Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Saturday, 6 February 2016

Drinks from bankrupts, and some good sense

Reading the online Guardian these days feels a bit like accepting a drink from someone you know is on the road to bankruptcy; behind the jovial bonhomie and the devil-may-care cameraderie lies a mess of red ink and unpaid bills. You wonder if you're doing better going along with it, to maintain morale, or whether you should icily decline with some pious words about frugality. The new censorship that has earned the paper so much opprobrium is, I'm sure, part of it; even the cost of employing comment moderators is bleeding the loss-making concern to death. Soon the paper's few remaining columnists will have to moderate their own comments. 

The Mail on the other hand is going from strength to strength. Dominic Sandbrook's lengthy and considered piece this morning on the absurdity of Federast aspirations parks the paper's tanks firmly on the Telegraph's lawn. If the Telegraph is still paying Boris £250k a year for his columns, someone needs to tell them they're not getting much bang for their bucks. He's become like those castrated new Chinese fireworks that meet the noise regulations, offering a sort of muffled 'pop' instead of the air-splitting crack and blast you were hoping for.

The Guardian's headline piece supporting Assange, 'Sweet victory soured by British and Swedish rejection' declares that Assange is being 'arbitrarily detained' and offers the Guardian's full support for his position. The editors have hidden a far more sensible piece by legal correspondent Joshua Rozenberg deep in the opinion section; Rozenberg says the British and Swedish are quite right, that Assange has imprisoned himself. Some 1,600 comments support him. It's actually something of a miracle that his piece, headed 'How did the UN get it so wrong?' appears at all under the new censorious book-burning regime. I bet it's not there for long.

Now I wonder if the Mail's A&R men aren't already making discreet approaches to Rozenberg, and to Heffer also for that matter, with a view to improving the pedigree bloodstock even further ...


Ravenscar said...

I have put this post (below) up elsewhere.

But first I would point out the paradox of the luvvies and various other liberal tosserati ie Assange supporters advocating his "innocence" railing against the inequity of a certain European Arrest warrant issued for his extradition to Sweden to answer charges of rape, hence his 'Ecuadorian holiday'. A Paradox ain't it? Aren't all of these so called illiberal Assange supporters also, to a man and woman of them, all great dyed-in-the-wool advocates of - the er EU?


I've never trusted the Mail, its editorial plays fast and loose printing up emotional pleas designed to appeal to righteous indignation of whatever hue suits. They, the shakers and movers behind the Mail aren't all they seem, to its great British readership, sometimes I am minded to think - DUPLICITY should be the Mail's masthead, ah but then, they always were Tories at heart.

Rothermere steers the ship, Dacre plays the devils advocate and nary will there be a time when the Mail champions for OUT of the EU.

Surely he should welcome robust opposition to the EU's draft deal — if only to beef up his negotiating position by letting our partners know the strength of anti-Brussels feeling at home.

Whatever the truth, the frankly pathetic level of the debate so far is a grotesque offence against British democracy.

Ambiguous tosh, as per for Dacre and the Mail.

The Daily Mail is not for out, Rothermere is a staunch, unreformable EUrophile as are the rest of British establishment. Read it, if you pause, over Dacre's words even carelessly, at no point does he advocate leaving the EU. Not a bit of it, all Dacre wants is for Dave to be challenged knocked about a bit and for the leave campaigners to somehow coalesce to get their acts together - and therein to provide lots more copy for the DM so they can sit on the fence some more and stir the pot. The Reportage of ambiguity is what the Daily Mail is all about, I have never read a leader which states categorically or, anyway to the effect of - "the Daily Mail will campaign to take Britain out/Britain is better off out of the EU"

I am not sure where any of; Hastings, Sandbrook, Glover viewpoints and/or all its major correspendents where they sit either. Of course, they moue and pontificate and never make their minds up are careful not to bite the hand that feeds. Albeit only reluctantly does Letts advocate voting NO to the EU, more stern in their resolve are Littlejohn and perhaps Pierce actually want to leave - at least they are more open about it.

To a greater or lesser degree, all of 'The Fourth Estate' are pulling in the same boat ie pro EU, bar maybe the Express.[/]

DeeDee99 said...

The Daily Mail does have some decent writers, but I dislike the paper intensely. The non-stop hatchet job they did on Farage and UKIP in the 6 months leading up to the General Election campaign was disgraceful and despicable.

All it is trying to do, with its criticism of Cameron's deal is force him into beefing it up a bit .... and then it will be the usual "Done the best he could; the Daily Mail accepts that the EU is a flawed project but we must stay in it to reform it; we recommend vote Remain."

At least with the Guardian you know you're getting unrelenting, left-wing propaganda and they'll remain true to that until the paper prints its last.

Rush-is-Right said...

I laughed out loud listening to a spokeswoman from "Women Against Rape" on R4 this morning. It seems rape is ok when it's an offense alledged against a lefty tosspot.

Malcolm Stevas said...

The Mail's "pedigree bloodstock" certainly needs to be improved: it's a terrible newspaper - IMO... Some of its messages might I suppose be ok, but I find it impossible to read, it's so bad. Trashy, down-market, crude... Even The Grauniad, infuriating though it is, can sometimes have some decent feature articles, like its similarly soft-Left sibling The Indy. The other day there was a very interesting feature about The Ramones, with recollections from a long list of their collaborators & competitors from the '70s/'80s.
If the Mail's attitude to Brexit is two-faced as another poster suggests in his interesting essay, this would come as no surprise: it's exactly in line with the hisotry of the Tory Party right from the start. They've always been chronically incapable of making up their minds and acting as tough toward the EU as they talk.
Ah, Chinese fireworks! As boys in the Far East, 1950s, my friends & I could buy them all year round, very cheaply, heaps more bang for the buck than their weedy Brit equivalents. God, the things we used to blow up...

Poisonedchalice said...

The whole episode made me think "the biter bit". All those UN / EU trendy lefty politically correct (cough, cough) "yuman right" bollox that have been foisted upon us for far too long, now are suddenly not welcome by the same establishment when it no longer suits there needs. Well I have a clear message for the politico mouthpieces:

Suck it up fucktards; you brought it all upon yourselves!

Coney Island

Budgie said...

What will the BBC do if the Grauniad groans its last and goes feet up? There will be a collective mental meltdown by the Broadcasting House luvvies. I look forward to it.

Anonymous said...

"What will the BBC do if the Grauniad groans its last and goes feet up? There will be a collective mental meltdown by the Broadcasting House luvvies. I look forward to it."

Yes Budgie.

You and m'sen - that's two but I'm guessing there's more than a few more, that, can hardly wait. Yes to the graun going tits up and total mindfu*K @ al Beeb, what a day of celebration it will be and only one thing could top it, the downfall and defrocking of - the Brussels Mafia.