The Mail is the embodiment of evil. That’s probably what the headline of this article would be if it were written by a Daily Mail journalist. The article would almost certainly go on to criticise itself by explaining how it couldn’t be trusted for one, or all, of the following reasons: It was an immigrant. It was black. It was a Muslim (or maybe a Jew). It was homosexual. It was a woman. It was a sex addict, or pervert. It ‘was a drug addict. It was too short. It was too tall. It was too smart or too stupid. It was upper class. It was middle class. It was working class. It was an immigrant. It would cite immigration twice intentionally – it really hates immigration.
The article would then go on to tell you that it’s NOT sexist, racist, stereotypical or xenophobic to be nervous, angry or hateful towards anyone who belongs to the aforementioned categories. In fact, the article would actually be actively encouraging you to take on these traits. It would encourage its reader to discuss topics by starting off the conversation with this well known gambit: “I’m not racist [replace with sexist, homophobic etc here as required] but…”
The article would then probably dig up a highly controversial fringe case, which it would palm off as “the norm”. It would rely on its readers’ trusting nature or their inability to apply even the smallest amount of critical thinking to a ‘newspaper’, which they probably understand to be factually based and unbiased.
Once the seed of prejudice had been planted, the article would start to push the readers’ panic button. After all, if the Daily Mail article wanted to sabotage the Daily Mail, there would need to be more than one Daily Mail. For example, there couldn’t just be one Daily Mail immigrant, drug user, homosexual, sex pervert, Muslim stealing a UK job. Because just one wouldn’t do. One could be a fluke. In order to grab people’s attention sufficiently it would need to be a much larger number. To scaremonger people into hatred there would definitely need to be more. But what if there’s no proof? Proof smoof! Speculation is as good as proof, and miles more interesting. Something like “Thousands of Daily Mail immigrants could be criminal Muslims”. Yes excellent - classic Daily Mail; generalised, vague and divisionary. However, in case that wasn’t quite enough, the article would also make use of words like “epidemic” and “plague”, just to really play on people’s basest fears.
Every good slanderous, un-factual, gossip headline needs a follow-up and the piece for the Daily Mail about the threat of the Daily Mail would probably be no different.
But for a change of pace, the new piece would almost certainly include a good old fashioned sex scandal about the Daily Mail. After all punters love a good sex scandal. Sure it ruins lives, but hey the Daily Mail surely deserves it, doesn’t it? Maybe the piece could dish the dirt on a senior editor. Something like “Senior Mail Editor has sex orgy while wife was pregnant”. That’s got a nice kick, especially when you consider the family element. Why not combine this with a little drug use, maybe even add a prostitute or two. Remember the golden rule, it doesn’t matter if it’s not true; you can always retract it later on.
The Daily Mail would probably file a complaint about the article the Daily Mail had published. And rightfully so. It was after all utter crap.
The Daily Mail would probably respond by saying that it’s all about supply and demand and the simple fact of the matter is, there’s a market for the Mail’s particular brand of hate. They would continue by saying that when people stopped wanting biased, unfactual, bigoted propaganda which makes you appalled to belong to the same species as those involved in it, they’d stop printing it. The victimised Daily Mail would no doubt respond to this rubbish by informing the Daily Mail that this is the same statement sex traffickers, slave traders and arms dealers all use to make themselves feel better. For the first time in this article the Daily Mail would be correct.
The Daily Mail would then finish their article about the Daily Mail with a few sentence of fact. Those lines of fact would be placed at the end of the article to minimise its readership. Those lines would probably contradict the entire argument contained in the article and ensure no lawsuits preceded.
...And all the while, all over the world, actual news went unreported. Hey hum, at least some hate got peddled.
No comments:
Post a Comment