That’s because Starky added a voice, though controversial, to a debate. Sachsgate was about two overpaid, over the top morons phoning an old man and leaving sexually explicit voicemail messages about his granddaughter. Massive, massive difference.

Starky recognised long ago that being “controversial” on TV, about almost any subject, was an effective way of attracting repeat business because audiences get all excited and viewing figures go up.

BTW I don’t have TV so I didn’t watch the Newsnight programme with Starky. Besides, I prefer doing my own researches. That said, it’s amazing how many folks there are who only want to hear or read what they agree with.

Not really comparable, is it? Brand and Ross publically humiliated an *individual*, live on air, by making personal and misogynistic comments about his grandaughter; Starkey had made stupid and offensive but *solicited* comments about a *political* issue on a *news programme*.

Of course, Sachs is most famous for playing a racist stereotype and his grandaughter performs as a self-professed Slut, but never mind.

@1

If you really think Starkey added a voice to the debate, you might just as well claim that Brand and Ross added soemthing to the debate about sexual morality.

Ill-informed, stupid, bigotry adds nothing to the debate – no difference at all.

“Of course, after the Mail On Sunday splashed on the story and launched its act of aggression”

An “Act of aggression”! No offence but I think you need to grow up.

@3 No, it’s not comparable at all. Humiliaiting an individual (and, like Sachs himself, I think it’s the granddaughter who was the real victim) is childish and unacceptable behaviour. Equating an entire race with violence, crime and the inability to speak intelligently is pathological, however, and suggests Starkey needs help.

As for the “self-professed Slut” line: the fact that a woman setting up a dance troupe is prepared to ape misogynistic language as part of a fantasy persona, to make money, is one thing. It is not permission to take the word “slut” as a permanent label, legitimising the total erosion of her real-life privacy.

Ill-informed, stupid, bigotry adds nothing to the debate

@ Ciaran

Well said.

And I suppose we can rely on you to spot when something someone says is ill-informed, stupid, bigotry?

Presumably you have no political prejudices whatever, Ciaran?

Funny how many people watched this program, once he opened his mouth I turned the TV off, seems less and less people have the ability to turn off or turn over these days, I never watched him with his history programs he obviously not doing anything now, perhaps the mail will employ him as it’s history correspondence

@5

Thank you for your abusive comment.

Perhaps you would like to similarly condemn Nick Davies for devoting a whole chapter of Flat Earth News to “Mail Aggression”.

And the chapter includes this quote: “I know of nothing anywhere in the rest of the world’s media which matches the unmitigated spite of an attack from the Daily Mail”.

Still, what does he know, eh?

Why are these two stories even being linked? What Starkey said was idiotic. That doesn’t mean that the whole ”culture” argument gets thrown out that easily though. Unless people want to use what Starkey said for that end. This just sounds like spinning.

And what’s with that indirect link thing to the Daily Mail? Does an angel die if you link to it or something?

Tony Sewell tried to rationalise what Starkey said (also in the Mail) – so maybe that means that Sewell can be discounted too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/tonysewell

.

I do apologise. I hadn’t realised that this post was actually about the Tony Sewell article in the Mail, as the ”Istyosty” link wasn’t working off this page.

That makes it even worse, because what the opening post describes Mail readers ”being instructed not to ‘howl down’ Starkey”, was actually an opinion piece by Tony Sewell, who is an independently minded person in his own right.

And I take it that what Sewell actually says is not up for discussion here, but that this thread is just using it in the point scoring war against the right. Sorry, this has to be the worst article I have read on this whole sunbject of the riots.

“Mail readers are being instructed not to “howl down” Starkey”

A somewhat otiose request surely?

@11

Your faith in the independence of anyone whose copy appears in the Mail is touching, but misplaced.

Nothing appears in the Mail without at least the implicit approval of Paul Dacre: so-called opinion pieces are there to reinforce the editorial line. I could have referenced other opinion items; there are plenty saying more or less the same thing.

Moreover, the post is not about the riots, but *about how the Mail has treated* Sachsgate and David Starkey.

@13. So Paul Dacre rates Tony Sewell as someone worth listening to on this subject.

And what? That makes anything Sewell says null and void?
I have never liked this approach to political debate.
It’s not real debate. It’s just ideological tectonic plates clashing.

Ding Ding – Day Five.

Yes, let’s broaden our outrage to include The Daily Mail ( Boo Hiss!).

Might that be the same Paul Dacre and Mail who led the campaign to get the pics to investigate the killing of Stephen Lawrence? (for those of you only recently graduated from knee-jerk studies – this was actually the case).

