Category Archives: BBC Bashing

Has the Daily Mail Jumped the Shark?

The TV show Happy Days in many people’s view went in to a terminal decline when The Fonze jumped over a shark whilst water-skiing. Watching the show always involved suspending disbelief to quite a large extent as the Fonze is clearly a ridiculous character but the point when he jumped over a shark was the point at which the writers went too far. Was it hubris or over-confidence or simply desperation that led the writers to take their audience for granted? Either way it was a watershed moment. I wonder whether the Mail has similarly over-reached itself – not with its attack on Ed Miliband via his father so much, but by their attempted defence.

fonzie_jumps_the_shark

In many ways the attack on Ralph Miliband was typical of the Daily Mail – it is typical of their Modus Operandi: prejudicial, ill-conceived and misrepresentive of the subject. This response by Miliband Senior’s biographer is very telling.

The sole basis for this assertion was a diary entry at the age of 16 in autumn 1940, where Ralph Miliband wrote that “the Englishman is a rabid nationalist” and, “when you hear the English talk of this war you sometimes almost want them to lose it to show how things are.” Such sentiments might sound shocking, but they need to be put into their real context.

A few months earlier Miliband had arrived in Britain with his father, having walked from Brussels to Ostend, where they took the last boat leaving for Britain. While working hard to improve his English, he was also spending much of his time wandering through the streets of London trying to make sense of his new environment. He was in a constant state of anxiety about the fate of his sister and mother, who had remained in Nazi occupied Belgium as stateless Jews.

Because he believed that the earlier appeasement of Hitler was largely responsible for the situation, he was occasionally exasperated by the atmosphere of complacency and superiority amongst the British upper classes, and this no doubt provoked his intemperate diary outburst.

There is nothing new in any of this: The Mail has done this to many others. What is unusual is that Daily Mail could not deny Ed Miliband a response.

 

The petulance that accompanied the printing of Ed Miliband very measured article was impressive to behold.

Ed Miliband:

Britain has always benefited from a free Press. Those freedoms should be treasured. They are vital for our democracy. Journalists need to hold politicians like me to account — none of us should be given an easy ride — and I look forward to a robust 19 months between now and the General Election.

<snip>

The Daily Mail sometimes claims it stands for the best of British values of decency. But something has really gone wrong when it attacks the family of a politician — any politician — in this way. It would be true of an attack on the father of David Cameron, Nick Clegg, or mine.

There was a time when politicians stayed silent if this kind of thing happened, in the hope that it wouldn’t happen again. And fear that if they spoke out, it would make things worse.

I will not do that. The stakes are too high for our country for politics to be conducted in this way. We owe it to Britain to have a debate which reflects the values of how we want the country run.

The Daily Mail Comment

Red Ed’s in a strop with the Mail. Doubtless, he’s miffed that his conference was overshadowed by the revelations of his former friend, the spin doctor Damian McBride, serialised in this paper, which exposed the poisonous heart of the Labour Party.

Nor did he see the funny side when we ridiculed the yucky, lovey-dovey photographs of him and his wife, behaving like a pair of hormonal teenagers in need of a private room.

But what has made him vent his spleen — indeed, he has stamped his feet and demanded a right of reply — is a Mail article by Geoffrey Levy on Saturday about the Labour leader’s late father, Ralph, under the arresting headline ‘The Man Who Hated Britain’.

They seem to want us to believe it was an act of great magnanimity for them to publish the response rather the act of cowardice and calculation it really was. They know how much worse it would be if it was published elsewhere under the headline What the Mail refused to print. The choice of the grave photo shows the standard dehumanising attitude of the DM to those they oppose – although to be fair to them they have at-least acknowledged that this was in poor taste. Note the choice of language – responding to a deeply personal attack on his father, Ed is characterised as behaving childishly, whilst the Mail repeat the words ‘evil’ in reference to Ralph Miliband’s views.

If the professional ethos of journalism is to speak the truth to power then the Mail is undoubtably the very antithesis of a journalistic organisation. The reaction to this particular example though is interesting. The hardcore Mailites remain loyal but their wider credibility as a newspaper has been compromised. I – and many others – have long seen through them but the Mail has always maintained this pretence of seriousness. It is interesting, and not a little ironic, to see this pretence stripped away by their own bloody-mindedness. While Stephen Glover whines about the leftist conspiracy and alleged hypocrisy, the country at-large seems to take a different view. I find myself wondering if they have perhaps over-reached themselves this time?

