| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/18/2009 4:59:51 PM | The Jan Moir article on Stephen Gately's death created the highest number of complaints in Press Complaints Commission's history.
The late Sir David English gave it some dignity. Sadly it has now declined back into what it was: a gutter rag 'written for reactionary old biatches by reactionary old biatches'. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/18/2009 5:56:05 PM | One long standing legal principle in publishing is that the editor is responsible for everything that appears in his or her newspaper. This principle over-rides any authority that the advertising manager, marketing manager publisher or owner may have.
So Dacre 'carries the can' for The Daily Mail. It may be difficult for it to 'argue its way out of the hole it is in given its history of homophobia (amongst other phobias). It may also be another 'test' of how toothless the PCA is - maybe leading to a legislative complaints procedure to replace the voluntary PCA one. The PCA could be as threatened by this as the Mail. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/19/2009 1:42:28 PM | Well the Mail is very right-wing, eh? Regular readers will be influenced in that direction, whether they realise it or not, so I'd guess it's folk who aren't very right-wing who knock the Daily Mail readers.
Or, could be that it's the second most read newspaper, and Brits just love to knock success, I think. | |
|
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/20/2009 1:20:20 PM |
Thought it was a dreadful article on Gately and in awful taste given that he wasn't even buried. I don't know about the people who read it but I think that the Daily Mail is a homophobic paper.
Have you read the article by Jan Moir?
Could you inform us which bits of it were homophobic?
She merely stated that Stephen probably died from his 'sleazy' lifestyle.This was a reference to his drug-taking that might have caused the build-up of liquid in his lungs due to respiratory failure. He also died following a threesome with a stranger, which can also be sen by some as being 'sleazy', although it was not a contributory factor.
The fact is that Jan Moir supports civil partnerships... | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/20/2009 1:35:36 PM |
It is not my bible nor a creed I live by, but I would love to be enlightened as to what 'sort of person' I am due to a small part of my reading material.
Is what I stated in msg 6 and I stand by that.
Sadly it has now declined back into what it was: a gutter rag 'written for reactionary old biatches by reactionary old biatches'.
A biatch I may but I object to 'reactionary' and 'old'. 
This thread has actually shown me how narrow minded some people are with their stereotypical labelling
 | |
|
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/20/2009 3:30:10 PM |
"Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships." Jan Moir Daily Mail
There is nothing contradictory about supporting the fact that civil partnerships exist but pointing out that they aren't 'perfect'.
http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2009/10/16/jan-moir-denies-column-is-homophobic-criticises-mischievous-and-heavily-orchestrated-internet-campaign/
“Not to the fact of his homosexuality. In writing that ‘it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships’ I was suggesting that civil partnerships – the introduction of which I am on the record in supporting – have proved just to be as problematic as marriages.” | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/20/2009 3:41:06 PM | "Through the recent travails and sad ends of Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger and many others, fans know to expect the unexpected of their heroes - particularly if those idols live a life that is shadowed by dark appetites or fractured by private vice."
...
"For once again, under the carapace of glittering, hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see." Jan Moir Daily Mail | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/20/2009 3:47:52 PM |
"Through the recent travails and sad ends of Michael Jackson, Heath Ledger and many others, fans know to expect the unexpected of their heroes - particularly if those idols live a life that is shadowed by dark appetites or fractured by private vice."
...
"For once again, under the carapace of glittering, hedonistic celebrity, the ooze of a very different and more dangerous lifestyle has seeped out for all to see." Jan Moir Daily Mail
And what exactly is either 'homophobic' or incorrect about that comment?
1) Stephen was a known drug-user.
2) Stephen and his partner brought back a stranger to their bed.
"a very different and more dangerous lifestyle "........she was right! | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/20/2009 7:31:14 PM | The "problem" with the Daily Mail is that it has changed over the last few years from the best tabloid newspaper in this country to a right-wing rag that peddles populist knee-jerk reactions to the news that it hopes will sell papers.
A Cornucopia, in his posts above, refers to the creator of a truly great popular newspaper, the late Sir David English. David was one of the great editors of the last century and built up the Daily Express before switching to the Daily Mail when he felt he was badly treated by the owners of the Express. The Mail soon outstripped the Express in quality reporting, as well as in circulation terms.
Of course, those who hold right wing views will see nothing wrong with columnists and editorials that pander to their view of the world, but that is a far cry from a newspaper that reports the news in an unbiased way, with a balanced commentary. The Mail still has some excellent journalists, but it has slipped drastically from the standards set by David English.
