h1

Jan Moir? Is this article really that bad?

October 18, 2009

So I read the article by Jan Moir, about the death of Stephen Gately.  THe thing I dont understand, is the absolute shock it appears to have caused.

Daily Mail publishes hateful, homophobic shit, callously exploiting the death of one person, to strengthen its hate towards a section of the public it despises? Its a bit like the Kate Moss ‘Supermodel does cocaine shocker’. Do the people who are shocked not read the Daily Mail?

When Rachel Ward died, Amanda Platell published one her hateful pieces. She outright stated that complete responsibility for the girls death, was with Ms.Wards friends. Before Miss Ward was buried, she outright accused Haydn Johnson, a friend of Miss Wards, of causing her death by ignoring an answering machine message(that apparently only existed in Ms.Platell’s head), pleaing for help. The only mitigation for Mr.Johnson, in her article, was the insinuation that Ms’Ward had caused her own death by engaging in immoral behaviour(well she had been drinking!). She attempted to be sympathetic to the girls grieving parents, by telling them not only was she empathetic to the plight of losing their daughter, but to their plight of losing their daughter after she dissapointed their middle class, moral upbringing, by abandoning any moral framework they had instilled, by becoming everything that was wrong with modern women. Which she helpfully illustrated with pictures of Ms.Ward, having fun, while she was alive. The story was removed from the site, after the father of her grieving friend, made a complaint to the PCC. Which did not result in apology from the Mail, but did result in removal of said article.

A Daily Mail columnist is salivating over someones death, willing to lie about them, to illustrate the breakdown of society -done before. Must be something else causing the shock? The homophobia in the article?

I instruct you to go to the Daily Mail website, read as they fight the corner of everyone who has ever been chastised for trying to mainating a status quo, where gay means ‘unnatural’.  Go read Melanie Phillips tell you that gay rights, undermines marriage as an institution. Or Amanda Platell dismiss anyone who objects to not being able to pursue their  life, without their sexuality used as a reason to exclude them from society, as a ‘gay zealot’. Read as they champion the people who refuse to bow down to hard won legislation, to prevent sexuality automatically meaning a presumption of immorality.

Maybe people rarely notice venom that isnt spouted at them? Are there any other groups who the Daily Mail hates? Lets look outside Jan Moirs current article- we have this recent wet dream of a Daily Mail headline. Narcissistic I may be, and therefore sensitive to the Daily Mails take on single parents. But seriously, there is no shortage of material.

Although, I was one of the Mails target ‘most wanted’ before my marriage ended, as a working mother. Helpfully told by ‘Femail’ that me choosing to work, was going to damage my child, and was ultimately responsible for the fracturing of our society into immoral little pieces. Oh wait, even before motherhood- the Mail didnt much like me. Type Rape, into the search engine of the Daily Mail, and read how they have interpreted the painfully inadequate framework of rape legislation, which has produced a 5% successful prosecution rate for rape. Lists of vitriolic stories, of girls who ‘cry rape’, and the heartbreaking consequences of women reporting such a piffling little thing.

Thank fuck am not black. The biggest bane of the Daily Mails existence is the fact that the BNP are so despised that they cant come outright and say they support them. Instead they have to treat ‘foul’ as a contested term, by placing it in inverted commas, while juxtaposing it against the revelation that the BNP have opened their membership to ‘non white members’.

With editorial about how the indigenous british people(read white, for indigenous) are constantly under threat, not just from the constant threat of immigration, but by being persecuted and not represented by british institutions. The very presence of people in the world who may have a different religion is alarming. The only time the Daily Mail champions the right of any woman, is to show how terrible those muslim types are- look at how they treat women who have children? Further evidence of this threat is shown, when we see how unfairly people who only want the right to be racist, are being treated.

So who is safe from the Daily Fail? Children? Well, children are safe if they are nice middle class children. But even then the Daily Mail isnt above causing them pain, and humiliation, in the course of a good story, as long as they can attack one of their other despised groups of people, in the process. Here is the transcript of an article the paper had to take down, where they stood a page size picture of a named eleven year old girl, alongside a feature about how her mother didnt love her. The feature was designed to illicit public reaction against her ‘unnatural mother’- the fact that an 11 year old girl was deeply humiliated, surely ok, because the end justifies the means? Feral children anyone, or maybe you just want to starve and hiss at the mothers? The Fail doesnt mind condemning children, if they are outside the nice white, heterosexual, christian, middle class  dystopia they would like us to believe once existed, and will again.

