The Daily Mail - Opinions and political agenda are not news

I thought newspapers we supposed to report the NEWS not their opinions?

But it seems the Daily Mail has taken things a stage further by using a headline to:

·         Have a hissy fit

·         Tell us what to think (their behaviour was ‘perfectly reasonable’ – well that’s cleared that up then…

·         Predict the future

The original headline was ‘Vile Product of Welfare UK’ with a large photograph of Philpott and the six children and went on to blame the benefits system for Philpott’s behaviour. Whatever your opinion on the benefits system, the headline drew furious criticism for being disrespectful to the dead children by using their deaths to further a political agenda. Let alone use the pictures of the children underneath the headline 'vile product of welfare UK'. The children were not a vile product of anything. They were children.

While abuse of the welfare system clearly played a part - clearly Philpott would not have produced 17 children if he'd had to work to provide for them nor set fire to the house if he didn't anticipate being offered a new house for free to replace it - putting your own children in mortal danger out of greed and spite is the behaviour of a psychopath regardless of your social class. Welfare abuse didn't kill those children. It was their greedy and  manipulative parents. There's a difference.

Portraying the children as nothing but fodder for click bait is disrespectful not only to the children but to the Philpotts' former friends, relatives, children's schoolteachers and friends etc. They were lied to and suffered a multiple bereavement. The least the press could do would be to show a bit more respect and not sensationalise a tragedy to sell newspapers. The 2 Philpott's and Mosely are the only ones who are responsible for this. Normal parents protect their children and put their safety and welfare above all else regardless of whether they are on benefits or not.

Mick and Mairead Philpott

The next headline was something of a self justifying hissy fit:

 This week the Mail was slated for making the perfectly reasonable point that arson killer Mick Philpott was a product of the benefits system. Today it is George Osborne's turn. Now tell us what YOU think. But, beware, the Left WILL try to hijack the result

Regardless of political beliefs I always thought a paper was there to report the news – NOT to further their own political agenda. 

Post-mortem examinations confirmed that the children died of smoke inhalation but this didn’t stop the Daily Mail from writing that Mick Philpott had been jailed for ‘burning the couple’s six children to death’.  

An absolute fabrication for no other reason than to add sick sensationalism to the article to try to get people outraged and on side and an overwhelmingly arrogant and cold-hearted lack of respect for the innocent children who died let alone for the truth. 

I can still recall a tragic story a year or two ago about a small baby who was killed by a dog. The Daily Mail reported that the paramedics had scaled a fence to reach the child’s body and had to sneak past the slavering, growling dog as it snarled at them from the corner of the yard – but the paramedics clearly stated that they didn’t even see the dog during the rescue attempt and that it was probably indoors when they attended to the baby in the yard. What purpose did that lie have other than to sensationalise an already horrific story in which a baby had died?  And of course their own agenda regarding dog attacks, click bait and subsequent advertising revenue.

The Samantha Brick ‘I’m too beautiful’ article is said to have earned the Daily mail over £35,000 in revenue from advertisers due to the traffic on the site that day. I can’t find the source for that at the time of writing but will either find it and update this post or remove the reference over the next couple of days. I’m not the Daily Mail – I like truth, accuracy and ethics.

At the time of writing – 15:00pm on Friday 05^th April 2013 the Daily Mail has over 3500 comments on the article. I have a Daily Mail account to comment on articles but I can’t be bothered to feed the trolls.

It’s hard to believe a National Institution like the Daily Mail could be so cold and ruthless. Were they always like this? 

Well the Daily Mail Proprietor, Lord Rothermere wrote in the Daily Mail in 1933: 

 "I urge all British young men and women to study closely the progress of the Nazi regime in Germany. They must not be misled by the misrepresentations of its opponents. The most spiteful distracters of the Nazis are to be found in precisely the same sections of the British public and press as are most vehement in their praises of the Soviet regime in Russia. They have started a clamorous campaign of denunciation against what they call "Nazi atrocities" which, as anyone who visits Germany quickly discovers for himself, consists merely of a few isolated acts of violence such as are inevitable among a nation half as big again as ours, but which have been generalized, multiplied and exaggerated to give the impression that Nazi rule is a bloodthirsty tyranny."

I wonder if my password will still work next I try to log in?