American Horror Story Season 3: Episode 1 – Bitchcraft

What happened this week?

(this blog will contain spoilers – please watch the episode before reading)


In the manner of a prologue the episode opens in New Orleans in 1834 where Madame Delphine LaLaurie is holding a soirée to introduce her daughters to the gentlemen of New Orleans society. One of her daughters makes a play for a house slave (Bastien) and LaLaurie, fresh from her nightly ‘beauty regime’ (later revealed to be the application of a poultice made of ground up human pancreas) is so angered at the threat posed to her daughter’s purity (and, therefore her social value) that the house slave is accused of attacking the girl and is taken to LaLaurie’s attic. He is strung up and, with the addition of a bull’s head, is turned into a living Minotour to satiate LaLaurie’s sadistic power-plays. Later in flashback we see LaLaurie being given a love-potion ‘to ensure her husband’s fidelity’ by a visiting black woman (Marie Laveau). Soon after taking the potion it becomes clear that LaLaurie has been poisoned and it is revealed that Marie is Bastien’s lover.

Meanwhile in the present day, teenager Zoe Benson unwittingly kills her first lover with a destructive power unleashed by having sex. She is distraught to learn that her power comes from being a direct descendent of the Salem witches. Now her power has manifest itself, Zoe’s mother decides to send her to a school for girls with similar ‘gifts’. She arrives at the school run by Cordelia Foxx and she meets three other young witches, Queenie, Nan and Madison. Here she learns that the witches are are a ‘dying breed’ and the school aims to teach the girls to control their ‘gifts’. A cautionary tale about the burning of Misty Day is told to show what happens when witches’ gifts are shown to the outside world. Madison befriends Zoe and invites her to a frat party which ends in tragedy as Madison is drugged and raped by a group of frat boys. In her anger she uses her witch power to overturn the boys’ bus killing all but two of them. One of the dead, Kyle, was innocent and had been striking up a friendship with Zoe at the time of the rape. Zoe goes to the hospital in the hope of finding Kyle amongst the survivors. She discovers he died in the crash and in an act of vengeance subverts gendered expectations about sexual assault as she rapes the comatose instigator of the rape, causing him to bleed out and die.


We also meet Fiona Goode and soon learn she is Cordelia’s mother and ‘The Supreme’ – the most powerful of the witches. Fiona is obsessed with finding the secret of eternal youth and has been funding medical research to this end. She demands access to a rejuvenation drug ahead of human trials and the scientist in charge of the research resigns in protest. Fiona attacks the scientist and drains him of his life-force with a murderous kiss. Fiona travels to the school where she receives a cool welcome from her daughter. Having heard about Misty’s violent death, Fiona decides to involve herself in the young witches’ education and one of her first acts is to take them on a field trip to Mme LaLaurie’s house. Nan is able to sense the ‘lady of the house’ and Fiona excavates the garden and finds Mme LaLaurie buried alive.

The Witches and their Skills

  • Fiona – the supreme. She has a range of powers
  • Cordelia – a herbalist. She makes spells and potions.
  • Zoe – a ‘black widow’. She kills her lovers.
  • Madison – a psychokinetic. She has the power to move things telepathically
  • Nan – a telepath. She knows what others think.
  • Queenie – a human voodoo doll. Physical harm can be transferred to a third party
  • Misty (deceased)- can bring the dead back to life

Narrative and Representations

There is a lot of exposition in this first episode as we meet characters from two different time frames but the themes of the season are already becoming clear. The programme presents us with a matriarchal culture setting itself against patriarchal violence and oppression. The witches’ power is both sexual (Zoe and Fiona) and is used to wreak vengeance on the perpetrators of violent acts (Madison). Mother and daughter relationships are problematic and Zoe’s final voiceover identifies the importance of the supportive sorority of women who exist outside of mainstream culture and who are feared and misunderstood by it: ‘like it or not we need each other, and need each other desperately’. A parallel between the slaves of the past and the coven of witches is made and he two mature matriarchal figures share the same insecurities over ageing and losing their vitality.

