It never ceases to amaze me how many people who use this forum are so venemously anti Daily Mail. I just wonder why some of the realy trashy papers such as the the Sun, the Star and the Sport never seem to get hammered the way the Mail does. Or why the left wing press seem to immune to criticism. I'm not defending the paper just being curious.
It's strange. I've hardly ever read the Mail, but know of it's reputation obviously, but I do frequently read the Metro (it is free after all) which I believe is published by the same company. I don't detect any of the same agenda in that. I'm not sure if this is because the different papers have different views or because they are just more subtle about in the Metro?
It's a bit rich for the Daily Mail to accuse Doctor Who of being racist. They supported Oswald Mosley's facist views and continue to be a racist, sexist and homophobic paper who write the kind of crap that would make a very good liar blush!
It seems most of the examples given in the article are relating to the classic series rather than the revived series. Given that the former ended well over 20 years ago, they can hardly be said to be representative of the current era.
And the same points raised are largely debatable anyway. The most addling one is perhaps the accusation of Martha Jones receiving second class treatment. I mean, what?
It's a bit rich for the Daily Mail to accuse Doctor Who of being racist. They supported Oswald Mosley's facist views and continue to be a racist, sexist and homophobic paper who write the kind of crap that would make a very good liar blush!
Oh for goodness sake, read the article first before pouring out your prejudiced bile! Or even read the thread - as has been pointed out it isn't the Daily Mail doing the accusing.
It must be said that studying "Doctor Who's" treatment of
ethnic minorities is hardly novel.
Gary Gillatt included a chapter on DW, ethnic minorities and UK television in 1998's "Doctor Who: From A to Z", , Paul Cornell discussed the issue several times in fanzines, and the "About Time" books by Tat Wood and Lawrence Miles discussed the issue as well. While a whole book about ethnicity in
the show is new, it's not as new a subject as the
MoS would like us to think.
It must be said that studying "Doctor Who's" treatment of
ethnic minorities is hardly new.
Gary Gillatt included a chapter on DW, ethnic minorities and UK television in his "Doctor Who: From A to Z", , Paul Cornell discussed the issue several times in fanzines, and the "About Time" books by Tat Wood and Lawrence Miles discussed the issue as well. While a whole book about ethnicity in
the show is new, it's not as new a subject as the
MoS would like us to think.
Why would the MoS be expected to know about these niche books (or even niche chapters) and fanzines?
Oh for goodness sake, read the article first before pouring out your prejudiced bile! Or even read the thread - as has been pointed out it isn't the Daily Mail doing the accusing.
I did! And the Daily Mail has continued it's obsessive right wing hatred of anything BBC. Including Doctor Who. Because they would rather believe in a right-wing American author over the real facts. That's what happened here. And the posters on the Mail online thread agree with the rest of us that the allegations are false and potentially damaging in the show's 50th anniversary.
It must be said that studying "Doctor Who's" treatment of
ethnic minorities is hardly novel.
Gary Gillatt included a chapter on DW, ethnic minorities and UK television in 1998's "Doctor Who: From A to Z", , Paul Cornell discussed the issue several times in fanzines, and the "About Time" books by Tat Wood and Lawrence Miles discussed the issue as well. While a whole book about ethnicity in
the show is new, it's not as new a subject as the
MoS would like us to think.
Why would the MoS be expected to know about these niche books (or even niche chapters) and fanzines?
Well, I wouldn't expect the "Mail on Sunday" to do much research. This issue is old news to anyone who studying
the show's past. The Mos is probably jumping on the subject because it wants to milk the "See that popular BBC family show? That's actually racist! Gasp!" angle.
(And both the Gillatt book and the Wood/Miles ones were
widely available in book and comic shops. I'd hardly call them "Niche publications"- implying they were only
sold at things like DW conventions).
I did! And the Daily Mail has continued it's obsessive right wing hatred of anything BBC. Including Doctor Who. Because they would rather believe in a right-wing American author over the real facts. That's what happened here. And the posters on the Mail online thread agree with the rest of us that the allegations are false and potentially damaging in the show's 50th anniversary.
Well me and other posters on this thread who have read the article did not get the impression that the Mail was agreeing with what they were saying, if anything the reverse. And in no way would this small article cause any damage to the show's 50th.
Well, I wouldn't expect the "Mail on Sunday" to do much research. This issue is old news to anyone who studying
the show's past. The Mos is probably jumping on the subject because it wants to milk the "See that popular BBC family show? That's actually racist! Gasp!" angle.
(And both the Gillatt book and the Wood/Miles ones were
widely available in book and comic shops. I'd hardly call them "Niche publications"- implying they were only
sold at things like DW conventions).
Except that they didn't.
Someone writing an article in today's MoS can hardly be expected to trawl through specialist bookshops and read all the books in there just on the off chance that someone sometime wrote something on the same subject.
Well, I wouldn't expect the "Mail on Sunday" to do much research. This issue is old news to anyone who studying
the show's past. The Mos is probably jumping on the subject because it wants to milk the "See that popular BBC family show? That's actually racist! Gasp!" angle.
(And both the Gillatt book and the Wood/Miles ones were
widely available in book and comic shops. I'd hardly call them "Niche publications"- implying they were only
sold at things like DW conventions).
No. The article is a "news" item. About new things. The book they refer to is a new book and its publication is being reported as news. They don't need to do research into previous similar works. It's s not as if they were attempting a survey of all available literature on the matter.
I can't believe I'm defending the Mail. But despite my dislike of it, I'd rather criticise it only for its errors. Not when it does perfectly ordinary reporting of this kind.
