Mail's X Factor hypocrisy

During last Saturday's edition of The X Factor, the 'racy' performances of Rihanna and Christina Aguilera caused much comment.

Jonathan from No Sleep Til Brooklands tweeted:


And he was nearly right. The next day the Mail's 'outraged' article included 13 pictures. And two videos.

'Put your clothes on - it's a family show!' screamed the headline on the website of a publication that would no doubt call itself a 'family newspaper'.

And you can almost hear Chris Johnson salivating as you read his article:

Aguilera wore an very low-cut black dress as she cavorted with an army of lingerie-clad dancers while Rihanna thrust her way through her solo performance in pants and strapless bra.

And the Mail doesn't want anyone to miss out on any of these 'extremely provocative' routines, telling readers that they can 'scroll down to see video of the performances':


Jan Moir also complained about the 'sex-crazed nymphs before the watershed' so the Mail used three more pictures to illustrate her article.

It has been reported that there have been around 2,000 complaints about the programme and so the Mail had an excuse to write about it again. Not that they needed an excuse - on Monday night, the Mail's homepage contained eleven different 'stories' about The X Factor.

But they put the fury/outrage/storm article on the front page:


The continuation on pages six and seven contained several more pictures of the most provocative poses.

But it seems the paper was aware of the accusation of double-standards in pretending to be outraged while showing so many photos and videos.

So it went with the quite incredible headline:

"We apologise to readers but you have to see these pictures to understand the fury they've stirred"

Online, there was no 'scroll down for more leering' - instead, they went with entirely unconvincing:




Yes, that's the only reason they've been published. And if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

If the Mail website wasn't continually filling its pages with pictures of famous women in lingerie or bikinis, low cut tops or short skirts then the claim they are publishing these photos reluctantly might be vaguely credible.

But that their first article on this 'sleaze storm' included thirteen pictures and two videos proves they relish it and know it helps them have such a 'popular' website. To try to pretend they are aghast at such stuff is rank hypocrisy.

(While writing the above, the Guardian's Media Monkey published a similar, albeit less rambling, article on the same point)

The 'downmarket' Mail

The Daily Star is at it again: putting headlines on its front page which aren't really truthful.

Today's is 'Rooney gets a good kicking - Holidaying player attacked'.

The clear implication is that Wayne Rooney has been physically 'attacked' while on holiday in Dubai.

When the story begins - under the Star's worthless 'exclusive' banner - it makes clear that isn't the case.

At all:

Crocked Wayne Rooney has had a good kicking from Sir Alex Ferguson as he angers fans by lording it in Dubai.

Fiery Fergie showed the star who is boss after his contract strop by putting his comeback on hold.

So it is, at best, a verbal kicking. But was it even that?

The article by Jerry Lawton - of 'Grand Theft Auto: Rothbury' fame - says:

Boss Sir Alex Ferguson, 68, yesterday revealed the star, currently living it up with wife Coleen in the world’s poshest hotel in Dubai, will not play for another month.

He said Rooney’s injured ankle had not improved because United’s medics had not been able to treat it while he has been soaking up the sunshine...

Club insiders believe fiery Fergie’s decision to put Roo’s comeback on ice is his way of showing the petulant star who is the real star at the club.

Ah, the anonymous 'insiders'. It must be true then.

Except, over in the Mail, there's a report on Ferguson's press conference yesterday that says:

...he is not therefore rushing Rooney back after another setback with his ankle in training. Ferguson told Rooney to take a family holiday...

The Guardian has more of this vicious 'kicking':

The initial diagnosis was that he would be out for three weeks, but the striker has been allowed to go on holiday with his wife, Coleen, to Dubai this week rather than having treatment.

"I think it will be a bit longer," Ferguson said. "He's away at the moment so there's no recovery. He's having a rest. He did his remedial work before he went. Thereafter rest is what he needs and we're quite happy with that."

The saga of a footballer going on holiday with his wife has taken up more column inches than you might have thought possible.