Real-World References

American Horror Story regularly includes references to real-life stories. The 19th century characters are based on real-life figures – Mme LaLaurie is described as one of the earliest recorded serial killers and her story is being integrated into the tale of the Coven. The voodoo culture of New Orleans is being referred to in the character of Marie Laveau – based on another figure from history. The rape of Madison has overtones of recent ‘frat boy’ rape cases in the US, especially in the fact that the assault is recorded by the attackers and the instigator tells the other frat boys to delete the videos from their phones as they make their escape. Finally, the New Orleans setting works as a location with strong links to voodoo and witchcraft. This is post-Katrina New Orleans and so it also works as a location that is outside the mainstream and the city has its own sense of otherness given its isolation after the levees broke and the city found itself having to cope with near destruction.


Media Language and Genre

The episode uses a range of techniques to create an aura of mystery and suspense. The direction is unconventional and a range of different camera shots are used: fish-eye lenses, overhead shots and obtuse low-angle viewpoints all act to destabilise the viewer. The episode uses jump cuts and fast moving images in the front of the frame to create feelings of uncertainty and trepidation.


Although the episode itself has little in the way of extreme violence there are a number of disconcerting images of imprisoned and tortured slaves and most startling is the Minotaur itself. Music is also used to create atmosphere from the mournful theme used when Zoe finds out she is a witch to the psychedelic rock-out of Fiona’s response to the youth drug and the disturbing electronica soundtrack to the gang-rape.

Quote(s) of the Week

Runner Up 1

  • Tortured Slave: Why are you dong this to us?
  • LaLaurie: Because I can.

Runner Up 2

  • Fiona (to Cordelia, making a Wizard of Oz reference): Don’t make me drop a house on you

Quote of the Week…

  • Zoe (v/o – discussing her inherited power): It doesn’t show up in every generation, nor in every girl. Like my cousin Amanda. She’s just bulimic.


American Horror Story: Season 3 – Introduction

rs_560x415-130919105158-1024.American-Horror-Story.jl.091913The series blog starts today and each entry will summarise the main plot points of the episode and offer some thoughts and ideas of areas of interest that could be explored further. For any A Level Media students who find their way here, media concepts will be used extensively and, as the series progresses, some detours may be taken into the realm of media and or cultural theory. Inevitably there will be a range of references made. Some links will be provided and some theories may be applied.

Links to each episode blog can be found under the ‘American Horror Story’ tab above.


American Horror Story has already produced two seasons that used the horror genre as a vehicle to deal with contemporary issues and concerns. Season one focused on domestic horror (Murder House) whilst season two took a broader approach to show the horror within institutions (Asylum). Season 3 seems to be set somewhere in between. Coven is based on an informal institution created to protect its inhabitants and in many ways the coven mirrors a domestic environment.

The AHS creators (Brad Falchuk and Ryan Murphy) have previously used tried and tested genre conventions and direct references to other horror films. They have intertwined real-life events within AHS’s fantasy world and they have never been afraid to portray hyper violence or hyper sexuality as part of the programme’s story telling. Each season so far has created a surreal, carnivalesque world with season one focusing on the horror that comes from within the family and the home. Domestic relationships and motherhood are shown to be complex and visceral forces and central to the stories within the series are ideas about jealousy, passion, rage and reproduction. The second season looks at madness and the way unorthodox relationships are received and treated. It creates metaphors for modern society within its early 1960s setting and deals with homosexuality, religion, mixed race relationships psychotherapeutic methods and even throws in some Nazis, Aliens (and literally) the Devil for good measure. It’s final episodes bring the story up to date and includes commentary on media culture through the tabloidisation of contemporary journalism and news reporting. Both seasons have provided unconventional representations of usually under-represented groups; homosexuals, the disabled and women in particular. There have been accusations of misogyny in the programme’s representations of women as victims in both the domestic and the institutional setting. Each season of AHS has women as central characters as both protagonists and antagonists. Not the most common of approaches in contemporary TV where (like film) women are usually peripheral and support a man’s story. It’s worth noting that women of all age groups are part of the AHS universes and whilst some are clearly victimised, their suffering reflects the position many women find themselves in in today’s culture. Seasons one and two place women in patriarchal structures (marriage and the church) whereas AHS: Coven will clearly have a matriarchal structure as its focus. Should be interesting!


The Great British Bake Off – 2013

All the mean spirited anti-Ruby feeling on Twitter was for nothing. It wasn’t a fix and Paul Hollywood did not let the ‘pretty one’ win. The climax to this year’s Bake Off showed the prize being awarded to a creative and talented baker who had shown stoicism when being judged negatively and a quiet self assuredness as she created her bakes. Exactly the resolution expected in the Bake Off – totally and absolutely fair. Congratulations to Frances!

