In an attempt to defend its good honour, The Daily Mail has launched a blistering attack against The Guardian. And among the bile-laced ‘we’re not hateful: you’re hateful!’ commentary, one piece of information stood out. Said info being that The Mail Online is not in fact an online version of The Mail. An assertion it seems to have made in order to distance itself from the controversial, hard-right columnist Katie Hopkins.
It came as a shock to some that the two entities are in fact separate. But that is apparently the case. As long as you can ignore the branding of their Twitter account:
Their staffing situation:
Paul Dacre seems to be in receipt of a large payment directly linked to his involvement with Mail Online. At odds with today's op-ed? pic.twitter.com/b3tMYHiVSP
— James O'Brien (@mrjamesob) June 22, 2017
The Mail Online‘s web address:
The Mail font used on both:
The daily shared content that’s written by the same writers. With the following piece appearing on The Mail Online and today’s Daily Mail – the very same issue which asserts that the two entities are “totally separate”:
The owners, DMG Media:
And of course this clarification which can be found at the bottom of every Mail Online page:
What’s astonishing is that The Daily Mail has just publicly snubbed Katie Hopkins. It has pointedly not defended any criticism of its fellow media group employee and has instead held its hands up and said “she’s nothing to do with us”.
But how has Hopkins become so toxic that The Daily Mail needs to clarify that she does not write for it?
Hopkins recently left LBC Radio “effective immediately” after she apparently called for a “final solution” to Islam:
Even if Hopkins knows nothing of Nazism – which I doubt – her "final solution" can only mean ethnic cleansing pic.twitter.com/U7SDYh4e8q
— Nick Cohen (@NickCohen4) May 23, 2017
She later deleted this tweet and tweeted a version calling for a “true solution”. Hopkins stood by the original tweet, though. She also claimed to have changed it because of a typo (having written ‘Machester’ instead of ‘Manchester’):
The Guardian article linking Hopkins to The Daily Mail (not to be confused with The Mail Online) is thought to be written by Nesrine Malik:
I also said writes for Mail Online and is employed by the Daily Mail but somehow that still is a DELIBERATE LIE.
— Nesrine Malik (@NesrineMalik) June 22, 2017
After the Manchester Arena attack, Katie Hopkins called for a ‘final solution’. She deleted her tweet and apologised for it, but it did not, to be frank, seem out of character. The fact that she is still employed by the Mail Online, occupied until recently a prime time slot on LBC and is defended vigorously on the grounds of freedom of speech is an illustration of the extent to which we apply double standards. The uncomfortable truth is that Hopkins and her ilk are given permission to spout invective because they are seen by some as ‘one of our own’ – and therefore in a different category, tolerated and excused.
Beginning of the end?
Hopkins has already lost one job. She’s seen as a prominent purveyor of the sort of anti-Islamic rhetoric that even the government is now calling ‘extremism’. She was accused of insulting Britain by telling Fox News that Londoners were “cowed and afraid” by terror. Fox News later itself branded Hopkins’ comments “reprehensible” after she called for internment camps. And The Daily Mail has just publicly snubbed her.
As Nesrine Malik said in response:
if the Daily Mail thinks Katie Hopkins is such a smear on its reputation then we should help them out and spread the message
It’s looking increasingly like the opportunistic Hopkins is no longer tenable as a mainstream media personality.
– Support Hope not hate.
– You can also support The Canary.
– And read more articles about The Daily Mail here.
Featured image via YouTube
We need your help ...
The coronavirus pandemic is changing our world, fast. And we will do all we can to keep bringing you news and analysis throughout. But we are worried about maintaining enough income to pay our staff and minimal overheads.
Now, more than ever, we need a vibrant, independent media that holds the government to account and calls it out when it puts vested economic interests above human lives. We need a media that shows solidarity with the people most affected by the crisis – and one that can help to build a world based on collaboration and compassion.
We have been fighting against an establishment that is trying to shut us down. And like most independent media, we don’t have the deep pockets of investors to call on to bail us out.
Can you help by chipping in a few pounds each month?