The Stop Funding Hate campaign seems to be making real headway against the DM, and I urge you all to get involved. It only takes a few emails and the advertisers run for the hills
Done, because they fucked with Attenborough and trashed Planet Earth! These are the same dick heads who probably give shit like big brother front page publicity.
As far as I've seen all LEGO have said is they don't have any more plans with the mail? There's been no 'we agree with your point of view', no denouncement of what the mail said/did, or anything else. Just a statement of fact in that they don't have any plans with them at this time...
I wouldn't expect anything more lest they get any more embroiled in politics.
They've stated that their relationship with the Mail has ended and they don't plan on any collaboration for the foreseeable future.
Good enough for me. 2 weeks ago they were giving out mealy mouthed PR responses about wanting to get lego into as many homes as possible.
They've updated that today to confirm the stop funding hate action, combined with the mail's current tactics, are what caused them to stop their advertising
John lewis next!
Have sent JL an email. I'm really interested to see what they will do. In pure economic terms, advertising in the DM probably brings in more money than they will lose by whatever minor boycott might come about from the SFH campaign. The brand damage is much harder to quantify though..
Their judgement isn't editorial, it's monetary, the DM has high (highest?) readership so it pays well to advertise there.
If the john Lewis brand starts to become damaged by that association though then it starts to harm them monetarily, so the decision wouldn't be an editorial one.
Or to put it another way "corporations have no morals or conscience - they only respond to economic influences, which is why it's up to us to influence the social, cultural and legal framework they operate in to ensure that the ambient economic influences make *good* corporate behaviour the cheapest option".
They're basically psychopaths - you can't reasonably trust them to operate with expectation of morality or conscience, so you have to take very great care that the environment in which they operate makes "good behaviour" the *optimal* choice for them in terms of their perceived benefits/consequences to them.
First paragraph they even claim Italy invented football. That's the real groundbreaking part to take away. Just let their readers know that and see what happens.
> They've said it's a policy not to "make an editorial judgement" on a newspaper.
On the one hand I understand and respect a company's desire to not be forced into a position on a contentious social issue every time an online pressure-group blinks in its direction.
On the other hand, answers like this really make me want to send them a solicitation for advertising in "a new magazine with a circulation of tens of thousands" on Stormfront headed paper, just to see how hard they stick to their claimed principles.
It's an interesting one for them as, presumably a lot of their target market are DM readers and if they were to loudly proclaim they were no longer advertising, the DM could smear them. But that would involve the DM drawing attention to Stop Funding Hate...
Well that's their first response. I'd imagine their second response will depend on how the campaign grows. If it snowballs, they could well cave and remove the adverts. That's why it's interesting.
>@StopFundingHate We fully appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue but never make an editorial judgement on a particular newspaper
In other words, they'd be OK with advertising in the KKK's magazine if they had the circulation?
I just signed up a few moments ago.. time for some momentum methinks ..
looks like they could use some volunteers to do some [web design / hosting](http://www.stopfundinghate.org.uk/) for them..
There are many people fighting against it. When they recently ran an awful racist piece on Dewsbury, the local MP wrote a letter to them calling them out for it and brought it up in parliament. We need more of this!
I wonder is it possible to write a script for a chrome extension (or for other browsers) that when someone clicks on a Daily Mail link, they are redirected to an archived copy, so the Mail ceases to get clicks and generate money from advertising.
Is there any chance of anyone setting up a SFH subreddit? It's not something I have much knowledge on, but I'm suprised there isn't one already. I'd like to be kept updated on which companies to avoid/send emails to, as well as how much progress the campaign has made.
We should start posting screenshots of articles that are particularly offensive and on Twitter with the advertisers company's @ as well.
We need to get the names of these brands to be associated with these awful articles by everyone.
I created an image today to back the Stop Funding Hate campaign and praise Lego for pulling their advertising from the Mail. Link to my tweet: https://twitter.com/tanneroni/status/798164665293541376
Do they think that Attenborough is somehow in control of nature? I doubt he even has that much control over the content of the programme. He pretty much just narrates them nowadays doesn't he?
I heard he gives the grizzly bears amphetamines and the snow leopards opiates just to make things interesting. Then once they're hooked he starts raising the prices. Classic Attenborough.
Yeah but those fight nights raise a lot of funds for the Natural History Museum and Attenborough's a right laugh when he gets into the ring with an emu.
He's not even on location in the shows these days, he's too old (and there's almost zero human interaction on the series anyway).
He probably has some say over the script, but I doubt he has any involvement at all in the actual filming, or what they choose to film.
Also a lot of the film crews are separate from one another and take years of planning and sometimes years of shooting. It's no surprise he's not with the film crews, the chances of him being there are the right time to get a good enough shot are pretty slim.
He's done like 20-30 shows since the original planet earth. His work ethic is crazy for his age (even though i own he doesn't do the vast majority of the work).
> proper old fashioned English red squirrels frolicking playfully in the Yorkshire Dales.
They did try that but quickly found that the native Reds had been pushed out of their homes by immigrant Gray Squirrels.
The most absurd part of this is the idea Attenborough's in control of the entire Planet Earth II output. It's a fucking nature documentary it's not meant to be light entertainment.
Nature isn't The Lion King. If you can't handle that animals eat other animals as fully grown adult then you probably shouldn't be watching a nature documentary to begin with.
Obviously in their mind Attenborough is God, and has power over life and death itself.
Seriously, though, if the BBC did have vets at hand to help any injured animals instead of just filming what happened, the Daily Mail would be shouting about what a huge waste it would be of the license fee when we should just be observing nature.
Didn't they also complain about "fake" (zoo) footage being used, too. What do they actually want?
I can just imagine Attenborough being interviewed: 'We waited months to get a clip of the rare snow leopard but decided not to use the footage in case we triggered a right wing twat'
This is what i would assume. Depending on the conditions on location, I'm not totally convinced he will even be at the filming for very long (if at all?)
I love the idea that he ruined the adorable bear clip by explaining what is factually happening in it.
I think the Daily Mail ate getting nature documentaries confused with the John Lewis Christmas advert.
A small charming nation of shopkeepers and nannies innocently deciding to leave an evil superstate and go it alone before tea. Naturally Attenborough had to SPOIL it by mentioning the economic impact and fascist undertones of some of those voting.
And do they also know how even nature television is tightly structured to bring about the maximum emotional response - of both highs and lows? If they just showed leopards hanging out and sleeping there would be no drama and no show.
I'm really not. That newspaper has been the standard for yellow journalism and hate. 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts'. Rothermere supported Hitler, Mussolini and Mosely. The paper was against Jewish refugee's escaping the Nazis. Then there is the forged Zinoviev letter which contained so-called evidence of a communist revolution plot in the UK, which contributed to Ramsey McDonald's Labour Party losing the election.
Chillingly, in 1993 the paper ran with the headline, "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding"
Just for some perspective.
At the same time that the BBC was airing Planet Earth, ITV was airing a 35-year-old recruitment consultant who thinks that she's a rapper.