How dare David Starkey say what he thinks on TV! Obviously it must be time to send him to a camp for re-education to make him see the folly of his ways.

Yes, why not try and get him sacked from appearing on TV …… turn him into another David Bellamy

Comment 14

Should have said police not pics

Ross & Brand behaved atrociously, it is hardly an “act of aggression” to call them on it and to frame it as such is pure hysteria.

“Might that be the same Paul Dacre and Mail who led the campaign to get the pics to investigate the killing of Stephen Lawrence?”

As I recall the young man’s father was Dacre’s plumber. The Mail’s stance on this was entirely at odds with its usual sullen and vulgar bigotry. It’s notable that it is the only story ever cited by Dacre’s apologists. The phrase I believe is “the exception that proves the rule”.

If you don’t think the Mail has an anti-BBC agenda then take a look at some stories that it has published. Here’s one from Tabloid Watch.

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2010/12/mail-attacks-bbc-over-burning-of-blue.html

Any explanation other than an agenda?

@18. Jimmy: “The Mail’s stance on this was entirely at odds with its usual sullen and vulgar bigotry. It’s notable that it is the only story ever cited by Dacre’s apologists.”

I can’t think of another example of Daily Mail constructive investigative journalism either. However, it is worth noting that years after the Daily Mail story, the Guardian was still publishing articles that avoided mentioning the connection between Clifford Norris (father of one of the accused) and Met Officers accused of corruption.

The Daily Mail…

Racism and bigotry is perfectly ok as long as there is no sex or rude words.

So lets get this straight. Tony Sewell is to be ignored and considered a Daily Mail stooge because his article appeared in its pages?
Does this idea apply to people who write for the Times and Telegraph too?

Paul Dacre can’t be that bad if he’s giving space to Tony Sewell, who is also a regular columnist on Britain’s biggest black paper ”The Voice”.

“Ohhh look we’ve got a black man agreeing with David Starkey. So that means he’s not racist, and niether are we!”

Dan Factor re comment 23:

Don’t beat about the bush; go to the offices of The Voice and call Tony Sewell an ‘Uncle Tom’ – because that is tantamount to what you are saying.

Most times things are not as clear cut as you imply. Like it or loathe it The Daily Mail is read by millions of people each day and they are not all as stupid as many of them think Guardian readers are naive.

Kojak. No I’m not.

The Mail is a racist rag but every now and then wheels out a black commentator to agree with something racists say just in an attempt to make them look not racist.

It seems you never got further than his skin colour Dan Factor.

No comparison at all! Upsetting an old man with off colour remarks about his grand-daughter is much, *much* worse than the constructive suggestion that blacks are a pack of wild savages who should be sent back where they came from! That’s a “lively and provocative contribution to debate” you see, durr……

damon. What are u accusing me of racism then?

Not particularly Dan Factor. I think that Tony Sewell is a man worthy of respect in his own right, and when he and some other black people who don’t tow the line get dismissed as ”black conservatives” (and worse) I am reminded of what Martin Luther King said in 1963.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

I’m not accusing him of being a “black Conservative” or anything else for that matter. He’s entitled to his opinion and his colour does not nor should not dictate what that opinion is.
My beef is with the Daily Mail not Tony Sewell who give colloum space to a black writer to defend something racist a racist writer said to make the said racist writer and the Daily Mail look not racist.

@29 “I think that Tony Sewell is a man worthy of respect in his own right, and when he and some other black people who don’t tow the line get dismissed as ”black conservatives” (and worse)”

As oppose to when white people riot and are dismissed as “black” and round we go again

Jan 27th 2013- we are now told that the Mail’s “Finest Hour” of the last 20 years, which has been used to justify 20 years of scare-mongering and nastiness-the naming of the murderers of Stephen Lawrence, was only due to the fact that then editor Paul Dacre realised he had employed Stephen Lawrence and his Father as decorators at his home, and thus felt a personal interest in the story.
Think about ALL the implications of that.
How many cases of injustice have been ignored by the Mail since then? And before?

Jan 27th 2012- we are now told that the Mail’s “Finest Hour” of the last 20 years, which has been used to justify 20 years of scare-mongering and nastiness-the naming of the murderers of Stephen Lawrence, was only due to the fact that then editor Paul Dacre realised he had employed Stephen Lawrence and his Father as decorators at his home, and thus felt a personal interest in the story.
Think about ALL the implications of that.
How many cases of injustice have been ignored by the Mail since then? And before?