I for one, truly hope so.

 

AFZ

OK, enough, this has to stop

The Daily Mail is still publishing stories about the BBC’s non-banning of AD/BC from ever more bizarre sources:

Vatican

The ‘journalist’ behind this article is Simon Caldwell and if he doesn’t realise that this story is a complete lie, then he must be one of the most incompetent journalists around, or one of the most morally bankrupt. The article is just breathtakingly dishonest:

The Vatican has accused the BBC of an ‘act of enormous foolishness’ for dumping the terms BC and AD in case they cause offence to non-Christians.

The Roman Catholic Church also severely criticised the ‘senseless hypocrisy’ of Britain’s public service broadcaster for using a false respect for other religions to purge Christianity from Western culture.

Caldwell claims, despite the BBC issuing clarifying statements and the original Mail on Sunday admitting that each presenter was free to choose what terms to use, that:

The new guidance from the BBC asserts that the abbreviations for Before Christ and Anno Domini (the Year of the Lord) infringed its protocols on impartiality.

It instructs employees to instead replace them with the non-religious phrases BCE and BC – Before Common Era and Common Era.

No, the BBC have not issued any such instructions. Anybody with seconds in which to search Google knows this. Everyone who knows how the Daily Mail blusters and lies constantly to attack the BBC for the most inane reasons knows that any such story should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

How can articles like this be published? How can the Daily Mail exist in such a vacuum of truth? This story was an invention of the Mail on Sunday and it was immediately debunked – indeed people reading to the end of the Mail on Sunday article realised that is was invented because the Mail on Sunday admitted as much in the original article. Yet here we are, another myth has entered part of the national consciousness – the paranoid, ignorant and vocal minority of Daily Mail readers who our politicians feel it is so important to pander to.

I cannot clearly express how frustrated and angry I am becoming that shit like this can be published day after day when it is just a lie, a complete fucking lie. The BBC have never issued any order for presenters to abandon AD/BC and you only have to watch BBC programmes to realise that AD/BC is still used, frequently. It is beyond a joke now. People lap this bullshit up, believing it even though it seems laughable to anyone with half a brain how anyone could take this myth seriously.

We need proper press regulation because a loud minority have provided consistent evidence that they do not have the mental capacity to tell fact from fiction anymore and they must be saved from their own ignorance.

As for the Vatican: this is an organisation that can find the time to be outraged at the BBC because they are under the false impression that they are swapping one arbitrary term for another; whilst they are painstakingly attempting to cover-up years of systematic child abuse. I think they need to reassess their priorities.

George Carey: ‘Challenged’

George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, weighed in a couple of days ago (not sure how I missed it) on the BBC unequivocally NOT BANNING THE USE OF AD/BC: ‘Why are we letting the BBC abandon the Year of our Lord?’.

This myth is interesting because we’ve all been there at the inception of it – that first article plastered on the Mail on Sunday front page. We’ve all known from the off – simply by reading the whole article – that it was complete rubbish and every single idiot that has repeated it since whilst frothing away at a keyboard should hang up their rage-worn fingers in shame. If they did we could kiss goodbye to the following ‘writers':

  • James Deliingpole
  • Richard Littlejohn
  • Melanie Phillips
  • Steve Doughty
  • Boris Johnson

What a wonderful world that would be.

Anyway, Tabloid Watch has carefully documented the way this myth has been happily repeated by people who must be aware that it is a complete lie, but just don’t care. It’s even won the Tabloid Bullshit of the Month award – for which it was necessary for the award to be issued to everybody writing at both the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail.

Anyway, in wades the Bishop irrespective of all this:

Dionysius Exiguus would be dumbfounded at the attempts by the BBC to issue guidelines that amount to ditching the well-known terms in our calendar, BC and AD…

[so] why does the BBC wish to challenge and, we assume, discard this ancient usage?