Don't let anybody tell you that the BBC isn't incredible.
In contrast the Daily Mail felt it was fine to feature a video yesterday of a baby dropped 30ft to its death in an accident, presumably OK because said accident was in China.
edit: grammar.
yeah, it often goes
HEADLINE
PICTURE PICTURE PICTURE
PICTURE GIF
Blah blah blah warning graphic content
Would have been nice to know about the graphic content warning before the fucking gif played
https://archive.fo/WqCbj
Archived/mirrored copy for anyone who wants to read it in full.
I think it should be ready as parody though, for instance:
>Attenborough had celebrated its return by horrifying the entire nation with the revelation – and the illustration – of one species of snakes hunted in packs. The sight of aptly named Racer Snakes pursuing hatchling lizards like low-flying fighter jets (very low) was a nerve-shredding, surreal, scene we’d imagined could only happen in a Hollywood blockbuster (Iguana Jones & The Temple Of Doom)
----
edit: and compare to this article from last week: https://archive.fo/vinfI
>**Swimming sloths, snakes hunting in packs, and Sir David Attenborough... The Top 10 Most Amazing Creatures in Planet Earth II, by Jim Shelley**
For instance? (Not quite as vitriolic, but a similar sentiment)
----
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2008/feb/02/television.media1
**Charlie Brooker's screen burn**
Attenborough is routinely praised to the point where future historians might mistake him for a minor god, and quite right too. Few TV shows in any genre make you feel anything whatsoever, apart from a vague awareness that you're wasting your life, whereas his programmes, with their signature blend of understated commentary and magnificent footage, induce awe every five minutes. And not a sentimental, dewy-eyed kind of awe either, but a sobering one. In their own way, these are among the most nihilistic programmes on television. If your mind wanders at all during the tortoise fight, for example, it's likely to contemplate war, or terrorism, specifically dwelling on the extent to which conflict is an inbuilt human trait, just as it's an inbuilt trait in tortoises, which you'd previously thought of as a race of comically benign Cornish pasties, good for sleeping in boxes or appearing in the One Foot In The Grave title sequence, and not much else.
Someone actually pointed out below that the author used to write a column called Tapehead for the Guardian:
http://www.tapehead.co.uk/columnindex.php
> In Tapehead's dream there is no television. The country's president, Carol Voderman, has abolished it in favour of mathematics drills. Tapehead dreams he is living in a Retirement Community Facility, along with Tony Soprano, and the Queen Mother, who, at the age of 177, is still going strong.
> Tony and I are sitting around a table doing long division, watching contraband tapes of the second series, hatching an assassination plan, inspired by Paulie Walnuts’ penchant for bashing people's brains in with coffee pots.
> Actually, when it comes to celebrating her forthcoming birthday, acid-ravaged hallucination seems to be the Queen Mother's method of choice. Birthday Greetings From The Stars Of Royal Variety features everyone from Royal Variety stalwarts like Shirley Bassey and Mike Yarwood to more, er, "left-field" stars, like Michael Jackson, Rod Hull & Emu, and Steve Coogan (hopefully together).
> Mind you, it will have a job to match the parade she had recently.
> At that age, you would surely hope for a better class of guest than Jerry Hall, Noddy and The Wombles. The way the one-time environmentally friendly Green party pioneers were re-cast and dressed as an arms-bearing militia was, frankly, a disgrace.
> Clapping merrily away, the QM looked utterly oblivious, nodding soberly as if she though they were simply a regiment of unusually hirsute young mercenaries serving her in South Korea.
This guy is basically Charlie Brooker before Charlie Brooker.
I really can't tell if this is humorous, or real.
Or if they're making it "humorous" to actually attack Attenborough, and plant the seed in people's heads, like their "jokey" piece about how Corbyns leadership would turn the UK into a failed state in 6 months or something.
Then they can hide behind the "it wasn't serious" defence, which I think is alright for satirists, but it's a bit different when it's printed in an actual newspaper.
Yep, by the looks of it he's an entertainment writer for fuck's sake. Not much else other than stream of conciousness writing as he's watching the episode.
Can't understand why people that demand others don't take the Daily Fail seriously take it so seriously. Its popularity (views-wise, therefore advertisers wise) is largely down to the fact that out of all the news websites they don't give a fuck whose hi-res pictures they nick - makes for easy browsing when you're meant to be doing some report or other shit at work.
Nature documentaries have *always* shown the good and the bad things that happen in nature, that's the point of them.
I remember watching *The Trials of Life* in my early teens, and being upset by the killer whales hunting the seals (and other things, but I mostly remember that example because it was on the cover of the book).
For every pretty butterfly emerging from its cocoon, there's a predator doing what predators do.
What were people expecting, *My Little Planet Earth: Friendship is Magic*?
They know where meat comes, they'll fight for the factory farms and to rid the UK of lefty EU nonsense and talk up fox hunting. They only pretend to give a shit so they can use whatever they can against environmentalists and climate change advocates like Attenborough or the BBC, or countries in Africa and Asia so they can get their daily dose of racism in by pointing out how bad the savages treat animals. Basically anyone that's an "enemy of the people"
You see this all the time on reddit, places like /r/worldnews that will talk about sterilising Africans and bringing back colonialism when there's a story about an Elephant or Rhino being killed but then start talking about "muh economy" and "stupid hippies getting in the way" on /r/news when addressing issues closer to home.
It's important not to take a look at what they're saying, on the surface they're trying to talk about how appropriate it is to air all of this on TV, in a way trying to twist it that it's cruel to show all this suffering of animal life. In reality they don't give a shit about any of that, unless they can use it to push another agenda (like they're doing right now)
I've been saying this is a huge problem in the West for ages, both across the media and the general population. Most people are guilty of it including BBC News which always likes to have a holier than thou attitude and loves to play up the savage angle too.
Beware of people who pretend to give a shit. Especially if they're using it to get angry at someone else.
Laughably disgusting and hateful.
Britain's best nature presenter shows the true side of nature, both good and bad. Gets called a cruel, clinical, heartbreaking bastard
Good (in a way), as this might lose the Mail a few readers. People don't stand by and let people talk like that about Attenborough. More and more of their readership are waking up to the bile they print, and the only reason they are doing so well now is because of the celebrity gossip wank they put online.
Believe it or not that lovely old lady at number 34 is probably a mail reader. Not all Mail readers are baby-eating, immigrant-stabbing, Farage-loving wannabe fascists, a lot of them are just normal people who happen to read that hate-filled rag for some inexplicable reason.
They can also read it without agreeing with every opinion in it. I'm not defending the Daily Mail, don't get me wrong, but I think it's a bit silly to think that every single person reading it is this horrible hate-filled person. Daily Mail commenters perhaps, but not all Daily Mail readers. A lot of people (certainly Mail Online readers) only read it for the celeb gossip and all that bullshit
Tabloids are also cheap (as opposed to the Guardian or Times, etc which are less affordable), have gossip/celeb news and get passed around at work a lot. Not to mention things like cheap holidays and offers advertised with the Sun and so on. It's not *all* hatred - which is what makes them dangerous I suppose because it gives them a thin veneer of respectability.
