Perhaps the Mail's website could shed some light on that?
For example, on the website today: Britney Spears looks in 'great shape' showing off her 'fantastic form'.
But on the Mail's website in January: Britney Spears looks 'bloated and unkempt'.
On the Mail's website today: Megan Fox 'cuts a glamorous figure' as she 'saunters around in a low cut dress'.
On the Mail's website last week: Megan Fox looks 'gaunt and skeletal' and 'too skinny'.
On the Mail's website last month: Megan Fox 'could wear a paper bag and look good in it thanks to her enviable physique'.
On the Mail's website in the past: Leona Lewis might be 'dumpy' or might have 'killer curves'. Katy Perry might have 'girth' or a 'voluptuous figure'. A 'curvaceous' woman dares to eat dessert. A woman weighing 9st is ridiculed for her 'blubber'.
And on and on...
There are hundreds of such nasty, pointless articles on the Mail website, which criticise famous people - but particularly famous women - who dare go out in casual clothes, or without make-up or without looking exactly how the mean-spirited hacks on the Mail website demand they look at all times.
And tomorrow's Mail front page refers to the 'raddled mug' of supermodel Kate Moss - in exactly the same space where today's edition asked 'Why do we women HATE our bodies?'
(See also Angry Mob's take on this story, which highlights today's page three feature finding fault with the way Kate Moss looks)
Posts
