This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/dec/05/how-the-daily-mail-has-set-the-agenda-in-its-battle-with-judges
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| How the Daily Mail has set the agenda in its battle with judges | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Attacks on the upper middle class composition and presumed (right wing) political leanings of the judiciary used to be the preserve of the left. | Attacks on the upper middle class composition and presumed (right wing) political leanings of the judiciary used to be the preserve of the left. |
| Now the attacks on the mono-social class of senior judges and their presumed (pro-European Union) political leanings are being waged from the right. | Now the attacks on the mono-social class of senior judges and their presumed (pro-European Union) political leanings are being waged from the right. |
| The Daily Mail, in particular, has worked itself up into a fury about the matter, which means, of course, that its editor-in-chief, Paul Dacre, has done so. | The Daily Mail, in particular, has worked itself up into a fury about the matter, which means, of course, that its editor-in-chief, Paul Dacre, has done so. |
| One of his key complaints is that judges are unelected, as is the other major group of Brexit oppositionists, members of the House of Lords. | One of his key complaints is that judges are unelected, as is the other major group of Brexit oppositionists, members of the House of Lords. |
| I don’t recall Dacre - or his employer, Viscount Rothermere - standing for election. They rely instead on pointing to the fact that their large newspaper audience gives them a mandate, and that they speak for them. | I don’t recall Dacre - or his employer, Viscount Rothermere - standing for election. They rely instead on pointing to the fact that their large newspaper audience gives them a mandate, and that they speak for them. |
| In fact, according to the latest National Readership Survey, the Mail is read by about 3.35m adults every day. Given that the current UK population is 64m, the Mail’s reach is barely 5%. | In fact, according to the latest National Readership Survey, the Mail is read by about 3.35m adults every day. Given that the current UK population is 64m, the Mail’s reach is barely 5%. |
| But the paper’s influence is far greater than those figures suggest. Why? Partly, because its audience contains a sizeable chunk of society’s major opinion-formers. And partly, maybe mainly, because we, the competing media, help to publicise it. | But the paper’s influence is far greater than those figures suggest. Why? Partly, because its audience contains a sizeable chunk of society’s major opinion-formers. And partly, maybe mainly, because we, the competing media, help to publicise it. |
| Media is obsessed with media. And, before you click to make the obvious point, I am, by the nature of my media commentating role, one of the guilty parties. | Media is obsessed with media. And, before you click to make the obvious point, I am, by the nature of my media commentating role, one of the guilty parties. |
| We police each other and, in so doing, we promote each other. Broadcasters, whether on TV or radio, live off newspaper content. Social media is the most promiscuous of press parasites. | We police each other and, in so doing, we promote each other. Broadcasters, whether on TV or radio, live off newspaper content. Social media is the most promiscuous of press parasites. |
| It means that the Mail carries weight out of all proportion to its audience (and don’t be fooled by the Mail Online numbers: people don’t read that website for the paper’s political output). | It means that the Mail carries weight out of all proportion to its audience (and don’t be fooled by the Mail Online numbers: people don’t read that website for the paper’s political output). |
| The point is that the Mail’s views are known far beyond its regular readership. It is also influential because, like it or not, and Guardian readers generally do not, the Mail is good at what it does. Good, you might say, at being bad. | The point is that the Mail’s views are known far beyond its regular readership. It is also influential because, like it or not, and Guardian readers generally do not, the Mail is good at what it does. Good, you might say, at being bad. |
| It long ago eclipsed the Sun as the major Fleet Streeet agenda-setter. It is the outstanding paper of this generation and other right-of-centre papers - the Sun, Daily Telegraph and Daily Express - acknowledge that fact by singing from its hymn book. | It long ago eclipsed the Sun as the major Fleet Streeet agenda-setter. It is the outstanding paper of this generation and other right-of-centre papers - the Sun, Daily Telegraph and Daily Express - acknowledge that fact by singing from its hymn book. |
