'Chubby arms'

MailOnline headline, 6:55pm:

Mail headline two hours later, after lots of critical comments below the article and on Twitter:

The Mail, 'kninkles' and déjà vu

On 6 September 2011, the Mail published an article on the 'curse of wrinkly knees'.

Dubbed 'kninkles' (yes, really), the spiteful article highlighted the celebrity women:

whose knees are rather less perfect than the rest of their physique.

How dare women go out with 'less than perfect knees'? Anyway, the article by Claire Coleman - whose knees are not shown - goes on to point out the 'kninkles' on Jennifer Aniston, Sharon Stone, Elle Macpherson, Catherine Zeta Jones, Kate Moss, Melanie Griffith, Nicole Kidman, Demi Moore and a few others. It quotes a few cosmetic surgery-types who are only too happy to explain what procedures might help with this 'curse'.

Today, the Mail has published a completely different article about:

the dreaded crinkling, pouching and sagging of the knee area which starts when women hit 40.

This article by Jenny Stocks - whose knees are not shown -  goes on to point out the 'kninkles' on Jennifer Aniston, Sharon Stone, Elle Macpherson, Catherine Zeta Jones, Kate Moss, Melanie Griffith, Nicole Kidman, Demi Moore and a few others. It quotes a few cosmetic surgery-types who are only too happy to explain what procedures might help with this 'curse'.

MailOnline was named newspaper website of the year in March.

In a New Yorker article about the Mail and MailOnline, one former Mail journalist told Lauren Collins:  

“I just got fed up with writing picture captions about celebrities’ saggy knees, and thought they were hypocritical and unfair,” she continued. “I thought, I’m going to hell if I keep writing this.”

The Mail on women and their bodies

An article in today's Mail asks:


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)

The Mail and body image

In the Daily Mail today:


The article, by Dr Aric Sigman, says:

There has been an 80 per cent rise in young girls being hospitalised with ­anorexia in the past ten years. And body dissatisfaction is affecting younger and younger children.

In a recent study published in the British Journal of Developmental Psychology, almost half of the three to six-year-old girls surveyed said they worried about being fat.

Yet any serious correlation between visual media and the rise of eating disorders has largely been dismissed. Until now, so-called ‘body politics’ has been a cultural and psychological debate, owned by feminists and eating-disorder therapists. They dismissed blaming the visual media as too simplistic.

However, new research shows there is a much stronger link between visual media and eating disorders. Repeated exposure to images of thin women alters brain function and increases our propensity to develop eating disorders.

He concludes:

Fortunately, more and more scientists and prominent medical bodies are beginning to view the media as playing a major role in eating disorders. The Royal College of Psychiatrists recently issued a statement saying the media propagates ‘unobtainable body ideals’ and that airbrushed images should carry a kite mark.

Whether you believe the argument or not, the fact is the Mail has been happy to publish an article that links media images and eating disorders.

Meanwhile the Mail website has run a 'story' today about 'super-slim' Whitney Port eating an apple (yes, really) in which Daily Mail Reporter writes:

But Whitney could certainly afford to pile up her plate somewhat as her black and grey halternecked bikini showed off her jutting hip bones, and pin-thin legs.

The Mail handily provide nine photos of Port in her bikini so their readers can judge her body for themselves.

Elsewhere, another woman in a bikini was under the Daily Mail Reporter's microscope, this one for being too fat:

Taryn Manning looked super-relaxed as she sunbathed in a metallic purple bikini in Hawaii.

So much so, that she seemed content to let it all hang out, as the Hawaii Five-0 actress's tiny two-piece left little to the imagination...

She sat poolside sipping on a very green cocktail, and was refreshingly un self-conscious despite the fact that her tummy rolls were on display for all to see.

This comes a couple of weeks after Daily Mail Reporter was ludicrously pointing out the 'girth' and 'protruding belly' of Katy Perry.