Cries of ‘complain to the PCC’ have abounded, since the publication of Moirs article. Again, while admirable, am not entirely sure what people believe this will do. Have been complaining to the PCC for years about the homophobic, racist, hate mongering shit, this vile rag publishes- and it achieves nothing.

This may be the cry of a jaded left wing ranter, with an over developed sense of justice, and handwringing tendencies. But it is true, complaining to the PCC achieves nothing. The media is powerful, we know that the the editorial content of your average newspaper, affects more than the people involved in the article.-But unless its exceptional circumstances, your complaint about an article, not directly about you, will be binned. THe Chair of the PCC is Paul Dacre, for gods sake. Paul Dacre being the editor of er…The Daily Mail.

I would like to end this post, with a sense of ‘we must do something about this’- I certainly would prefer my journalists held accountable for constistently spreading vile homophobic, racist, mysogynistic shit- but there are few avenues to go down. We could do as this facebook group suggests and go straight to the advertising revenue that allows this shitrag to be published. Indeed, Marks and Spencer have withdrawn advertising on the grounds of the Moir article. But seriously, take action yourself. Stop buying this shit. Dont accept the flawed, bigoted premises, that underpin their editorial.

And for fucks sake, stop kidding yourself that this Jan Moir article is some kind of abhorration, in an otherwise lovely newspaper. Yes, the Jan Moir article really was that bad. In the context of the normal editorial line of the Daily Mail, it really wasnt that unusual.

Advertisements

10 comments

  1. Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by slummymummy1: Blog post- asking was Jan Moir article really that bad? http://bit.ly/3K37p


  2. Well said, there have been FAR FAR most insulting and insidious articles written in that paper… but on the whole I hope that the celebrity aspect of this recent article will help in a twisted sort of way. If it can draw wider attention to the bile and prejudice that the Daily Mail spout on a daily basis, against regular people, situations and groups maybe it could bring about a change… wishful thinking?


  3. I think the wide outpouring of condemnation is mostly due to Gately being a widely liked celebrity. I did contribute to the internet commentary on this, mostly because I was amazed that it had elicied such a widespread reaction. I’m kind of an optimist and I hope that if many people rise up and complain there may be some change. yes, I’m naieve I know.
    I’m also quite gratified that enough people recognised it for the homophobic bullshit it is.
    Oh, and I don’t read the Daily Mailm because it’s hideous.


  4. I think the point about this outcry is that, no, I don’t read the Mail. Wouldn’t dream of doing so, any more than, I suspect, the majority of those who got so exercised last week. I don’t read it and would never have known about that particular article had it not been for my attention being drawn to it via Twitter. So, unfortunately, we don’t have that ultimate sanction. We can’t stop buying that shit because we never started buying it. There has to be another way…


  5. I loathe that newspaper. I would line my cats litter tray with it, but I am against cruelty to animals.
    I know that the PCC have had lots of complaints. Mine will be submitted shortly.


  6. […] following post was orignially posted at Deeplyflawedbuttrying’s Blog and reproduced here with kind […]


  7. […] Jan Moir? Is this article really that bad? So I read the article by Jan Moir, about the death of Stephen Gately.  THe thing I dont understand, is the absolute […] […]


  8. […] Jan Moir? Is this article really that bad? […]


  9. After reading Jans article, and then your comments, it appears to me that the the hatred and ranting is coming from your artice not hers. This doesnt mean I agree with Jan, just looking at both pieces or writing as they are. Sorry if this offends.


    • Doesn’t offend at all. I think that given the long history of inciting hatred/stereotypes against any grou
      ps that fall outside the Daily Mails target audience, and given that I have frequently found myself in those groups who are at the receiving end of its bile- then actually- yeah, a definite strong dislike of the Mail would be evident.
      Though how that equates to a woman kicking the boot into a dead man, on the eve of his funeral, simply because of his sexuality, I dont know.
      I didnt actually say much about Jan Moir in the article- it was entirely unnecessary-her article said it all. Was just pointing out that perhaps she was being treated unfairly, given that spreading hate is generally what the newspaper does. Seems unfair to pin it all on her.
      I think my absolute dislike of the Fail is evident in at least 3 or 4 posts in the blog- but its a blog-my own personal rants. Whereas the Daily Mail is passing off its homophobia/mysogyny/racism off as journalism.

      BUt dont ever be worried about offending by disagreeing with me. If you have opinions, you expect people to occasionally(or more!) disagree with them- thanks for reading.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: