We should all be able to learn and repeat this without much practice.
A Brief History Of How Vile The Daily Mail Is
The Daily Mail has a long history of controversial and often inflammatory journalism, earning it a notorious reputation in British media. Since its founding in 1896 by Alfred Harmsworth (later Lord Northcliffe), it has been known for sensationalism and scandal-mongering, catering to an upper working-class and middle-class audience with an emphasis on gossip, fear, and outrage.
One of its earliest disgraces was its support for fascism. In the 1930s, under the editorship of Lord Rothermere, the Daily Mail openly backed Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists, publishing headlines like “Hurrah for the Blackshirts” and lauding Mussolini and Hitler. This support only waned after World War II made such stances untenable.
Over the decades, the paper has maintained a tradition of divisive and often xenophobic rhetoric, particularly towards immigrants, asylum seekers, and the European Union. Its relentless anti-immigration stance in recent years, especially during the lead-up to Brexit, was viewed as a driving force behind the polarisation of British public opinion.
The Daily Mail also has a long record of distorting scientific facts. One infamous example is its 1993 headline “Abortion hope after ‘gay genes’ findings”, which inaccurately implied scientific backing for eugenic ideas. It has also been a key player in spreading misinformation about vaccines, particularly during the MMR-autism scare in the early 2000s, which was based on discredited research.
In more recent times, the Daily Mail has continued to be criticised for its unethical practices. In 2012, it published a defamatory article about the family of then-Labour leader Ed Miliband, branding his father, a Jewish Marxist intellectual, as “the man who hated Britain”. The public backlash was significant, but the incident highlighted the Mail‘s tendency to engage in character assassination for political ends.
The paper is often accused of stoking fear and division, frequently using inflammatory language to describe minorities, migrants, and the marginalised. Its editorial approach has been labelled as alarmist, reactionary, and often factually dubious, positioning it as one of the most polarising publications in the British press.
