UKC

There’s a vacancy for a racist, homophobic, transphobic, islamophobic, europhobic newspaper editor. Anyone interested.

I wish him a very short and unhappy retirement.

And also fuck you Paul Dacre.

Well said. Who will be doing Theresa’s appraisal next year. 

Big Ger.

I wouldn't disgrace my arse by wiping it with his newspaper.

T.

He may be stepping down from the daily mail, but he plans to move to another position of influence from where he can spread his malignant worldview.

Looks like a job for the multitalented Boy George has just come available (and no I don’t mean the singer, dj, bondage specialist)

A view that depressingly resonates with a very large number of people.

What I never quite understood is … why he championed the Stephen Lawrence cause? Seems totally out of character.

There was a bloke who did some work for him who was personally involved in some way, he may have known the family. Anyway, this ked him to see the story from a different and more personal viewpoint. Pity he needs that kind of connection to people in order to understand them.

What frightens me is who will replace him. Will Rothermere bring in some swivel eyed alt right shithead from the US to out-Dacre Dacre. I don't see the rag becoming a tabloid version of the Guardian.

Quite, it's probably the successful pare in the UK so it's going to be more of the same. 

Neville Laurence did some plastering for Dacre and Dacre actually met Stephen. Whilst the good that he did campaigning after the latters murder is perhaps Dacre’s one redeeming feature, it is a shame that he couldn’t see the similiarities between the hard working family man and his studious son and many of the people he has made a career of vilifying.

That makes a lot of sense. I always thought the perpetrators were far more natural constituents for Dacre than the Lawrences.

You’re probably right about the last bit but I believe Rothermere is rather less right-wing than Dacre, so maybe it will moderate a little. Did I read somewhere he was a Remainer? He never interfered with the editorial line, and there was a story that he was intimidated by Dacre. 

It's never crossed your mind that you have a rather simplistic view of Dacre?

  Incidentally, according to Anne Leslie, Dacre's famous headline about the Lawrence case (Murderers!")was sparked by fury at the complacency and incompetence of the police rather than any personal connection.

I've never met the guy but 'By his works shall ye know him.'

Wiki suggests it's a pretty complete view. 

  I don't believe you read the Daily Mail. Anyway:

https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/haidt/conservatives-understan...

https://en.tiny.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind#t-295265

That isn’t Dacre’s own view. Or rather, he admits hat without the personal connection he would probably not have stuck his neck out.

As a matter of fact I do, quite often. (Though I never buy it.)

Dacre is a nasty piece of work both personally and professionally but there is no denying he has been the most  commercially successful editor of modern times. Yes, the Mail is bleeding circulation but it is doing so more slowly than any of its rival and under Dacre has overtaken the Sun and Mirror in total readership over all platforms. However, in the face of the internet and social media its star is fading. More concerning than Dacre's personal malevolence should be the fact that he still finds a ready market for it.

On a more cheerful note, as was pointed out when the Mail launched an attack on him, thanks to his 7m Twitter followers Gary Lineker actually has more 'readers' than most of the tabloids put together.

Haidt is talking about sincerely held morality. It doesn't matter what your political outlook is, you can still see the mail as an entirely cynical enterprise in exploiting people's fears and prejudice for money. And most conservatives will. 

The counter examples are numerous, but to pretend that they represent the mail rather than being outliers is disingenuous. 

   Dacre has a job, which is to sell newspapers and he is very successful at it. That does not mean that he is not projecting sincerely held views which happen to chime with much of the population through his newspaper.

  You are simply projecting your own prejudices on his motivations.

  He doesn't strike me as a very nice man but since none of us know him we can't know. I can get as angry with the DM as the next guy but the simple minded caricatures of Dacre and the newspaper that pervade threads such as this don't do their purveyors any favours.

I think Paul Dacre has a very good understanding of the black and white morality of his readership. People in the news stories are divided into good and bad people.

The Daily Mail is very much guilty of cherry picking stories to suit their agenda/readership, so muslims, east Europeans, gypsies etc. feature in lots of negative stories and not many positive ones.

