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/2013/oct/02/edmiliband-pauldacre

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Miliband's challenge to the Mail exposes editor Paul Dacre as a bully Ed Miliband's challenge to Daily Mail exposes editor Paul Dacre as a bully
(35 minutes later)
Many people who have suffered at the hands of the Daily Mail down the years have refused to challenge the paper.Many people who have suffered at the hands of the Daily Mail down the years have refused to challenge the paper.
To have done so, they claimed, would surely lead to further attacks. They would become targets for relentless criticism. Several people spoke of it while giving evidence to the Leveson inquiry.To have done so, they claimed, would surely lead to further attacks. They would become targets for relentless criticism. Several people spoke of it while giving evidence to the Leveson inquiry.
Ed Miliband's experiences show just how true that is. If you dare to take on the Mail you are a marked man (or woman). It never backs down. It does not apologise. It does not clarify. It is a bully.Ed Miliband's experiences show just how true that is. If you dare to take on the Mail you are a marked man (or woman). It never backs down. It does not apologise. It does not clarify. It is a bully.
The decision to carry Miliband's right of reply was therefore unusual, and possibly unprecedented (I can't recall another instance). It suggested to me that the Mail knew it had gone over the top with its claim that Miliband's father, Ralph, had hated Britain.The decision to carry Miliband's right of reply was therefore unusual, and possibly unprecedented (I can't recall another instance). It suggested to me that the Mail knew it had gone over the top with its claim that Miliband's father, Ralph, had hated Britain.
But it is not in the Mail's nature (more properly, in the nature of its editor, Paul Dacre) to be gracious. Hence the repetition of the allegations, an editorial that spoke of Ralph Miliband's "evil legacy" and four further pages in today's Mail attacking the Labour leader all over again.But it is not in the Mail's nature (more properly, in the nature of its editor, Paul Dacre) to be gracious. Hence the repetition of the allegations, an editorial that spoke of Ralph Miliband's "evil legacy" and four further pages in today's Mail attacking the Labour leader all over again.
Case proved. If you dare to take on the Mail, it will open both barrels. It will do exactly what Leveson witnesses said it does: it uses its formidable editorial power to redouble the hurt and humiliation. That is bullying.Case proved. If you dare to take on the Mail, it will open both barrels. It will do exactly what Leveson witnesses said it does: it uses its formidable editorial power to redouble the hurt and humiliation. That is bullying.
It is legitimate to explore Ralph Miliband's political viewsIt is legitimate to explore Ralph Miliband's political views
At this point, I need to take on board the arguments advanced by people who say that the Mail's assault on Miliband père and fils was justified because people have a right to know about the possible influences passed from one to the other.At this point, I need to take on board the arguments advanced by people who say that the Mail's assault on Miliband père and fils was justified because people have a right to know about the possible influences passed from one to the other.
I agree with that. It is true that Ed Miliband has mentioned his father in speeches and it is therefore legitimate to explore the possible political similarities between their views.I agree with that. It is true that Ed Miliband has mentioned his father in speeches and it is therefore legitimate to explore the possible political similarities between their views.
It is therefore fair for the Mail to reproduce the thoughts of Ralph Miliband, expounded with such clarity in Parliamentary Socialism (a textbook for politics undergraduates like myself in the 1970s).It is therefore fair for the Mail to reproduce the thoughts of Ralph Miliband, expounded with such clarity in Parliamentary Socialism (a textbook for politics undergraduates like myself in the 1970s).
He was hardly alone. Hundreds of academics were advocating the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement with socialism (and/or communism) at the time. Such ideas may sound foolish now - as Ed explicitly wrote in his right of reply - but it was of its time and he has long ago accepted that he does not share his father's political opinions. He was hardly alone. Hundreds of academics were advocating the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement with socialism (and/or communism) at the time. Such ideas may sound foolish now – as Ed explicitly wrote in his right of reply – but it was of its time and he has long ago accepted that he does not share his father's political opinions.
Even so, the Mail's supporters are right. Telling readers what Ralph Miliband wrote was legitimate journalism.Even so, the Mail's supporters are right. Telling readers what Ralph Miliband wrote was legitimate journalism.
But the problem, and the reason for Miliband was so upset, concerned the over-egging of the Mail's pudding of an argument - that Ralph hated Britain. But the problem, and the reason for Miliband was so upset, concerned the over-egging of the Mail's pudding of an argument – that Ralph hated Britain.
It built that argument - and headline - around a 1940 diary entry written by Ralph, aged 16, after fleeing to Britain for sanctuary in order to escape Nazi oppression: It built that argument – and headline – around a 1940 diary entry written by Ralph, aged 16, after fleeing to Britain for sanctuary in order to escape Nazi oppression:
"The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world… you sometimes want them almost to lose (the war) to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the Continent… To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation." "The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world … you sometimes want them almost to lose (the war) to show them how things are. They have the greatest contempt for the Continent… To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation."
This is shorn of all context. Anyone who knows anything about the situation in the 1930s knows that there were ambivalent feelings about the arrival of "aliens" in Britain. The Jewish teenager from Belgium would have experienced that and was trying to explain it to himself (one reason for diary-writing).This is shorn of all context. Anyone who knows anything about the situation in the 1930s knows that there were ambivalent feelings about the arrival of "aliens" in Britain. The Jewish teenager from Belgium would have experienced that and was trying to explain it to himself (one reason for diary-writing).
