Filed under: Comment
Seriously, can you believe how utterly crap that is!!!
I wish it was a spoof but it’s not.
It was printed. By a major media company.
And guess who it was?
No … it wasn’t the gossip rags of US Weekly or the National Enquirer.
No … it wasn’t the curators of weird like BuzzFeed or ChinaSmack.
No … it was the Daily fucking Mail.
A “newspaper.”
A “newspaper” that claims to be the defender of morals and family values.
A “newspaper” that supposedly represents England’s middle class.
A “newspaper” that talks about standing up for the best of British.
Bollocks.
I’ll tell you what the Daily Mail is … it’s a “newspaper” that wouldn’t know news if it knocked on their door and smashed them in the fucking face.
What next Daily Mail, a headline of some c-grade celebrity saying:
“Wilmer Valderrama looks surprised at the ferocity of an unexpected sneeze.”
Or maybe you’ll go more upmarket with something like:
“Kim Kardashian smiles without knowing she has some lettuce on her teeth.”
Yes, you’re really flying the flag for hard hitting journalism aren’t you.
Twats. You utter, utter sad fucking twats.
33 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m generally anti-censorship, but I wish there was some way to configure my Google Chrome not to block not just the Daily Mail, but any web page that LINKS DIRECTLY TO the Daily Mail. It would also block email from anyone who has ever commented on the Daily Mail stories. If we could install it by stealth on people’s PCs, we’d double the IQ of the British people within a week, and rightfully reclaim our Empire.
Comment by Shackleford Hurtmore January 14, 2013 @ 6:21 amYou might argue that we are better off without our Empire, but I’m currently living in New Zealand, and have you seen the fucking price of loose leaf Darjeeling here? The Queen needs to invade and sort that shit out.
Comment by Shackleford Hurtmore January 14, 2013 @ 6:23 amIt’s ironic you criticise the daily mail when complaining about the price of tea is just the sort of thing their readers write in about.
Comment by DH January 14, 2013 @ 6:31 amHow and where would Rob get his posts if that happened? Oh, that’s the point.
Comment by DH January 14, 2013 @ 6:28 amI regard the Daily Mail a bit like Jerry Springer … reading it immediately makes you feel a bit better about who you are. It’s basically print prozac.
Comment by Rob January 14, 2013 @ 8:11 amThe problem for newspapers like the Daily Mail is that in their battle for paid eyeballs, they decided the best move forward was to push sensationalism rather than quality journalism. Once you go down that path, there is no turning back from irrelevantly terrible stories like the Rosanna Arquette one above.
In some ways I understand their decision because quality journalism costs vastly more than celebrity news nuggets and too few people respect or are willing to pay for quality journalism (except when the big stories happen). But as that market is so cluttered, I wonder if the Daily Mail are doing it because they’ve accepted their fate and just want to see how long they can go on, especially as stories like this surely fly in the face of their British middle class readership.
Comment by Pete January 14, 2013 @ 6:51 amBut that headline is ridiculous, even for them.
Comment by Pete January 14, 2013 @ 6:51 amWhat do you reckon hacking shite like that together all day would do for your self-esteem and relationships with other people? Has anyone done a study of suicide rates in Entertainment Journalism?
Comment by Shackleford Hurtmore January 14, 2013 @ 7:03 amI think if you do that, you’ve already lost all your self esteem.
Comment by Rob January 14, 2013 @ 8:11 amAll that for a shitty headline? You’re playing right into Rob and the daily mails hands.
Comment by DH January 14, 2013 @ 7:01 amTo DM readers, Rosanna Arquette is a new, avant garde, talent.
Comment by Bazza January 14, 2013 @ 7:13 amI think the key words in your comment are “except when the big stories happen”. There is a place for quality journalism, maybe not as much as before, but definitely still a place. The fact that we should all be demanding it is another issue altogether.
Rob. When you see this, can you call me. I’ve been trying to contact you for the last few days. Thank you.
Comment by George January 14, 2013 @ 8:02 amCalling now.
Comment by Rob January 14, 2013 @ 8:13 amGood points Pete … without doubt the value people place on quality journalism is diminishing but that could also be because they don’t get to see much of it to understand what they’re missing.
When you cross that with the fact many the last places to see journalistic integrity are either so pompous as to alienate from a 1000 paces or so rotten [think: BBC] that all credibility has been lost [even though it’s not directly connected to their news division] it’s not hard to understand why people think The Sun is all they need to get a fair and balanced viewpoint. Sad. But not hard.
Comment by Rob January 14, 2013 @ 8:17 amI hate the Daily Mail with a passion that is normally reserved for the Conservative party and Gio Compario.
The below link is must watch on this topic.
http://www.mjrobbins.net/?p=168
Comment by Rob Mortimer January 14, 2013 @ 8:28 amI sometimes wonder when news switched from being a demand pull market to an inelestical push (down-your-throat) supply market. Maybe the scarcity of ‘real’ story suppliers is to blame, I refuse to believe most people really want this,
Comment by Paul January 14, 2013 @ 9:02 amPeople always say that audiences will choose dramatic, negative headlines over positive ones. I hope that isn’t true, and is just a legacy of the way things are. If someone could do news in a more positive way, and keep it absorbing, I’d love to see it.
