Mail outrage and what to do about it
This is a good post by Phil at AVPS about how the Mail (among others) makes hay by sticking a twig into the hornets' nest of Twitter and then running away laughing. I've said before that I think many columnists are just pro-trolls, or prolls, whose only function in life is to be contrarian, to provoke, to stir up anger and outrage - though in Melanie Phillips's case I think she really believes what she's saying; it's just that it happens to dovetail in with a particularly provocative viewpoint.
In getting annoyed by what someone like Phillips says, are we all just playing into the hands of the Mail, by giving them web traffic, by raising their profile, by constantly chattering about them? Well, partly, perhaps; but I don't think that means that we should just sit idly by and ignore people making terrifically unpleasant and provocative statements, even if we know they're only doing it to try and stir up a reaction. By using Istyosty, for example, people can link to the Mail and read it without giving them the traffic they love so much.
But not all chatter is good chatter. The Mail might superficially think it's doing a great job if it's attracting a mob with flaming torches over to something nasty said by Melanie Phillips, or whoever, but it's pretty corrosive to their brand. People will associate the Mail not with anything incisive or intelligent, or any of the good journalism they do; but with a rather nasty kind of columnist.
Sure, it might get you a few thousand clicks in the short term, but in the long term, your brand is going to be seriously compromised; if people are just going to remember the Mail as the likes of Littlejohn, Moir, Phillips and Jones, they're not going to want to buy the paper, or visit the website for anything other than masochism. The Mail don't 'win' by scoring loads of website hits from people who despise what they publish; that doesn't do them any good at all. It's advertising the brand as something low, cheap and unpleasant.
So what do hand-wringing lefties do about the Mail? Ignore the trolls? Ignore the bullies flicking your ears and running away? I don't know. I think it's instinctive to challenge something that you find abhorrent, even if you've got a suspicion that it's contrarian garbage designed to wind you up rather than deeply held beliefs on the part of the author. You could say Jon Stewart should stop picking holes in Fox News, just as easily, but what would that achieve? Just let your opponents get away with their lies and smears unchallenged? That seems like the worst option of all, to me.
It's not surprising, or a revelation, that Melanie Phillips often says things which seem bigoted and awful; she's done it in the past and will carry on doing it now. Should we just ignore her and pretend we haven't seen it, worrying we'll give her more exposure by challenging? I'm not so sure. I think it's right to challenge things you fervently disagree with, even if you're playing into the hands of those publishing the rubbish in the first place. The Mail may be getting some more traffic by trolling, but it's damaging its brand - particularly if sensible and well constructed criticism is aimed back. That's the good news.
No related posts.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on Peter Hitchens depresses me. But I won’t kill him.
- Emily on Update
- Angela Webb on This isn’t a flounce
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
January 25th, 2011 - 11:17
You’ll have seen Quentin Letts this morning?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1350208/Just-looking-Home-Secretary-Yvette-Cooper-make-bones-ache.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
January 25th, 2011 - 11:57
if people are just going to remember the Mail as the likes of Littlejohn, Moir, Phillips and Jones, they’re not going to want to buy the paper
I wish this were true. Unfortunately I fear millions of people buy the paper precisely because they want to read things like this which reinforce their prejudices (with a bit of plausible deniability overlaid on top – “it’s meant to be provocative”, “you’re not meant to take it too seriously”, etc).
I finally figured out yesterday what it is that really makes my skin crawl about trolling pieces like Mel P’s. Her stance is sufficiently extreme that even real Mail readers probably know she’s trolling, and that makes it hard to engage with it meaningfully (and opens you up to the only-joking gambit mentioned above: “it was an exaggeration for comic effect, can’t you humourless homosexualists take a joke?”), but underneath the trolling there’s other insidious bigotry. It’s a sort of flamebait-and-switch technique: because the stuff about the Big Gay Mafia running the country is so ridiculously exaggerated, we miss things like the fact that she’s quietly equating “men who take an interest in raising their children” with “gay men”.
I’m probably not explaining this very well, sorry!
January 25th, 2011 - 12:26
I dont think the Mail is damaging its brand. I think Phillips is a key part of its brand.
I also think clicking on the Mail site as a form of ‘masochism’ is what lots and lots and lots of liberals/lefties too and this isnt short-term it is part of the Mail’s success, in the internet age. Just as The GUardian benefits from provoking all those ‘right-wing’ cif commenters with its ridiculous articles e.g. on feminism.
The Mail needs the ‘how very dare you?’ critics and The Guardian needs the ‘Tory trolls’ below the line at cif.
The only difference is The Guardian is not lambasted by twitter every day, except here:
http://www.graunwatch.wordpress.com
January 25th, 2011 - 13:59
I can’t help thinking that while Mail readers and bigots might enjoy the idea of a small prejudiced echo chamber, advertisers won’t be as keen.
January 25th, 2011 - 13:53
“I dont think the Mail is damaging its brand. I think Phillips is a key part of its brand.”
Agreed. The position of the Mail commentators is that they offer a shining light of truth in a world clearly run by communists, lefties and lesbians – but in a way which is just about palatable.
I would also like to point out that I’ve seen some of the worst “journalism” in the Guardian – ranging from bad editing (spelling mistakes, grammatical errors & nonsense) and to cut-and-paste press release stuff.
The Mail is well written with stunningly taut arguments (all be they twisted, perverse or otherwise) which tread a fantastic tightrope between fact & libel. There isn’t a better reading paper out there for this. The broadsheets have got lazy and the tabloids were never up to much – the quality of the product is superior (even if we think it is a steaming pile of bigoted follow-through).
And what to do about it? I broadly accept that we need to use the approach which has been used (and you extol) – reasonable debate presented via thousands of individuals relentlessly.
January 25th, 2011 - 14:20
but what we got in response to Phillips’ piece this week was just a howl of derision from twitter…
This is not going to change anything.
Also the issues at hand- homosexuality, gay rights, diversity in education, gay marriage, evoking human rights law in cases such as that B and B one- are ones that need to be discussed separate from reactions to The Daily Mail.
The distinct impression I got yesterday was that the majority of people slagging off Phillips on twitter do not engage with these issues and do not really care about them. They just wanted to show they are good liberals and hate Melanie Phillips.
January 25th, 2011 - 14:35
But I’m not really responsible for what a lot of people say on Twitter. I am happy responding in my own way.
January 25th, 2011 - 20:45
The problem with saying that all the reaction on Twitter was ppl not really engaging with the issues and just proving they’re good liberals is a bit silencing don’t u think qrg? I got angry about it and tweeted about it because these issues not only effected me personally but because I don’t want future children to have the ignored childhood I had. I grew up with gay mums from 1989 when I was four so when I went to school none of the books or materials reflected my reality. Now, my friend is experiencing the same thing with her 5 year old, who’s life with her gay mum is invisible in her experience at school. We don’t get a chance v often to speak out about this, we don’t get editorial space to explain why it is important to have gay families represented in education. What we do have are twitter, blogs, online space to share why this matters. So to assume that the uproar was about ppl proving they hate Mel p and not also or equally from those who are affected or invested in the issue is to silence us.
January 25th, 2011 - 14:54
im not blaming you anton, Im just saying that we arent getting reasoned debate we are getting mob reactions. If you can provide a platform where people do debate that’s to the good!
January 25th, 2011 - 14:56
Well I would like to hope people are a bit more reasoned on here! That’s the idea, anyway.
January 26th, 2011 - 11:27
I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all answer to your rhetorical question. For example, with whopping factual porkies, a more forensic approach would be in order, calmly challenging ill-informed assertions with hard facts. Presumably a lot of people who read the Mail do so because it confirms their existing worldview and reflects it back to them, so I wouldn’t expect such Fisking to have much effect on hardcore Mail readers themselves. Still, objective truth does matter. If putting the truth out there gives one more person the ammunition to challenge some wildly inaccurate assertion that originated in the Mail, it’s worth it.
In the case of sheer unprovoked, mean-spirited nastiness directed against individual people (or groups of people), a bit of blazing invective, tinged with pity for the small, frightened people who write op-ed for the Mail would be appropriate. Again, it’s not going to touch the sort of people who read a Daily Mail editorial and thank God that somebody’s thinking what they were thinking, but at worst it’s a harmless way of letting off steam and, at best it shows some of those on the receiving end of the Mail’s vindictiveness that there are people out there who feel solidarity with them, rather than hatred towards them.
Mel’s Gay Conspiracy article, though, transcends the categories of factual inaccuracy and vindictiveness. It’s so barking mad, so completely disconnected from anything approaching reality that it seems to have popped into our world from an alternate universe. Not only is it not right, it’s not even wrong, as Wolfgang Pauli apparently said when presented with a physics paper too muddled even to permit rational analysis. Even pointing and laughing would be difficult. Mel’s thoughts are so bizarre that the Daily Mash spoof is an order of magnitude less hilarious than the original article. It’s so far out there that it defies satire – I think it probably left scores of potential piss-takers staring at their computer screens in wild surmise, wondering how to top the self-parody. It’s like Tom Lehrer giving up satire because he couldn’t dream up anything more outrageous than Henry Kissinger being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
This article is clearly a special case. Mere words hardly do it justice. I quite like the graphic in Chris Dillow’s post which features a Venn diagram with two non-intersecting circles, representing Melanie Phillips’ worldview and reality, but beyond that I’m running out of ideas. Reposting the best bits, without comment, under “WTF of the day”? I think this is one article by a Daily Mail column that deserves the widest possible readership, so that the maximum number of people can gawp in amazement, as they do when some bizarre sea-creature previously unknown to science is dredged from the abyss.