Wait, sorry Mr Carey, did you just write ‘assume’? You ‘assume’ they are trying to ‘challenge’ or ‘discard’ BC/AD but surely you’ve had enough time to look into the matter? I will not bore you with the whole piece of persecution-complex drivel but I will pick out a few classic Daily-Mail-reader/writer devices/ For example, the classic ‘I’m not… but’ used here:

I am trying to be charitable to the BBC in not seeing this as a deliberate attempt to sideline the Christian faith, but I am quite sure that it amounts to a denial of our Christian heritage.

Breathtaking. Absolutely breathtaking. Just re-read that a couple of times to appreciate the mental leap it takes to join those two opposed ideas together in one sentence.

Next up, wheel out some more tabloid lies to support the lie you’re currently writing about:

The BBC changes are only a symptom of this crisis of historical memory.

We have recently seen the police investigate a cafe owner for displaying biblical texts. Street preachers have been arrested for handing out leaflets about the Christian faith. Nurses and other workers have been barred from wearing crosses.

A doctor is currently being investigated for praying with and for a patient.

The cafe owner was spoken to after the police received complaints that what was being displayed was homophobic – nothing to do with it being a Christian text. Nurses have to remove all jewelry – and a cross is not classed as being an essential part of the Christian faith – i.e. it is not standard practice to wear one, but personal choice (see Bill Hicks on why Christians should perhaps stop wearing them). Basically, tabloid stories about Christians being persecuted should always be taken with a huge dose of salt, not repeated as fact to support the lie you’re currently spreading.

To round off a thoroughly ignorant article Mr Carey finishes with a wish I’ve read all too often lately:

I would like to think that the BBC might rethink the guidelines it has sent out to its programme directors but, if that is too much to expect, is it too much to hope that presenters will use their intelligence and ignore such silly and yet potentially harmful advice?

Editorial decision rests with each producer / presenter Mr Carey, hence why the Daily Mail have also been moaning that different programmes switch between the two – and some programmes even use the terms interchangeably. I do recall watching QI on the weekend and Stephen Fry used BC. What you ‘would like to think’ about the BBC is actually the reality, had you only looked briefly into the matter you could have avoided inflicting your stupidity on the world.

For once, I will leave the (almost) last word to the utterly, utterly brilliant Mail sub who wrote this caption underneath a photo of George Carey:

Challenged

I could not think of a more fitting term.


With thanks to Metaltoast for pointing out this article to me.

Mail on Sunday becomes Daily Star

This has already been covered by Tabloid Watch, but it’s worth covering here just so you don’t miss out on the full splendour of the Mail on Sunday’s front page today:

Mail on Sunday

The article is also currently the leading story on the Mail website as well:

The article starts with some common claims:

The BBC has been accused of ‘absurd political correctness’ after dropping the terms BC and AD in case they offend non-Christians.

The Corporation has replaced the familiar Anno Domini (the year of Our Lord) and Before Christ with the obscure terms Common Era and Before Common Era.

That indiscriminate group of ‘non-Christians’ that secretly rule the world are at it again, and the BBC are clearly nothing more than an anti-Christian propaganda machine.

The truth in this matter, as Tabloid Watch points out, is very clear and contained within the article:

The BBC said last night: ‘The BBC has not issued editorial guidance on the date systems.

‘Both AD and BC, and CE and BCE are widely accepted date systems and the decision on which term to use lies with individual production and editorial teams.’

Indeed, the Mail complains that some presenters / programmes switch between the two – clearly evidencing that the BBC has made no attempt to banish AD / BC. It’s very depressing even writing about this subject given how utterly insignificant it is. It’s just pathetic that a national newspaper has nothing better to concern itself with than an embarrassing accusation about the irrelevant change in language that the BBC is merely reflecting in its programming.

But of course, this isn’t just harmless fluff because it is just part of the agenda to create an atmosphere of victimisation in which good old white Christians can’t even use AD/BC anymore because it offends ‘non-Christians’ – a term which is never going to be taken to mean atheists, but rather foreign people. Or, more specifically, as can be seen in the Mail comments section (530 and counting): Muslims.


UPDATE: James ‘wrong about everything, ever’ Delingpole has found himself part of the ‘Rightminds’ team and has come up with this: ‘How the BBC fell for a Marxist plot to destroy civilisation from within’. Seriously:

When you mention to a Muslim or Hindu that the year is 2011, do you ever feel a twinge of guilt about your closet religious chauvinism? When you watch the old Raquel Welch film One Million Years BC, do you blushingly avert your gaze from the title sequence? When you catch your children reading 2000AD, do you furiously insist that they read something less offensive, such as The Beano or The Dandy, instead?

