In reply to Hugh J:
> Shameful? No it isn't.
> Despite being someone who despises ALL of the tabloid press in this country, I can find nothing particularly abhorrent in this article. If the Mail readers do as you say they will do, it is no ones fault but their own or, to be more precise, the lack of a balanced view this shitty little country with it's piss-poor educational system has given them.
Wow, more fool me. I'm not having a go at Mail readers any more than any other readers (that's why I said, 'like all readers'); I'm having a go at the journalism and, specifically, the subeditor who put the headline together. That's why I said 'read the headline', rather than read the article. I may be wrong, but all journalism involves shaping a story in a various ways and the selection of words to go in this headline deliberately skews it to make a direct link between the possibility of immigrants moving into council houses and Mair killing Jo Cox.
Now, you can blame the Mail readers for their ignorance if you like; I'm blaming the journalism of the Mail (in this specific case). All mass media outlets are engaged in a dance with their readership / audience. They have to both react to the views their readers are likely to espouse and lead them in the light of new events (ie the news). But of course, in that dance / relationship, the media / journalists are closer to the power end of the relationship because they have easier access to the facts of the matter, whereas the readership are more likely to be bringing their opinions and values alone.
The readers also have great power, because they are also voters, and they are regularly given a chance to exercise that power; however, that's a different relationship. Each party - the media, the public and the governing institutions has a certain responsibility (I would argue) and in this particular case (I'm not on a general Mail rant, note) I'd say the media are not exercising that responsibility appropriately, given their undoubtedly wide reach and concomitant influence.
So, blame the ignorance of the Mail readers if you will (or our country's poor education system, if you prefer) - but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect all of us to believe or be influenced by some of what we read / see in the media /on the internet (I know I'm guilty of that, because I don't have the facts of the planet at my fingertips).
> This is exactly the kind of leftist knee jerk reaction that the Brexit supporters have been telling us has been pissing them off. I'm starting to agree with their thoughts that if you don't agree with those on the left they will brand you as idiotic, bigoted or lunatic or all 3 at once. An attitude that is fascistic and perhaps (ironically) right wing. It seems to me that they have some validation in this thought and as someone who is more left leaning than right, it's starting to piss me off too.
Gosh, not sure how to respond to this bit. I didn't say the article should be banned, or the journalist, or the newspaper. I gave my opinion that the headline was shameful, and that justifying it was shameful (my main mistake, clearly). I suppose I wrote that because I feel that the headline is an example of where the dance I refer to above involves the journalist leading the reader to a new opinion which is potentially dangerous and divisive. With hindsight, maybe I shouldn't have said that I think defending it is shameful, but given the additional rhetoric that goes with most of those defences, then I'm just about happy to stand by what I said.
Anyway, thanks for the reply. Sorry if my response came across as knee jerk or dangerously leftist, I was referring to the journalism rather than Brexit and specifically I was referring to the subeditor's choice of headline.