to want HATE campaigns against foreigners in the popular Press to stop...

I made it clear that

a/ a paper should NOT be judged for past opinions, attitudes

b/ that I used an 'example'

I am sorry you can't see the difference.

Trisher's reply at 16.40.58 - explains why very well - because it has not changed.

It perhaps indicates the little respect (if any) I have for someone who constantly adds to their post the idea that they are in some way better than the rest of us
I never said that I was better than anyone else, but I do think there are a lot of people out there in the world, better than me, full of compassion and love for their fellow human beings. In contrast, I find that some of the self-congratulatory posts on some threads from people who claim to be 'pacifists' and accuse other people of being 'fascists' come across as belligerent, aggressive, accusatory and totally different to the views of people I know who work for a better world.


And I don't really care whether or not you respect me or not trisher.

It could also be argued that it's everyone's duty to read all the trashy tabloids
TriciaF - what - every day?!!

You say a newspaper today should not be judged for what it supported in the past - but then go ahead and do it anyway!

Yes, I read the posts, granjura. If you agree with the article, and especially its conclusion, why bring the subject up at all?

One of the things that always makes me furious is the knee-jerk stupidity of saying that the Daily Mail used to support fascism, thereby implying that it is somehow tainted goods in its modern form.

Sometimes I do wonder if you actually read the posts before replying ?

I did Ana - which is why I introduced my comment in line with it.

What the hell is a"flirtation with fascism"? Of course one should allow that a paper may change over time and may develop different views, the trouble is that the DM hasn't. It's still using the same prejudiced views.

Perhaps you ought to read this article from the sainted Guardian, granjura, before you get too carried away...

www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/06/dailymail-oswald-mosley

Daily Mail, right up to 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 totally agree that a newspaper today should not be judged for what it supported in the past. But, as an example, POGS, would it have been right to be concerned about the Daily Mail supporting the Nazi party and Hitler right up to the war - and making light of the attacks on Jews all over Germany- saying they were isolated incidents perpetrated but a few nut jobs- and had nothing to do with the rise of Hitler? As said, just an example.

I see today that the Council of Europe - not actually part of EU has commented about the press coverage of last week's court ruling and what newspapers are stirring up in UK
www.yahoo.com/news/council-europe-worried-uk-press-fury-brexit-ruling-190731275.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=ma

Arrogance.

' An insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people.'

Hmmmm

rosesarered you would have to wear a hat and dirty raincoat to buy one

as you know, many disagree- if you buy a daily paper, year after year, because you agree with the opinions and how they portray information, for instance on immigration - then you do somehow endorse what they say.

It could also be argued that it's everyone's duty to read all the trashy tabloids (and the broadsheets aren't much different). So as to get a balanced view of how public opinion is formed.
Beside the point I know, but I'm trying to get a balanced view of french newspapers. Last week I bought one I hadn't noticed before, and found it was spouting hatred similar to the UK's National Front. Which I hadn't realised before.

IMHO nobody should be judged about what newspaper they read at all.....even The Guardian!

yes, it should. Brilliant idea, thanks. The Sun too of course.
Or will you argue they are very different and its ok to 'judge' those who read the Sun but not the Daily Trash ;)

Magpie was thinking the very same! Or perhaps kept in a back room or under the counter.

From her photo she looks like a nice girl. I hope the media doesn't hound her out of his life.

Perhaps Prince Harry "should get a grip" and quit complaining about the nasty sexist and racist treatment of his girlfriend in the media, including our lovely tabloids.

Perhaps The Daily Mail should be sold in a brown paper bag how ridiculous and over the top some posters are get a grip.

I came over to the uk from Germany as a baby over 65 years ago. When I started school at 5 some of my classmates said I was a nazi. I didn't know what it was and had to ask my mum.
I still remember how I felt and how my dear mum felt when I told her. Out of the mouths of babes.

I also said I had MORE respect for the DM readers who are misled Jalima. It perhaps indicates the little respect (if any) I have for someone who constantly adds to their post the idea that they are in some way better than the rest of us because they care about refugees and Aleppo. This thread isn't about them, so why do you feel the need to keep telling us how much you care about them?

Why can't you be kind and do good but also rail against what you see as wrong Jalima?

I was a trade union rep - does that count Lisalou?
However, being retired now I am no longer one.