If the Mail is truly concerned the media's role in how women and girls view themselves and their body shapes, they should start by having a word with their tacky website.

'Girth'

Here's the latest article from 'Daily Mail Reporter' pointing out some totally imagined flaw in a celeb:


It says:

It could well be a trick of the light, combined with an unflattering outfit choice.

But the usually immaculate Katy Perry was looking a little curvier than usual during a concert in Budapest, Hungary, last night.

The 25-year-old star took to the stage in a skin-tight silver rubber dress, which clung in all the wrong place.

With the material buckling around the waist, the figure-hugging design even gave the impression of a protruding belly.

Usually Katy looks a million dollars, but apparently even she has her off days.

Girth. Protruding belly. Off day.

Here's the picture the Mail uses as 'evidence':


'Girth' indeed. Another side-on pic shows absolutely no evidence of a 'protruding belly' (not that it would matter if it did).

Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of the people leaving comments are scathing of the Mail's irresponsible line:


(Angry Mob has posted on a similar Mail article, about Pierce Brosnan's 'burgeoning belly'.)

UPDATE: Twelve hours after publication, and following well over 200 extremely critical comments, the words 'protruding belly' have been removed from the article. It was this:

But is now this:


* On a similar theme, it's well worth reading Anton Vowl's post from last week called The Mail, Laura Robson and Cher Lloyd.

Links

The latest migration figures have, predictably, led to a flurry of newspaper articles, not all of them entirely accurate.

Exclarotive looks at a misleading Mail headline while Five Chinese Crackers looks at the article that followed. He has also written two posts looking into claims about England's population density and an earlier piece in the Mail linking immigration to crime.

The discovery of the body of spy Gareth Williams has led to a lot of guesswork from journalists. Minority Thought looks at some of the speculation from the Sun ('it was al-Qaeda') and the Mail, while Primly Stable 'learns' that Williams:

was stabbed, poisoned and strangled to death by a gay-slaying Al-Qaeda agent who was a colleague and a friend and police fear that secrets that were not stolen from his flat could be sold to Britain's enemies.

It's not surprising that Williams' uncle criticised the speculation:

"When you have these rumours in the papers, it is most distressing. It is heartbreaking that he has died so young and his family have enough on their plate without having to read these stories.

"Gareth's parents are not doing well at all. They are in a state of shock and struggling to come to terms with what has happened. They have seen what has been in the papers and they are very, very upset about these untruths."

Unfortunately, as with the Stephen Griffiths case in May, the media seems to relish spreading lurid gossip rather than sticking to the facts.

Indeed, Matt Lucas has launched a legal action against the Daily Mail for an intrusive and untrue article about the death of his former civil partner Kevin McGee:

Lucas contends that close relatives and friends quoted in the story did not make the statements attributed to them and that much of the information was false.

The story claimed Lucas was planning to have a big birthday party. According to the writ, Lucas had already told friends and family he would not celebrate his birthday this year and was out of the country at the time.

The writ said Lucas was particularly distressed by allegations that he blamed himself for McGee’s death and was hosting a party to “let go of the pain”. Both claims were untrue, it said.

Lucas, who instructed London law firm Schillings to act on his behalf, said Associated Newspapers, owner of the Mail, had refused to apologise or accept the story should not have been published.

Meanwhile, the Mirror, Mail and Express have been making exaggerated claims about grapefruit, as Minority Thought reports. The Express' headline stated 'Eat grapefruit to fight off diabetes' although Jo Willey's article later admitted:

to get the beneficial effect, someone would need to eat 400 grapefruits in one sitting.

Moreover, NHS Behind the Headlines pointed out that:

consuming too much grapefruit can interfere with people’s drug treatment and cause harmful effects.

While the Express loves miracle cure stories, the Mail website loves articles pointing out a famous person has lost/gained too much weight. The paper asks today 'Why ARE women so unhappy in their own skin?' (own?). Maybe some of their recent articles, as highlighted by Angry Mob, are to blame?

At Enemies of Reason, Anton has written three posts about mental health. While the Sun has tried to avoid 'bonkers' by using 'zany', 'weird' and 'wacky' instead, the Star has no such qualms about using the word, splashing it all over the front page.

Also from Anton, a post about a Sun front page story reporting a crocodile sighting in the English Channel. Having written two sensationalist articles about the 'killer croc' the Sun should have admitted that it was, in fact, a piece of wood. But it appears to have forgotten to set the record straight.

It's not the only bit of forgetfulness from a Murdoch-owned paper. George Eaton at New Statesman explains how The Times' readers might not have seen the criticisms of Sky from BBC Director-General Mark Thompson during his speech at the Edinburgh Festival because of the paper's selective, partial reporting.

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?

A round-up of Mail fail

A slightly different post, which is going to round-up several links to great posts elsewhere, and also take a very quick look over some of the other stories that haven't been mentioned here, despite best intentions.

Last Friday, the Express' disgraceful scaremongering front page and vile BNP-style rhetoric seemed on course to be the worst article of the day. But then up popped Sue Reid with the putrid Mapping out the strain on your NHS: 243 sick babies treated in one London hospital ward.... and just 18 mothers come from Britain.

It riled up the Mail readers in precisely the way that she and the Mail wanted. Health tourism, scrounging immigrants, look what they're getting instead of you - it's classic anti-immigrant fodder. It just wasn't true. Rather than some startling new report or any kind of reliable research, the story was based on the stickers on a map pinned to the wall of a hospital. Brilliant.

When first published, the article contained no statement from the hospital. When it was updated later to include this, the spokesman's words completely destroyed the story. So naturally it was stuck at the end in the hope no one would notice.

So eventhough the hospital said the stickers represented not just mothers of babies, but also of hospital staff, the Mail continued to claim it was about '243 mothers'.

Despite the hospital saying only 2 out of 550 admission this year were recorded as 'overseas admissions' the Mail continued to claim British babies were massively outnumbered.

In any case, as the Mail's graphic shows, the British Isles are completely covered by stickers, which would more than likely put people off adding yet another to that area.

And of course there's the basic decency of referring to sick babies as a 'strain' on the NHS.

Five Chinese Crackers covered the story fully, including background on Sue Reid's anti-immigration views.

5CC also asked Why 70 million anyway? as he wondered why the tabloids are so obessesed with that particular figure in the immigration debate. And in the latest 'PC gone mad: Xmas edition' saga, how the Mail reports on Scrooge police 'ban' Christmas carol singers because of stranger dangers'. Which, of course, they haven't. But you knew that just from the headline anyway.

Still with the Mail, Jonathan at No Sleep til Brooklands has done an excellent job destroying Jan Moir's latest idiotic column, called The madness of lessons in wife-beating. She deliberately misleads on what the 'lessons' actually are but thinks that teaching kids not to beat up women is, generally, a 'bad thing'.

She also, brilliantly, wants thanks for not invading Poland.

Jonathan has also looked at yet another Mail attack on the BBC over climate change, which was one of several non-stories about the Beeb that Dacre's rag couldn't resist.

Another was BBC radio presenter sparks complaints by playing When Harry Met Sally 'orgasm' clip on school-run show. DJ Steve Harris from Radio Solent played the 'I'll have what she's having' clip from said film. There was just one slight problem with the headline, which was revealed in the last paragraph (as usual):

Last night the BBC said: 'We've had not a single complaint or comment.'

Oh.

Talking of Mail obsessions, it's been rather quiet on the Kim Kardashian front recently, but she roared back into the Mail's good books when she posted a picture of her 'astonishing new figure', clad in a bikini, on Twitter.

And despite Twitter being evil and Kardashian being a nobody for most people in the UK, the Mail happily reprinted it. That was one of only four appearances in November, compared with eleven in October. Is she falling out of favour with the Mail Online 'newshounds'? Not quite - they've even given her her own section where all articles mentioning her are nicely date-ordered. Bless.