They've been on the front of the Star for four of the last five days. The Sun made them front page 'news' on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The Express (twice) and the Mail (once) have also put them on the front page.

But today, the Mail have done their usual thing - pretending to be shocked at the Rooneys' behaviour, while at the same time dispatching a reporter to Dubai to report on their every move. David Jones' article - which appears on pages 14-15 of today's print edition - is a work of staggering inanity:

At 11am, almost to the minute, Coleen would arrive by the pool, take off one of several ­expensive beach blouses and lay face down on her sun-lounger - always the same one.

Quite what Wayne was doing for the next hour and a quarter or so, we cannot know. At 12.15pm, ­however, he would trudge down to join his wife, and there they would remain for the next five hours...

Gripping stuff, isn't it?

Having spent the week fending off obsequious butlers proffering every imaginable extravagance, however, it’s easy to imagine how ­soccer’s most stinking-rich couple might begin another day in paradise.

‘Morning Wayne,’ chirps Coleen, admiring her ample new curves in the gold-framed mirror above a bed whose mattress has been specially adjusted to a softness of their liking.

Ah yes, her 'ample new curves'. The headline claims she has a 'suspiciously enhanced cleavage'. At one point, Jones says Coleen:

must surely have had her own breasts enlarged judging by before-and-after ­photos published this week

But later he's not so sure:

perhaps even a boob job

With a remarkable lack of self-awareness, he sneers:

If we believe one downmarket tabloid, they have even decided to renew the marriage vows.

'One downmarket tabloid' - not like the Mail, which is obviously above all this drivel. The Mail's website has 'only' 11 articles in five days about two young people sunbathing for five hours a day.

And the Mail would never take anything from such a 'downmarket tabloid' would it? Obviously, there's no link between the Star's front page on Wednesday:


And this Mail website article:



Back to Jones' scintillating prose:

Last Wednesday, I ­happened (by genuine coincidence) to be directed to a sun-lounger near a rock-shaded corner of the pool where the Rooneys were taking a dip, and couldn’t help but notice their discord.

Coleen ordered a pint of draught beer and a vodka and lemonade for Wayne, and they chatted sporadically. Or rather, she did - wrinkling her nose at him to make her point, as is her habit.

He just grunted and wallowed around on a waterproof striped cushion. Not once did they kiss or hug, or even drape an arm around one another.

So he was 'coincidentally' directed to a sun-lounger near the Rooneys, but didn't bother moving. He just stayed there. Watching them talk. Making notes about the food and drinks they ordered. Staring as they sunbathed for five hours.

He must be so proud he doesn't work for one of those 'downmarket' papers.

(Hat-tips to @couragerequired and @RopesToInfinity)

Shocking. Look!

The Mail website is trying to act shocked over a new perfume advert starring Christina Aguilera:


Over the top. Pushing the boundaries of deceny. Soft-porn style:

It's supposed to be an advertisement for her new fragrance Royal Desire.

But the commercial for Christina Aguilera's latest perfume looks more like a low budget soft-porn film as the newly-single pop star shows off her curvaceous figure.

Showcasing her ample cleavage in a very low cut dress and writhing in a chair in ecstasy as she sprays the perfume across her chest, the singer's ad may be a bit too risque for her younger fans.

But it's not too risque for her, ahem, older fans working at the Mail.

The accompanying article - little more than free publicity for the scent - contains no news content but does include six stills from the sixteen-second advert and, at the end, they even embed the not-at-all boundary-pushing video:


Mary in Belfast sums up the Mail's over-reaction perfectly:


(Hat-tip Press Not Sorry)

The Mail website and 'sleazy pics'

The Mail's celebrity-and-sex-obsessed website is currently running this story:


The Daily Mail Reporter article begins:

Courtney Love has always been provocative but she has taken it too far by posting pictures of herself half naked on Twitter.

The shocking photos show the 46-year-old singer posing in just underwear with her hands covering her breasts.

In another photo she wears tights and knickers but no skirt as she bends over near a mirror.