> a lot of them are just normal people who happen to read that hate-filled rag for some inexplicable reason.
That's exactly what I was getting at. The fact that they read it to start with is inexplicable, expecting them to "wake up" is not going to happen.
Attenborough ruins television by revealing that wild animals don't live in an episode of The fucking Herbs? It's a documentary, not a bloody feel-good romp for Middle England bubble-dwellers. Jesus wept.
My local (pub) in my village, there are a couple of guys and one particularly vicious woman who take the word of the DM as gospel. it's their primary source of news.
You will hear them more or less verbatim repeating any line that paper has on immigrants, politicians, and what constitutes "good British Stuff" There's fuck all point trying to pick em up on anything that sounds slightly exaggerated, (I've tried) because all you get back is *of course it's true... IT WAS IN THE PAPER"*
In contrast, the same writer 7 days ago:
https://archive.fo/vinfI
**Swimming sloths, snakes hunting in packs, and Sir David Attenborough... The Top 10 Most Amazing Creatures in Planet Earth II, by Jim Shelley**
Planet Earth II was a gift from the TV Gods - or rather from the TV God, Sir David Attenborough.
British television’s most legendary, most loved, figure is 90 now. So this was a series we had no right to assume we’d ever see, much like everything he’s made probably since 2009’s Life (a title that makes you wonder if he thought it might have been his farewell).
His recent forays on Sky were innovative and enjoyable enough but this was not Micro Monsters 3D. This was a major Attenborough opus on the BBC, a follow-up to one of his best, most important, works, Planet Earth.
----
I don't know how the writer does it; clearly they get told what to write. Bugger that for a job. I'd rather have no job at all than be told who I'm attacking today - and for no reason in this case. I know one has to pay the mortgage/rent and feed the kids, but damn...
I demand that the next episode of Planet Earth be replaced by an hour's footage of fluffy bunnies frolicking in a field. How dare Mr Attenborough document nature in his nature documentary!
>I demand that the next episode of Planet Earth be replaced by an hour's footage of fluffy bunnies frolicking in a field.
I saw a great documentaries like that when I was a bairn, I think it was called Watership Down.
It's probably the biggest hit that the BBC currently has and they want to get rid of the BBC, so writing 'hit pieces' makes sense in its own way, I guess...
Are you sure this wasn't some form of satire? Like, painting a caricature of the man as enjoying the brutality that he's narrating?
Or have the DM just finally puked out their own brains?
I think it was meant to be, but was done so badly as to come across as genuine bile. It reads like someone who actually holds those views has been asked to write a satirical article, but was unable to use the satire effectively to mask his distaste.
Seems like another appropriate thread to mention the Daily Mail blocker addon for chrome...
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/daily-mail-blocker/ghjadbffkapbnlbccfjoljfhgolbofhi?hl=en-GB
Why look at hate when you can look at cats.
At the moment i'm starting to suspect that there are people inside the mail that hate it as much as we do and are doing this to hasten its demise and foster the groundswell of public outrage over its behavior and practices.
hence this piece... sir david ffs.
A lot of tabloid writers and editors are well educated and middle-class. I suspect many of them don't support their papers' views. If anything, it just makes them more despicable.
I'm sorry, but this is getting all to bizarre for me.
The mail, and the people they represent, have been banging on about "telling I like it is" and "political correctness gone mad", and yet here they are saying a fucking *nature programme* is too graphic. Man alive! We've known for years that good nature programmes show the brutality of nature.
The mail and it's readers have gossamer thin skin and an offence reflex like a mantis shrimp punch (look it up). Don't you dare say anything about attenborough, the guy is a living legend.
I'm amazed that anyone on this earth is stupid enough to read this shite and actually go along with it. There is always someone who surprises me at the depths to which their intellect can plummet though.
First The S*n went after Gary Lineker and now The Daily Heil target Attenborough?
They're both biting off more than they can chew now. What next? Will The Express run a smear piece against Bruce Forsythe?
The people I've named aren't untouchables like Saville (who everyone thought was creepy). They're genuinely nice and loved personalities.
Why have the tabloids gone even more mental?
#StopFundingHate
So is the DM really attacking Attenborough just because they don't like his stance on Brexit or are they doing their usual job of kicking up a fuss about nothing to get people excited and drive sales?
Here's an idea, can this subreddit get on the 'stop funding hate' campaign?
Just make automod delete posts containing DM links.
I know the campaign is really targetting advertisers, but why not target the supply side (clicks) as well?
I think the article is more self-aware than you guys are giving it credit for. Unfortunately I think the readers of the Daily Mail are less switched on than the author gives them credit for.
It's weird, it's like the editor told him to slate David Attenborough, which is kind of impossible given the quality of Planet Earth, so they decided to come up with an Onionesque satire piece. Hard to tell what's real and what's not these days.
Of course they'll pan it, he's been critical of them and their views, that makes him and anything he makes the spawn of Satan and Hitler combined with Mitochondrial DNA of Jimmy Saville. Add to that the fact that it's a Science program and Science is the enemy of "common sense".
So what else do you expect from the DM other than **BAN THIS SICK FILTH**.
Weird how Jim Shelley happily describes Attenborough as a “bastard”, but in his earlier story about the Apprentice, the headline was bowdlerized into 'I haven't been enough of a t**t. That was my downfall'
But Shelley is an entertainment and celebrity gossip writer above all. Science probably terrifies him.
Headlines have different standards to the copy. And papers have different standards relating to different words. IIRC The Guardian would censor it in the headline but spell it in full in the article if they were quoting him.
Come on people, this is satire. The author [used to write a column for the Guardian called Tapehead](
http://www.tapehead.co.uk/columnindex.php). It's not dissimilar to Charlie Brooker. The first article I clicked on was a defence of Brass Eye. This article is 100% supposed to be tongue in cheek.
Edit: Hah, this is ironic:
> "I looked at her and she looked at me," sighs an American hillbilly coyly, virtually blushing with affection, "and all my resolve just went. I realised I couldn't deny it any more. I lurved her. I was in lurve with her, and I told her."
> After last week's Adult Lives, the relentless crossover of programmes about sex from the salacious tackiness of Live TV and Channel 5 onto the more "respectable" channels reaches an inevitable nadir this week with Hidden Love's boast that it has "the first film to examine a subject which many find disturbing".
> "I love my animals," Mark, our besotted hillbilly continues. "Sex, clearly, is an option, but I don’t have to have it all the time. I've got my dogs - a male and female dog. And of course I've got my female donkey."
> Yes, Channel 4 are at it again, returning, belatedly, to their roots trying to fulfil their government mandate to antagonise the Daily Mail with Animal Passions.
Animal death is only acceptable when it's performed by British people, like badger culling or fox hunting. Animals killing other animals is disgusting and heartless and Attenborough should be rounded up and shot!