Of course, the Mail is fascinated by someone else now - Suri Cruise. The Daily Quail has done an superb job of rounding up the obsessive and genuinely creepy Mail coverage of this three year old.

Last week, this blog noted that in the last two months, Muslim graves in a Manchester cemetery had been desecrated three times. In that period, the Mail has run around 20 articles on Suri Cruise. It hasn't mentioned the graves once.

Still on the subject of Mail Online paparazzi garbage, there was a curious, but rather telling headline about last year's X Factor winner: Spotty Alexandra Burke braves her fans without any make-up.

So a 21-year old has spots. What news! And let's all point and laugh at her. But what the hell does the Mail mean by 'brave'? Being a soldier or fireman is brave. Going outside without make-up, err, isn't. Unless, like the Mail, you believe that women have to be covered in make-up and dressed flawlessly before they should be allowed out. What a hateful view the Mail has of women.

Still, at least Mail Editor Paul Dacre is the very pinnacle of fashion and grooming and would never be seen with a ridiculous hair style.

Here's a question for the Mail - why is it when two male musicians kiss it is 'crude' and 'provocative' and yet when two twentysomething actresses kiss it's (nudge, wink) 'naughty'?

Not that the Mail could ever be homophobic - the PCC has said so. On 4 November, the PCC ruled on Ephraim Hardcastle comments that Iain Dale was 'overtly gay' and implied something along the lines of a 'gay mafia' when he stated:

Isn't it charming how homosexuals rally like-minded chaps to their cause?

Dale called the Mail 'hateful' and 'homophobic'. Apparently, he'd only just noticed...

The PCC seemed to agree that the comments were 'snide and objectionable' but did not consider the piece:

an arbitrary attack on him on the basis of his sexuality.

As usual, that's totally puzzling, because without the references to Dale's sexuality, there would have been no article. The Commission concluded:

While people may occasionally be insulted or upset by what is said about them in newspapers, the right to freedom of expression that journalists enjoy also includes the right – within the law – to give offence.

To all the people who complained about the Jan Moir article, your might find a clue as to how the PCC will rule in that sentence.

Not that Hardcastle was in any way worried. A few days before the Dale ruling, he wrote:

Europe Minister Chris Bryant, who once posed in Y-fronts on a gay website, is wheeled out by BBC2's programme for chronic insomniacs, Newsnight, to promote Tony Blair as 'EU President'.

He ridiculed his Tory opposite numbers, Mark Francois, and William Hague, as 'Dastardly and Muttley' - the villainous characters in The Wacky Races TV cartoon.

With Bryant as the show's pink-car-driving beauty, Penelope Pitstop, presumably?

Pink. Girl. Because he's gay. Do you see?

In the same column, Hardcastle wrote this totally inane comment:

The performance of Peter Capaldi as a Number 10 spin doctor in TV's The Thick Of It, written by literary flavour-of-the-week Armando Iannucci, is nothing like the man he's meant to represent, retired Blair mouthpiece Alastair Campbell.

Yet it's praised to the rafters. How puzzling.

It's hard to figure out exactly what point he is trying to make, or what the point is of any of that drivel. He thinks it's 'puzzling' that an actor gets praised for a superb performance?

What?

Platell: still a hypocrite and just unbelievably lazy

If it's Saturday, it must be another feeble column from Amanda Platell in the Mail.

What does she write about today? Sex education in schools (covered in the Mail on 6 Nov), Fern Britton doing a religious chat show on BBC (covered in the Mail on 5 Nov), Drew Barrymore in a frock (covered in the Mail on 5 Nov), the U2 Berlin concert (covered in the Mail on 6 Nov), an attack on Helen Goodman over expenses (covered in the Mail on 6 Nov), Wayne Rooney celebrating the birth of his son until 6am (covered in the - gasp - Sun on 5 Nov), a sex discrimination case (covered in the Mail on 4 Nov), Gordon Ramsay's viewing figures (covered in the Mail on 5 Nov), an attack on Obama over Fort Hood (which appears to be straight from Fox News) and something about Slavica Ecclestone and the Dalai Lama (covered in the Mail on 4 Nov).

