Petition to ask theatre industry to boycott Daily Mail

I think a lot of the disdain for that course over the years has come from a class of people who already have their foot in the media door, which they make use of when their offspring leave Oxford. For kids with no family connections and no London base, it looked like a possible way in to it.

So, and correct me if I'm wrong, you'd support all inclusive and diversity supporting theatres boycotting The Mail even if it meant that people with a different political belief to you missed out on tickets simply because of the paper they read?

Can you remind me how 'theatre is for all' or does that only apply to people you find acceptable?

I am not at all interested in the political views of other audience members. I don’t think this is an issue of censoring readership or the views of the readership. It is about the DM and the way it thinks it can get away with its rampant sexism, the way it objectifies (especially very young) women and in ways that are both subtle and unsubtle espouses and promotes homophobia. Readers of DM who are interested in Theatre can do what the rest of us do to find out about shows...go online. Every single theatre has an online presence. By the way, you have given me something new to think about...perhaps we should boycott theatres that support the DM. And Wright’s fgs please don’t take that last comment literally and start shouting at me again.

@wrighty I have decided to leave this forum but before I do so I will answer your question: yes, I am intolerant of sexism and homophobia. Very much so. I am not a saint, far from it but as far as I am able to I do try to live by my beliefs. I don’t champion anyone but myself by the way. I am not in any position to do so, being neither a journalist, Theatre AD or politician.

“I am not at all interested in the political views of other audience members. “

Concisely defines the real problem here. There is less attempt to understand and find consensus in society than I can ever recall. Newspapers are under threat and so they reduce their message to apply to the die hards only. Social media produces tribes. And both “sides” are becoming more totalitarian.

And with that depressing summary I wish you all a pleasant day.

The Daily Mirror did too. Interestingly even into the late 1960s when it was generally a Labour-supporting paper the Mirror owner was criticising Harold Wilson for being too slow in joining the EU which he saw as a racially pure bulwark against Russia and the USA, as did his close friend Oswald Mosely. I'm not sure holding organisations to task for their opinions in distant history is valid - for example the Democrat Party in USA was the party of the slave owners and (in many instances subsequently) of segregationalism and the KKK too - at what point does that cease to be relevant ? 

Daily Mail have run a story this weekend that no one is truly homeless in Ely and quoted the local police officer, which is fair enough, except, we are about to enter the coldest time this Winter and plenty of genuine homeless people will suffer, where people will have second thoughts about donating, if they printed this in the Spring it would be prefable.

The Daily Mail is the Javert of the media.

I'm honestly baffled at some newspapers. There was an occasion a while back where the Mail was challenged over one of its EU-bashing stories and a spokesperson from the paper admitted that the story was fabricated but defended it by saying that the paper wanted to show its readers what would happen if it had been possible (without ever admitting the fictional nature of the story in the paper itself, of course).

So what is it that makes some people think "I want to be a journalist, so I can spread lies and create a false reality, lead my readers into making misguided or flat-out wrong decisions, spread hatred and violence, and generally do what I can to wreck people's lives, because as things are right now there just isn't enough misery in the world"? Why would a journalist set out to write a story that they know is a lie? Is the pay that good?

I've long resisted posting here as genuinely I find it a difficult one. I find the Mail abhorrent in it's views, and I seriously think they walk dangerously close to a line of what's legal in our libel and privacy laws at times, as well as those on 'hate speech'. But equally, if they aren't breaking the law, I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press so who am I to say they should be outright shut down if I don't agree with them?

Alongside that I recognise that the Mail is a key player in theatre marketing. If you look at their weekend supplements they run interviews/features/reviews in those magazines on theatre with equal regularity as say, the Guardian and they give theatre a hell of a lot of air time- something we all cry out for. And they reach 'middle England' (as it were). Again who I am to say that these people shouldn't be allowed to buy, or encouraged to buy theatre tickets? if they're buying tickets that keep the very theatres I love afloat.

So while it's a vile hate filled rag of a newspaper, it's readers probably think the Guardian is...well we know what they think that is. So how can I ask for it to be shut down (as long as it stays on the right side of that law).

As for Baz, the logistics of the PR aside- that's a media game and we all know it. I find the personal attacks on him at best distasteful and at worst hypocritical from those decrying the Mail. (I'm not talking about having a valid debate about what he does or says, that's obviously fair game). Personally Baz has been a great supporter, and I can't say a bad word against the man personally as much as I know him. Where he chooses to work is frankly his own business (equally some of my extreme Guardian reading friends would decry my current temp job for being 'evil' and 'part of the problem' but a gal's gotta eat...).

And maybe they'll be seeing productions that change their mindset - surely better than the echo chamber situation that some on both right and left have fallen into.

All true. Where I start to become very, very concerned, though, is when the relationship between a newspaper and the government, or members of the government, becomes too cosy. When I read reports of, for example, the Prime Minister hosting a private, unminuted dinner at Downing Street for the editor of the Mail, I have to wonder whether the tail is wagging the dog.

(While I'm certainly not a Daily Mail reader, I'd have the same reaction to the editor of any newspaper attending such a dinner. It's inappropriate.)

Whch is all very nice and utopian but an issue such as gun control in the US has, for a while now, had one side refusing to compromise and to comprehend reality. So much so that many really do believe the students are actors, that Sandy Hook was staged, that there is a ‘deep state’ and so on. 

This is why nothing has happened, people playing by the rules of logic and of reality don’t stand a hope in hell against feelings and conspiracy. The only way to combat that is with stronger feelings and a mass movement such as the Stoneman students have miraculously begun to create.

It didn’t need listening to people who have no interest in listening, it needed raw passion and the humiliation of those who stand in their way. They may not succeed but they’ve shown the way forward. After a terrible couple of years I believe that we are seeing a watershed whereby the walls of prejudice and power are being breached. It would be wonderful if we could ‘all get along in peace and harmony and listen and behave in a logical manner’ but whilst you are waiting the decades or centuries it would take for that to happen, maybe there needs to be a plan B.

All I'm going to say is, after reading that article my reaction to it  is the exact oppposite to the one you express.