But Stephen Lawrence, Anthony Wallace and Damilola Taylor were good hard working boys, and regardless of their colour, they were 'good people', and Daily Mail readers, as much as anyone, have a clear sense of right and wrong. 

Similarly, the Windrush generation who worked all their lives are viewed very sympathetically, even if the Mail has helped build the sentiment that led to the law changes which affect them.

You of course don't believe that simply being sincere in one's views is a justification for those views do you?

No, I was answering Jon's claim that he was not sincere.

If he is sincere then the issue then goes back to Haidt's explanation of the moral basis such views.

Isn't it the most popular online newspaper in the world? I suspect it's mostly because of the celebrity tits in the sidebar though.

I think you’re right about the Mail’s star fading. What’s also interesting is that its online companion is managing to be highly successful whilst being almost devoid of politics. 

Dacre has almost nothing to do with Online. He is a Luddite who AIUI cannot even work a computer.  He certainly did not have one in his office for years and may still not for all I know. Last I heard he never works on-screen but insists of having everything printed out for him.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jun/07/new-daily-mail-editor-to-be-g...

Geordie Greig - a staunch remain-er being brought in.

Thy want to get rid of the toxic image apparently

I give him 6 months.

Only six months? Why exactly?

This is assuming he does attempt to change direction as suggested above.

The Mail brand is toxic to anyone who doesn't already buy it, so picking up new readers is a non starter, and current readers would probably start frothing at the mouth and stop reading at the first sign of the paper going off message.

It's too specialised to change without losing money.

Dacre is just the latest notable supporter to jump off the Brexit bus. I see no reason why the DM editorial stance won't follow suit, although it will seek to take its readers with it by morphing its stance gradually, hoping that most won't even notice.

Presumably more in keeping with the owners views too?

Interesting photo used: the background posters display a multi-cultural array of events

He'll be fine. Greig has been editing the MoS for six years and edited the Standard before that. Rothermere knows exactly who and what  he is getting. Nobody seriously expects him to put on readers or even stem the haemorrhage. The readership is literally dying.  Next time you are in the supermarket queue check out the age profile of those with the Mail/Express in their baskets. Editing the print papers is now just about managing decline and trying to keep the revenue stream open for as long as possible while the company moves into other fields.

Dacre had no feel for emerging media. Mail Online thrives despite him not because of his input. Dacre also shackled the Metro to try to stop it nicking his own readers. Yet, despite him, the Metro is arguably  the only paper with a future. OK it is given away but it has just overtaken the Sun in total weekly circulation even though the Sun publishes six days a week and the Metro only Monday to Friday.

In a rather bizarre turn of events; Neville Lawrence was employed by Dacre to do some plastering work at his home. I can't recall whether this was before or after SL was murdered, but Neville left a lasting impression on Dacre as being a very honest, reliable and hardworking person, so Darce decided he would assist the Lawrences with bringing the perpetrators to justice and printing the famous MURDERERS front page.  Quite a ballsy move, as he could have easily been sued.

Darce has been the peddle of the most repulsive bile for the last 25 years; but one cant help but admire his achievements. Clearly talented individual even though I stand by nothing him or his rag push.

How is Geordie Greig going to fit into the makeup I wonder? Being a staunch remainer and all...  

It's a really depressing thought, (because it shows up just how toxic and influential the DM is), but it may just be that with the change of editor and the chaos in the Tory party, who are going round in circles and snapping at each other like angry terriers, we may just get the soft Brexit that frankly, seems quite attractive right now. 

I see what you mean, but it might not be as difficult to change and keep circulation as you think.  The Mail on Sunday's viewing figures aren't that much lower than the Mail's as it is, and although Dacre has found a ready audience for his brand of populist prejudice and bigotry they aren't the only people who buy newspapers. It will be interesting to see what happens - I don't expect much of a shift to start with, just a few less of the 'traitor' and 'enemies of the people' headlines. 

I knew GG and Nick Coleridge very slightly forty years ago - based on that very slender evidence I’d imagine GG would be perceptibly less of a **** than Dacre - such a high bar, but still.

Take a lot to make the Hate an acceptable feature of society, mind you.

jcm