This is followed by the two 'shocking', 'sleazy' pics in question. Just so you can see for yourself how she has 'taken it too far'. Sigh.

However, the Mail has managed to squeeze yet another story from a photo that someone famous has posted on Twitter, and have tried (but failed) to take the moral high ground over a so-called 'sleazy' pic that they are only too happy to publish.

Mail attacks BBC for 'voyeuristic' Wimbledon coverage

Last week, this blog pointed out that tabloid coverage of Wimbledon had been dominated by pictures taken up the skirts of the female competitors.

As if to prove the point, the Mail followed it with not one, but two more of these pervy, pointless articles:



(Not to be outdone, The Sun produced a slide show of the 'ten best tennis bottoms'.)

But today we find the hypocrites at the Mail attacking the BBC for, believe it or not, 'voyeurism' in their coverage of Wimbledon.

Words fail.

The Paul Revoir article is based on a few anonymous comments (left on an unnamed messageboard) but the Mail article is currently second story on their website so they're happy to make the point. Never mind that the article makes clear the BBC haven't received any actual complaints - so much for the claim the camerawork has 'sparked fury'.

The Mail happily prints little else but upskirt pictures of female tennis players in their Wimbledon coverage (they published another yesterday, of Tsvetana Pironkova). But when the BBC shows a couple of spectators kissing - in a public place, among hundreds of people, at an event that is televised - that is described as 'voyeuristic camerawork'.

Oh, and the Mail decides to helpfully post a picture of one of the couples in question - for the benefit of the millions of people who visit their website. So it's voyeurism for the BBC to show them, but fine for the Mail.

UPDATE: The Mail updated their article at 11:27am, adding:

Of the 150 viewers who expressed their displeasure on the BBC's message boards about various matches...

This is an outright lie. The discussion thread 'Voyeurism at Wimbledon' on the BBC's Points of View pages had a total of 150 comments at the time of their update. Several of the people complaining about the coverage had posted multiple comments - for example, in the first 60 comments posted, only six different people are complaining about the 'voyeurism' and they posted 22 messages between them. Moreover, there are a large number of comments from people who didn't have a problem with the shots of the crowd.

Therefore, to claim '150 viewers...expressed their displeasure' is totally wrong and having trawled the thread for the critical comments, they are very well aware of that.

Mail hypocrisy over Big Brother

The Mail is trying to make it very clear it hates Big Brother:

Yes. Thank God:

After ten years, the Big Brother freak show is nearing its last hurrah. But first there's one last set of oddballs to put up with.

'Put up with'?

But what the Mail is actually doing is pretending it hates Big Brother while wallowing in every single moment and making sure its readers don't miss a thing.

So their homepage currently looks like this:


And they have an article spread across pages 20 and 21 of the newspaper, with the same 'thank God' headline, which provides pictures and short descriptions of each of the thirteen contestants.

Why give so much coverage to people it claims it can only just about tolerate?

Oh, and then there is:


In fact, the Mail website is so appalled by having to 'put up' with this programme that it has made a banner specifically for it:


This is, of course, typical of the Mail.

They like to claim that the sex in True Blood, or the jokes of Chris Moyles, or the sex in Belle de Jour, or a 'sickening' fight, or Kelly Brook's 'cavorting' with a porn star are all absolutely disgraceful, but then helpfully provides lots of pictures and/or detailed descriptions of them.

And for next 13 weeks, they will feign a superior attitude about Big Brother. They will sneer and look down their nose, but at the same time, they'll be gleefully reporting - and showing pictures of - everything. Beginning with one contestant:

stripping to a pair of lacy pink knickers late last night. The 23-year-old hair stylist...couldn't resist showing off her enviable figure.

Going by the rest of the Mail's leering, Heat-like website, it seems unlikely they find that difficult to 'put up with'.

Chris Moyles shouldn't make fat jokes - that's our job, says Mail

The Mail has Chris Moyles in its sights - again - as it weakly attempts to create a new BBC 'controversy'.

