Boycott the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday

[Posh]

I'm staggered by the decision of the Mail on Sunday to publish the article about Lord Triesman's private comments. It seems clear he's been honey-trapped that led to a private dinner where he's been recorded. Irrespective of what he said he's one individual in a huge bid making comments in a private capacity.

The story itself has very little journalistic merit but it could mean severe damage to our World Cup bid and the loss of over £3 billion of income to the English economy. I guarantee that the national press in almost every other European country would never have published this story.

It's yet another example of the continuing decline in national newspaper journalism in this country, i.e. the Express and Mail's appalling litany of lies about the McCann family; the mobile phone tapping of as many as 100 people in high-profile positions by the News of the World; and the co-ordinated attack by the Tory press on Nick Clegg prior to the final televised debate including stories of no merit from 20 years ago. It's time we took a stand.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/davi ... ail-sunday

[George Dawes]

i thought the same this morning listening to the radio, i thought one of our own newspapers putting our world cup bid in serious jeopardy


but sadly this is how most of the newspaper's operate using trick-arses to set up celebrity's just to get story's to sell papers and then journalists & publishers try n justify it by saying well dont buy the paper then


well i wont buy the paper again even though it as a good TV guide on Saturday.

[Morecambe Player]

I see Gary Lineker has quit as a columnist for them. Good on him. I suppose his position was untenable with him being an ambassador for the World Cup bid, but this just goes to show how that rag of a newspaper doesn't think of either it's columnists, nor its country when looking for ways to sell its tatty production.

[Heysham_Shrimp]

Yes lets shoot the messenger !!

[Ntini]

I just imagine a cocky journalist sat grinning as they see their story come off the press, only to realise what an idiot they've been when we lose the World Cup bid... what a bunch of twigs (I won't swear!)....

[Richard Head]

So if we lose the World Cup bid it will be all the fault of unscrupulous journalsim?

Nothing to do with the in fighting at the FA which caused Cheif Executive Ian Watmore to quit or that Lord nob Triesman couldnt keep his mouth shut or that the World Cup Final could be played on a pitch thats not quite as good as Ryelands Park or that they were caught handing out sweetners to FIFA delegates and there wifes.

The bid has been a shambles from the start

[The Marksman]

I agree with Heysham and Mr Head. They found a story, and they reported it, why shouldn't they. The bid has been poorly run since day one, and all this talk of "£3bn brought into the economy" is a fag packet calculation and also neglects the outlay that would have to be made to be able to host the thing. I reckon it's more trouble than it's worth...

[Ntini]

He was lured by a 37-year old bimbo trying to make some cash out of him. They had an alleged 6-month affair and she wanted something more to keep the money rolling in.. and now she has it! The worst thing, in my opinion, is that before the Daily Mail published it, the News of the World had already rejected it for the unethical way the information had been gathered!

Personally, I think that the World cup would do wonders for some parts of this country, especially small businesses. You obviously would have to put in money, to get something out of it.

You can't get interest if you don't put anything in your bank account!!!

[The Marksman]

Is nobody at all bothered about the actual allegations that were made and whether or not they are true? That in itself provided journalistic merit - it brings questions into the open.

[Ntini]

I wouldn't really asscoiate the term 'journalistic merit' with the mail.

[The Marksman]

I wouldn't usually associate the team with pretty much any paper, but at least they ask questions and make you think. I reckon they get a disproportionately bad press. Most papers are for mindless zombies such as the one-syllable-per-word Sun and Mirror.

For the record, I don't buy any newspapers, at all, ever.

[Posh]

I agree with Heysham and Mr Head. They found a story, and they reported it, why shouldn't they. The bid has been poorly run since day one, and all this talk of "£3bn brought into the economy" is a fag packet calculation and also neglects the outlay that would have to be made to be able to host the thing. I reckon it's more trouble than it's worth...

It's good to see so much negativity.

As regards 'they found a story, and they reported it, why shouldn't they'. Firstly the press agreed on getting rid of chequebook journalism. Here they've broken it yet again by paying someone £75K to invade someone's privacy and lie in order to do so. I find that contemptible.

The Mail repeated stories from The Daily Express regarding the McCann family that it knew full well to be lies. Hey but why shoot the messenger! No ethics here folks!

As for the calculations, figures for economic benefit are always difficult to calculate exactly. However with pre-built stadiums and infrastructure the costs are low and the benefits in bringing in tens of thousands of oversees football supporters, the team, the media and the jamboree of sponsors does put huge amounts into the host country. Euro 96 proved that point very well.

Finally the Daily Mail has a history of lying for its own political ends.

The Zinoviev letter brought down the first Labour government - it turned out to be a forgery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinoviev_letter

Lies about Blue Peter in order to further the agenda of its bosses to scrap the BBC http://www.septicisle.info/2007/09/new- ... -mail.html

Lies about camps in Calais because it wants to scare people witless about immigation http://nobordersbrighton.blogspot.com/2 ... -lies.html
http://www.fivechinesecrackers.com/2007 ... _4713.html

http://truthformadeleine.com/2008/07/ro ... rt-action/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/ma ... daily-mail

The Daily Mail's front page of 8 July, 1934, featured the headline "HURRAH FOR THE BLACKSHIRTS". The Mail also referred to Hitler's "sturdy young Nazis".

On 16 July 1993 the Mail ran the headline "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding" this headline has been widely criticised in subsequent years, for example as "perhaps the most infamous and disturbing headline of all" (of headlines from tabloid newspapers commenting on the Xq28 gene).

The 16 October 2009 Jan Moir article on the death of Stephen Gately which many people felt was inaccurate, insensitive, and homophobic, generated over 25,000 complaints, the highest number of complaints for a newspaper article in the history of the Press Complaints Commission. Major advertisers such as Marks and Spencer responded to the criticism by asking for their own adverts to be removed from the Mail Online webpage around Moir's article. The Daily Mail removed all display ads from the webpage with the Gately column.

I could go on but you would probably shoot the messenger.

[Richard Head]

I'm not sure what relevance a headline from 1934 has so we can forget that one but all the other examples quoted are when lies or inaccuracies were used in a story. That did not happen in this case, Triesman just let his mouth runaway with itself.

Since the story broke has anyone confirmed whether Triesman actually believed what he was saying about Spain and Russia or was he just blowing hot air? If he believed it, is there any evidence out there to back him up?

[The Marksman]

Your examples are irrelevant to this case. Where are the untruths here? The guy said it and hasn't denied saying it.

Plenty of papers print bollocks. Plenty of papers pay people for stories. You're just singling out one of them.

If you don't like it, you don't have to read it. The fact that they're still in circulation means there must be at least some people who do.

[Ntini]

Personally, I don't like the way he was set up. It was all done, including the probing questions, so that she could sell it to the media (I'm also led to believe that Max Clifford is involved with it). It was a trap that he unfortunately fell into, and that's why the papers didn't want to know (apart from the Mail).

How would you feel if someone met with you over a few drinks, asked some leading questions which you answer light-heartedly to a friend, only to see it in a newspaper the next week? that's not how journalism should work, and is why the PCC is there. Unfortunately though, the damage is already done.

[The Marksman]

NoTW did the same thing with the Fake Sheikh a few years ago. Nobody got at them for it.

[Heysham_Shrimp]

I agree with Heysham and Mr Head. They found a story, and they reported it, why shouldn't they. The bid has been poorly run since day one, and all this talk of "£3bn brought into the economy" is a fag packet calculation and also neglects the outlay that would have to be made to be able to host the thing. I reckon it's more trouble than it's worth...

It's good to see so much negativity.

As regards 'they found a story, and they reported it, why shouldn't they'. Firstly the press agreed on getting rid of chequebook journalism. Here they've broken it yet again by paying someone £75K to invade someone's privacy and lie in order to do so. I find that contemptible.

The Mail repeated stories from The Daily Express regarding the McCann family that it knew full well to be lies. Hey but why shoot the messenger! No ethics here folks!

As for the calculations, figures for economic benefit are always difficult to calculate exactly. However with pre-built stadiums and infrastructure the costs are low and the benefits in bringing in tens of thousands of oversees football supporters, the team, the media and the jamboree of sponsors does put huge amounts into the host country. Euro 96 proved that point very well.

Finally the Daily Mail has a history of lying for its own political ends.

The Zinoviev letter brought down the first Labour government - it turned out to be a forgery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinoviev_letter

Lies about Blue Peter in order to further the agenda of its bosses to scrap the BBC http://www.septicisle.info/2007/09/new- ... -mail.html

Lies about camps in Calais because it wants to scare people witless about immigation http://nobordersbrighton.blogspot.com/2 ... -lies.html
http://www.fivechinesecrackers.com/2007 ... _4713.html

http://truthformadeleine.com/2008/07/ro ... rt-action/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/ma ... daily-mail

The Daily Mail's front page of 8 July, 1934, featured the headline "HURRAH FOR THE BLACKSHIRTS". The Mail also referred to Hitler's "sturdy young Nazis".

On 16 July 1993 the Mail ran the headline "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding" this headline has been widely criticised in subsequent years, for example as "perhaps the most infamous and disturbing headline of all" (of headlines from tabloid newspapers commenting on the Xq28 gene).

The 16 October 2009 Jan Moir article on the death of Stephen Gately which many people felt was inaccurate, insensitive, and homophobic, generated over 25,000 complaints, the highest number of complaints for a newspaper article in the history of the Press Complaints Commission. Major advertisers such as Marks and Spencer responded to the criticism by asking for their own adverts to be removed from the Mail Online webpage around Moir's article. The Daily Mail removed all display ads from the webpage with the Gately column.

I could go on but you would probably shoot the messenger.

So by your argument you absolutely abhor the sting carried out with brown envelopes on Neil Hamilton

[durhamshrimp]

I've boycotted it for years. Mainly due to the bigotry, racism and xenophobia though.

[Keith]

I've boycotted it for years. Mainly due to the bigotry, racism and xenophobia though.

yup, I almost joined in earlier to say I can think of more important reasons not to buy it... as you outlined.

[Jack Poulton]

Newspapers! Is there any point in them? What purpose do they serve in a Century when anyone can get news and information from umpteen other sources. I stopped buying them when Ceefax and Teletext first started nearly 30 years ago and haven't missed them. The only way is to stop buying them. remember, 25 years after the Hillsborough disaster The Sun is still boycotted in Liverpool. People Power!

[Ntini]

The Metro paper's a pretty easy read on the commute to work in a morning!!!

[The Marksman]

Don't say that here, it's part of the same family as the Daily Mail.

[wijit]

I'm not sure what relevance a headline from 1934 has so we can forget that one but all the other examples quoted are when lies or inaccuracies were used in a story. That did not happen in this case, Triesman just let his mouth runaway with itself.

Since the story broke has anyone confirmed whether Triesman actually believed what he was saying about Spain and Russia or was he just blowing hot air? If he believed it, is there any evidence out there to back him up?

Firstly, the relevamce is to show they have a history of untruths and being a contempatble rag. It is a xenophobic, homophobic, scare mongering waste of shelf space. If triesman believes what he said, then he will have his reasons and I would think it more likely that this is true than not.
However, you are missing thr main point, this wasn't something in the public interest as with some political scandals. This was a clear and deliberate ploy to undermine the bid for the World Cup in 2018. As a football fan, you really should be looking at the implications of that. Mr Posh went above and beyond to make that distinction and not to go off on a tangent. His last paragraph in the original post was merely to support his belief (shared by a good many) that the press in general are not happy unless they are destroying something or someone.
"If you don't like it you don't have to read it"? get a grip, this isn't about what has been read, it's about the damage done, quite deliberately to our bid.
Very finally, the fake sheikh report was done to show, ironically enough, someone was untrustworthy and "buyable".
Odd that.

[Posh]

I'm not sure what relevance a headline from 1934 has so we can forget that one

It's as relevant today as it was then. The Daily Mail is majority owned by the Harmsworth family, aka Viscount Rothermere, except that now it's the grandson. They were bigoted Jew-haters then and their intolerance hasn't changed much since then. The current Viscount is domiciled in Paris but lives in the UK so avoids millions in tax every year.

P.S. I worked for Associated Newspapers, the owners of the Mail, for three years and I know a lot of stories that could further illustrate my points.

[Posh]

So by your argument you absolutely abhor the sting carried out with brown envelopes on Neil Hamilton

Neil Hamilton was paid by Mohammed Al-Fayed to ask questions in Parliament because Al-Fayed wanted to obtain British citizenship. Hamilton took the money knowing full well he was breaking the rules of Parliament.

Al-Fayed, believing he wasn't getting his money's worth, decided to let the establishment know easy it was to hire it's members and told the story to The Guardian.

Differences. Hamilton knowingly broke Parliamentary rules. Triesman broke no rules.
The Mail paid for it's information. If it hadn't then the story would not have appeared. The Guardian paid no one.

You're defending the indefensible.