The Daily Mail’s double-page spread.
BUENOS AIRES —So the leader of the Labour Party and the Daily Mail are at war. Nothing new about that, is there? Well, this time, yes, it seems there is. On Saturday, the staunchly conservative newspaper published an article written by Geoffrey Levy about Ed Miliband’s father, Ralph, a left-wing academic who passed away in 1994. The piece ran with a large, dramatic banner headline: “The man who hated Britain.”
The piece went on to analyze, or at least pretended to analyze, Miliband senior’s well-known political views and personal opinions, declaring that his beliefs should “disturb everyone who loves this country.” It suggested that Miliband junior, a potential prime minister in the future, had embraced socialism as a tribute to his father.
The Labour leader was appalled when he read the piece. His father arrived in Britain as a Jewish refugee, fleeing from the Nazis in mainland Europe. Miliband senior went to war for Britain in World War II. He was on the shores of Normandy on D-Day. His father had raised a family here. In short, Ed wasn’t having it. He phoned the newspaper to complain, arguing that he should be given the right to reply.
According to the Mail’s account, it was a civil conversation and he convinced them that they should print his response. The Labour leader composed his reply and sent it to the newspaper.
“It’s part of our job description as politicians to be criticized and attacked by newspapers, including the Daily Mail. It comes with the territory,” wrote Miliband. “But my Dad is a different matter. He died in 1994. I loved him and he loved Britain. And there is no credible argument in the article or evidence from his life which can remotely justify the lurid headline and its accompanying claim that it would ‘disturb everyone who loves this country.’
“I know they say ‘you can’t libel the dead’ but you can smear them.”
On Tuesday, the Mail was due to print the piece, but those in charge had already decided they weren’t going to back down and if anything, they were going to push it further. They ran a 1,000-word editorial alongside it, slamming Miliband and his father and even reprinted an abridged version of the original article which sparked the row.
This time the newspaper was even harsher. “An evil legacy and why we won’t apologize,” read their new headline. It stuck to its guns and sought to associate Miliband senior’s views with horrors committed under the name of Communism in the past century.
The reaction online was immediate. On Twitter and Facebook, photos of the Mail’s double-page spread did the rounds even before the paper had gone to print. (I dread to think what the newspaper’s sales were like.) The overwhelming majority were people were disgusted by the piece. On the Mail’s world-famous website, even its regular readers left negative comments.
The piece has been widely and better criticized elsewhere over the last two days, so there’s not much for me to add. But one of the most bizzare and appalling things about the editorial was the way in which they characterized the Labour leader. Their language repeatedly sought to portray him as a child.
They said “Red Ed” was “in a strop.” They said pictures of the Labour leader and his wife showed them behaving like “hormonal teenagers.” In asking for a rebuttal, they claimed he had “stamped his feet.” They even claimed that Miliband’s reply was “tetchy and menacing.” (It was anything but.)
This coming from a newspaper that allowed a right to reply, but then added two pieces, with larger headlines I add, alongside it.
Soon, other politicians became involved in the row as they were asked their opinion. Prime Minister David Cameron claimed initially not to have read the piece but defended Miliband’s right to reply.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg tweeted his support: “I support @EdMiliband defending his dad. Politics should be about playing the ball, not the man, certainly not the man’s family.”
On Tuesday night, Labour’s snarling former spin doctor Alastair Campbell and the Mail’s Deputy Editor Jon Steafel faced off on the BBC’s Newsnight programme. It was a feisty exchange, one of the best I’ve seen on the show for quite some time. (Although it did involve a lot of Campbell interrupting the Mail’s chosen defendant.)
Steafal spoke in defence of the piece, but tried to subtly alter the conversation by saying the Mail had shown how Miliband senior hated “British values.” Campbell huffed and puffed, repeatedly slating the Mail, and managed to draw a concession from Steafal that a photograph of Miliband senior’s grave, published alongside Levy’s article on the Mail’s website on Saturday with the gloriously tasteless caption, “grave socialist,” had indeed been an error of judgement.
Campbell however, seemed eager to take on what many consider to be the real villian of the piece, the Mail’s Editor Paul Dacre. He questioned why Dacre wasn’t there himself and said he was a “bully and a coward.” He said he felt sorry for Steafel, as he’d clearly been sent there to read out his boss’ words. Campbell finished by saying the Mail was “the worst of British values, posing as the best.” Ouch.
Dacre is a divisive character in British media circles. He has a notorious reputation. He reportedly delights in dressing down employees, humiliating them in front of colleagues and verbally abusing them. In his excellent book Flat Earth News, journalist Nick Davies tells how staff at the newspaper refer to their morning editorial get-togethers as the “vagina monologues” because of his love of repeatedly using the… well, you can work that one out for yourself.
But there’s another issue in play here, one that the Mail acknowledged itself in its editorial. Miliband has gone to war previously with the press over the phone-hacking scandal and has been a leader in pushing for a new system of independent press regulation, against the views of most of the country’s newspaper publishers.
In its editorial, the Mail said Miliband has a “determination to place the British Press under statutory control,” calling into question his plans. It claimed he seeks to “crush the freedom of the press.”
Of course the Mail doesn’t want the current situation to change. Previous systems of self-regulation have worked out fine for them. Toothless bodies, inaccurate stories and tiny retractions work out fine for them. Dacre himself has sat on the Press Complaints Commission and has been the chairman of the PCC’s Editors’ Code of Practice Committee.
The latest twist in the saga came yesterday. Speaking to Tatler , the chairman of the Daily Mail and General Trust, Viscount Rothermere revealed Dacre would not be stepping down, nor would be fired. After five days of tweets and thousands of column inches complaining about the articles and Dacre himself, it was quietly announced that the 64-year-old had agreed a new contract to continue as the editor of the Mail. Rothermere said Dacre was doing “a brilliant job.”
Whatever happens from now until the next general election, Miliband has laid down a marker. He has included his father as part of his political narrative up to now and he doesn’t want a newspaper, especially one in opposition to his politics, to define him and his father. He’s chosen to take a stand now, well aware that the worst is yet to come. Expect more fireworks before 2015.
Originally published in the Buenos Aires Herald, on Thursday, October 3, 2013.
Link: http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/142036/behind-the-headlines.
© J. GRAINGER, 2013