Well, the BBC thinks you should and it is taking action on your behalf. No longer will its website refer to those bigoted, Christian-centric concepts AD (as in Anno Domini – the Year of Our Lord) and BC (Before Christ). From now on, it will use initials which strip our traditional Gregorian calendar of its offensive religious context. All reference to Christ has been expunged, replaced by the terms CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before Common Era).

He continues:

And so yet another small part of our tradition, language and culture takes a step closer to extinction. We didn’t ask for it; we didn’t want it; yet still it’s happening because a tiny minority of politically correct busybodies have wormed their way into institutions such as the BBC and taken control.

This then leads him to this nugget:

Their goal is to create a world where Left-wing thinking – on ‘fairness’, on race, on sexual equality, on the role of government – becomes the norm. So far, they are doing brilliantly.

Rightminds, again, demonstrating that it will happily publish any old rubbish, even when the basis of the entire dribbling, foam-mouthed rant is a complete fiction.

HT @LissyNumber

Melanie Phillips: in her own little world

Melanie Phillips. Mad Mel. Someone who I recall was once memorably described on Twitter as ‘batshit, faeces up the wall insane’. It says something that even in the reality vacuum, outrage baiting world of Daily Mail columnists, Melanie Phillips can still pull out a column so deranged that you have to re-read its title over-and-over whilst punching yourself in the face just to make sure your eyes are not deceiving you. Today she gets stuck into the Phone Hacking scandal with her own unique perspective: ‘If Miliband is such a hero, why won’t he tackle the REAL threat to our way of life – the BBC?’.

Seriously. ‘If Miliband is such a hero, why won’t he tackle the REAL threat to our way of life – the BBC?’.

And why, you might reasonably ask is the BBC a ‘threat to our way of life’ (whatever Phillips’ might mean by ‘our’)? Well, because the BBC:

is a media oligarchy which exercises far more power in Britain than News International…

The BBC’s monopoly over the media is indeed a running scandal. After all, just imagine if News International had been given the legal power to levy a tax on everyone who bought a newspaper in order to fund the Murdoch empire.

So, ignoring the fact that the News of the World has closed down after constant allegations / revelations over phone-hacking, police corruption and political collusion / blind-eye-turning at the highest level we should ignore all of that – and the wider role of News International in creating a culture in which this is all fine – and instead focus on media monopolies as if this is what the story is really about. Even for Melanie Phillips this is stretching credibility beyond breaking point.

She continues:

Indeed, since it is a direct competitor of BSkyB, the disproportion and relish with which the BBC has been reporting the News of the World scandal — allowing it on some current affairs shows to drive out all other news — leaves a very bad taste in the mouth. Moreover, the BBC’s role in all this is even more questionable when you factor in the real reason for Miliband’s double standard.

For his motives surely have precious little to do with any criminal behaviour or monopoly power. No, the real reason is that for the past three decades the Left has been desperate to bring Murdoch down.

For such people, he is a hate figure of diabolical proportions. The venom and hysteria he inspires are truly irrational.

Isn’t it strange to read this version of history about ‘the left’ when I seem to recall Murdoch switching allegiance to Labour when it was clear the Tories were finished in 1997 and Murdoch and Tony Blair having a very cosy relationship. I don’t recall any politician of substance (perhaps because there are so few of them) trying to take down Murdoch or even discuss it. It seems Melanie is just making stuff up to fit her warped world view in which the BBC are the Labour party or more generally ‘the left’ simply because they don’t take the same frothing right-wing editorial line as the Daily Mail or indeed they don’t subscribe to Phillips’ fantasy version of Britain. From what i’ve read – and I could of course be wrong – the real darkness of this scandal is that almost every politician irrespective of party has been either in bed with News International or to fearful to ever question it and that has led to the current situation.

Phillips continues – in an extremely influential right-wing newspaper that holds – in the words of Nick Davies – ‘outstanding political influence':

Murdoch’s real crime in the eyes of the Left-wing intelligentsia is simply that he has stood in the way of their total capture of the culture.

The dominance of Left-wing ideas has been such that even among so-called conservatives, many of them have become accepted as mainstream. And one of the most powerful architects of that shift has been the BBC.