One of the many obituaries about David, available online, goes some way to explaining where the Mail has slipped in recent years. He was my friend, and I miss him, but the Mail Group misses him more.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-sir-david-english-1164350.html | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/20/2009 7:53:34 PM | Sir David English took up what he saw as a travesty of justice in the way the Met Police handled the Stephen Lawrence murder and campaigned for it to be put right and for the memory of Stephen Lawrence to be held up for what he was: a decent bright kid with decent respectable parents who was murdered by thugs. I cannot see the Daily Mail of today doing anything as bold or moral - it would probably have dismissed the whole story with a snide aside about immigrants.
Sadly only 'The Sun' seems to do any sort of campaigning journalism at the moment.
I have never been a great lover of The Mail ever - but would reiterate my views on the qualities of Sir David English to anyone - he was a great editor. A great editor knows his readers and target readers and aquires and keeps them with quality journalism that is focused to their needs, aspirations, concerns and lifestyles. Sir David English grew The Mail through doing this. | |
|
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/21/2009 5:04:25 AM | I found this quite an interesting read
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/29986
Particularly
1. Nobody is arguing that gay couples are any more likely than straight couples to get this partnership thing right. To be crystal clear, there is no happy-ever myth of civil partnerships. There is only the premise that gay couples have the same rights as straight couples to make an honest, legally recognized go at a committed relationship with the person they love.
2. George Michael hasn’t cornered the market on unconventional approaches to sex and relationships. Lots of people of all orientations take an experimental approach to their sexuality. And guess what — when that experimentation takes place between consenting adults, and when all parties involved approach their interactions safely and maturely, it’s none of our damned beeswax what they do. And besides,
3. We’re well past expecting gay couples to prove they’re ‘just like’ straight couples. It’s ignorant and homophobic to presume that for gay couples to “earn” their right to marry they have to prove they’re not as perverted, dirty, and disgusting as some straight people think they are. It is, in short, ignorant and homophobic to assume, despite preliminary evidence to the contrary, that when a gay man dies young the circumstances must be sleazy.
Oh oh oh! and one more thing:
4. If we’re going to use celebrities as spokespeople for a sexual orientation, then I bring you:
* Roman Polanski (for raping a 13-year-old girl)
* David Duchovny (for uncontrolled sex addiction)
* Jude Law (for cheating on his wife with their child’s nanny)
* Woody Allen (for cheating on his partner, Mia Farrow, with Farrow’s daughter)
* Charlie Sheen (for multiple documented ‘encounters’ with prostitutes and a failed marriage as a result of addiction to porn)
Lots of people use cannabis, both gay and straight and I'm sure that many people whether they be gay, straight or bisexual have unconventional love lives. The only difference is, the fact that Stephen Gately died on an evening where he was allegedly found on the sofa while allegedly his partner had gone to bed with someone else raised questions about the nature of their relationship. If he had lived then the person who went back to their apartment might have sold a story about that night, he may not have, who knows.
As for the drug taking, I'm not sure that toxicology tests have shown whether he had taken drugs the night he died. Neither am I sure what other drugs Stephen reportedly did or didn't use. If drugs played no part in his death then I'm not sure the relevance of him using them was or is.
Anyway, I'm sure the article did what it may have set out to do, provoke a reaction, my view is, publishing that the day before he was cremated was beyond insensitive.
But the press aren't there to be that, are they? | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/21/2009 1:41:50 PM | 4. If we’re going to use celebrities as spokespeople for a sexual orientation, then I bring you:
* Roman Polanski (for raping a 13-year-old girl)
* David Duchovny (for uncontrolled sex addiction)
* Jude Law (for cheating on his wife with their child’s nanny)
* Woody Allen (for cheating on his partner, Mia Farrow, with Farrow’s daughter)
* Charlie Sheen (for multiple documented ‘encounters’ with prostitutes and a failed marriage as a result of addiction to porn)
Gary Glitter musn't be famous enough. :(
But on topic, the Daily Mail is just a bit of a wet flannel, really. :laugh: | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/21/2009 3:14:52 PM |
Sir David English took up what he saw as a travesty of justice in the way the Met Police handled the Stephen Lawrence murder and campaigned for it to be put right and for the memory of Stephen Lawrence to be held up for what he was: a decent bright kid.... Ask any Met officer........he was 'known' to the police....
Stephen Lawrence had no criminal record or history. He was murdered by racist thugs who got away with his murder because of sloppy lacsadaisical police work by what McPherson described as an Institutionaly Racist Metropolitan Police.
