[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

It shouldnt be banned because its right wing, id ignore any posts that suggest this is the reason

The strong argument for me was banning it because its terrible. Full of terrible journalists with backward mindsets, and awful nazi roots which I did not know about...
The issue is with the DM in particular, not all right wing media. Because the DM simply makes a mockery of right wing media and all media.

I dont know what youre on about democratic processes, we're discussing newspapers.. But speaking about democratic processes since you brought it up, maybe the forum should vote on it? Seems like there are arguments on both sides, and a vote might settle it. You keep going on about how much you like democracy, you must be elated with this idea of mine.

No I wouldn't because to ban it would not only be appallingly arrogant it would demonstrate bias and favouritism for one side over another. This is also a predominantly left-wing forum. It does not require a vote because some people don't like the paper. Childish nonsence.

Where is all the evidence to prove all these journalists have nazi roots? Have you looked at the background of the journalists of left-wing papers and does having 'nazi roots' make someone a nazi - sounds more like a witchhunt to me.

Stuff and nonsence coming from people with an agenda in my opinion.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

No I wouldn't because to ban it would not only be appallingly arrogant it would demonstrate bias and favouritism for one side over another. This is also a predominantly left-wing forum. It does not require a vote because some people don't like the paper. Childish nonsence.

Where is all the evidence to prove all these journalists have nazi roots? Have you looked at the background of the journalists of left-wing papers and does having 'nazi roots' make someone a nazi - sounds more like a witchhunt to me.

Stuff and nonsence coming from people with an agenda in my opinion.

Feel free to do your own research, but I provided a snapshot.
Personally I don't feel the alliances have shifted that significantly.


'Lord Rothermere disposed of his shares in the Daily Mirror in 1931. He now concentrated on the Daily Mail and the Evening News. In the 1930s Rothermere moved further to the right. When Hitler became Chancellor on 30th January 1933, Rothermere produced a series of articles acclaiming the new regime. The most famous of these was on the 10th July when he told readers that he "confidently expected" great things of the Nazi regime. He also criticised other newspapers for "its obsession with Nazi violence and racialism", and assured his readers that any such deeds would be "submerged by the immense benefits that the new regime is already bestowing on Germany."

Rothermere now began a campaign in favour of the Nazi Party. The Daily Mail criticized "the old women of both sexes" who filled British newspapers with rabid reports of Nazi "excesses." Instead, the newspaper claimed, Hitler had saved Germany from "Israelites of international attachments" and the "minor misdeeds of individual Nazis will be submerged by the immense benefits that the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany."

George Ward Price, the Daily Mail's foreign correspondent developed a very close relationship with Adolf Hitler. According to the German historian, Hans-Adolf Jacobsen: "The famous special correspondent of the London Daily Mail, Ward Price, was welcomed to interviews in the Reich Chancellery in a more privileged way than all other foreign journalists, particularly when foreign countries had once more been brusqued by a decision of German foreign policy. His paper supported Hitler more strongly and more constantly than any other newspaper outside Germany." Franklin Reid Gannon, the author of The British Press and Germany (1971), has claimed that Hitler regarded him as "the only foreign journalist who reported him without prejudice". In his autobiography, Extra-Special Correspondent (1957), Ward Price defended himself against the charge he was a fascist by claiming: "I reported Hitler's statements accurately, leaving British newspaper readers to form their own opinions of their worth."

http://spartacus-educational.com/Jmail.htm

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

No I wouldn't because to ban it would not only be appallingly arrogant it would demonstrate bias and favouritism for one side over another. This is also a predominantly left-wing forum. It does not require a vote because some people don't like the paper. Childish nonsence.

Where is all the evidence to prove all these journalists have nazi roots? Have you looked at the background of the journalists of left-wing papers and does having 'nazi roots' make someone a nazi - sounds more like a witchhunt to me.

Stuff and nonsence coming from people with an agenda in my opinion.

In my opinion, people should be free to post whatever source they like.. And others should be free to ridicule that source, and the first person should be aware which sources this is most likely to happen with. But as with every thread I come in to, my mind can be changed by good arguments. And lets both be honest, the opposing side have made a hell of a better argument than our side has.

Read through the thread, the nazi roots was discussed a couple pages back. I cant imagine your mind would be changed on the topic with or without me fetching the posts for you, so I'll skip doing you this favour. This was something I assumed you would have already seen yourself considering your active involvement in the thread..

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

In my opinion, people should be free to post whatever source they like.. And others should be free to ridicule that source, and the first person should be aware which sources this is most likely to happen with. But as with every thread I come in to, my mind can be changed by good arguments. And lets both be honest, the opposing side have made a hell of a better argument than our side has.

Read through the thread, the nazi roots was discussed a couple pages back. I cant imagine your mind would be changed on the topic with or without me fetching the posts for you, so I'll skip doing you this favour. This was something I assumed you would have already seen yourself considering your active involvement in the thread..

I briefly read something posted by Kizzy but that was from decades ago. What does that have to do with today's journalists for the paper - are we labelling every DM journalist a nazi sympathiser because of the actions of some journalists years ago - are we tarring all DM journalists with the same brush because of their political views. Having so-called right-wing views does not a nazi make.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

I briefly read something posted by Kizzy but that was from decades ago. What does that have to do with today's journalists for the paper - are we labelling every DM journalist a nazi sympathiser because of the actions of some journalists years ago - are we tarring all DM journalists with the same brush because of their political views. Having so-called right-wing views does not a nazi make.

But the argument of how influential the nazi beginnings is to the DM today is very much open.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Withano

But the argument of how influential the nazi beginnings is to the DM today is very much open.

Yes, there is a debate there, are their views that far removed from where they were?
The evidence would suggest not to me :/