The Poke has come up with the solution to the Daily Mail’s secret editorial formula, which dictates the content of the newspaper each day.
It’s tremendous stuff, with my favourite stations being “Immigrant Cancer”, “That Meerkat”, and “Romp”. For what it’s worth, I live at “Sex Education”.
In an effort to keep track of the absolute rank hypocrisy that the Daily Mail engages in seemingly daily, here’s the latest example:
30/06/10: The Mail engages in yet more BBC-bashing, this time pulling a couple of quotes from BBC message boards complaining about some of the crowd shots during this year’s Wimbledon tournament. Images of couples or “young women with iced drinks” are offending at least a couple of viewers, giving the Mail an opportunity to get apoplectic (oh, and to illustrate the article with photos of said “young women with iced drinks”…)
24/06/10: Daily Mail publishes ‘Oh those Russians! Sharapova joins cheeky girls of Wimbledon’, illustrated by multiple pictures of Maria Sharapova slightly hoiking up her shorts.
24/06/10: Daily Mail publishes ‘Long and short of it: Maria Kirilenko wears suitably skimpy dress on hottest day of Wimbledon so far’, illustrated by multiple pictures of Maria Kirilenko in a dress which isn’t actually that short.
22/06/10: Daily Mail publishes ‘Oh I say, the hemlines are shorter than ever at Wimbledon this year’, illustrated by multiple pictures of various players, and you can practically hear the author salivating as they wrote such lines as “who wore particularly skimpy outfits, showing off their toned thighs - and a little more besides”.
But it’s definitely the BBC who is in the wrong for showing a few members of the crowd during the tennis, isn’t it?! Fucking hypocrites.
text, election, politics, media, newspapers, hypocrisy, daily mail,
Compare and contrast the Daily Mail’s changing opinion of a coalition government.
Last Wednesday, the day before the election, a frontpage leader column entitled ‘Vote DECISIVELY to stop Britain walking into disaster’ contained the following:
[The election campaign has seen] the emergence of a widespread belief that a hung parliament, giving nobody a clear victory, would be a desirable outcome. The Mail cannot stress too strongly how wrong-headed and dangerous it believes this view is. […]
A hung parliament, with the probability of a coalition or pact, will result in a weak administration, dependent on back-room deals and shabby compromises. […]
But we stress: any voters still attracted by the idea of a hung parliament should read the account on these pages by historian Dominic Sambrook of the misery and national humiliation we suffered the last time Britain had a hung parliament, with an enfeebled Labour propped up by the Liberals.
Now, with the Tories only able to take the keys to Downing St with the support of the Lib Dems in a coalition, today’s Daily Mail has seen a change of tune. Now the coalition is described as:
ground-breaking coalition deal […]
the most momentous day in modern British political history […]
Mr Cameron agreed a stunning deal that will mean Britain being governed by its first coalition administration since the 1930s.
It seems that it’s not just the political parties that are having to make compromises!
This week’s Economist calls the Daily Mail “right-wing”. This amuses me greatly.
picture, election, daily mail, nick clegg, lib dems, media, newspapers, hypocrisy, lies, spin,
Picture via @JonathanHaynes.
You can see that the Tory press are running scared at the moment, aiming to slur the Lib Dems something chronic, as if the Labour party have been forgotten entirely. I can’t remember when these papers even mentioned the Lib Dems, let alone dedicated their front pages to attacking them. I guess a sign of the times…
As ever, the Daily Mail story is a crock of shit. It’s based on a article Clegg wrote in 2002 whilst an MEP, detailing a school trip to Germany and how prejudicial some of his classmates were to their hosts.
I think it’s pretty well-written, and it also details how two Germans were hounded out of their jobs in Britain by British co-workers antagonising them and being downright racist. Pretty shameful behaviour from those Brits, really.
