Friday, 18 February 2011

Mail: Nothing excuses the sexual assault but...

From Daily Mail diarist Ephraim Hardcastle:

Nothing excuses the Cairo sexual assault on CBS TV reporter Lara Logan, 39, the former swimwear model but...


...she does have ‘form’ for dressing provocatively in inappropriate locations.


In 2002, she was rebuked by British military officers in Afghanistan for ‘flashing her cleavage’.

As the New Statesman remarks, that 'clearly explains why she was sexually assaulted nine years later. Doesn't it?'

In the words of ITN's Mark Austin:


  1. A bunch of wankers I mean really what a bunch of wankers to say that a vile paper for vile people

  2. Clearly they have form of the 'sexuality is bad' banner they wave. There was the whole 'Stephen Gately died because he was gay' column and this. I think there were more stories like this with the Mail.


  3. Aside from the odious sexism and bigotry in the piece about the US journalist, the headline at teh top of the page is about someone called Richard Mellor when they are writing about David Mellor. Do they read this stuff before they put it out? (I have a screen shot, in case they notice and change it)

  4. I would have though the Mail would be praising her for showing a bit of cleavage and dressing "provocatively" seeing as how they have a long list of pervy articles filled with pictures of upskirts and downblouses from every kind of female celebrity, weather it be a newsreader or some Hollywood starlet.

    Off the top of my head, 3 women they have managed to splash scantily clad/needlessly angled pictures of all over thier webiste are Karen Gillan (dropping her phone), Miley Cyrus (was she even 18 at the time they had images of her visible nipples?) and Katy Perry (who was aparantly pretty and innocent aged 11, but is now fat and ugly).

    So in otherwords, dress up and show off a bit of skin for the Mail's leering pap's and perverted online audience, but if you get sexually abused then you had it coming, silly woman.

    Horrible rag, don't know how any self respecting woman can write for it.

  5. They are haters, liars and generally crap journos. I've toyed with the notion that the Mail is in the pay of a foreign power that wants to ruin Britain. That or evil aliens control it.

  6. "Do they read this stuff before they put it out?"

  7. I bet Mr Hardcastle has flashed a bit of ankle at some point in the last few decades. If he gets jumped on and buggered to death on his way home it'll be his own fault.

  8. The Mail continues to find excuses for sexual abuse and rape.

    I wanted to find some numbers out so I went on the Daily Mail website and searched for rape. I then classed the articles I found into several categories (I omitted ones that I couldn't class, or thought were not relevant, for example one about a boxer using the word 'rape' on TV)

    I found:
    4 articles about Islam condoning rape
    5 articles attacking the police for failings in dealing with rape-related issues
    7 articles implying women are to blame in some rape cases
    8 articles about actual rape claims
    22 articles about falsified rape claims.

    These numbers show the DMs priorities clearly, although I'm open for correction on the figures, I've tried to be kind to the DM though, missing articles that I felt were gray areas.

  9. Politics doesnt matter in british tabloids? Just wondering what happened to the former left wing Mirror? Our tabloids in Germany like Bild are as worse as the british but they report about politics? Has anybody an idea when it changed? I`m writing at university about Europe tabloids. Thank you for any help!

  10. And they say rape culture is a made up thing

  11. @Anonymous

    The Tabloids don't really care about politics as such. They want to be seen backing a winner and will switch depending on public opinion or mood. The Mirror is still a left leaning paper, it has always been critical of the conservatives and praises Labour, especially during the recent election and continues to take a critical stance against the coalition. The paper being left leaning means it should show some support for the Lib Dems, but since they are a junior partner and never have a chance of outright winning an election (and probably never will anymore) a tabloid will not support them as it would not want to be seen to be supporting a losing team.

    The best example is the Sun. The supported Labour and Tony Blair all through the 1997 election and then claimed the paper had won the election for him. Before this election they supported the Conservatives, but they became unpopular and the Sun, being a populist rag, switched support to the person who was obviously going to win the next election...they are seen to be a paper which can be trusted and gives the illusion they helped swing the election ("It's the sun what won it") even though all it did was look at the opinion polls and decide when the switch alliances.

    They did the same in 2010. A few months before the election was called, seeing that Gordon Brown was losing support, they suddenly decided overnight (literally) to drop him and stop attacking David Cameron and do a complete 180 turn. From that day onwards (date escapes me) the sun took a very critital approach to Labour and the Lib Dems (in other words the losing teams) and started praising the Tories once again.

    Fast forward a few months, there is no outright winner, but the sun still refer to Cameron and the Tories as the winning party and are calling for Brown to leave even before any negotiations have been started. This is because of the papers obsession with being shown as having backed the winning horse. They practically ignore the Lib Dems as it was unthinkable that they would be part of a government.

    And of course we come to the Lib Dems. They have been the outside party for years, no paper really supported them openly and gave them occasional praise and criticism. When Nick Clegg suddenly did well in the TV debates the tabloids decided he was a threat to the party they backed so had to come up with ridiculous stories about him in order to try and tarnish his name. They suddenly realised he was popular, but none of them wanted to be seen supporting him just in case he lost out and the paper was left supporting a losing side.

    I've read Das Bild and it is not as bad as our tabloids at all. During the South African World Cup the German press gave criticism on the PERFORMANCE of the English football team. Our tabloids insulted and belittled Germany and German People and totally ignored the National teams actual performance. Yet the Mail had the absolute audacity to claim the German press was being "racist" when all your media was doing was reporting on the matter in hand...a football team. They called it "Xenophobia reporting thinly disguised as sports news" in an article on the Mail website which poked fun at Germany and failed to even mention the English or German teams. While Das Bild was going on about Wayne Rooney's skills, The Sun was busy mocking your country and dressing him up as a WW2 soldier.

    As a British person who visits Germany regularly I can only apologise for our press being so childish and disgusting.


Thanks for taking the time to leave a comment.

Comments are moderated - generally to filter out spam and comments wishing death on people - but other messages will be approved as quickly as possible.