The headline is Radio 1 DJ Chris Moyles faces backlash from listeners after making offensive 'fat' jokes about Beth Ditto.

It hardly seems news that Moyles - like Jonathan Ross - might make some near-the-knuckle jokes on his programme, but the Mail is only interested in leaping on something minor to try and turn it into some 'BBC outrage'.

But by saying 'faces backlash' they seem to admitting that there isn't an actual 'backlash' they can report on. Usually they pick up some comments from the BBC messageboards or some other forum but none are quoted.

Here's how their article begins:

Chris Moyles has caused controversy by mocking Beth Ditto for being overweight - despite weighing over 16 stone himself.

The Radio 1 DJ angered listeners with his comments about the Gossip singer as he handed over to Fearne Cotton on Wednesday morning.

The joke started when Moyles joked he would look like Ditto if he dressed up in women's clothes, but quickly descended into something altogether more offensive.

But do they really mean 'offensive'?

Because if the Mail's thinks it was all so 'offensive', why do they willingly repeat ten of the 'jokes' he came out with?

Moreover, when it comes to remarks about Ditto's weight, are the Mail really in a position to criticise others?

For example, in March 2009 they said Ditto had:

squeezed herself into the tight-fitting lycra frock, testing its limits almost to the point of destruction.

See? She's so fat she nearly destroys her clothes! Brilliant!

And a few months later, one of their headlines came with a health warning:


She's so fat she'll hurt your eyes! Hilarious!

So is the real reason that the Mail is upset with Moyles because he works for the BBC? Or is it because making petty remarks about Beth Ditto's weight is their job?

Mail's latest faux outrage

Too rude for TV? Billie Piper bleats like a sheep for perverted client in Belle de Jour's latest distasteful call girl adventure. So says the Daily Mail website. In full 'high horse' mode.

And it wasn't just 'perverted' and 'distasteful' but:

demeaning

and:

disturbing

Nice to see Daily Mail Reporter knows where the Mail's office thesaurus is kept.

Good job, too, that only 650,000 people watch the show and the details of this 'disturbing' scene aren't too widely known.

Oh:

In white lingerie and a pink robe, Belle is confident that she will soon remind him of what he has been missing.

Talking to camera, she says: 'It's so sad when they're like that. Give me an hour with him, he'll be a new man.'

But as the action hots up, Simon reveals he has a penchant for the farm yard - or rather pretending to be an animal.

He says: 'Let's do it like dirty dogs. You dirty cow. You little pig. You dirty, dirty, dirty goat.'

Belle obliges him, replying: 'I'm so dirty. I'm a goat. I'm a chicken. I'm a dirty ewe.'

In a scene which becomes increasingly humiliating, she has to fulfil the wish of her paying customer when he asks her to 'bleat like a sheep'.

It sounds so ridiculous that it must surely have been played for laughs. Does the uptight Mail not realise that?

Clearly not, because Daily Mail Reporter has taken it all very seriously, pretending to be outraged while also giving every 'perverted' detail of what happened and even included a screenshot of Piper during this 'distasteful' 'romp'. Along with three other pictures of her not wearing very much.

The article says:

As a high-class call girl, there is nothing that Belle de Jour won't do for money.

As a low-class website, there is nothing that MailOnline won't do for hits.

Mail invites readers to look at 'sickening' attack on schoolgirl

The Mail's latest attempt to link Facebook to the end of civilisation as we know it comes with the story of a so-called 'happy slap' attack by a school bully on a fourteen year old girl, which was filmed and posted on the site.

But here's the headline:


'Sickening footage'? So sickening, the Mail doesn't post the actual video.

Just six all-action screenshots:

Sickening indeed.

Mail's crush on sixteen year old continues

The Mail website is back to one of it's favourite celebrity fancies - 16 year old Miley Cyrus.

The tone of the article is - 'can you believe she was pole dancing in micro shorts and boots'?

The point of the article is - 'look at these pictures of her pole dancing in micro shorts and boots'.

