Just my quick 2 cents on the Daily Mail vs. Miliband situation… for those of you not familiar this involves a UK newspaper/tabloid known for both legit news as well as sensationalist paper-selling publicity shitstorms doing an expose on the Labour Party’s aspiring prime minister hopeful Ed Miliband outing his late father as a radical Communist thinker and organizer allegedly hostile to Britain along with a tasteless photo of his actual gravesite titled “Grave Socialist.” They later followed this up by crashing a Miliband funeral memorial service and trying to grill mourners on the family history with Communism. (Like damn, even I myself wouldn’t be THAT tacky – leaning across church pews with your cell phone video app -“PSSST…Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?”)This was then followed up by a mix of legitimate outrage and annoying whining by Ed Miliband. …For sure there was lots of bad taste displayed by the Daily Mail as well as true facts and they have the right to uncensored publishing. If Miliband takes issue with any of it as libelous, he also has the right to sue. It’s not that the Daily Mail doesn’t have the right to print what it sees fit, more that they shot their self in the foot with such inane tactics and overkill and not acting entirely with professionalism and honor. It would have been far more effective to cut the crap and just publish proven facts about this candidate and his father’s past, namely that it involves a strong base in Communist organizing and questionable activism. It required no more than to say take a look at this guys’s roots and some disturbing trends we’re observing that it may continue in his present political career, however covertly. Give the people all the proven facts, nothing more nothing less. By going into overkill and unprofessionalism and personal attacks and sensationalism they only discredited their own organization and eventually even began to inspire public sympathy for what was otherwise an entirely ill-advised candidate standing on shaky ground in endless ways. They should have only gone with the facts then left the candidate enough rope to do himself in. It takes only a few minutes of listening to this guy’s rhetoric to see that he’s at best just another mindless cheerleader for the Nanny State at worst verging on the totalitarian and seeming in fact maybe some form of controlled opposition to keep labor in its place under the guise of being its advocate. He’s not a powerful speaker, not remotely charismatic – honestly he appears a lot like a shoe salesman or something similar – and just in general unmistakeably radiates “weenie.” They should have stuck with the facts and toned down the melodrama and would have been far more effective. But I guess their main goal is not progressive politics but the selling of papers and sensationalism still sells more than truth, sad to say…

Advertisements