Of course, the Mail twists the article completely to make it sound as if Clegg is ashamed of being British, or that he is somehow anti-British. The headline “Clegg in Nazi slur on UK: ‘Our delusions of grandeur’ at winning war are greater cross to bear than German guilt” is completely wrong. What he actually said is:
All nations have a cross to bear, and none more so than Germany with its memories of Nazism. But the British cross is more insidious still.
He’s saying that the British are letting this whole racism and prejudice spread in a bit of an underhand manner, and that no-one is saying that it’s probably quite wrong to maintain this habit of harking back to a war that finished 60 years ago, and that nobody ever wants to see repeated.
Which is a fair comment, to my mind.
Naturally, the Daily Mail takes this to mean “I hate Britain, and Germany is my BFF 4EVARRR!”, when all he’s done is point out that Germany’s economy is stronger and more productive than ours (measurable statistics). How dare he use facts?!
Oh, and the “grandson of Winston Churchill” they quote as being offended by comparisons between his grandfather and Clegg? A Tory MP. What a fucking surprise that he didn’t agree with Clegg!
And, as ever with Daily Mail articles, the paragraph which shows their whole story to be nothing but fear-mongering and falsehoods is left until the very end:
Mr Clegg’s spokesman said: ‘Mail readers who see the article in full will realise that it was written in the context of an incident of anti-German prejudice. He remains against prejudice in any form.’
Oh, and remind me to post next time the Daily Mail claims that the BBC is biased…
lapetitefigue is absolutely correct about the three wives already being the subject of many column inches, all of it totally irrelevant to the election. The most vicious has been the Daily Mail’s attacks on Sarah Brown, most notably her feet.
Yes, her feet.
They followed this up with an analysis (and I use that word in the loosest possible terms) of Samantha Cameron’s outfit, saying that her black-painted toenails show little has changed since a teenage goth phase.
Heaven forbid that the Daily fucking Mail should actually write any articles about the merits of each party’s policies. Not when it’s much easier to point and laugh at women in their 40s for a supposed lack of sartorial nous, or slight imperfections.
What an absolute joke some of the election coverage is, not just in the Daily Mail.
link, news, killer whales, headline, epic, daily mail, religion,
Headline of the day, courtesy of (where else) the Daily Mail. Oh, and it gets better: They also said the head trainer at the Orlando theme park where the incident took place a week ago should suffer a similar fate.
Ah, there’s nothing quite like a bit of hypocrisy to start the week. Classic Daily Fail.
10th November: Daily Mail publishes an article detailing various things Demi Moore has said to W Magazine regarding her supposed status as a cougar. An image of the magazine’s cover takes a prominent position in the story.
19th November: Daily Mail publishes an article about the “controversy” surrounding the airbrushing of that magazine cover.
Seriously, nine days to spot this?! What is more likely is that there are a bunch of really fucking lazy journalists at the Daily Mail who simply churnalised the initial press release from W Magazine, and then a week later stumbled across someone else online who had noticed the airbrushing.
The second story references Jezebel.com on the airbrushing topic, but Jezebel published their article on 11th November. Again, eight days to notice that post? Glad to see the Mail has its finger on the pulse…
Annoyingly, the Daily Mail still refuses to hyperlink to any other outside website, even when it is the sole source of a story, particularly in the case of publishing a celeb’s Twitpics or similar. And usually they just say “a blog” rather than giving the actual website’s name.
Unfortunately, this kind of keyword-whoring and lack of understanding the nature of linking is very much an old-media mentality. It’s not about good quality, repeat readers. It’s purely about as many eyeballs as possible…
Interesting to note that the cost of Amy Winehouse’s boob job has apparently gone from £35,000 to only £5,000, according to the latest re-writing of history by the Daily Mail.
I love that they will write utterly sensationalist and non-fact-based stories, then totally ignore them a few weeks later. Seriously, the £35k story was written on October 12th, yet a mere 15 days later the price is now a seventh of what it was then.
I’d say that you couldn’t make this kind of shit up, but it’s pretty damn evident that they did.
Oh, and Amy Winehouse really is a mess, isn’t she?