The only bit of her column that hasn't appeared somewhere else in the last three days is praise for Margaret Thatcher. And that can hardly be called 'new'.

Does she have an original thought in her head? And that doesn't include the lies. Any moron could flick through the papers, find a few stories to re-heat and add some unamusing insults.

And clearly, any moron does.

Let's start with Gordon Ramsay. She writes:

Ramsay's celebrity The F Word attracted just 1.8million viewers, with even BBC2's science series Horizon beating him with an aptly titled show called Who's Afraid Of A Big Black Hole? - into which we can all now hope the foulmouthed Ramsay will finally disappear.

If she feels that strongly about stopping media exposure for Gordon Ramsay, she should complain to the newspaper that just yesterday published five recipes from his latest 'brilliant book'. That would be the same newspaper she writes for.

On to her comments about Barack Obama, who she clearly hates. In recent weeks she has said he has no charisma and criticised Michelle for hula-hooping. And now? This about Obama's press conference - a few hours after the event and without all the facts - on the Fort Hood shootings:

He seemed very slow to react and spent much time initially ignoring the tragedy, thanking staff for organising a conference in Washington that he'd been attending.

It was only some time later that he spoke of the 'horrific outburst of violence'. His performance reminded me of President Bush's numb response when he was first told that two jet airliners had flown into the Twin Towers on September 11.

Now this is what really happened. He was indeed at a conference, as the BBC reported:

The first annual White House Tribal Nations Conference brings together one delegate from each of the 564 federally recognised American Indian tribes.

It is the first time in US history that they will all meet a sitting president.

So when Obama got up to speak he wasn't 'ignoring the tragedy' but thanking the organisers and attendees for this historic event. He gave a shout-out to a Congressional Medal of Honor recipient who was there, and gave a 'solemn guarantee that this was not the end of a process but the beginning of a process' on Native American rights.

What Platell calls 'much time' before he addressed Fort Hood was in fact - wait for it - 113 seconds.

When she claims it was 'only some time later that he spoke of the 'horrific outburst of violence'' was in fact 31 seconds into his remarks on the shootings and within three minutes of beginning his speech.

Not that the events on 11 September and at Fort Hood are comparable but Platell seems to forget Bush carried on reading 'The Pet Goat' for seven minutes after being told of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center. And then he went...where?

Is she really so pathetically biased that she thinks those two reactions are the same?

As usual, there are also some bitter attacks on women who are more successful and popular than she is. She refers to Fern Britton as:

The Big Fat Fibber

who was:

so unpopular with viewers that ratings for ITV's This Morning have soared since she was replaced as a presenter

Yes, the Mail (who else?) did report viewing figures have risen by 150,000 but how much of this is down to a new presenter and re-launched programme? And if she was 'so unpopular', how come she was presenting the show for eight years, and still managing to pull in nearly a million viewers?

But maybe with unpopular fibbers, it just takes one to know one...

And then there is a nasty and gratuitous attack on Drew Barrymore:

Drew Barrymore's appearance, wearing Posh's purple £1,750 Giral dress, made her look like a leading lady all right, but not the A-lister she hoped - more the poisonous cross-dressing Rosa Klebb in the James Bond movie From Russia With Love.

Aside from the factual error of calling Klebb a 'leading lady', this is what Drew looked like:


And this is Rosa Klebb:


Identical, as you can see.

The Mail, a few days earlier, had said Barrymore looked 'stunning' at the same event, although that might be to make up for stupidly saying she looked like a lapdancer the last time she was at a premiere.