Comment by Rob Mortimer January 14, 2013 @ 9:26 amMaybe the TedX craze already does this. Only the news is often a new insight or approach to a problem. In a sense it is a positive news network/site/movement? that maybe corresponds to the dramatic aspect but without the drama but with entertainment (or do we call this infotainment). In Holland I remember there was and still is a news bulletin at 18h for children (similar to BBC newsround but more newsy and mature). The news covered is not that different but more accesible and not hyped up. It is a joy to watch.
Comment by Paul January 14, 2013 @ 9:33 amI don’t know if TedX is a good example. I know why you say that, but while it can ‘expand’ people’s knowledge, I think it can be as myopic as much of the mainstream media.
For me quality journalism isn’t about the subject matter, but the depth and balance of what’s reported and that’s what’s missing from so much these days – from newspapers to conferences and pretty much everything in-between.
PS: Balance isn’t about diluting, it’s about having the facts from both perspectives to be able to make a more informed judgement.
Comment by Rob January 14, 2013 @ 9:40 amMaybe I’m more cynical. My background in the field of politics has made me very suspicious of what you call balanced. I agree that this would be the ideal scenario.
The reason I am suspicious is because balanced journalism holds a great power to persuade intelligent people. However, writing balanced articles or making balanced items is a style, and like most things style some master it better than others. And ones who do master it, like most great writers, also can use it to set an agenda or to persuade the readers in a certain direction. In politics you just know which journalist you want to plug your agenda.
Therefore, I often feel more comfortable reading news that is more openly biased so I know which filter to use. I always find this difficult with foreign newspapers when I’m not yet embedded enough to know which ‘side’ they are on.
Comment by Paul January 14, 2013 @ 9:54 amThat’s a very fair point … balanced is in the eye of the beholder.
I guess what I’m saying is that while it’s hard to determine balanced journalism, it’s very easy to spot unbalanced journalism and too many people seem to approach presenting their point-of- view as myopic fact rather than openly embracing the counter perspective, which – in my experience – can make your argument even stronger, as my post on ‘objective conflict’ tried to explain: http://tinyurl.com/8cxf4e4
Comment by Rob January 14, 2013 @ 10:25 amGood responses. Balance is a very difficult thing to hit, and usually most news outlets actively strive not to hit it.
Agree about counter perspective. If you believe your argument is strong enough to discuss the opposite view, it makes it appear stronger to others.
Comment by Rob Mortimer January 16, 2013 @ 12:35 amJournalism used to have the power to bring down governments. Now it can bring down Big Brother contestants.
Comment by Pete January 14, 2013 @ 9:35 amUnless you’re Fox News where it’s goal is just to keep shouting at liberal thinkers for the simple fact, they’re liberal thinkers.
Comment by Rob January 14, 2013 @ 9:42 amWe have a real problem with the corporate media who both tell lies and distract their populations towards the trivial for reasons that again are about money and profit. Who wants to know that 5.3 million people were machete to death in Congo for rare Earth Coltan/Tantalum a material that is used in super capacitors that are tiny but hold a lot of charge. Nobody wants to know their next smartphone is chock full of rare earths that require 100000 raped women a month to keep the system in the mine pits and not on the front page of newspapers. We quite rightly listen to the holocaust over and over and over again but the that’s OK to drum into people because then the divide and rule model in the middle East allows us to turn a blind eye to the divide and rule mechanisms that are now being exploited most by Israel. The country most obliged to be sympathetic to the downtrodden, the expoited and the oppressed.
Nobody cares. It’s all sports personality of the year, celebrity nipples and gimme fucking gimme materialism for the next consumer electronics. Shallow fucking species.
We need to take a hard look in the mirror and see if we can even see ourselves. Are we even there?
Comment by Charles Edward Frith (@charlesfrith) January 14, 2013 @ 2:31 pmWell, in the Mail’s defense, it’s been a slow decade or so for Princess Diana
Comment by Lewis Rosa January 14, 2013 @ 3:34 pmWhen I was 12 I read a bit of the National Enquirer, in Dallas as it happens. I couldn’t believe it and even at that innocent age, I was a little smug about Americans and that kind of thing never happening at home.
Comment by northern January 14, 2013 @ 5:33 pmSilly me
That’s a good point Northern. Maybe I like the Mail because I used to work on the Sunday Sport and in essence, the Mail has taken over their torch, just with less tits.
Comment by Rob January 14, 2013 @ 8:07 pmFewer tits.
Comment by Duncan January 14, 2013 @ 11:20 pmLess mammaries, but probably more tits, from the editor down
Comment by northern January 14, 2013 @ 11:56 pmwhy the fuck has no one said this is the daily fail of blogs?
do i have to do everything for everyone?
Comment by andy@cynic January 15, 2013 @ 1:08 amI need to know what she thought of the healthy juice drink. WHAT DID SHE THINK OF THE FUCKING HEALTHY JUICE DRINK?!!!
Comment by Age January 15, 2013 @ 2:09 am[…] makes it all the more sad they also have told stories like this – possibly the most pointless news story of all […]
Pingback by Why Doesn’t The Daily Mail Just Call Themselves Buzzfeed And Be Done With It? | The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!] October 30, 2014 @ 6:16 am