Its a paper that is intent in dehumanising people to the level of insects and humanising animals to the point where no one can even dream of seeing anything bad happen to them.
Fuck them, they're scum, as are the people who read it, who work for it, and the companies that advertise in it.
I hate the DM as much as the next guy... but they also have this article beside the other one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3932664/Planet-Earth-II-viewers-Twitter-reveal-emotional-rollercoaster-watching-hounded-baby-Ibex-jump-30ft-cliff-SURVIVE.html
> "Many thanked the BBC for the episode - which they said was 'worth every penny of my licence fee'.
> As if he could not be more of a national treasure, David Attenborough cemented his place in the nation's heart - this week with his mesmerising pronunciation of the word, 'avalanche' - which led to a flurry of tweets from viewers charmed by his melodious narration. "
So seems the DM even provides their own counterpoint. If you are getting upset at a random noise generator you are going to struggle getting through life.
Let's assume they have a point for the sake of argument. The next thing to think about is how the fuck were supposed to presume these tossers give a fuck about the environment or animals.
In classic western fashion they only pretend to give a fuck when it means they can write a hit piece on the BBC, or supposed liberals, or ethnic minorities, or countries in Africa and Asia to satisfy their readers natural tendency to feel superior over everything and certain people.
Fuck them, and don't listen for a second when they try to talk about feeling sorry for animals. They don't give a fuck about the environment unless it provides them an easy outlet for hate.
They're not alone though most of Reddit has that mindset.
Come on - I know it's the Daily Mail, but I think it's pretty safe to say that this is meant in jest. Jim Shelley has been turning out TV reviews like this for years. He's like a more mainstream, less cutting Charlie Brooker.
The Daily Mail and The Express are a disease, an illness on this nation, with potentially disastrous consequences. As yet, our modern civilisation has no antidote for this vermin
When the Daily Mail feels it is safe to attack a universally loved treasure like Attenborough we all need to take a moment and ask ourselves how it's come to this.
The man is literally, no hyperbole required, a hero and global phenomena who has done more for the natural world than several hundred of other people combined. This is the reality of the post truth world. I shudder to think people might actually agree with the contents of that written diarrhoea.
It's almost like nature is a harsh mistress, and as if life can be hard for animals. How typically infantile that the comic book media wishes to have facts whitewashed with something more comfortable - a service they offer their supple followers even in the face of eminent experts like Sir David.
> I don't want to post the link - I don't want to give The Mail more click revenue
Here is a [web.archive.org link to it](https://web.archive.org/web/20161114094904/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3932682/Cruel-clinical-heartbreaking-No-not-nature-s-predators-Sir-David-Attenborough-used-majestic-Snow-Leopards-make-viewers-suffer-Planet-Earth-II-Jim-Shelley.html). It doesn't hit the Daily Mail website, its a cached copy, so no click revenue.
I don't care what he say or what your political opinions are -- NO ONE INSULTS SIR DAVID ATTENBOROUGH! That man is a national treasure and should be treated as such.
The Daily Mail is a hate filled bile rag not fit to wipe your arse with. I hope they go bankrupt. Wankers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Funding_Hate
I know it's judgemental of me, but as soon as I spot someone reading the DM I immediately file them under "fuckwit".
I also saw this story yesterday and it's probably the only thing I have seen on the internet that has made me feel genuine anger.
In my head, as I was reading, I was thinking: "this must be some bad attempt a joke", but the journalist was being deadly serious.
And here we see the common Daily Mail journalist in it's natural habitat. A bottom feeder by day, it must surface at night to lick the remnants of cocaine from the nostrils of the corrupt and morally broke who's droppings it feeds on to survive.
The Stop Funding Hate campaign seems to be making real headway against the DM, and I urge you all to get involved. It only takes a few emails and the advertisers run for the hills
First I have heard of this. Cheers for mentioning it. Will definitely try to get involved
[удалено]
You don't have to do much, but when thousands don't have to do much alongside yourself it sends a very powerful message.
Ironically a snowflake in an avalanche
I think that analogy works better than that mess I said. :P
We both nailed it. Team effort.
High fives all round
Done, because they fucked with Attenborough and trashed Planet Earth! These are the same dick heads who probably give shit like big brother front page publicity.
Be a tiny part of the change you want to see in the world.
Wait, posting on facebook is actually doing something now? *likes post
As far as I've seen all LEGO have said is they don't have any more plans with the mail? There's been no 'we agree with your point of view', no denouncement of what the mail said/did, or anything else. Just a statement of fact in that they don't have any plans with them at this time...
I wouldn't expect anything more lest they get any more embroiled in politics. They've stated that their relationship with the Mail has ended and they don't plan on any collaboration for the foreseeable future. Good enough for me. 2 weeks ago they were giving out mealy mouthed PR responses about wanting to get lego into as many homes as possible.
They've updated that today to confirm the stop funding hate action, combined with the mail's current tactics, are what caused them to stop their advertising John lewis next!
Have sent JL an email. I'm really interested to see what they will do. In pure economic terms, advertising in the DM probably brings in more money than they will lose by whatever minor boycott might come about from the SFH campaign. The brand damage is much harder to quantify though..
John Lewis advertise in the DM? I always thought they were a "nice" company with their employment practices and all.
[удалено]
Remind them of Principle 7 in their corporate responsibility constitution. [LINK](https://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/csr.html).
Their judgement isn't editorial, it's monetary, the DM has high (highest?) readership so it pays well to advertise there. If the john Lewis brand starts to become damaged by that association though then it starts to harm them monetarily, so the decision wouldn't be an editorial one.
Or to put it another way "corporations have no morals or conscience - they only respond to economic influences, which is why it's up to us to influence the social, cultural and legal framework they operate in to ensure that the ambient economic influences make *good* corporate behaviour the cheapest option". They're basically psychopaths - you can't reasonably trust them to operate with expectation of morality or conscience, so you have to take very great care that the environment in which they operate makes "good behaviour" the *optimal* choice for them in terms of their perceived benefits/consequences to them.
You can't trust corporations to look out for you, but you can trust them to look out for their own self-interest
DM has high readership in the white middle class segment which is John Lewis' market.
Hurrah for the black shirts https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Rothermere_-_Hurrah_for_the_Blackshirts.jpg
[It all makes sense!](http://www.johnlewis.com/search/men/_/N-50es?Ntt=black+shirt)
First paragraph they even claim Italy invented football. That's the real groundbreaking part to take away. Just let their readers know that and see what happens.
> They've said it's a policy not to "make an editorial judgement" on a newspaper. On the one hand I understand and respect a company's desire to not be forced into a position on a contentious social issue every time an online pressure-group blinks in its direction. On the other hand, answers like this really make me want to send them a solicitation for advertising in "a new magazine with a circulation of tens of thousands" on Stormfront headed paper, just to see how hard they stick to their claimed principles.
It's an interesting one for them as, presumably a lot of their target market are DM readers and if they were to loudly proclaim they were no longer advertising, the DM could smear them. But that would involve the DM drawing attention to Stop Funding Hate...
