about the Mail's use of the Philpotts to tarnish the poor – get even | Zoe Williams | Comment is free | The Guardian

Zoe Williams:​

But the paragraph that had me churning with impotent rage was this one: "Michael Philpott is a perfect parable for our age: his story shows the pervasiveness of evil born of welfare dependency. The trial spoke volumes about the sheer nastiness of the individuals involved. But it also lifted the lid on the bleak and often grotesque world of the welfare benefit scroungers – of whom there are not dozens, not hundreds, but tens of thousands in our country." It is vitriolic, illogical depersonalisation to ascribe the grotesqueness of one wild, unique crime to tens of thousands of people on benefits.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the Harold Shipman case had nothing to do with middle England, middle-class professionals. Yet, somehow, the Mail and others have been able to bring social politics into the Philpott case.

Hilary Mantel v the Duchess of Cambridge: a story of lazy journalism and raging hypocrisy | Hadley Freeman | Comment is free | The Guardian

Hadley Freeman in the Guardian:

It is worth looking at what is going on here. Lazy journalism, clearly, and raging hypocrisy, obviously: what has any paper done with Kate for the past decade but use her as decorative page filler? Indeed, when the BBC covered Mantelgate (Mantelpiece?) it included lingering shots of the duchess's fair form while quoting in horror from Mantel's speech about the royal women existing to be admired. This is also a good example of how the Mail fights back when it feels it is being attacked...

Excellent commentary. Worth reading the whole article.

The Daily Mail, And How An NHS Death Means… Racism Is Fine?

This is why the Mail is so insidious, and so dangerous. It’s written in a very particular way, designed to sweep readers up in a froth of anger, before then slipping in various suggestions of what else they should think. Although written as, “And here’s what you already think, of course.” While I have strong issues with many other newspapers, from the hypocrisy of the Murdoch press, to the near fascistic support for anything “left” in the Guardian, nothing upsets me nor fills me with fear as much as the prose style of the Mail.

A terrific article by John Walker.

Triesman, the FA, and the Mail on Sunday’s misjudgment

I’m not really bothered England’s bid for the 2018 World Cup.  It would be nice to host the tournament but I couldn’t really care less about it. 

However I know many are and that a lot of work has gone into presenting the bid. Much of that work has been undone in the last few days by a combination of a previously anonymous civil servant, Max Clifford and the Mail on Sunday.  A lovely trio.

Bravo then for Gary Lineker’s decision today to resign writing his Mail on Sunday column in protest at the nature of the story and its effect on the bid.

We learnt nothing of value from the Mail on Sunday’s ‘expose’ and it benefitted no-one (with the exception of England’s rivals in the 2018 bid).  The ‘shocks’ in this utter non-story, amplified by unearthed and previously anonymous blog posts:

• Newspapers love honey traps, especially if they are organised on their behalf.
• Newspapers like to see failure and have the power to force resignations from public office.
• Newspapers like to create and distort the news agenda, rather than report it.
• People talk bollocks in private conversations.
• People have neuroses and often speak of paranoid conspiracy theories, regardless of factual evidence or rumour.
• Boys like to show off to impress the girls.
• People like to flirt.
• Some married people are unfaithful.
• Some people are spiteful.
• Some people will abuse friendship, trust and work ethics for money / five minutes of fame / personal revenge.
• Max Clifford’s clients like to pose for photos in gardens.