The Right Reverend Paul Du Noyer
So I was happiliy perusing the new issue of The Word and just on the page after laughing at Alex James (blimey he's everywhere with that stupid floppy haircut and his cheese farm) when I start to read Paul Du Noyer's guest column....
On the surface it seemed like your average common sense type of column. But it kept nagging away at me.....so as an act of exorcism (as it is a religious theme) I decided to put hands on keyboard and type....
The Daily Mail like attitude towards people who want to do something about the enviroment bugged me (sure some of them are like that but isn't it better than doing nothing?). The statement that blues and rock music are only the "foothills" and therefore of lesser import than the "mountain range" of classical music irritated me. The assumption that only a religious belief gives you "soul".
Now I love some religious music (John Coltrane wrote one of the finest ever in A Love Supreme and Paul counts off loads of others) but I hate organised religion. I think that Julian Cope and his pagan Gods are just as valid as Catholicism and the Pope. And while Paul has a point re Johnny Cash and maybe Bruce, what he doesn't say is that hard line fundamentalism has made a frightening return to the mainstream not seen since pre-enlightenment times, which should put this whole discussion in context. Whether its fundamental Islam or fundamental Christianity - all of it is pretty grim and medieval. Anti-women, anti-gay, anti-sex, anti-darwin, and anti pluralist - these people are scarier than the God Bashers Dawkins and Hitchins. Those are the people with truly crazy certainties and yet Paul seems to want to put up straw men of his own to have a go at....
Or maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick, cos Paul sounds so reasonable!
- More from marklabarre.
- Login or register to post comments
In Defence Of The Daily Mail
I don't know where you've got the idea that the Daily Mail is somehow in opposition to those campaigning to do something about climate change. It certainly isn't from reading the paper. The Mail's take on this issue is the same as every other paper's and they have a very good science writer, Michael Hanlon.
It's funny how "Daily Mail" has become this pejorative term, shorthand for an opinion that's unspeakably wicked, and used to shut down any argument: if it's a Daily Mail opinion it must be wrong.
I sometimes read it on the days when Keith Waterhouse has his column in it and it doesn't seem particularly outrageous to me. It's Conservative, sure (though oddly enough it's pretty supportive of Gordon Brown) but then so's half the population. It certainly isn't anti-immigration or "racist" which I've heard it being accused of recently. Which was the paper that led a long, dogged campaign to have the suspected killers of Stephen Lawrence brought to trial? The Daily Mail. Which was the paper who exposed that Tory MP and his bogus employment of his sons as researchers? The Daily Mail.
Its bracingly anti-PC, robust common sense may not be to everyone's taste but I'd say it chimes with public opinion more than any other newspaper.
As far as Paul's article goes, it's one of the best "thinkpieces" Word has ever run.
The Mail is
for middle-class, middle-aged, middle-England matrons, and, as such, I fail to see how it chimes with people's opinions far more than any other paper. And I ain't just typing this because I work for a rival - which, ahem, sells more. I just have to ask a few ex-employees...
Re Paul's piece: finely filigreed, but, once more, I disagree vehemently. I like my music secular - especially Al Green
The Mail and The Word
what do you mean?
This country is full of people who match that three-point description! I'm surpised The Mails demographic isn't more abundant.
The middle-aged and middle-class patrons are also the very people on the payroll of The Word magazine.
If I were
granted a wish and could make one thing disappear from British life forever it would be the Daily Mail. Granted a second wish I'd choose the Mail on Sunday.
'Daily Mail reader' has become shorthand for prejudiced Little Englander views for a very good reason - because that's what it promotes.
It cannot stand single mothers, career women, immigrants, multi-culturalism, cyclists, pro-Europeans, Brussels etc etc.
It loves the Countryside Alliance, farmers who shoot burglars, Euro-sceptics, Thatcher, etc ad nauseum.
I read it when I'm visiting my parents, who believe every word in it. It is truly appalling.
Can't say I read it but this I will say...
...the three most powerful papers in the UK enjoy that position because they have a hard grip on the prejudices of their readers. One is the Daily Mail, the second is the Sun and the third is the Guardian.
Agreed
You don't sell millions of papers without a having a grip on the zeitgeist.
IF I have a criticisms of The Mail - and I must confess I have many - it is its total lack of ANYTHING positive to say. Even when the subject is something that the Mail is supposed to traditionally support, such as The Royal Family, Delia Smith, The Conservative Party, or corporal punishment for chavs and "feral kids," it can't help but snipe. Reading it, when they are giving someone a glowing build up I am waiting for the inevitable "But." I think that is part of its appeal. It tunes into two facets of British society one that says "You might think you're so clever, but let me cut you down to size young fellow my lad" and the other is the "its all going to hell in a handcart" impulse which is an ongoing - dare I say it - middle class concern.
Tomorrow's
Daily Mail has a free Catherine Cookson DVD starring Nigel Havers. I think that says it all about their target market!
True then, true now
Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
Note that even in the seventies there is no mention of the Express which was accurately summed up recently as "The Daily Mail for the slow reader"
I think Paul would wear a dog collar very well
There's a thriving thread on this subject a few pages back on the site:
http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/soul-music-atheists