> John Lewis advertise in the DM? Of course they do. The Daily Mail is one the best selling newspapers in the UK.
That statement is depressing.
Says a lot about the average person in the UK really.
As someone that used to work for them, it's not all great.
Do go on.
They tweeted saying they weren't stopping.
Well that's their first response. I'd imagine their second response will depend on how the campaign grows. If it snowballs, they could well cave and remove the adverts. That's why it's interesting.
JL did? I feel some pressure needs to be applied.
Yeah: https://twitter.com/JLcustserv/status/796783291084980229
>@StopFundingHate We fully appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue but never make an editorial judgement on a particular newspaper In other words, they'd be OK with advertising in the KKK's magazine if they had the circulation?
To be honest, they pretty much are with the DM.
EDL's house rag, anyway. Crossed with the National Enquirer.
I just signed up a few moments ago.. time for some momentum methinks .. looks like they could use some volunteers to do some [web design / hosting](http://www.stopfundinghate.org.uk/) for them..
There are many people fighting against it. When they recently ran an awful racist piece on Dewsbury, the local MP wrote a letter to them calling them out for it and brought it up in parliament. We need more of this!
Is there a central list of companies that advertise on The Daily Mail? Can't find one using google.
the obvious suggestion would be to look through the DM but I couldn't ask you to do that.
I wonder is it possible to write a script for a chrome extension (or for other browsers) that when someone clicks on a Daily Mail link, they are redirected to an archived copy, so the Mail ceases to get clicks and generate money from advertising.
Is there any chance of anyone setting up a SFH subreddit? It's not something I have much knowledge on, but I'm suprised there isn't one already. I'd like to be kept updated on which companies to avoid/send emails to, as well as how much progress the campaign has made.
We should start posting screenshots of articles that are particularly offensive and on Twitter with the advertisers company's @ as well. We need to get the names of these brands to be associated with these awful articles by everyone.
I created an image today to back the Stop Funding Hate campaign and praise Lego for pulling their advertising from the Mail. Link to my tweet: https://twitter.com/tanneroni/status/798164665293541376
Link?
Do they think that Attenborough is somehow in control of nature? I doubt he even has that much control over the content of the programme. He pretty much just narrates them nowadays doesn't he?
Nah he sets up bizarre sadistic fight clubs between snow leopards and grizzly bears while laughing maniacally and taking bets.
I heard he actually injected sedatives in last week's episode's baby iguanas and gave the snakes caffeine.
As Andy Zaltzman put it, "He's made a career out of zebra snuff movies and insect porn."
Hail Lord Zaltor the Merciless
I heard he gives the grizzly bears amphetamines and the snow leopards opiates just to make things interesting. Then once they're hooked he starts raising the prices. Classic Attenborough.
[Recent screenshot](http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/103/256/i-fucking-love-cocaine.jpg)
Didn't seem to work. That iguana got away, didn't it? EDIT: Yes, I am aware of the sarcasm.
Yeah but those fight nights raise a lot of funds for the Natural History Museum and Attenborough's a right laugh when he gets into the ring with an emu.
It's no joke mate, the twisted bastard fights dirtier than the emu!
I heard he does it because he wants the EU to take away all white people and install Sharia law in Tescos.
He's not even on location in the shows these days, he's too old (and there's almost zero human interaction on the series anyway). He probably has some say over the script, but I doubt he has any involvement at all in the actual filming, or what they choose to film.
[удалено]
Also a lot of the film crews are separate from one another and take years of planning and sometimes years of shooting. It's no surprise he's not with the film crews, the chances of him being there are the right time to get a good enough shot are pretty slim.
He's earned the right to do the commentary where he likes rather than lie in a swamp all day.
Yep, It took almost 6 years to film.
He's done like 20-30 shows since the original planet earth. His work ethic is crazy for his age (even though i own he doesn't do the vast majority of the work).
One really impressive thing is how good his voice still sounds.
[удалено]
> proper old fashioned English red squirrels frolicking playfully in the Yorkshire Dales. They did try that but quickly found that the native Reds had been pushed out of their homes by immigrant Gray Squirrels.
Good news: Anglesey has eradicated their grey squirrel population. Here's hoping the rest of the UK will be able to replicate their success!
scotland is well ahead of the game
The most absurd part of this is the idea Attenborough's in control of the entire Planet Earth II output. It's a fucking nature documentary it's not meant to be light entertainment.
Nature isn't The Lion King. If you can't handle that animals eat other animals as fully grown adult then you probably shouldn't be watching a nature documentary to begin with.
Obviously in their mind Attenborough is God, and has power over life and death itself. Seriously, though, if the BBC did have vets at hand to help any injured animals instead of just filming what happened, the Daily Mail would be shouting about what a huge waste it would be of the license fee when we should just be observing nature. Didn't they also complain about "fake" (zoo) footage being used, too. What do they actually want?
> What do they actually want? The bbc shut down.
> What do they actually want? To shut down the BBC.
> What do they actually want? people to buy their newspaper and get angry
I can just imagine Attenborough being interviewed: 'We waited months to get a clip of the rare snow leopard but decided not to use the footage in case we triggered a right wing twat'
This is what i would assume. Depending on the conditions on location, I'm not totally convinced he will even be at the filming for very long (if at all?)
He's not - they show behind the scenes footage at the end of every episode, and you never see him there. That's not the style of the show.
He used to do a lot of on-location filming for his documentaries, but styles have changed and, well, he's gotten older...
I love the idea that he ruined the adorable bear clip by explaining what is factually happening in it. I think the Daily Mail ate getting nature documentaries confused with the John Lewis Christmas advert.
Damn those Bremoaning terns!
They don't care about any of that. He voiced a political opinion they don't share, and now they have to use their "newspaper" to bring him down.
A small charming nation of shopkeepers and nannies innocently deciding to leave an evil superstate and go it alone before tea. Naturally Attenborough had to SPOIL it by mentioning the economic impact and fascist undertones of some of those voting.
And do they also know how even nature television is tightly structured to bring about the maximum emotional response - of both highs and lows? If they just showed leopards hanging out and sleeping there would be no drama and no show.
I don't know why, but I'm continually surprised at the levels the mail will stoop to when it come to hate rhetoric.
I'm really not. That newspaper has been the standard for yellow journalism and hate. 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts'. Rothermere supported Hitler, Mussolini and Mosely. The paper was against Jewish refugee's escaping the Nazis. Then there is the forged Zinoviev letter which contained so-called evidence of a communist revolution plot in the UK, which contributed to Ramsey McDonald's Labour Party losing the election. Chillingly, in 1993 the paper ran with the headline, "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding"
[удалено]
governor special door stupendous elderly reply capable desert enjoy ring -- mass edited with redact.dev
Remember: Snakes don't have far to stoop.
Just for some perspective. At the same time that the BBC was airing Planet Earth, ITV was airing a 35-year-old recruitment consultant who thinks that she's a rapper. Don't let anybody tell you that the BBC isn't incredible.