The Great British Bake Off will inevitably be different next year. It’s going to BBC 1 as it has become mainstream, mass market entertainment. It’s increased popularity may have been one of the reasons for the more vitriolic commentary in social media. Sadly, the sniping and conspiracy theories run counter to the positive, supportive camaraderie that is central to the show’s success. The Class of 2012, shown before this year’s Bake Off final was a reminder of more civilised days! Hopefully the increasing use of social media won’t turn the programme into the kind of reality TV where contestants are not judged on their talents but on their ‘saleability’ as tabloid newspaper and Heat magazine products.


A Media Studies resource using last year’s Bake Off (2012) is available. The info sheet covers ideas of Genre, Audience Gratification, Representations, National Identity and wider context issues. For further details contact me on Twitter @albionmill

Screen Shot 2013-10-23 at 07.27.54

Catching Up 4: The Context of Austerity Politics

Click on the links below, read the articles, do some more research, make up your own mind.

Over the last few months there has been a subtle change in the discourse regarding austerity politics. Social mobility, the gap between rich and poor, youth unemployment and other related ideas are in the news daily. This change might not be very noticeable in the right-wing tabloid media’s continued demonisation of ‘welfare culture’ or, more accurately, the poor – but in more analytical circles these issues are hot-topics. More centralised and left of centre commentators and analysts have been pointing out the elite nature of the political class and the disproportionate impact the current economic recession is having on the most vulnerable groups in society. After 30 years of politicians telling us we live in a classless society it has become very clear that our society is divided and our culture is not as egalitarian as we’d like to think.


The rise in the number of food banks, the enforced relocation of impoverished people (including families) and the treatment of the disabled by ATOS are difficult to ignore and are part of the news agenda. In addition, ‘the bedroom tax’, zero hour contracts, low pay culture and an ‘economic recovery’ that will (like the recession) mean more wealth for the wealthy (and no real change for the rest of us) are now being included in the debates. It is clear that political debate is often ideologically stuck in a Victorian model in terms of attitudes to work, labour and pay. It has not yet responded to the dramatic changes caused by globalisation and technology – unless we count politicians’ urge for us all to be ‘competitive’ in the ‘global race’ as taking these issues on board. Sadly there seems to be no real clarity as to what this means apart from accepting lower salaries and more precarious work –  ironically creating a low-pay culture where people cannot pay their own way and so more hardworking people find themselves dependent on the state.


What is consistent across the political divide is that it is low wages for the majority and increasingly high wages for the elite (and apparently there is no alternative). Lots of myths abound about hardworking people being able to work their way out of poverty and getting appropriate rewards, but selling off the Royal Mail at a bargain price, putting education in the hands of businesses and religious organisations, the quiet privatisation of the NHS  and the military is transforming the country and tells a different story.

Virgin Takeover

Map of Virgin Care Reach (2012)

The super-wealthy don’t need to worry about any of this. The idea of a social contract is unnecessary when you are in the upper echelons of (global) society and have no stake in any specific local, regional or national community. The super-wealthy don’t use or need any social infrastructure or services. As global citizens they have less of a reason to contribute to the societies they profit from as they don’t have to live in them. In the meantime massive numbers of people apply for small numbers of non-jobs, and find it harder and harder to pay their way. Just this week (Oct 2013) the Social Mobility Commission identified that:

‘Work no longer pays enough to provide a route out of poverty’

In today’s economy, the cost of living is not the cost of a meal at a gastro-pub, a new outfit at TopShop, a trip to the cinema or a new TV. The price of these optional expenses has dropped in real terms in the past 30 years. The cost of living is the cost of rent, the cost of energy, the cost of petrol, the cost of rates and council tax, the cost of medicine…. The cost of living is not optional and these compulsory costs have risen enormously over the past 30 years whilst wages have not. People find they can’t keep up – especially when the minimum wage is worth 10% less today in real terms compared to 2004 - and (assuming your parents are not part of the elite) should you want to maximise your chance of success by becoming more educated and more skilled, welcome to indebtedness as a university education, something that was once free (and paid a grant for living expenses), now means you start your working life at least £27K in debt. This is the cost of the hope of some social mobility and financial stability but graduate unemployment is rising and there are less (full time, living wage paying) jobs to go round.

The current crisis is causing some people to think quite creatively in terms of what might be an alternative and some interesting and at times revolutionary ideas are starting to be discussed more – for example:

People are differentiating between the minimum wage and the concept of a living wage (one that pays enough to allow a person to live independently). ‘A fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay’ seems to be quite a revolutionary thought – of course it could mean that some businesses may see a reduction in profits. The in-work benefit bill would be cut though and with less people on the poverty-line they might spend more and help increase profit margins. It’s also possible that a workforce that feels less demeaned may also become more effective/efficient too.

Jaron Lanier’s book (Who Owns the Future), on the broad impact of ‘free-culture’ online, seems to have been quite influential as I’ve seen it referred to several times. It identifies a need to look for alternatives to the current attitudes to work and economics. If more ‘jobs’ are being done for free and millions of people are out of work, perhaps the factory model of being gainfully employed for 40(+) hours per week needs to be considered as an outmoded concept. We live in a post-industrial culture that retains attitudes from the industrial era when it comes to work and education. The social and business models that dominate now do not fit in with the traditional ways of organising a workforce but people are still ostracised if they find themselves out of work and needing help. The political economic structure does not allow for full employment and technological changes are making the notion of us all being meaningfully employed and rewarded for our labours less and less likely.

The idea of a Citizen Salary (Universal Basic Income) is being discussed in some places. This idea has been offered up for a national vote as a potential approach to social economics in the participatory democracy of Switzerland. The idea that everyone has a guaranteed minimum income is often criticised as it is assumed everyone will just become lazy and do nothing. Some people might make that choice but the main benefits are argued to be a level of freedom for people that could encourage entrepreneurialism and allow levels of creativity in people’s work and life choices whilst ensuring all citizens have a basic standard of living. Work would still offer a salary so those who want more than a basic living would need to work but the pressure to work full-time and the possibilities for exploitation would be reduced and this could lead to a more equitable distribution of work and, therefore, access to a better standard of living for all.

It will be interesting to see if any of these alternative ways of thinking impact on the plans politicians will start putting forward as they gear up for the general election in 2015!

Click on the links above, read the articles, do some more research, make up your own mind.


Metallica: Through the Never

Last week I went to an arts cinema to see a film (The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology) made by the Slovene philosopher Slavoj Zizek who makes the connection between the dream-like fantasies created by Hollywood films and the construction of ideologies. This week, on the other side of town, I went to see a film made by the Hungarian director Nimrod Antal. This film was at the IMAX cinema and it was Metallica: Through the Never in 3D. This second film takes on a lofty theme too, making a connection between heavy rock and the destruction of ‘forces of anarchy’. It also goes some way to support Zizek’s hypothesis as it was a great example of myth making.

In terms of the presentation of the film itself, the idea of a huge James Hetfield looming down on you in 3D may or may not appeal, but a major selling point of the film is that it offers an opportunity to get up close and personal with the whole band whilst they perform on stage.


Metallica: Through the Never gets you closer to the band during a live show than could ever be offered by simply being at a performance. Hearing the show in an IMAX cinema is where this film is worth its ticket price as the experience combines the visceral appeal of the live show with the crystal clear clarity of super-expensive speakers. Sadly though, the 3D seemed ‘off’ at times and quick pans across the stage were dizzying and acted to push the audience out of the fantasy of the film, as did the lack of cohesion at times in the focus within the 3D. Getting ‘on the stage’ and being ‘with’ the band members was however an exhilarating experience and offered something unique. Not so successful was the occasional point of view from the audience where our view was interrupted by the waving arms of the crowd in front. This offered nothing new and, yet again, took us out of the fantasy of the 3D experience.

This is a gig film with several USPs – not only is it getting us on stage in 3D and providing hi-fidelity surround sound, but it also includes a semi-narrative film within the gig-movie format. This stars Dane De Haan (who was in the exceptionally well worth a watch superhero film with a difference, Chronicle). The narrative was intercut with the performance footage and was simple and well constructed. It was deliberately surreal, avoided logical explanations for the events shown and added not much other than an uneasy feeling that Metallica are a pretty right-wing, reactionary bunch. De Haan is extremely charismatic on screen and Metallica make an awesome noise. Putting the two together though didn’t seem to add much to either. A Metallica gig movie on an IMAX screen really would have been spectacle enough. Great music but perhaps Through the Never went one or two gimmicks too far.


