On other words, since the Daily Mail has printed 1 article that nods its head to conspiracy loons they must be cool?

HAHAHAHA!

The Daily Mail and the Sunday Telegraph have a long record of supporting the ruling class, you can be sure that anything they say will be in order to support the right wing politicians,the monarchy and the army.
Those capitalist papers will never challenge power unless it is to replace it with a more right wing form of power

Out of interest, anyone with an account who can call up what the front page of the Mail was after Blair's "45 minute" speech?

How's this for irony:

 http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1364699,00.html

The Guardian and Observer are so pro-Blair that I stopped buying them. The Observer ran a piece on the first day (p2) of the invasion of Iraq stating that Iraqis in Basra had welcomed the British invasion with celebrations. Yet this was the first of many big lies (or excuses for lies) - because the British army didn't actually capture the city for another two weeks! And if you read one of the Guardian's cringing excuses for Blair and Labour then you can see that the pro-Blairite editor is fully in control.

You're probably right - the Daily Mail IS probably more critical of Blair and Labour than the Guardian and other broadsheets: but its political message is one of hate. It was the only paper that supported the Black Shirts in the 1930s and it's politics may have been dampened but they're still simmering away in there.

Stick to the independent media, if you can get it off the internet. Let the publishing tycoons feel the squeeze!

The type of articles published in such large chain owned newspapers such as the Mail Group or Murdoch's collection of Miseries can vary a great deal. Often journalists who work for such papers do not necessarily conform to the editor/lawyer/gatekeeper's ideological framework in the practices they employ in researching, interpreting and spinning hot topics of the now. In recent months The Daily Mail has had a variety of critical articles about the GOV stance on ID cards, the brutal stupidity of the recent anti-terror laws, The Times has had some interesting articles critical of US Invasion and atrocities in Iraq [albeit in the International section with about 4 or 5 column inches], it is there, but you just have to take the time to do the looking , an RSS feed helps in this respect. I don't agree with the values and powers of these papers, they are increasingly coupon books, scratchcard vouchers [no purchase necessary] or DVD's with a free newspaper attached. The sad fact is that many journalists work for them because they pay more; one journalist I spoke to recently who works for the Mirror, wouldn't recommend the paper to anyone, but works for it because it enables him to live overseas, another works for the Express because he needs a steady income for home, family, etc.. These papers have very high circulation figures, they have high marketing investment, they are geared to producing 'truth' as newsproduct to a market controlled by economic eminent domain on any given set of new truths that may develop. To do this they employ an army of hired hacks, many of which are 'good' objective journalists who would prefer to produce stronger, more creative and independent news themselves, as such they can provide important contacts or details or facts to those who do 'produce news' to inform consensus, and not just cement in the top down dictats of their employers and associated affiliations. You shouldn't restrict what you read on the basis of ideology, that's what Little Green Footballs, Fox News and The Sun, all emotional jingoistic opinion and little factual reason, want to foment. And however else are you able to get outraged at the level of misrepresentation and Damn lies published to do anything about them?
Make the Mail your Media, and learn to smash the idols and folk tales of its own understanding by knowing who works inside it and for what end.

The press may serve different interests, but at the moment they are ALL (except the likes of "The Morning Star") serving the government. No newspaper deceived people more to take us to war than "The Guardian", because the lefties trusted it to take their line. Wise up!

Copernicus

Was it "45 minutes from d-o-o-o-o-o-o-m"?

I was directing that last comment at magoo and, to a lesser extent, johnny. I hadn't seen the others when I was writing my reply.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions, last poster. And please remember to look at the detail - that's the only place you're likely to find anything interesting... unless you go to indep/alt media, that is.

Don't shit the bed. We get it just fine. The Daily HAte and the Torygraph are shitrags and so is the Guardian now.

You must be crackers to come to an anarchist site and tell us all to read the blue rinse press.

Why? Just becausethey hate Blair: "My enemy's enemy is my friend" fuck that, I choose my friends more carefully.

You are the one not getting it!

"(except the likes of "The Morning Star") serving the government"

How sweet that there is still somebody who thinks the Morning Star is an independent newspaper. How do you feel about the SWP - still thriving and not 100% infiltrated by MI5

To hell with anything that supports and promotes systemised 'normaility'!

Towards the uprooting and complete destruction of so-called (social and political) normality!!!!!

Till death shall surely tear us apart .. .. .

It is the content that matters, not the means of presentation. As I said, this did not appear on the Daily Mail website, and may... just may... have something important to say. Regarding the Morning Star - I bought a copy in Edinburgh on 2/7 for the first time just about ever, and was surprised at the number of people asking me where they could get a copy. I suspect that these would all have previously been Independent/Guardian readers - who have been able to see the wood from the trees.

I detest most of the output from Fleet Street as much as you. However, occasionally, something gets through the filters. This was one example. It wasn't published on the Internet version of the Mail on Saturday, and if you read it, it will be obvious why. Our neocon "masters" would not approve.

And don't knock the Morning Star. I think a lot of ex-Guardian readers will be much happier with its current content - I certainly was when I bought a copy in Edinburgh on 2/7 before the big march.

The article is nothing new really. Same old same olds of the conspiracy stories. Just plugging the gaps that surround valid points with wild supposition...

Can someone prove this tosh was printed in the Hate Mail... like a scan of the page? I reads like crap off infowars.

Anybody could write shit like that and reverse engineer a conspiracy theory against them. You don't seem to realise its the easiest thing in the world.

How's ur 'debate' going guys?

'Magoo' ... Private detective 'extrordinaire' ... Your new 'Guru'??

We'll see ... .. . .

Anarchy Now!!

I think one gauge we can us is "did the source help disseminate the LIES about Iraq?" before Bush/PNAC/Bliar, and the rest of the Neo-Fascists decided to violate domestic and international law, and carry out an act of Naked Aggression for profit against a foreign country.

To spartecus(It is spelled Spartacus by the way) the SWP is not run by MI5 I have been a member for 9 years I think I might have noticed by now. Also I have had phone tapped by these people would they do this if I was already working for them? get a grip on reality

THUS SPAKE MAGOO ==> You must be crackers to come to an anarchist site and tell us all to read the blue rinse press.

Please, do not pretend to be a trendy leftie, Mags. We all know what you are - right wing filth!

Ach yer erse, ya condescending old soak!