" Stephen's educational achievements, his lack of a criminal record, his middle class ambitions of becoming an architect, the fact his parents were church goers" BBC.co.uk
The Daily Mail's decision to name the murderers was "unprescedented" and brave - Sir David English managed to rally its readership around the case and press for whatever justice could be obtained for Stephen Lawrence's parents. The case has become one of the most important in English legal history.
What does 'Known to the Police' mean? It reads as some sort of implicit guilt and a slur on the memory of an innocent young murder victim. Many people are 'known to the Police' including law abiding retailers, publicans, The Salvation Army, Child Protection workers, charity workers and others people as innocent of crimes as Stephen Lawrence was.
Compared to what Sir David English did - The Mail recruiting retailers to save costs by not giving away carrier bags hardly measures up as the pinnacle of'campaigning journalism'. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/21/2009 4:51:03 PM | He was murdered by racist thugs who got away with his murder because of sloppy lacsadaisical police work by what McPherson described as an Institutionaly Racist Metropolitan Police.
You have no proof of the identity of his killers.
The Daily Mail's decision to name the murderers was "unprescedented" and brave
'Brave' in what way?
What does 'Known to the Police' mean? It reads as some sort of implicit guilt and a slur on the memory of an innocent young murder victim.
It means that although the police knew that he was involved in criminal activity, they didn't have sufficient evidence to bring him to trial.
| |
|
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/21/2009 5:17:48 PM |
Can you provide us with evidence to support your scurrilous claims about Stephen Lawrence being known to the MET in the seedy way you are implying?
Which bit of the following statement do you not understand?:
"It means that although the police knew that he was involved in criminal activity, they didn't have sufficient evidence to bring him to trial." | |
|
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/21/2009 5:31:37 PM |
Maybe I should type it s.l.o.w.e.r so you will understand what I am asking. Please provide us with evidence to back up your claim that he was known to the police...
There isn't any.
That's the whole point of the statement "being known to the police" in relation to criminal activity.
If you wish to find out more, take my earlier advice, and ask a MET officer...please don't pester me about it.
I have no idea why the Daily Mail took that step... | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/21/2009 5:55:55 PM |
Stephen Lawrence had no criminal record or history
What about the rumours regarding him being a 'known' drug-dealer?
He was murdered by racist thugs
No one has been convicted of his murder yet, so I am not sure how you can say the above with any conviction  ? Just a quick thought... his murder might have had nothing to do with the colour of his skin.
Don't we live in a society where we are innocent until proven guilty ?
Your claim regarding he was murdered by racist thugs is no different to the claim regarding him being a 'known' drug-dealer. Do you see how this works... it works both ways!
So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
I am not in a position to comments, as I have never read it, but it sounds like an interesting read and I'll definitley be giving it a go.
I cannot believe people are narrow-minded enough to stereotype someone based on their choice of newspaper . I know it happens, but it says more about the person judging that the person reading the paper. | |
|
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/21/2009 6:05:31 PM |
Ask any Met officer........he was 'known' to the police....
I have, and he wasn't.
It's amazing that some posters on this site who seem to delight in making sure that every statement made in the forums can be proved to be factually correct, can at the same time make statements that verge on the ridiculous. | |
|
| |
| So, what's 'wrong' with The Daily Mail and those who read it?
Posted: 10/21/2009 6:28:11 PM | Alex666...
I have no idea what your reply to me has gotta do with the Daily Mail and those who read it?!
Then why did you feel it necessary to say this:
As I said in my previous post, “… claim regarding he was murdered by racist thugs is no different to the claim regarding him being a 'known' drug-dealer. Do you see how this works... it works both ways!”, I was/am implying they are both nothing other than claims, because none have led to a conviction.
Nowhere did I say he was guilty. If you look closely, you will the spot the subtle but huge difference between the two statements:
1) In the post I was replying to, the poster said "He was murdered by racist thugs" implying the lads were/are guilty.
2) In my post I said "What about the rumours regarding him being a 'known' drug-dealer?". Nowhere have I implied he was guilty, hence the word "rumour".
EDIT:
Yet you felt it was acceptable to place an offensive rumour that would not doubt cause distress to his family in a public forum?
In a word "Yes". Anyway, I am sure it is not that 'offensive', I mean if you were from South London around that time of the incident, you would know that the 'rumour' was common knowledge...
Anyway, shouldn't you be asking the same question to the poster who placed an offensive rumour regarding x amount of innocent lads being "racist thugs", "murderers", etc.
I will not respond to any more of your pointless questions, as they have nothing to do with the subject-matter!
| |
|
Home
login 