Yes, the Left-wing and their cultural dominance. That cultural dominance so widely-expressed through the Guardian and the Daily Mirror and… well, that’s it. It always amuses me when the overwhelmingly right-wing press claims to be the victim of some kind of left-wing, liberal conspiracy to stop them getting their own way. As far as I can determine the only mass of people capable of stopping right-wing ideas gaining complete dominance is the public. As much as it would pain Phillips to admit, the reality is that (shock horror) her ideas are only supported by a minority of blinkered Daily Mail readers. It isn’t a left-wing liberal elite that is preventing her ideas from spreading, but the fact that her ideas are so utterly repellent and stupid that the public as a whole just ignore her.

She finally does get to the point about why the BBC is the ‘real threat to our way of life':

the BBC’s output rests upon certain articles of faith.

For example, traditional Christians are all fundamentalist bigots; the science of man-made global warming is settled; opponents of mass immigration are racist; Eurosceptics are swivel-eyed fanatics; and all who oppose these opinions and more are Right-wing extremists.

And then to add insult to injury, the BBC forces people to pay for the privilege of being told day in, day out that their own views are stupid or prejudiced.

So, in short, because the BBC has a different opinion to her (even if it is based on science or facts etc) it is a threat to ‘our’ way of life (by which she really means ‘her view of the world’). Wonderful stuff indeed. It really puts the Daily Mail into sharp perspective when you consider it sees fit to pay Melanie Phillips a wage for writing this moronic, self-indulgent drivel.

If you want the full ‘glory’ of the article, you can read it here via istyosty.com.

Hypocrisy (again)

Sometimes you just need a screenshot to demonstrate how hypocritical the Daily Mail is:

Daily Mail Hypocrisy

So, the BBC is criticised for showing something that the Daily Mail takes great pleasure in raking over for the delight of morbid readers. As for the question ‘Can TV stoop any lower?’ I can only refer to the words of Charlie Brooker on this one:

if TV broadcast the kind of material you see in the press – if it paid women in lingerie to recount graphic celebrity fuck’n’tell stories, or shoved its cameras up the skirts of girls exiting taxis so viewers could wank to the sight of their knickers, or routinely broadcast grossly misleading and openly one-sided news reports designed to perpetuate fear and bigotry – if the box in the corner smeared that shit on its screen for 10 seconds a night, it’d generate a pile of complaints high enough to scrape the crust from the underside of Mars.


UPDATE:

The Daily Mail is now leading with this story:

Hipocracy once again from the Daily Mail

BBC bashing, again

Today’s BBC bashing story: ‘BBC gives globe-trotting staff a lesson… on getting to work by BUS’

The reality:

The BBC is moving about 1,500 staff from London to Salforsd [sic] as it transfers its children’s and sports departments as well as Radio 5 Live and BBC Breakfast.

As part of its preparations bosses set up six sessions covering different aspects of getting to work, under the heading Transport to MediaCityUK Briefing Day.

The day includes talks on parking and cycle provision, the city’s Metrolink light rail service, help in how to buy tickets, information on bus services and individual journey planning sessions…

A BBC spokesman said it wanted staff to have ‘the most relevant and up-to-date information’ to plan their travel. He added that the guest speakers were not paid.

Paul Revoir must be so proud to put his name by this drivel (not to mention the obvious typos littering the article).

Jessica Satherley – where did it all go wrong?

The Enemies of Reason wrote a short post the other day pointing out the hypocrisy of the Daily Mail complaining about a BBC commentator commentating on the weight of young tennis player Laura Robson:

Some might say that portly commentator David Mercer should keep his views to himself on the subject of weight.

That did not stop the BBC veteran offering the opinion that British starlet Laura Robson needs to lose some ‘puppy fat’.

Mercer, 60, was forced to say sorry to 16-year-old Laura for his words, broadcast live on the BBC’s ‘red button’ service to cable and satellite viewers.

Mercer apologised for his comments which were – to be as fair as possible to him – about an athlete so at least it is kind of his job to comment on issues like fitness. The Daily Mail – as Anton points out – criticises Mercer for his comments whilst also calling him ‘portly’ which seems to totally defeat the moral purpose of their article (not to mention that as a commentator he has no need to be anything else). Furthermore, it isn’t as if the Daily Mail fill their pages (pun not intended) with ‘news stories’ that are simply photos of larger people going about their daily lives: ‘Let’s hope he’s sharing that! James Corden grabs a takeaway with his girlfriend‘.

