Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Why I despise the Daily Mail.

Hypocrisy is the short answer.

The longer answer is their cutsey-named “Femail” sidebar on their website. It by and large consists of stuff like this. Note the second image where Ms Moss’s nipple is clearly visible. And this from the valiant crusader (that’s all over the front page of the print edition) against online pornography. This is the online version. See also this

I don’t know how they got these pictures – they look rather too HQ to be paparazzi but I dunno. I mean it could be a publicity stunt for Moss (who I note from the TV doesn’t seem to be advertising any perfume this Christmas) or it could be the long-lense lads. But… I dunno. The Mail are hypocritical scum either way. Personally I think pornography (however hard or soft) which is done with willing (and paid) participants is morally vastly superior to paparazzi stuff. But that is by the by. Both articles are available in seconds from the Mail website. How can they square that circle? Or do they want the Mail reclassified as an opt-in soft-porn rag? Because this is very far from the first time “Femail” has published “compromising” pictures of ‘slebs.

Or… pictures of say, Rihanna’s (very nice) bottom in her skimpies in the “Femail” column whilst editorialising elsewhere on the corrosive effects on teenage girl’s self-esteem of pictures of “perfect” female bodies or claiming this is resulting in ever younger boys sexually assaulting girls. And all this whilst claiming implicitly (explicitly) to be the moral keel of the nation.

In a sense it would be fitting and sweet if they were cast into the outer darkness of “Asian Babes” or “Monster Jugs” – hoist indeed upon their own petard. But I object to this censorship anyway and in deep principle. Somebody has to decide what is unsuitable for kids and I think that ought to be us adults. This is not a matter for government. It really shouldn’t be. It also implies mission-creep for there is already talk of websites involving deliberate self-harm. And what after that? It’s just government control of the internet.

Our playground. Not there’s. They only hate it because they don’t understand it. And they are small people, pathetic people. People who do not believe that individuals can ever do the right thing without coercion, if not outright violence.

20 Comments

  1. Kevin B says:

    Nick, I agree with what you say, especially the ‘turkeys voting for Christmas’ aspect of their net censorship campaign, but, (you knew there was a but, didn’t you):

    But, The Mail is one of the most popular sites in the world, and also a big selling dead tree newspaper, and it didn’t get where it is today by not catering to it’s readers.

    And if many of those readers are of the “There ought to be a law against it” persuasion then they’ll publish “There ought to be a law against it” pieces, and if other, (or the same), readers want “Look at her. The brazen hussey, showing her nipples like that” pieces, then that’s what they’ll get. And if others want “Cor! Kate’s titties!!” pieces, they’ll get them.

    The Mail panders to it’s readers and does it well, so blame the readers, and if you’re referencing the website and the dead tree edition then …

  2. NickM says:

    Kevin,
    I get you. But (there has to be a but)… You’ve been around here long enough to know the Kitty Kounters are a varied lot. We’ve had fights and editorial whatevers and we are all over the place but unlike the “Mail” we make no claim on being a moral authority. The least required of that claim is consistency and if on the same day they publish (both as top stories) an editorial self-praising themselves for their moral crusade against the “evil” of on-line porn *and* a picture of a supermodel with a “wardrobe malfunction” then I can call them hypocrites. But then almost all views on Frankie Vaughn are hypocritical. Because, I guess, porn has to be naughty. It is the way of things.

    You are right about the “Mail” reflecting (large chunks of) society. And I find that depressing. But I find them vastly less honest than say the “Sun” or “Playboy” or whatever.

    And if I read the “Mail” it is largely with my blogging hat on. This post was long in the making. I have been waiting for an op for the perfect juxtaposition of salaciousness and prudery. This was it.

  3. Julie near Chicago says:

    Nick–you DO only read *Playboy* for the articles, right?

  4. NickM says:

    I have never read Playboy. But… I do know it attracts decent writers – a lot of SF. As to nekkid birds… What else was the internet invented for.

  5. Philip Scott Thomas says:

    What else was the internet invented for.

    I thought it was primarily to teach teenage lads to use a mouse left-handed.

  6. Lynne says:

    The Mail does have one redeeming feature – Fred Bassett. Everything else is pants.

  7. RAB says:

    I am left handed Philip (well ambidextrous really) but I always have a tissue out before I start, saves fumbling for them and losing momentum; as they usually are to the left of me (God this is getting scatalogical, it must be Christmas!).

    Yes Lynne, Fred Bassett (pies and sausages be upon him) but also Dickie Littledick, cos I have it on good authority that he not only reads us, but nicks our jokes.