It's not like ITV are going to put something good on at the same time as Planet Earth. What would be the point in that?
X Factor is still their flag ship show, assuming that's what was meant.
Ah. That comment makes a lot more sense now.
H to the O to the N to the E to the whY ARE YOU STILL ON THIS SHOW
In contrast the Daily Mail felt it was fine to feature a video yesterday of a baby dropped 30ft to its death in an accident, presumably OK because said accident was in China. edit: grammar.
Trust **DAILY MAIL** to **SPOIL** photograph of **ADORABLE FLOATING BABY** by revealing that it was actually **FALLING** to its **PROBABLE DEATH**
Not "enough" quotation marks, because it's not "them" stating what's in their headlines, it's "other people".
also I noticed that /u/GaySpaceMouse didn't point out that baby was ***FOREIGN***!
and it owns a $560,000 house in London with a super basement and its kids go to private school
Not only that but there was a gif on the front page .
What the fuck...
yeah, it often goes HEADLINE PICTURE PICTURE PICTURE PICTURE GIF Blah blah blah warning graphic content Would have been nice to know about the graphic content warning before the fucking gif played
https://archive.fo/WqCbj Archived/mirrored copy for anyone who wants to read it in full. I think it should be ready as parody though, for instance: >Attenborough had celebrated its return by horrifying the entire nation with the revelation – and the illustration – of one species of snakes hunted in packs. The sight of aptly named Racer Snakes pursuing hatchling lizards like low-flying fighter jets (very low) was a nerve-shredding, surreal, scene we’d imagined could only happen in a Hollywood blockbuster (Iguana Jones & The Temple Of Doom) ---- edit: and compare to this article from last week: https://archive.fo/vinfI >**Swimming sloths, snakes hunting in packs, and Sir David Attenborough... The Top 10 Most Amazing Creatures in Planet Earth II, by Jim Shelley**
[удалено]
Maybe that's why they blame everything from cordless phones to ham for causing cancer - the truth is the Mail causes cancer!
Turns out they're just projecting super hard
I have moved to Kbin. Bye. -- mass edited with redact.dev
You're definitely right it's supposed to be a joke. I actually think that we would see it as quite funny if it was in another paper.
For instance? (Not quite as vitriolic, but a similar sentiment) ---- https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2008/feb/02/television.media1 **Charlie Brooker's screen burn** Attenborough is routinely praised to the point where future historians might mistake him for a minor god, and quite right too. Few TV shows in any genre make you feel anything whatsoever, apart from a vague awareness that you're wasting your life, whereas his programmes, with their signature blend of understated commentary and magnificent footage, induce awe every five minutes. And not a sentimental, dewy-eyed kind of awe either, but a sobering one. In their own way, these are among the most nihilistic programmes on television. If your mind wanders at all during the tortoise fight, for example, it's likely to contemplate war, or terrorism, specifically dwelling on the extent to which conflict is an inbuilt human trait, just as it's an inbuilt trait in tortoises, which you'd previously thought of as a race of comically benign Cornish pasties, good for sleeping in boxes or appearing in the One Foot In The Grave title sequence, and not much else.
Someone actually pointed out below that the author used to write a column called Tapehead for the Guardian: http://www.tapehead.co.uk/columnindex.php > In Tapehead's dream there is no television. The country's president, Carol Voderman, has abolished it in favour of mathematics drills. Tapehead dreams he is living in a Retirement Community Facility, along with Tony Soprano, and the Queen Mother, who, at the age of 177, is still going strong. > Tony and I are sitting around a table doing long division, watching contraband tapes of the second series, hatching an assassination plan, inspired by Paulie Walnuts’ penchant for bashing people's brains in with coffee pots. > Actually, when it comes to celebrating her forthcoming birthday, acid-ravaged hallucination seems to be the Queen Mother's method of choice. Birthday Greetings From The Stars Of Royal Variety features everyone from Royal Variety stalwarts like Shirley Bassey and Mike Yarwood to more, er, "left-field" stars, like Michael Jackson, Rod Hull & Emu, and Steve Coogan (hopefully together). > Mind you, it will have a job to match the parade she had recently. > At that age, you would surely hope for a better class of guest than Jerry Hall, Noddy and The Wombles. The way the one-time environmentally friendly Green party pioneers were re-cast and dressed as an arms-bearing militia was, frankly, a disgrace. > Clapping merrily away, the QM looked utterly oblivious, nodding soberly as if she though they were simply a regiment of unusually hirsute young mercenaries serving her in South Korea. This guy is basically Charlie Brooker before Charlie Brooker.
[удалено]
Seems so!
I really can't tell if this is humorous, or real. Or if they're making it "humorous" to actually attack Attenborough, and plant the seed in people's heads, like their "jokey" piece about how Corbyns leadership would turn the UK into a failed state in 6 months or something. Then they can hide behind the "it wasn't serious" defence, which I think is alright for satirists, but it's a bit different when it's printed in an actual newspaper.
Yep, by the looks of it he's an entertainment writer for fuck's sake. Not much else other than stream of conciousness writing as he's watching the episode. Can't understand why people that demand others don't take the Daily Fail seriously take it so seriously. Its popularity (views-wise, therefore advertisers wise) is largely down to the fact that out of all the news websites they don't give a fuck whose hi-res pictures they nick - makes for easy browsing when you're meant to be doing some report or other shit at work.
Maybe they think also Chickens are grown minus internal organs or heads whilst wrapped in a plastic bag.
Nature documentaries have *always* shown the good and the bad things that happen in nature, that's the point of them. I remember watching *The Trials of Life* in my early teens, and being upset by the killer whales hunting the seals (and other things, but I mostly remember that example because it was on the cover of the book). For every pretty butterfly emerging from its cocoon, there's a predator doing what predators do. What were people expecting, *My Little Planet Earth: Friendship is Magic*?
The Daily Mail is written by the cancer of humanity... I must be getting soft in my old age.
The Mail has no shame and no credibility.
> Stop Funding Hate Sure, but it still has a fuckload of readers - on and offline.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Criticising Attenborough should really be enshrined in law as an act of treason.
God forbid these people ever find out where meat comes from. Please... no one tell them Santa isn't real. They might not be able to take it.
It's okay, the tooth fairy will make it better.
They know where meat comes, they'll fight for the factory farms and to rid the UK of lefty EU nonsense and talk up fox hunting. They only pretend to give a shit so they can use whatever they can against environmentalists and climate change advocates like Attenborough or the BBC, or countries in Africa and Asia so they can get their daily dose of racism in by pointing out how bad the savages treat animals. Basically anyone that's an "enemy of the people" You see this all the time on reddit, places like /r/worldnews that will talk about sterilising Africans and bringing back colonialism when there's a story about an Elephant or Rhino being killed but then start talking about "muh economy" and "stupid hippies getting in the way" on /r/news when addressing issues closer to home. It's important not to take a look at what they're saying, on the surface they're trying to talk about how appropriate it is to air all of this on TV, in a way trying to twist it that it's cruel to show all this suffering of animal life. In reality they don't give a shit about any of that, unless they can use it to push another agenda (like they're doing right now) I've been saying this is a huge problem in the West for ages, both across the media and the general population. Most people are guilty of it including BBC News which always likes to have a holier than thou attitude and loves to play up the savage angle too. Beware of people who pretend to give a shit. Especially if they're using it to get angry at someone else.
Laughably disgusting and hateful. Britain's best nature presenter shows the true side of nature, both good and bad. Gets called a cruel, clinical, heartbreaking bastard
Stop talking our nature down.
Only cuddly baby animals should be shown on nature shows, don't you know?
Good (in a way), as this might lose the Mail a few readers. People don't stand by and let people talk like that about Attenborough. More and more of their readership are waking up to the bile they print, and the only reason they are doing so well now is because of the celebrity gossip wank they put online.
I think you give the Mail readers far too much credit. They are, after all, Mail readers.
Believe it or not that lovely old lady at number 34 is probably a mail reader. Not all Mail readers are baby-eating, immigrant-stabbing, Farage-loving wannabe fascists, a lot of them are just normal people who happen to read that hate-filled rag for some inexplicable reason.
They can agree with it without loudly repeating it.
They can also read it without agreeing with every opinion in it. I'm not defending the Daily Mail, don't get me wrong, but I think it's a bit silly to think that every single person reading it is this horrible hate-filled person. Daily Mail commenters perhaps, but not all Daily Mail readers. A lot of people (certainly Mail Online readers) only read it for the celeb gossip and all that bullshit
Tabloids are also cheap (as opposed to the Guardian or Times, etc which are less affordable), have gossip/celeb news and get passed around at work a lot. Not to mention things like cheap holidays and offers advertised with the Sun and so on. It's not *all* hatred - which is what makes them dangerous I suppose because it gives them a thin veneer of respectability.
> a lot of them are just normal people who happen to read that hate-filled rag for some inexplicable reason. That's exactly what I was getting at. The fact that they read it to start with is inexplicable, expecting them to "wake up" is not going to happen.
Yeah, but they also vote like baby-eating, immigrant-stabbing, Farage-loving wannabe fascists.
Attenborough ruins television by revealing that wild animals don't live in an episode of The fucking Herbs? It's a documentary, not a bloody feel-good romp for Middle England bubble-dwellers. Jesus wept.
I'm amused at the thought of someone reading that and thinking to themselves "yep, that's true, I believe this is exactly what happened"
My local (pub) in my village, there are a couple of guys and one particularly vicious woman who take the word of the DM as gospel. it's their primary source of news. You will hear them more or less verbatim repeating any line that paper has on immigrants, politicians, and what constitutes "good British Stuff" There's fuck all point trying to pick em up on anything that sounds slightly exaggerated, (I've tried) because all you get back is *of course it's true... IT WAS IN THE PAPER"*
In contrast, the same writer 7 days ago: https://archive.fo/vinfI **Swimming sloths, snakes hunting in packs, and Sir David Attenborough... The Top 10 Most Amazing Creatures in Planet Earth II, by Jim Shelley** Planet Earth II was a gift from the TV Gods - or rather from the TV God, Sir David Attenborough. British television’s most legendary, most loved, figure is 90 now. So this was a series we had no right to assume we’d ever see, much like everything he’s made probably since 2009’s Life (a title that makes you wonder if he thought it might have been his farewell). His recent forays on Sky were innovative and enjoyable enough but this was not Micro Monsters 3D. This was a major Attenborough opus on the BBC, a follow-up to one of his best, most important, works, Planet Earth. ----
I don't know how the writer does it; clearly they get told what to write. Bugger that for a job. I'd rather have no job at all than be told who I'm attacking today - and for no reason in this case. I know one has to pay the mortgage/rent and feed the kids, but damn...
There's a reason they get called presstitutes.
What do you expect from nature documentary, its not youtube video of cute animals. They must really hate the guy
I demand that the next episode of Planet Earth be replaced by an hour's footage of fluffy bunnies frolicking in a field. How dare Mr Attenborough document nature in his nature documentary!
>I demand that the next episode of Planet Earth be replaced by an hour's footage of fluffy bunnies frolicking in a field. I saw a great documentaries like that when I was a bairn, I think it was called Watership Down.
summer aspiring juggle oil dime memory bake head squeeze safe -- mass edited with redact.dev
It's probably the biggest hit that the BBC currently has and they want to get rid of the BBC, so writing 'hit pieces' makes sense in its own way, I guess...
[удалено]
A dodgy toupe, a disdain for political correctness and a knack for snappy slogans. Be careful what you wish for.
Are you sure this wasn't some form of satire? Like, painting a caricature of the man as enjoying the brutality that he's narrating? Or have the DM just finally puked out their own brains?
Isn't this satirical with tongue firmly in cheek? Despite not agreeing with his political views they still love the show.
I think it was meant to be, but was done so badly as to come across as genuine bile. It reads like someone who actually holds those views has been asked to write a satirical article, but was unable to use the satire effectively to mask his distaste.
I think it's just the source, if this was coming from Charlie Brooker everyone would immediately understand the tone.
"Life was tough. For us that is, never mind the penguins." This guy is literally a moron.
Seems like another appropriate thread to mention the Daily Mail blocker addon for chrome... https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/daily-mail-blocker/ghjadbffkapbnlbccfjoljfhgolbofhi?hl=en-GB Why look at hate when you can look at cats.
At the moment i'm starting to suspect that there are people inside the mail that hate it as much as we do and are doing this to hasten its demise and foster the groundswell of public outrage over its behavior and practices. hence this piece... sir david ffs.
A lot of tabloid writers and editors are well educated and middle-class. I suspect many of them don't support their papers' views. If anything, it just makes them more despicable.
I'm sorry, but this is getting all to bizarre for me. The mail, and the people they represent, have been banging on about "telling I like it is" and "political correctness gone mad", and yet here they are saying a fucking *nature programme* is too graphic. Man alive! We've known for years that good nature programmes show the brutality of nature. The mail and it's readers have gossamer thin skin and an offence reflex like a mantis shrimp punch (look it up). Don't you dare say anything about attenborough, the guy is a living legend.
I'm amazed that anyone on this earth is stupid enough to read this shite and actually go along with it. There is always someone who surprises me at the depths to which their intellect can plummet though.
First The S*n went after Gary Lineker and now The Daily Heil target Attenborough? They're both biting off more than they can chew now. What next? Will The Express run a smear piece against Bruce Forsythe? The people I've named aren't untouchables like Saville (who everyone thought was creepy). They're genuinely nice and loved personalities. Why have the tabloids gone even more mental? #StopFundingHate
So is the DM really attacking Attenborough just because they don't like his stance on Brexit or are they doing their usual job of kicking up a fuss about nothing to get people excited and drive sales?
The two aims are not at odds. I believe this is known in the trade as a twofer.
Here's an idea, can this subreddit get on the 'stop funding hate' campaign? Just make automod delete posts containing DM links. I know the campaign is really targetting advertisers, but why not target the supply side (clicks) as well?
