ANGRY MOB

A few days ago the Daily Mail ran a piece on Nick Griffin and the BNP and pointed out that he and the BNP held some pretty abhorrent views. The article basically tut-tutted at people who voted for such a party, without any realisation or acknowledgement that BNP votes are a result of tabloid lies over immigration and other contentious issues.

Tabloid involvement in the election of two BNP MEPs has been covered elsewhere. The enemies of reason looks at how the Daily Star has the nerve to have a front page encouraging people to throw things at Nick Griffin; whilst it (along with the Sun) is the paper of choice for BNP members. Not to mention previous headlines like: 'THEY'VE STOLEN ALL OUR JOBS' and 'BBC PUTS MUSLIMS BEFORE YOU!'.

Unity at Liberal Conspiracy also looks at newspaper coverage of topics such as immigration and it is hardly a surprise to see that the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail lead the way with scare stories. The Daily Mail wins the dubious prize for regurgitating the most Migrationwatch press releases, but still attempts to maintain that the BNP are not a nice party and they wouldn't possibly associate with them. Presumably the immigration stories in the Daily Telegraph would not be aimed at BNP members but Conservative voters and lackeys like Iain Dale; who despite the evidence presented by reality insists that the UK has 'uncontrolled immigration' and 'no border controls'.

The Daily Mail has been quick to criticise the BNP, whilst pretending that they don't contribute to their agenda of hate and misinformation (or even share it and lead it). Yet their attempts are undercut somewhat by the comments left on the Daily Mail website. Whilst they state that: 'The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline' it must be remembered that all of the comments on the Daily Mail website are moderated - i.e. the comments posted have to pass a selection process.

If anyone has ever tried posting on the Daily Mail website they will notice that often sensible, informed and polite comments never see the light of day - or are severely edited so that they lose their original meaning - whilst overtly racist, homophobic or generally ignorant comments always seem to be published. As if having BNP-like comments (racism and homophobia being a solid foundation of BNP rhetoric) wasn't bad enough the Daily Mail website also allows comments to be voted up or down (red or green) with the number of ratings displayed next to the comment. This means that racist or homophobic comments are not only aired, but they are fully endorsed by a substantial amount of readers.

What we are left with is a newspaper that has racist and homophobic content. Whilst simultaneously editorialising and claiming that racism is bad and that they abhor the BNP. Whilst simultaneously publishing racist and homophobic comments, deleting sensible comments and allowing the rating system to reinforce prejudice.

The Mail comment system serves a very important purpose: it allows readers to join the dots and state what the Mail cannot legally get away with. For example, the Mail prints a misleading headline about immigrants or foreigners, they know that the majority of readers will only read the headline and perhaps first couple of paragraphs. They therefore reinforce the headline in the opening few paragraphs and bury the real information (which discredits the headline and opening paragraphs) towards the end, knowing that few readers get that far.

The reader therefore jumps to the obvious conclusions and posts a comment about how terrible foreigners are and 'send them all back' etc which is then voted green. The Daily Mail avoids having to publish the headline 'We hate foreigners, send them all back' and instead can simply lead their commentators into making that conclusion and stating it for them. The commentator saying 'send them all back' is voted green and thus achieves legitimacy in the eyes of other commentators, the majority of which have also failed to read the article.

For examples of misleading headlines that are contradicted or outright dis-proven in the main body of the article visit this Mailwatch thread. Or look at the lies about Barack Obama's fictional brush with swine flu here and here, or other lies here, here and here. Read the comments under such articles, notice how few people spot that the article contradicts the headline and just take on board the message of the headline and embellish it with the unwritten message that the Mail creates.

More often than not the Daily Mail need only publish a story on a certain topic to get a hate-filled reaction from commentators. Today's article on BNP leader Nick Griffin calling for police protection is a good illustration of the type of person that the Daily Mail appeals to:

Check out the massively green rating and the idea that anyone protesting against the BNP is some kind of hippy ('soap dodgers' - the idea being that only a complete liberal, free-love kind of person could possibly want to protest against fascism) and unemployed. It is interesting that R D Franklin's approach to protesters of Nick Griffin is to dehumanise them, because we can all recall a certain group of racial supremacists who used this as a tactic.

Naturally any comments containing any sense - or even truth - are voted down considerably:

Clearly, Daily Mail readers sympathise with Nick Griffin and the BNP or they outright support him / them. I understand that the BNP as a party may target such articles in order to give the impression that they are more popular than they really are, but surely enough normal Mail readers could vote them down - I mean this is a paper with a large circulation and popular website.

Articles not centred on the BNP also seem to attract vast swathes of support for racism. Take the story about a young Oxford Conservative who told this joke to 'claps and cheers during meeting': ‘What do you say if you see a TV moving across your living room? “Drop it, n*****.” ’ The headline - 'Race shame outrage as Oxford student Tories clap and cheer at N-word jokes during meeting' - seems pretty clear: this is shameful, yet a commenter disagrees:

And is supported by at least another 116 readers. Furthermore a poll on the same page backs up this reader's view that such racism shouldn't be punished, or in fact isn't racism but another example of 'PC-gone-mad':

Maybe Daily Mail readers recognise that inherent racism is part of being a Conservative, perhaps that is what conservatism actually means. What is clear is that comments condemning the joke - and the applause of fellow Conservatives attending the meeting - are all rated down:

It isn't just racism that Daily Mail commenters vote green, they're not adverse to a bit of homophobia either. Today's article: 'Anti-gay marriage Miss California stripped of title for not carrying out official duties' is a good example of this.

Firstly, why mention that Miss California is 'anti-gay'? The opening line mentions states: 'She caused outrage by voicing her views against gay marriage' but the article clearly goes onto state that these views had nothing whatsoever to do with her being stripped of her title. Yet it creates an easy way of sympathising with Miss California, and sets up the under-current of 'is this another victim of PC-gone-mad?'.

Simon manages to acknowledge that although she 'flew in the face of PC' it had nothing to do with her dismissal. Graham, on the other hand, does not even manage to discuss the article, instead going on about the evil of gay marriage - linking it to 'moral decay'. Graham is a good example of a reader reading the headline, getting angry about a topic (gay marriage) that actually has a very tenuous link to the article and no bearing on the news item.

Naturally simple statements or comments preaching tolerance are voted red:

Such a sad sight to see the 'principle of equality' voted at least 79 in the red. You can't blame the BNP for voting these red and the comments before green. Perhaps Daily Mail readers really are racist homophobes?

They could easily prove me wrong by voting in a different way, they certainly have the numbers, they certainly complain about being the silent majority. Perhaps if they disagree with homophobia and racism they should start to make their voices heard. It only takes the click of a mouse button.