07.04.2004

Migrant horror stories

Around the web: tabloid websites

Another week, and yet another bout of tabloid scaremongering. But this time these xenophobes have claimed the scalp of immigration minister Beverly Hughes, and are now attempting to take a few swings at Blair and Blunkett with their asylum bludgeon. While communists and revolutionary socialists will not be shedding any tears over the departure of Blunkett’s erstwhile protégé, this must be seen for what it is: a victory for the most reactionary elements of British society.

Our foam-flecked friends at the Daily Mail are no doubt proud to have consistently fought for the defence of backward values. It has in the past ranted against the evils of the internet after all, seeing it as a base from which ‘extremists’ and pornographers can plot the downfall of western civilisation. This probably explains the lacklustre site maintained in its name (www.dailymail.co.uk). Viewers are assured that “we are developing our exciting new websites …” In the meantime, we have to put up with selected “highlights” such as the patronising nonsense of its Femail pages. Wading through the David Beckham gossip, you might come across the discussion board among the site’s features - so at least space for a communist response to the Mail’s hate-filled rhetoric is theoretically available. The paper’s page itself is really an online pitch for taking out a virtual subscription. At £4.94 for a week, it would be cheaper to buy the print edition.

The Daily Express website is even worse (www.express.co.uk). It features a scan of today’s edition, plus a few selected news items culled from its pages. No prizes for guessing how far up the list the ‘Blair hosts immigration summit’ story is. Other than this there is nothing else to do, other than rattle off a message to the editor (or rather the hack responsible for opening email).

The website of its downmarket reactionary twin, the Daily Star (www.dailystar.co.uk) follows the same corporate template. It is, however, a rather strange beast. This rag’s print edition is known for heavily featuring celebrity news stories (that tend to be several days out of date), even when the rest of the press is occupied with major news events. So why is it that ‘Latest headlines’ deal with ‘proper’ news? Is it an attempt to give The Star a serious veneer? I doubt it. Top billing here goes to immigration - again. I guess this move provides its online scapegoating with a consistently ‘serious’ news image. Perhaps even The Star would balk at featuring an anti-migrant diatribe alongside a feature on H from Steps.

For The Sun (www.thesun.co.uk), immigration is not featured prominently because the spotlight is hogged by the status of Beckham’s marriage. Always trust The Sun to lead with the important issues. It is on the (lunatic?) fringe of the site where we find the latest rant from the deeply unpleasant Richard Littlejohn. Exercising our self-styled ‘wit’ when I visited was the arrest of Ahmed Ali Khan, a suspect picked up in last week’s anti-terror dragnet. Apparently 10 years ago, while he was still at school, he “wanted to follow in the footsteps of the world’s worst terrorist”. I can only assume Littlejohn is talking about Osama bin Laden, as his column is not normally noted for denouncing George W Bush. Just for good measure, the announcement that Trevor Phillips of the Commission for Racial Equality has come to regard multiculturalism as divisive is seized on for a rant against the “fascist left”. That Littlejohn provides no source evidence for the “anti-British bigot” attack on Phillips he moans about comes as no surprise.

Unusually, the present ‘Sun says’ editorial was muted, preferring to dwell on Europe, taxes, and the “controversy” over its royal photographer. You can search the online archives for the xenophobic content it is infamous for, but disgracefully you have to pay for access. Searching the rest of the current edition only turns up a couple of items. The first is a selection of dated letters on the Romanian migrants ‘scandal’, under a “Readers are appalled” headline; the other is a report from last week’s prime minister’s questions.

The Daily Mirror (www.mirror.co.uk) acquired an undeserved leftwing reputation during the war in Iraq, but like the Lib Dems it began supporting ‘our boys’ as soon as the shooting started. However, compared with the above, The Mirror stands out as a forum of progressive ideas. Alone among the tabloids it does not systematically engage in migrant-bashing. That said, it does not combat the reactionary filth the others print either. For that, revolutionaries must for the time being rely on our own fragmented and infrequent press.