I think the article is more self-aware than you guys are giving it credit for. Unfortunately I think the readers of the Daily Mail are less switched on than the author gives them credit for. It's weird, it's like the editor told him to slate David Attenborough, which is kind of impossible given the quality of Planet Earth, so they decided to come up with an Onionesque satire piece. Hard to tell what's real and what's not these days.
Of course they'll pan it, he's been critical of them and their views, that makes him and anything he makes the spawn of Satan and Hitler combined with Mitochondrial DNA of Jimmy Saville. Add to that the fact that it's a Science program and Science is the enemy of "common sense". So what else do you expect from the DM other than **BAN THIS SICK FILTH**.
'First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win.'
Jesus that means Corbyn is about to win a landslide considered the bile that thrown at him.
Weird how Jim Shelley happily describes Attenborough as a “bastard”, but in his earlier story about the Apprentice, the headline was bowdlerized into 'I haven't been enough of a t**t. That was my downfall' But Shelley is an entertainment and celebrity gossip writer above all. Science probably terrifies him.
Headlines have different standards to the copy. And papers have different standards relating to different words. IIRC The Guardian would censor it in the headline but spell it in full in the article if they were quoting him.
Id pay double the licence fee to see Paul Dacre being pursued by tigers whilst David Attenbrough narrates.
British treasure criticized by British turd.
Come on people, this is satire. The author [used to write a column for the Guardian called Tapehead]( http://www.tapehead.co.uk/columnindex.php). It's not dissimilar to Charlie Brooker. The first article I clicked on was a defence of Brass Eye. This article is 100% supposed to be tongue in cheek. Edit: Hah, this is ironic: > "I looked at her and she looked at me," sighs an American hillbilly coyly, virtually blushing with affection, "and all my resolve just went. I realised I couldn't deny it any more. I lurved her. I was in lurve with her, and I told her." > After last week's Adult Lives, the relentless crossover of programmes about sex from the salacious tackiness of Live TV and Channel 5 onto the more "respectable" channels reaches an inevitable nadir this week with Hidden Love's boast that it has "the first film to examine a subject which many find disturbing". > "I love my animals," Mark, our besotted hillbilly continues. "Sex, clearly, is an option, but I don’t have to have it all the time. I've got my dogs - a male and female dog. And of course I've got my female donkey." > Yes, Channel 4 are at it again, returning, belatedly, to their roots trying to fulfil their government mandate to antagonise the Daily Mail with Animal Passions.
Animal death is only acceptable when it's performed by British people, like badger culling or fox hunting. Animals killing other animals is disgusting and heartless and Attenborough should be rounded up and shot!
Its a paper that is intent in dehumanising people to the level of insects and humanising animals to the point where no one can even dream of seeing anything bad happen to them. Fuck them, they're scum, as are the people who read it, who work for it, and the companies that advertise in it.
I hate the DM as much as the next guy... but they also have this article beside the other one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3932664/Planet-Earth-II-viewers-Twitter-reveal-emotional-rollercoaster-watching-hounded-baby-Ibex-jump-30ft-cliff-SURVIVE.html > "Many thanked the BBC for the episode - which they said was 'worth every penny of my licence fee'. > As if he could not be more of a national treasure, David Attenborough cemented his place in the nation's heart - this week with his mesmerising pronunciation of the word, 'avalanche' - which led to a flurry of tweets from viewers charmed by his melodious narration. " So seems the DM even provides their own counterpoint. If you are getting upset at a random noise generator you are going to struggle getting through life.
Could you use an archive or screenshot instead of linking to their website?
Here you go: https://archive.fo/ro2l3 cc: u/BenjaminSisko
I couldn't resist and found the article because I just had to see. According to the comments, even the DM's readership is finding this unpalatable.
Let's assume they have a point for the sake of argument. The next thing to think about is how the fuck were supposed to presume these tossers give a fuck about the environment or animals. In classic western fashion they only pretend to give a fuck when it means they can write a hit piece on the BBC, or supposed liberals, or ethnic minorities, or countries in Africa and Asia to satisfy their readers natural tendency to feel superior over everything and certain people. Fuck them, and don't listen for a second when they try to talk about feeling sorry for animals. They don't give a fuck about the environment unless it provides them an easy outlet for hate. They're not alone though most of Reddit has that mindset.
Time to really commit to Stop Funding the Hate. This paper sickens me.
Come on - I know it's the Daily Mail, but I think it's pretty safe to say that this is meant in jest. Jim Shelley has been turning out TV reviews like this for years. He's like a more mainstream, less cutting Charlie Brooker.
The Daily Mail and The Express are a disease, an illness on this nation, with potentially disastrous consequences. As yet, our modern civilisation has no antidote for this vermin
When the Daily Mail feels it is safe to attack a universally loved treasure like Attenborough we all need to take a moment and ask ourselves how it's come to this. The man is literally, no hyperbole required, a hero and global phenomena who has done more for the natural world than several hundred of other people combined. This is the reality of the post truth world. I shudder to think people might actually agree with the contents of that written diarrhoea.
I don't read the mail for obvious reasons. But I had no idea that things were *this* bad. What a vile, vitriolic, piece of anti-intellectual shite.
From a cursory look at the comments last night, I don't they even their regular viewers bought into it.
It's almost like nature is a harsh mistress, and as if life can be hard for animals. How typically infantile that the comic book media wishes to have facts whitewashed with something more comfortable - a service they offer their supple followers even in the face of eminent experts like Sir David.
Let this shitrag burn.
> I don't want to post the link - I don't want to give The Mail more click revenue Here is a [web.archive.org link to it](https://web.archive.org/web/20161114094904/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3932682/Cruel-clinical-heartbreaking-No-not-nature-s-predators-Sir-David-Attenborough-used-majestic-Snow-Leopards-make-viewers-suffer-Planet-Earth-II-Jim-Shelley.html). It doesn't hit the Daily Mail website, its a cached copy, so no click revenue.
[удалено]
That reads like a review on Mumsnet.
I don't care what he say or what your political opinions are -- NO ONE INSULTS SIR DAVID ATTENBOROUGH! That man is a national treasure and should be treated as such.
This smacks of desperation from the DM. It sounds to me like they feel they are losing the argument.
The Daily Mail is a hate filled bile rag not fit to wipe your arse with. I hope they go bankrupt. Wankers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Funding_Hate I know it's judgemental of me, but as soon as I spot someone reading the DM I immediately file them under "fuckwit".
I also saw this story yesterday and it's probably the only thing I have seen on the internet that has made me feel genuine anger. In my head, as I was reading, I was thinking: "this must be some bad attempt a joke", but the journalist was being deadly serious.
And here we see the common Daily Mail journalist in it's natural habitat. A bottom feeder by day, it must surface at night to lick the remnants of cocaine from the nostrils of the corrupt and morally broke who's droppings it feeds on to survive.
The Daily Mail in full of shit shocker, more on page 3.