And then watch the website hits rack up.

The story begins:

Miley Cyrus is a teen star with a wholesome image.

But there was nothing innocent about her dance routine at the Teen Choice Awards last night.

Dressed in micro shorts, black leather biker boots and wearing piles of jewellery, the 16-year-old appeared older than her years as she cavorted around a pole onstage.

But here's the thing: she wasn't pole dancing. A pole attached to what looks like an ice cream cart came on stage and she spent about 30 seconds holding it. There was no 'cavorting'. And to say there was 'nothing innocent' about the routine is a very large overstatement, seemed solely designed to set the minds of middle aged men (such as those who edit the Mail and its website?) racing.

Indeed, by modern pop standards, it looked fairly innocent.

Still, there's five very large pictures of Miley attached to the story, just so everyone can have a good look at how shocking it all is.

Then the Mail adds:

Perhaps Miley, the star of Hannah Montana, was hoping to charm an older audience than her loyal teenage fanclub.

Hmmm - trying to attract the attention of an 'older audience'?

You certainly wouldn't get the Mail trying such tactics...

The end of the world is nigh! Mail 'reports' on girls kissing each other

What is most disturbing aspect of modern life to the average Daily Mail reading parent, worried about their kids? Knife crime? Teenage pregnancy? Drugs? Not doing well at school? Struggling to find a job in a recession hit job market?

No, none of these things. Apparently, it's girls kissing each other. This is, the Mail tells us, a:

teenage trend that will disturb every parent.

This unbelievable homophobic rant is written by Penny Marshall under the guise of an 'investigation' into the 'phenomenon' of girls kissing other girls. And to make it worse, they're girls from

smart homes with professional parents, are well-spoken and attend a well-respected Inner London day school.

In other words - children like the average Mail reader's.

It is, she says, 'intriguing and disturbing'. The idea that the Mail (editor: male, 61) finds teenage girls as young as 14 kissing each other 'intriguing' is quite disturbing. Yet, the Mail goes into detail about various examples, but - of course - only so the readers can be appalled by all the girl-on-girl action.

Marshall blames various pop stars and celebrities - Katy Perry for I Kissed a Girl, Madonna and Britney, Linday Lohan and Samantha Ronson - for making teenagers sexually confused. 'That's why this celebrity fad is so insidious,' she roars. Nothing like as insidious or confusing as, maybe, suggesting there is something inherently corrupting and wrong about lesbianism.

Lesbianism which, she seems to suggest, didn't even exist before Madonna kissed Britney in 2003.

She goes into greater criticism of Perry's song which caused 'massive offence' and cites as her evidence:

Middle American commentators accused her of promoting lesbianism. One church notice board carried the slogan: 'I kissed a girl - and went straight to hell.' Internet message boards in the U.S. were overloaded as mothers panicked about their daughters' slumber parties turning into vast, experimental orgies.

A pop tune about a same-sex kissing upsets Middle American church goers? Hardly conclusive proof of 'massive offence'...

Marshall quotes several teenagers who have seen or done these kisses, and they seem far more laid-back and rational than she does.

'There is no harm done, no harm meant,' says one.

'I'm absolutely sure they wouldn't take it any further, and it is embarrassing to watch, but these days it's happening more and more. It's clear that some girls now feel it is OK to do,' adds another.

'It's really not such a big deal,' says 'Jennifer, a former private schoolgirl and recent university graduate,' who - having been to private school - clearly should know better.

And Marshall knows best. She ends with a dire warning that while girls may think it is:

terribly grown-up and cool, the reality is that such behaviour can compromise both their dignity and self-respect.

But why? It can't be any more compromising to a person's dignity and self-respect than writing for the Mail. She seems to believe that what some teenage girls may do in private (most of them say they were at private parties) is shocking 'public sexual experimentation' and that it is inherently 'disturbing' - a word she uses repeatedly.