The whole story – ‘written’ by Jessica Satherley, more on her in a moment – is about a man buying a takeaway to share with his girlfriend.  In case you cannot possibly imagine what this looks like the article is accompanied by three photos of James Corden and partner walking down a street with a carrier bag. The article is full of fascinating details and the nagging question: why does James Corden not worry about being fat?

When the temperature drops at the end of summer there’s nothing more satisfying than jumping into your tracksuit bottoms and grabbing a takeaway, and that’s exactly what James Corden did yesterday.

The 32-year-old and his girlfriend Julia Carey popped out to pick up the fast food in north London before returning home to dig into their feast.

The Gavin & Stacey star is obviously not concerned about his waistline, despite his new upcoming role on Britain’s Got Talent.

Again, David Mercer’s comments related to an athlete, the Mail’s article relates to a comedian / TV presenter, in what way is his weight at all relevant – unless the Mail is arguing that fat people should be too ashamed to eat takeaway or appear on TV. As if the article wasn’t offensive enough or vacuous enough already it also manages to insult the vast majority of the population:

Down to earth: Despite being a successful actor and comedian, James Corden still prefers to live a normal lifestyle with his girlfriend Julia Carey

Fancy that, a celebrity wanting to slum it just like the rest of us plebs living a ‘normal lifestyle’ where we don’t even warrant a Daily Mail photographer following us around and snapping away as we go about our lives. The article also implies that the photographer was politely invited to snap away:

as he strolled down the street with girlfriend Julia, Corden was more than happy to be pictured in his baggy tracksuit bottoms, trainers and loose cardigan.

‘More than happy to be pictured’? Did you ask him? Or did the big smile and thankful puppy dog eyes – not featured in any of the photos – give away his delight at having a camera shoved in his and his partner’s face? This is not just drivel, but offensive and intrusive drivel that invites readers to laugh at the fat person daring to look content with their shape, and even being shameless enough to dare eat a takeaway.

Those of you familiar with the ‘journalism’ of Jessica Satherley – featured on Buff the Banana with Paul Dacre a couple of times for her raunchy articles about famous women – will know what to expect from her: celebrity shit, celebrity shit and more celebrity shit. Apparently – if I have the right Jessica Satherley – she has:

a Bachelors Degree in Journalism and started working at local newspapers where I wrote, interviewed and researched my own stories.

Where did it all go wrong, Jessica? On your profile it says you used to be a journalist? At what point during your degree did you imagine that you would one day be writing an article based on three photos of a slightly chubby man walking down the street with a takeaway? At what point did you think: ‘one day I’ll be the proud name next to:’

  • Ashley Greene forgets to take her ankle weights off after sweaty gym session
  • LeAnn Rimes battles through relationship criticisms in gladiator sandals
  • Una Healy plants public kiss on boyfriend after celebrating the end of summer at hotel party
  • ‘There’s no place like home…’ tweets Kim Kardashian after ending her European tour
  • Gisele Bundchen flies the flag for Brazil at New York gala
  • Chantelle hits boot camp in preparation to meet Preston for love talks
  • Nicole Richie celebrates 29th birthday in Mexico with Christina Aguilera and Sam Ronson
  • Incredibly thin Emma Rigby shows off her tiny waist in skin-tight bodysuit
  • Kerry Katona enjoys girls night out and actually looks chic
  • Now that IS unusual! Tom Jones’ receding hairline is transformed into luscious locks
  • Brian McFadden gets a very friendly hug from pretty young brunette on lads night out

And on it goes, the Mail website has 144 of her articles along these lines and she also manages to churn out this shit for the Sun, Express and Metro. Yet she claims to ‘write about health, lifestyle, women’s interests and travel’. I think she needs to update her profile somewhat to reflect the bulk of her ‘journalism’.

A degree in journalism for this? I write for a blog that does not give me fame, fortune or even readers yet here I am thinking: ‘It could be worse, I could be a journalist like Jessica Satherley’. I think that says an awful lot about the state of the UK media and the shit it insists on serving up every day.

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.