One rule for the BBC…

Tabloid Watch has already covered the Daily Mail’s hilarious attack on the BBC over their ‘voyueristic’ coverage of Wimbledon and pointed out that when it comes to voyeuristic coverage of Wimbledon the tabloids are streets ahead. Yet I’ll mention it here because I have access to a print edition of the Daily Mail and it provided an stark reminder of just how hypocritical the Mail is. Here is a double-page spread dedicated to fans ‘furious over “voyeuristic” camerawork’ (complete with plenty of pictures in case you’re not sure what voyeuristic camerawork looks like):

BBC Voyeurism at Wimbledon

Click to Enlarge

Yet, just flick a few pages on and you are greeted by this:

Daily Mail hypocrisy

Click to Enlarge

Presumably the picture of the half-naked women is absolutely integral to the story? Er, no:

A confidence trickster who claimed to be the son of one of IBM’s founders invented a show-jumping team to defraud leading members of the horse-riding set.

George Schouten, 36, rented fast cars and an opulent country house in an attempt to convince suppliers and trainers to invest thousands in his ‘elaborate fantasy’ that he was heir to a fortune.

The Dutch conman even hired Britain’s leading female showjumper, Laura Renwick, 35, to front his team, and promised to pay her husband John to ‘provide riding lessons and services’.

The picture is of Laura Renwick, presumably the only picture the Daily Mail could find of ‘Britain’s leading female showjumper’ just happened to be this one, and presumably readers couldn’t understand the concept of the conman hiring a female showjumper without said showjumper being shown in her underwear. I know pointing out hypocrisy in the Daily Mail is a pretty simple and almost unlimited task, but when such hypocrisy coincides with an attack on the BBC is does tend to piss me off, given that the BBC in one day gives more culture to the world than the Mail has since its first edition.


If you have enjoyed reading this blog then please vote for me in a competition I have entered to win my bride an amazing holiday, it only takes 30 seconds and I cannot win without your support. Click here to vote, click here for more information.

2 Comments

  • ray says:

    Something has occured to me this morning, on reading your latest posts.

    I am sure that once upon a time newspapers had a narrative strand – anti/pro X party, anti/pro-death penalty, anti/pro-Mary Whitehouse and so on. This meant that every story was produced via a particular filter but every story had a certain internal logical consistency. If you were a left wing, ant-death penalty, fairly liberal, etc sort of person then there was a newspaper already waiting for you.

    Now it seems that there is a pro-1950s sort of movement in just about all the papers. There’s no real political consistency and all we’re left with are pro-saucy postcard vendors. Maybe this shows why the papers have all become massively schizophrenic.

    That and the publishers are all getting very old and so they don’t themselves have an internal consistency…

  • Chris says:

    But… But… However much I agree with your point, that’s not voyeurism. This is as much of a tenuous non-story as anything that appears in The Fail on a daily basis.

2 Trackbacks