It's an article full of really unpleasant anti-gay sentiment, and as a 'scare' story it's dreadfully thin. Teenagers have always been - will always be - involved in sexual and other types of experimentation. Surely a kiss between two consenting teens of whatever sex is far from the worst thing they could be experimenting with?

Still, Mail reader Jane Berwick from London is suitably outraged. Her comment (10.21) is:

We need a war to get us back on track.

About which no further comment needs to be made.

How tacky! But, phwoar, eh?

Kelly Brook is starring in the 3-D (insert your own innuendo here) remake of 70s horror classic Piranha.

If you read the Daily Mail, you would know this because it has done not one, not two, but three stories on the film. All in the last week.

Today's story is headlined: Isn't that a bit tacky, Kelly? Miss Brook cavorts with a female porn star in her new film. The story says Kelly Brook has 'sunk to even lower depths' because she was 'cavorting with Riley Steele, a familiar name to fans of adult movies...Clad in nothing but a shiny red bikini and black heels, Kelly then tossed her hair as she danced around the deck of the boat'.

And just to show how 'tacky' this 'cavorting' (otherwise known as acting a party scene for a film) was the Mail helpfully includes four pictures of the two together, and three others of Brook in her bikini, on her own. Tacky indeed.

It even talks about Riley Steele's 'unsavoury' career, which might seem a bit rich from an organisation that was plugging Playboy only two days ago.

But all this is just another excuse to use some pictures of Kelly Brook in a bikini. Paul Dacre seems to have a crush, because it's not the first time - a quick search finds examples in April 09, April 09, March 09, March 09, August 08, October 08, October 08, January 08, and January 08. Good for getting lots of hits to your website, which is what most of the Mail's picture stories seem solely designed to do.

Mail says 'have another look at how awful these pics are'

Following on from Tuesday's Mail article about the Miss Teen Queen UK website, the Daily Quail points out that only a few months back, the Mail had no such problem with the contest when it was reporting on one of the girls involved, who had overcome spinal surgery to compete.

But now, as Claude reveals, the Mail is so appalled it had to repeat how awful it all was in Saturday's paper. With another two page spread. With several more pictures. None of which had the faces pixelated (unlike on Tuesday).

Look how shocking this is! No, REALLY look!

The tabloids - especially the Mail - do have a habit of writing a story which says 'isn't this shocking?' and then provides copious amounts of pictures to prove just how shocking it is.

For example, many years ago, the Mail ran several pages of comment and screenshots revealing how shocked it told us we must be about Channel Five's infamous gameshow Naked Jungle.

But this seems rather more serious. The article Teen beauty contest that lists vital statistics branded 'a shop window for sex offenders' gives details of a competition called Miss Teen Queen UK, an online beauty pageant for 13-19 year old girls. The 'quote' in the headline is adapted from comments made by the Director of Kidscape.

The problem is in the first paragraph, which reads: 'A beauty pageant has been labelled a 'shop window for sex offenders' by a leading children's charity after it published the breast sizes of girl entrants as young as 13.'

And how does the Mail choose to illustrate this story? With a screenshot of one contestant's profile - and it's readable. So although her face is pixelated, her 32B chest measurement isn't. If the Mail finds it so repulsive for the organisers to publish 'the breast sizes of girl entrants as young as 13' why publish the breast size of this 15 year old on its website? (Also seen are her waist and hip measurements, and her dress size.)

The Mail uses two other pictures from the site - one a young girl with face pixelated (although easily identifiable, if you wish to find her) and a screenshot of the website homepage, where one of the models has her top unbuttoned quite low.

What the Mail wants to do is not only be appalled, but also 'prove' how evil the internet is (again). At least it's not Facebook this time. But the use of these particular images seems gratuitous and rather creepy - if the Mail really finds this so awful, why use screenshots revealing what it is most complaining about?

It's likely the Teen Queen site has had more hits today as a result of the Mail story than at any time previously. It is, at time of writing, the eighth most read story on their site. So are they really concerned that this website is a 'shop window for sex offenders'? Because they appear to be doing all they can to point people to that window for a look.