3 ms·
It sounded like hyperbole to me too, but then I remembered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Rise_of_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Ri
by Robin_Message 11y ago
It sounded like hyperbole to me too, but then I remembered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Rise_of_fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail#Rise_of_fascism
The owner in 1933 at least was a strong supporter of fascism in general, and Hitler in particular.
- pc86 11y agoOK not that I'm excusing it, but there's quite a difference between someone in 1933 (who died in 1940) supporting Hitler (who, at that time, had quite a bit of popular support), and an institution in 2015 being "pro-Hitler." This may be the very definition of hyperbole. Taking something that is barely technically accurate and distorting it to the point where it doesn't mean even close to the same thing anymore. EDIT: From the link: > The Daily Mail, devised by Alfred Harmsworth (later Lord Northcliffe) and his brother Harold (later Lord Rothermere), was first published on 4 May 1896. > Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Mail's editorial stance towards them in the early 1930s. > Born 1868; Died 1940[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Harmsworth,_1st_Viscount_Rothermere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Harmsworth,_1st_Viscoun...
- Robin_Message 11y agoYeap, fair enough (I thought the same). It's still a pretty bad newspaper though; I think it would be fair to say it hasn't gone far uphill since then.
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago> The owner in 1933 at least was a strong supporter of fascism in general, and Hitler in particular. So was the royal family at the time: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/royals/6548665/Their-Royal-Heilnesses.html http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/royals/6548665/The...