  8. *innocent face* says:

    I must confess amongst my friends & acquaintances having to list a Mail photographer & he does look almost exactly how one would expect one to look. Permanently, slightly grubby. Nevertheless, he has brought one moment of sheer joy. Video with sound of a very well known TV personality* apprehended leaving a house not his own, with a woman not his wife, in time for a very early breakfast. First comes the denial. Then the anger. Then the pleading.

    *Think speech impediment.

  9. JuliaM says:

    You’ll have to be more specific, so many ‘well known TV personalities’ sound like they have a speech impediment these days!

  10. John Galt says:

    @*innocent face*:

    I’ve heard something similar, but I thought it was a load of Balls.

    Equally, wasn’t this same person the one who upset Andrew Marr with the spreading of his seed?

  11. Paul Marks says:

    Andrew Marr has been enaged in adultery for years (whilst lecturing people on morality – in his best Scottish way). But the BBC (and the rest of the left establishment) protect their own.

    As for the Daily Fail.

    The Huff Po is much the same – on the left hand side of the street.

    It denounces the use of women as “objects” (by the evil capitalist press…..) yet also has articles with pictures of attractive young (sometimes very young) women with few (if any) clothes on. See Guideo F. on this….

    But the Daily Mail recently did something that even its readers should find utterly disgusting.

    It gave Nancy Lanza a good kicking.

    Not Adam Lanza – Nancy Lanza.

    The women who left this world because her lunatic sun put four bullets in her, with a firearm he had stolen from her.

    Nancy Lanza was, according to the Dail Fail, a “gun nut”, “paranoid” (and on and on).

    If the lady was still alive they would not say these things – because Nanxy Lanza would sue the Dail Fail scumbags for libel.

    But one can not libel the dead – even though everyone who knew this women says that she was kind and generious person (worn down by the burden of her demented younger son).

    The Daily Mail does not care – almost before her body was cold they were spitting and urinating on her corpse with their coverage.

    They are a vile publication.

    They should go.

  12. NickM says:

    The thing that amuses me about the Mail is that their comment section is called “Right Minds” as in “Out of their”.

    Andy Marr is beyond belief. I mean I can imagine George Clooney pulling birds but Marr…

    RAB,
    As to Richard Littlecock poncing our lyrics. Please tell more.

  13. Tim Newman says:

    I quit reading newspapers in 2006 when I moved to Sakhalin and realized when you love at the arse end of the world, most of what is happening elsewhere does not affect you. I’ve yet to read one since which I thought was worthwhile doing so, with the exception of the occasional WSJ. Most of the articles concern what I would consider trivia (which I concede might be interesting for some people), and those which cover weighty issues are seemingly written by teenagers for an infant audience.

  14. *innocent face* says:

    “You’ll have to be more specific,”
    Well, ‘spose I could always post the video. The guy in question wouldn’t lawyer up or anything, would he? I know he regards sharing peoples impromptu reactions to sensitive personal affairs, with the wider public, oh so amusing……

  15. *innocent face* says:

    Tim Newman found love in Sakhalin? Nothing nearer home attracted you? Ones heard of the woman worth travelling to ends of the earth for but one presumed that was literary licence.

  16. RAB says:

    Then again it could just be a typo innocent, i and o being next to each other.

    I’m told by folk in the Biz, that Littledick is known to read Libertarian Blogs looking for pithy one liners to “Borrow”. And on several occasions I have seen stuff in his column, that is practically word for word what someone wrote here, but days before. Could be a coincidence, but….

  17. John Galt says:

    I quite like the idea of “when you love at the arse end of the world” it has a certain Oscar Wilde feel to it…

  18. Tim Newman says:

    Tim Newman found love in Sakhalin? Nothing nearer home attracted you? Ones heard of the woman worth travelling to ends of the earth for but one presumed that was literary licence.

    I didn’t (dragged my love to Sakhalin with me, a week after we were married), but many chaps found love in Sakhalin. It may be an island at the arse end of the world, but it was Russia, and hence full of highly attractive young women.

    And yes, it was a typo.

  19. NickM says:

    RAB,
    I have a post on ice (like for twelve years) to demolish the lit-rep of one novelist known to us all as Smarting Anus. I just need to find my books. Smarting though ripped off Jorge Luis Borges something chronic. So if Littlecock is borrowing from us… I dunno… I mean he is the only reason I have against homosexual marriage. Fuck the Mayans but if he and Gary Bushell saunter down the road with a pram it truly would be the End of Days. As to the spawn of Monbiot and Toynbee we shall pass over the horror. The horror!

  20. RAB says:

    Gary Bushell used to be my Features Editor once upon a time you know. We had a running feud going in the paper over Sham 69. To say we didn’t see eye to eye is an understatement.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: