Racism in Football the Daily Mail take

mr_poll

Skip the diatribe - he last two paragraphs sum it up and quite frankly beggar belief (irrespective of whether players of certain clubs said or did not say anything racist).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2052843/John-Terry-racism-row-Anton-Ferdinand-game.html

dhope

Hah, and 30 years ago then why complain because the Klan aren't around.

But when the Klan were around, why complain - slavery was ended...

Pretty dire, even by DM standards

HebdenBiker

It doesn't beggar belief. It's the Daily Mail. Did you expect anything else?

pst88

Well, there are worse things to complain about.

DonDaddyD

I don't think it's OK to accept this because it's the Daily Mail. Dismissing it because it's the Dail Mail is, to me, no Longer OK.

What it is doing is trying to justify when racism is OK.

dhope

I don't think anyone is accepting it, just saying we're not overly surprised at the DM stance. I think there are places that time spent combating racism is better spent than the DM.

tailwindhome

I think you are getting worked up about this article mostly because it is in the Dail Mail.

Gussio

Outrageous journalism and a waste of newsprint.

rick_chasey

Forget the content for a minute - it's just badly written.

notsoblue

The Daily Mail troll machine strikes again. So much delicious ad revenue...

bails87

Football reflects us all as it always did, and these days it’s both racist and not racist at the same time. Things may not be perfect but, at the end of the day, Gary, there are worse things to complain about.
So, Mr Evra and Mr Ferdinand, I know you feel insulted. But perhaps in this case you could just put up with it and get on with the game.

According to Nick Davies in Flat Earth News:

I spoke to a man who had worked for the Daily Mail for some years as a senior news reporter. He said: 'They phoned me early one morning and told me to drive about three hundred miles to cover a murder. It was a woman and her two children who'd been killed. I got an hour and a half into the journey, and the news desk called me on my mobile and said, "Come back." "I said, "Why's that?" They said, "They're black."'

So no, it shouldn't be suprising, but it shouldn't be accepted either.

Keith1983

Fantastic, I can always rely on the Daily Mail to put a smile on my Face. I don't think the Dauily Mail has an equal when it comes to poorly informed, inaccurate drivel. I don't recall ever knowing the price of the Dailyu Mail but I might check it out as it's probably cheaper than some of the cycling magaines I buy and far more entertaining!

Gallywomack

I took my elderly mother to watch a game at Highbury for the last time before they knocked it down. We took our seats in the East Stand to the sound of typical North London football fan conversation around us: ‘Where’s Lucy today?’ ‘Oh, she couldn’t make it this time, she had to marinate the lamb in rosemary.’

In the second half Arsenal sent on an African forward called Kanu. Kanu could either be brilliant or spend all afternoon falling over the ball. On this occasion he kept falling over the ball. A youngish bloke sitting in front of us lost his temper after one particularly ludicrous pratfall and yelled, at the top of his voice, something about ‘you black b*****d’.

There was a terrible silence.

The bloke leaped up and wheeled round 180 degrees in the same movement, shoved his face straight in front of my mother’s, and said in firm and formal tones: ‘I’m terribly sorry about the racist comment.’

This never happened.

dodgy

notsoblue wrote:

The Daily Mail troll machine strikes again. So much delicious ad revenue...

8)

I haven't even clicked on the link, even if I did, it wouldn't work. I have a self imposed firewall rule that blocks access to the Daily Mail Great for catching shortened URLs that point to it.

They're making lots of money from page impressions, visiting the Daily Mail website is tantamount to buying the paper.

DonDaddyD

I'm not getting worked up. Though I concede my first post was 'charged' but wasn't intentionally aimed at any specific person.

I just get tired of hearing about Daily Mail articles and the general concensus (which extends in almost every corner of this society) being "Well that's the Daily Mail for you".

Almost makes what they say an acceptable evil. How about we boycott the Daily Mail for being unacceptable.

ooermissus

Gallywomack wrote:

A youngish bloke sitting in front of us lost his temper after one particularly ludicrous pratfall and yelled, at the top of his voice, something about ‘you black b*****d’.

There was a terrible silence.

The bloke leaped up and wheeled round 180 degrees in the same movement, shoved his face straight in front of my mother’s, and said in firm and formal tones: ‘I’m terribly sorry about the racist comment.’

This never happened.

This.

Keith1983

dodgy wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The Daily Mail troll machine strikes again. So much delicious ad revenue...

8)

I haven't even clicked on the link, even if I did, it wouldn't work. I have a self imposed firewall rule that blocks access to the Daily Mail Great for catching shortened URLs that point to it.

They're making lots of money from page impressions, visiting the Daily Mail website is tantamount to buying the paper.

Wow, you've gone to alot of effort. I disagree with almost every article in the paper and also their opinions and views on things but I'm not overly bothered that it exists. After all it's just other people's opinion.

sketchley

Keith1983 wrote:

dodgy wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The Daily Mail troll machine strikes again. So much delicious ad revenue...

8)

I haven't even clicked on the link, even if I did, it wouldn't work. I have a self imposed firewall rule that blocks access to the Daily Mail Great for catching shortened URLs that point to it.

They're making lots of money from page impressions, visiting the Daily Mail website is tantamount to buying the paper.

Wow, you've gone to alot of effort. I disagree with almost every article in the paper and also their opinions and views on things but I'm not overly bothered that it exists. After all it's just other people's opinion.

Thing to do, if you can be bothered, is to look to see who the sponsor are then e-mail them explaining that due to the association with the material in the article you will not be buying their products again. It's the only why to do something about it hit them where it hurts..

graeme_s-2

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'm not getting worked up. Though I concede my first post was 'charged' but wasn't intentionally aimed at any specific person.

I just get tired of hearing about Daily Mail articles and the general concensus (which extends in almost every corner of this society) being "Well that's the Daily Mail for you".

Almost makes what they say an acceptable evil. How about we boycott the Daily Mail for being unacceptable.

I think most of the people who say "Well that's the Daily Mail for you" would rather be seen buying a top shelf magazine than buying the Mail. If it was literally the last available reading material in the world I wouldn't buy a copy.

Quite enjoyed this story about the Stone Roses reunion in the Guardian the other day

Stone Roses frontman Ian Brown gave a Daily Mail journalist a hard time at the press conference about the band's relaunch. Brown turned the tables on him, saying: "Let me ask you a question. What's it feel like to write for a newspaper that used to support Adolf Hitler?"

notsoblue

Keith1983 wrote:

dodgy wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The Daily Mail troll machine strikes again. So much delicious ad revenue...

8)

I haven't even clicked on the link, even if I did, it wouldn't work. I have a self imposed firewall rule that blocks access to the Daily Mail Great for catching shortened URLs that point to it.

They're making lots of money from page impressions, visiting the Daily Mail website is tantamount to buying the paper.

Wow, you've gone to alot of effort. I disagree with almost every article in the paper and also their opinions and views on things but I'm not overly bothered that it exists. After all it's just other people's opinion.

I think its a little more than "just other people's opinions". I agree that its not worth getting upset about, but theres something pretty insidious about the Daily Mail and the mildly debasing effect it has on society. It has a wide circulation and does influence people's opinions with its editorial if only by validating some of the more negative sentiments. This article is a case in point, the take home message is basically that its OK to be a bit racist, and that people who are offended by it should lighten up and be thankful its not the 70s. Then theres the constant BS they publish about what causes cancer and what prevents it that totally misleads the its readership about the realities of the disease and the research involved in combating it. People have made blogs on the appalling standards of this paper, theres plenty of evidence for how it is a malign influence.

rick_chasey

Between the Mail and the Sun they have 50% of the daily newspaper circulation.


Just a lil fact there, for you to suck on.

bails87

The Daily Mail: It's not a question of taste.

tailwindhome

Page no longer exists apparently

dodgy

Keith1983 wrote:

dodgy wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The Daily Mail troll machine strikes again. So much delicious ad revenue...

8)

I haven't even clicked on the link, even if I did, it wouldn't work. I have a self imposed firewall rule that blocks access to the Daily Mail Great for catching shortened URLs that point to it.

They're making lots of money from page impressions, visiting the Daily Mail website is tantamount to buying the paper.

Wow, you've gone to alot of effort. I disagree with almost every article in the paper and also their opinions and views on things but I'm not overly bothered that it exists. After all it's just other people's opinion.

A lof of effort? I've just expended more effort writing this reply. Actually, it saves me effort.

Monkeypump

dodgy wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The Daily Mail troll machine strikes again. So much delicious ad revenue...

8)

I haven't even clicked on the link, even if I did, it wouldn't work. I have a self imposed firewall rule that blocks access to the Daily Mail Great for catching shortened URLs that point to it.

They're making lots of money from page impressions, visiting the Daily Mail website is tantamount to buying the paper.

Glad I'm not the only one!

bails87

dodgy wrote:

Keith1983 wrote:

dodgy wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The Daily Mail troll machine strikes again. So much delicious ad revenue...

8)

I haven't even clicked on the link, even if I did, it wouldn't work. I have a self imposed firewall rule that blocks access to the Daily Mail Great for catching shortened URLs that point to it.

They're making lots of money from page impressions, visiting the Daily Mail website is tantamount to buying the paper.

Wow, you've gone to alot of effort. I disagree with almost every article in the paper and also their opinions and views on things but I'm not overly bothered that it exists. After all it's just other people's opinion.

A lof of effort? I've just expended more effort writing this reply. Actually, it saves me effort.

I think you can get a firefox add on that automatically changes any DM and Express pages to pictures of kittens!

BigJimmyB

Rick Chasey wrote:

Between the Mail and the Sun they have 50% of the daily newspaper circulation.


Just a lil fact there, for you to suck on.

http://www.nmauk.co.uk/nma/do/live/fact ... paperID=10

HebdenBiker

DonDaddyD wrote:

IHow about we boycott the Daily Mail for being unacceptable.

If "never read it because it's 50% celebrity gossip and 50% mean-spirited drivel" counts as a boycott, then I already do

DDD, the thrust of the article is basically "black players shouldn't complain about racism because black players from the 80s had it even worse". This is a pretty backward, illogical, mean and old-fashioned point of view, and it's also fairly offensive. But you wouldn't try to ban a newspaper from saying it, would you?

As a slight aside, I remember standing on the Kop at Anfleld back in the day, surrounded by p!ssed Everton supporters (no segregation for derby games) who were throwing bananas and shouting the most foul racist abuse at John Barnes. Even though I was a young kid, I remember being horrified and soon after I lost interest in going to the match.

At that match, most of the bananas fell around Bruce Grobbelaar's goal. Bruce (a white Zimbabwean, incidentally, who knew a thing or two about racial politics) made a point of picking them up and moving them off the pitch, then shaking his head at the crowd. He got a round of applause. Barnes completely ignored the abuse. Grobbelaar and Barnes became my heroes; Grobbelaar for making his point in the way he did, and Barnes for his quiet dignity in the face of appalling abuse.

The only good thing is that, these days, those supporters would be ejected from the ground and the ringleaders prosecuted. And rightly so.

Furthermore, these days Liverpool FC would have protested to the offending club on behalf of their player, and the FA would no doubt have imposed a sanction. It amazes me that, 25 years ago, Barnes' employer did not stand up for him in this way. The reason he put up with the abuse is because he had no choice!

It's incredible to think that, even in our lifetimes, black people (rich footballers or not) had to put up with being racially abused at work.