Be interesting to see how they depict him in An Adventure in Time & Space. Presumably they'll have to point out Hartnell's failings, but portraying him as a total see you next Tuesday might alienate the target audience.
I did! And the Daily Mail has continued it's obsessive right wing hatred of anything BBC. Including Doctor Who. Because they would rather believe in a right-wing American author over the real facts. That's what happened here. And the posters on the Mail online thread agree with the rest of us that the allegations are false and potentially damaging in the show's 50th anniversary.
I doubt that. Its clearly written as taking the piss out of those 'academics'. I hate the daily mail, but I cant pretend its tone is something other than what it is.
Be interesting to see how they depict him in An Adventure in Time & Space. Presumably they'll have to point out Hartnell's failings, but portraying him as a total see you next Tuesday might alienate the target audience.
So in 50 years time when attitudes to all sorts of things may have changed you won't mind if you're portrayed as someone vile because your opinions were formed by what most people are supposed to think now? Do you despise your parents or grandparents because when they were being brought up attitudes were different?
So in 50 years time when attitudes to all sorts of things may have changed you won't mind if you're portrayed as someone vile because your opinions were formed by what most people are supposed to think now? Do you despise your parents or grandparents because when they were being brought up attitudes were different?
You can not up hold older people todays attitudes.
Hartnell was a product of his time. No worse or better than many, if not most, people of his generation. For anyone interested in the "True" William Hartnell I recommend his biography written by his Granddaughter.
Having now read the article published in the M.O.S. it is quite clear to anyone who can get over their hatred of the paper, that they quite clearly think that the said article is a load of B
t
Be interesting to see how they depict him in An Adventure in Time & Space. Presumably they'll have to point out Hartnell's failings, but portraying him as a total see you next Tuesday might alienate the target audience.
I suspect after the Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall scandals, not to mention JNT & Downie's antics hitting the tabloids, Gatiss is unlikely to show anything that will depict
either Hartnell or the BBC in a bad light.
I doubt that. Its clearly written as taking the piss out of those 'academics'. I hate the daily mail, but I cant pretend its tone is something other than what it is.
I tell you I did. And I don't care if you believe me or not.
Comments
It's strange. I've hardly ever read the Mail, but know of it's reputation obviously, but I do frequently read the Metro (it is free after all) which I believe is published by the same company. I don't detect any of the same agenda in that. I'm not sure if this is because the different papers have different views or because they are just more subtle about in the Metro?
being from an ethnic minority myself (Pakistani) I have never considered the show to be racist.
And the same points raised are largely debatable anyway. The most addling one is perhaps the accusation of Martha Jones receiving second class treatment. I mean, what?
Oh for goodness sake, read the article first before pouring out your prejudiced bile! Or even read the thread - as has been pointed out it isn't the Daily Mail doing the accusing.
ethnic minorities is hardly novel.
Gary Gillatt included a chapter on DW, ethnic minorities and UK television in 1998's "Doctor Who: From A to Z", , Paul Cornell discussed the issue several times in fanzines, and the "About Time" books by Tat Wood and Lawrence Miles discussed the issue as well. While a whole book about ethnicity in
the show is new, it's not as new a subject as the
MoS would like us to think.
Why would the MoS be expected to know about these niche books (or even niche chapters) and fanzines?
I did! And the Daily Mail has continued it's obsessive right wing hatred of anything BBC. Including Doctor Who. Because they would rather believe in a right-wing American author over the real facts. That's what happened here. And the posters on the Mail online thread agree with the rest of us that the allegations are false and potentially damaging in the show's 50th anniversary.
Well, I wouldn't expect the "Mail on Sunday" to do much research. This issue is old news to anyone who studying
the show's past. The Mos is probably jumping on the subject because it wants to milk the "See that popular BBC family show? That's actually racist! Gasp!" angle.
(And both the Gillatt book and the Wood/Miles ones were
widely available in book and comic shops. I'd hardly call them "Niche publications"- implying they were only
sold at things like DW conventions).
Well me and other posters on this thread who have read the article did not get the impression that the Mail was agreeing with what they were saying, if anything the reverse. And in no way would this small article cause any damage to the show's 50th.
Except that they didn't.
Someone writing an article in today's MoS can hardly be expected to trawl through specialist bookshops and read all the books in there just on the off chance that someone sometime wrote something on the same subject.
No. The article is a "news" item. About new things. The book they refer to is a new book and its publication is being reported as news. They don't need to do research into previous similar works. It's s not as if they were attempting a survey of all available literature on the matter.
I can't believe I'm defending the Mail. But despite my dislike of it, I'd rather criticise it only for its errors. Not when it does perfectly ordinary reporting of this kind.
The show isn't racist, sexist or homophobic.
And he was also ... oh, never mind.
Only if they're relevant to the story, which of course depends upon how Gatiss chooses to tell it.
I doubt that. Its clearly written as taking the piss out of those 'academics'. I hate the daily mail, but I cant pretend its tone is something other than what it is.
So in 50 years time when attitudes to all sorts of things may have changed you won't mind if you're portrayed as someone vile because your opinions were formed by what most people are supposed to think now? Do you despise your parents or grandparents because when they were being brought up attitudes were different?
You can not up hold older people todays attitudes.
In the early 60's, the Daily Mail was a reasonably sensible broadsheet newspaper, not the sensationalist tabloid it is now.
Having now read the article published in the M.O.S. it is quite clear to anyone who can get over their hatred of the paper, that they quite clearly think that the said article is a load of B
t
I suspect after the Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall scandals, not to mention JNT & Downie's antics hitting the tabloids, Gatiss is unlikely to show anything that will depict
either Hartnell or the BBC in a bad light.
I tell you I did. And I don't care if you believe me or not.