And the Mail did not, of course, point to another diary entry - helpfully supplied in today's Guardian by Ralph's biographer, Michael Newman - in which he showed his admiration for the self-confidence of the people of his adopted country: And the Mail did not, of course, point to another diary entry – helpfully supplied in today's Guardian by Ralph's biographer, Michael Newman – in which he showed his admiration for the self-confidence of the people of his adopted country:
"I have never, never heard an English person doubt the English victory.""I have never, never heard an English person doubt the English victory."
Does that suggest hatred? Was it hateful to join the royal navy? Was it hateful to stay on, marry and bring up two boys in Britain? Does that suggest hatred? Was it hateful to join the royal navy? Was it hateful to stay on, marry and bring up two boys in Britain?
That was what Ed Miliband meant by calling the misrepresentation of his father as "a lie." That was why he reacted as he did.That was what Ed Miliband meant by calling the misrepresentation of his father as "a lie." That was why he reacted as he did.
Of course the Mail can explore the similarities between the Milibands' politics. But the paper went way beyond that. Now we must ask why?Of course the Mail can explore the similarities between the Milibands' politics. But the paper went way beyond that. Now we must ask why?
For Dacre, the political is the personalFor Dacre, the political is the personal
To do so, just as the Mail has done, let's personalise things. The Mail is a rare national newspaper in that it is the embodiment of the values and views of its editor rather than its proprietor.To do so, just as the Mail has done, let's personalise things. The Mail is a rare national newspaper in that it is the embodiment of the values and views of its editor rather than its proprietor.
It is very much Paul Dacre's paper rather than Lord Rothermere's paper. This is to the credit of Rothermere (aka Jonathan Harmsworth) in the sense that he allows the editor to hold sway.It is very much Paul Dacre's paper rather than Lord Rothermere's paper. This is to the credit of Rothermere (aka Jonathan Harmsworth) in the sense that he allows the editor to hold sway.
Unlike almost every other owner, he is genuinely hands off and there has never been any question of discreet proprietorial interference. As he told Leveson, "our editors have complete editorial independence", adding: "I believe passionately in freedom of speech."Unlike almost every other owner, he is genuinely hands off and there has never been any question of discreet proprietorial interference. As he told Leveson, "our editors have complete editorial independence", adding: "I believe passionately in freedom of speech."
In reality, it means Dacre has total control of the content of the Mail. He can exercise his press freedom, revelling in the power and influence it gives him for good or ill.In reality, it means Dacre has total control of the content of the Mail. He can exercise his press freedom, revelling in the power and influence it gives him for good or ill.
(He is not the only editor invested with such freedom. By virtue of The Guardian's trust ownership, its editor, Alan Rusbridger, is also his own man. But he is no autocrat).(He is not the only editor invested with such freedom. By virtue of The Guardian's trust ownership, its editor, Alan Rusbridger, is also his own man. But he is no autocrat).
In Dacre's case, the political is the personal. One of his former leader writers told me how, when dictating his ideas for an editorial, he was so wound up that he occasionally broke into tears.In Dacre's case, the political is the personal. One of his former leader writers told me how, when dictating his ideas for an editorial, he was so wound up that he occasionally broke into tears.
That passion is not, in itself, a negative. But the problem is that his self-belief brooks no opposition. He believes he is always right and, by extension, that everyone else is wrong.That passion is not, in itself, a negative. But the problem is that his self-belief brooks no opposition. He believes he is always right and, by extension, that everyone else is wrong.
That single-mindedness, allied to a fierce temper and the authority emanating from his position of power, permeates the Mail's editorial approach.That single-mindedness, allied to a fierce temper and the authority emanating from his position of power, permeates the Mail's editorial approach.
The staff may believe they are exercising free will, but they are really doing Dacre's bidding. They know not to cross him. If the editor says jump, they ask "how high?"The staff may believe they are exercising free will, but they are really doing Dacre's bidding. They know not to cross him. If the editor says jump, they ask "how high?"
Again, this is not always a bad thing. Newspapers are hierarchies and knowing what a decisive editor wants can be a plus. That is what makes the Mail so proficient at news-gathering and, in production terms, technically superb.Again, this is not always a bad thing. Newspapers are hierarchies and knowing what a decisive editor wants can be a plus. That is what makes the Mail so proficient at news-gathering and, in production terms, technically superb.
Overall, however, the Mail is Dacre, and Dacre is the Mail. His politics and social outlook - a reactionary, individualistic, big 'C' Conservativism - reigns. Overall, however, the Mail is Dacre, and Dacre is the Mail. His politics and social outlook – a reactionary, individualistic, big 'C' Conservativism – reigns.
He didn't always hold those views. During his Leeds university days, he was pro-Labour, explaining in one of his rare interviews: "If you don't have a left-wing period when you go to university, you should be shot. I was left-wing and I don't regret it one bit."He didn't always hold those views. During his Leeds university days, he was pro-Labour, explaining in one of his rare interviews: "If you don't have a left-wing period when you go to university, you should be shot. I was left-wing and I don't regret it one bit."
If he kept one, it might well be enlightening to read his diary from those days. Surely Mail readers have a right to know what the editor thought of Britain and its institutions at the time?If he kept one, it might well be enlightening to read his diary from those days. Surely Mail readers have a right to know what the editor thought of Britain and its institutions at the time?
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.