| Whether consciously or unconsciously, they pick up on its general approach to the politics of the day, echoing its opinions and offering tacit support to its campaigns of vilification. | Whether consciously or unconsciously, they pick up on its general approach to the politics of the day, echoing its opinions and offering tacit support to its campaigns of vilification. |
| I am sure a larger number of Sun readers voted for Brexit than Mail readers. Sun editor Tony Gallagher has no time for the European Union and his paper campaigned unrelentingly for leave during the EU referendum campaign | I am sure a larger number of Sun readers voted for Brexit than Mail readers. Sun editor Tony Gallagher has no time for the European Union and his paper campaigned unrelentingly for leave during the EU referendum campaign |
| But the whole tone of the media’s anti-Brexit crusade was forged in the Kensington headquarters of the Mail. And its chief architect was therefore Dacre. | But the whole tone of the media’s anti-Brexit crusade was forged in the Kensington headquarters of the Mail. And its chief architect was therefore Dacre. |
| Now, as fears of a possible Brexit breakdown loom, he is leading the assault on the judiciary. In Monday’s Mail, he ran a spread decrying the “secret” way in which the 11 judges are selected for Britain’s supreme court, comparing it unfavourably with the public selection of their US equivalents. | Now, as fears of a possible Brexit breakdown loom, he is leading the assault on the judiciary. In Monday’s Mail, he ran a spread decrying the “secret” way in which the 11 judges are selected for Britain’s supreme court, comparing it unfavourably with the public selection of their US equivalents. |
| He also carried a leading article, in which it was argued that it is “utterly impossible” for the judges “to deliberate in a vacuum.” | He also carried a leading article, in which it was argued that it is “utterly impossible” for the judges “to deliberate in a vacuum.” |
| Many people, and including many on the left, would have some sympathy for the view that the judicial selection process is too secretive. | Many people, and including many on the left, would have some sympathy for the view that the judicial selection process is too secretive. |
| I’m not sure, however, if we would benefit from adopting the US system of public grillings in the senate, which the Mail concedes to be a sometimes “ugly spectacle.” | I’m not sure, however, if we would benefit from adopting the US system of public grillings in the senate, which the Mail concedes to be a sometimes “ugly spectacle.” |
| Greater transparency about how the supreme court members are chosen would not be unwelcome, but do we want to select them on the basis of their political views? | Greater transparency about how the supreme court members are chosen would not be unwelcome, but do we want to select them on the basis of their political views? |
| That would surely lead to what happens in the States: the loading of the court to suit the politicians of the day, most notably the sitting president. | That would surely lead to what happens in the States: the loading of the court to suit the politicians of the day, most notably the sitting president. |
| I suspect that that is exactly what the Mail wants, as its editorial polemic implies. Ever since the high court ruled that parliament had the right (and duty) to vote on Britain leaving the EU, the paper has ignored the reality of that decision having been made on a legal, not a political, basis. | I suspect that that is exactly what the Mail wants, as its editorial polemic implies. Ever since the high court ruled that parliament had the right (and duty) to vote on Britain leaving the EU, the paper has ignored the reality of that decision having been made on a legal, not a political, basis. |
| So it now believes the supreme court will follow suit, contending that the 11 judges cannot possibly “be guided only by intellectual legalistic principles, divorcing themselves from the consequences of their decision.” | So it now believes the supreme court will follow suit, contending that the 11 judges cannot possibly “be guided only by intellectual legalistic principles, divorcing themselves from the consequences of their decision.” |
| Then comes a wonderful example of tortured Mail logic. The judges cannot, says the paper, be “impervious to the political heat and fury surrounding their ruling.” | Then comes a wonderful example of tortured Mail logic. The judges cannot, says the paper, be “impervious to the political heat and fury surrounding their ruling.” |
| Which begs the question: who is responsible for generating most of “the political heat and fury”? And will the judges remain impervious to that? | Which begs the question: who is responsible for generating most of “the political heat and fury”? And will the judges remain impervious to that? |