Catching Up 3: The Further Tabloidisation of News

The BBC is often one of the targets of the Daily Mail’s vitriol and to me, one of BBC4’ biggest fans, the upside to having a state funded public service broadcaster seems very clear. One look at ITV’s schedules should make us all very wary of the way choice would be curtailed if there was a reduction in the types of broadcasters we have available to audiences here in the UK. Sometimes BBC news really lets the side down – whether it is its shameless sycophancy (the Royal Wedding/Jubilee coverage), its embarrassingly desperate attempts at ‘yoof‘ appeal (the Royal Wedding/Jubilee coverage) or its ‘missing the point entirely’ political debates that seek to create entertaining adversarial conflict rather than inform or educate its audience. BBC news often works on the assumption that news audiences need sensation to remain interested in hard news stories. This belief is inherent in much news broadcasting with TV news often providing highly simplified discussions with an over-reliance on vox-pops and celebrity stories.

Newsnight (BBC2) and the Today programme (Radio 4) take a more serious slant on the stories but political debate is being shaped more and more by an aggressive approach to questioning that does not advance debate and democracy – it could be argued that on occasion this style of questioning is actively shutting discussion down.

One of the biggest, most complex and urgent issues over the summer was the internal conflict in Syria and the potential for western military intervention. Just before the commons debate and vote on this issue, Diane Abbot MP was interviewed on Radio 4’s Today programme (Aug 28th). You can listen to the interview here. Today is the flagship BBC radio news show. It broadcasts interviews with politicians early in the morning, often setting the news agenda for the day. Abbot attempted to discuss whether or not the UK should support US led military action in Syria. The BBC presenter had a different agenda though and the interview acts to illustrate the focus that is placed on adversarial interview techniques and the interview deteriorated into an attempt to ‘force’ Abbott into saying something that may harm her career or force her into announcing her resignation should she disagree with her party leader on this issue. This personality politics rather than debate on the legality or even morality of armed intervention dominates the news media and massively dilutes the potential for actual political debate. The BBC are expected to present news in a fair and non-biased way ensuring that all political views receive air-time. Sadly, the rush to create headlines and a somewhat patronising view of their audience often leads to these types of debate where the public is no wiser on the issues either side of the debate.

The results of The House of Commons vote are here: Diane Abbott did not have to resign – although she has since been removed from her post in a shadow cabinet reshuffle.

More recently a Labour politician was accused of being ‘boring’ when she appeared on Newsnight. The producer of the BBC programme tweeted the comment angering Labour central office and upsetting the politician herself (see below). Although, when politicians insist on mindlessly regurgitating soundbites and ‘the party line’ they might expect a bit of criticism. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why news programmes try so hard to create conflict?? To be honest, the most offensive part of the producer’s tweet was the ‘down with the kids’ language used by a 40-something year old Oxbridge graduate.




Care! Some of the links below connect to the Mail Online

It’s a commonly held idea that bullying is a manifestation of fear. Bullies fear difference and as they do not have the intellect or the articulation to be able to engage and consider difference, they attack it. This lack of engagement means that bullies perceive difference as a threat, so some attack physically, some emotionally and some verbally. The advice given to children is to stand up to bullies – the absolute opposite of what a bullied person would want to do. It took a level of bravery not usually seen in our political class for Ed Miliband, a man whose politics is distinctly different to that of the Daily Mail’s, to stand up to one of the media’s worst bullies last week in his ‘right to reply’ to the Daily Mail’s hatchet piece on Miliband’s father.

Mil 1

The Daily Mail has been perfecting the art of bullying for decades and since the development of the Mail Online, the newspaper has become the last word in negative and aggressive reporting. It bullies celebrities and ordinary people alike: it is quite happy creating the politics of envy; women are criticised for being too fat, too thin, too old and for trying to look young; it holds everyone up to high moral standards and then is more than happy to provide prurient image after image to create sensationalism and titilation; it wants to but it quite happy to lech at underage girls justifying its distasteful tastes  by claiming the girls are ‘flaunting’ themselves.

It’s difficult to identify what the Mail ‘likes’ or ‘believes in’ as it’s pages are filled with finger pointing, naming and shaming, criticism and hate. Of course Paul Dacre’s paper will tell us they are only providing what the audience wants and the fact that it receives 45 million unique users per month certainly supports this claim – even though the comments on-line seem to indicate that a lot of those hits are from people highly critical of the Mail’s position on a lot of issues. Given the patrician tone taken by the Mail’s writers, perhaps they might want to consider providing what is needed to allow the press to be part of a fully functioning democracy rather than just ‘what we want’. Sadly, this is not at all likely as ‘what the audience wants’ provides the on-line paper its income.

The Daily Mail’s attack on Miliband showed the paper in classic bullying form. The attack was aimed at Ed but, showing extraordinary cowardice, the paper focused its criticism on Ed’s dead father. Bullies will look for victims least likely to be able to defend themselves and the weapons used (Miliband Snr’s status as an immigrant and his alleged lack of patriotism) tap into a range of other problematic areas related to modern politics and underscore the Daily Mail’s prejudices. The paper is clearly confused as it doesn’t know the difference between patriotism and nationalism – Miliband Snr fought against nationalism in defence of his newly adopted country and it is nationalism that the Daily Mail promotes on a daily basis – not patriotism. The paper is not quite brave enough to admit this so it creates all sorts of outraged bluster and claims it’s all in the name of loving one’s country. Nonsense. Bullies believe everyone else is as stupid as the bully is. Mis-defining patriotism, ranting about the danger posed by Marxists and then listing Soviet atrocities demonstrates a complete lack of political engagement and absolutely no understanding of the difference between a political and economic philosophy and a totalitarian regime. The fact that the Soviets were our allies in World War Two has been forgotten by the Mail is seems – but perhaps the Soviet position as an enemy is more ingrained than just a long held cold-war grudge. Perhaps the paper feels the Soviet threat more keenly than most because of its previous ties with enemies of the Soviets in the person of Mussolini and Hitler. Famously the Daily Mail supported these fascists and our own homegrown ones in the 1930s.

The Mail seems to assume that its audience won’t be appalled at the weakness of this argument – an attempt to smear the name of a dead man to disrupt the career of a party leader. The Mail seems to think that it’s audience are so stupid they won’t see through its poltcal agenda in the misuse of the paper’s freedom of speech used to accuse someone of a thought crime. Apparently its audience are so dim they won’t see the hypocrisy of this invective coming from a paper who damned those who spoke out against Thatcher at the time of her death. Apparently we are such dullards we’ll be taken in by the paper alluding to the fact that Miliband Snr is buried in close proximity to Karl Marx in some way means something and proves the Mail is right. This really does feel like a schoolyard argument. Perhaps they should read their own readers’ comments because many readers are not as stupid as the Daily Mail assumes and feel the paper has gone too far. Twitter responded with mockery and satire, the rest of the press and the political class spoke out against the Mail’s article and at the time of writing it is still affording Miliband Jnr the most positive coverage since taking office as the Leader of the Opposition. This has been a massive mis-step for the Daily Mail, but like the ignorant hate-filled bully the paper has become, it cannot back down and admit it made an error of judgement.

Mil 2

The establishment is taking this opportunity to join in with what Greenslade in the Guardian is calling an ‘open season’ on the Daily Mail. Not only is it now being called out on its history and it’s negative impact on culture but now it’s financial arrangements are  being called into question (the paper is owned by a non-dom peer and the company is incorporated and controlled in tax-friendly offshore locations). It’s offices are to be the focus of a public protest today (Oct 6th 2013). Despite this focus on the paper’s values and actions, no recent critique has yet been as eloquent and (given the Miley Cyrus/Rhianna debates) as pertinent as the one recorded by Amanda Palmer last summer. This is definitely not suitable for viewing at work but definitely worth a watch.

Mil 3

Miliband Jnr has form in standing up against the press. He supported Leveson’s recommendation that there should be state mandated controls on some of the worst and excessive tabloid behaviours. Clearly this and Miliband’s socialist-lite politics make him an enemy in Dacre’s eyes. This character assassination of an active politician’s father is nothing more than a heavy handed attempt to undermine someone who would seek to hold the press responsible for their actions and whose politics stems from an ideal of social justice. the Daily Mail is never interested in what’s best for Britain or the British. The Daily Mail is only interested in the ease of which it can generate profits.