Quote:
|
Originally Posted by downquark1
I have to totally disagree, daily mail articles seem to be very closed minded and aggresive. And moral outrage entirely depends on the morality or the person in question.
Plus the editor was on desert island discs - he was a jerk.
|
Whereas the Gruniad is open-minded and easy going?
'Moral outrage' describes a way of presenting one's point of view, so I was in effect agreeing with you (before you even said it
) that the Mail is aggressive in tone. All I was saying was that the Mail is very good at doing it. It's not a comment on what the morality of the Mail actually is. The Guardian could be equally good at moral outrage if it chose to be - it would just express outrage based on a slightly different set of morals. In fact, the Guardian chooses not to express its displeasure at world events by sounding outraged. I find its approach, typified by Polly Toynbee's front-pager after the wrangling over the Euro-Constitution was complete, to be deeply patronising. If the Daily Mail is very good at employing a tone of 'moral outrage', then the Guardian is equally good at affecting 'moral superiority'.
As an aside, I don't think there's a single national newspaper in this country whose editorial line on any major issue couldn't be guessed in advance. That's why it's possible to get an inkling what kind of worldview a person might have by finding out what paper they read.