But remember last week when Platell complained about Frankie Boyle's Rebecca Adlington joke as:

cruel, unfunny - and, above all, unjust.

Apparently, comparing the 34-year old Barrymore - whose recent directorial debut has been very well received - to a notoriously unattractive, 65-year old, poisonous, cross-dressing assassin, is totally just and completely hilarious.

Poisonous indeed.

Actress in bikini gets Mail's attention (shock)

The Mail website's latest news-free picture story of a famous woman in a bikini comes in the form of Christina Ricci shows off new boyfriend and a stunning bikini body on Miami Beach minibreak.

Ricci, apparently, 'stunned fellow beachgoers' as she 'flaunted a fantastic figure' notes Daily Mail Reporter before leeringly observing 'she was forced to readjust her bikini top as she stepped out of the surf.'

Her body is described as 'stunning' and 'enviably thin' just to reinforce the impression the Mail thinks very thin is the only 'enviable' body shape.

But could this be the same 'stunning' body as the one they said was covered in 'tacky tattoos' a year ago?

And the same 'stunning' body that they tried to make was underweight when they referred to her 'increasingly thin frame' in an article with several references to Ricci's eating disorders?

Becasue her body shape and size looks much the same in all three articles.

Patronising headline of the year?

A new study by the University of Kent claims date rape drugs are an urban myth. The study's sample - 200 students - seems quite small for such a sweeping statement, but the conclusion suits the Mail just fine, because it can blame alcohol for women being raped, rather than rapists.

But whatever the pros and cons of the study, did the Mail really need to treat the story so flippantly by putting this unbelievably patronising headline on it:

Mail has amnesia as it complains about 'fatism'

Lead story on the Mail website at time of writing is this:


Imagine that. Picking on someone just because they might be bigger than stick thin. The Mail is right to be outraged.

It's not as if the Mail would do such bullying. Like accusing a 9 stone woman of having 'blubber'.

Or calling Britney Spears fat with 'thick arms and thighs' and telling her it's 'time for a diet', saying John Travolta is 'obese' or describing Leona Lewis as 'dumpy'.

And the Mail certainly wouldn't dream of calling someone 'imperfect' because they have 'piled on the pounds' and have a 'cellulite riddled physique'.

'Horrific' indeed.

Mail points at and laughs at the 'blubber' on 9st woman

Big Brother winner Sophie Reade has done a photoshoot for Ann Summers today. She's blonde, got big breasts, and was on a reality television show - inevitably, she's on the Mail website again.

But as she's posing in lingerie, it gives the infamous Daily Mail Reporter chance to have a go at her weight. Not that they cared when she they were leering over her wrestling, in her bikini, in oil.

At 5ft 5, and 9 stone, Reade is, according to height/weight charts, the recommended weight for her height.

But the Mail knows best. They accuse of her having

blubber

and a

rounded tummy.

She doesn't have either. Is it even possible to describe a nine-stone twenty-year-old as having 'blubber'? Nonetheless, they sneer, she:

was still handed the chance to model Ann Summers underwear.

The use of the word 'still' in that sentence is as if the Mail can't believe someone they think is so unsightly can be an underwear model.

And yet, somehow, that doesn't stop them using four pictures of her in her pants (plus three others from her time on Big Brother).

They mention she was 7st 11 before her Big Brother stint, which puts her on the cusp of being under-weight. But that seems to be how they like their girls, because going from that weight to 9 stone means she has:

piled on more than a stone

and her weight has

ballooned.

Just so we can all see what the Mail clearly thinks is an unacceptable weight, here's Sophie's 'blubbery' tummy:
Hideous...

Clearly Sophie should be more like Kim Kardashian, who was back on the Mail website today with her two sisters.

Keeping Up With The Kardashians sure is hard work

the article begins, although the Mail website tries its best to keep up with every pointless move they make. The 'news' this time? They were at the opening of a cupcake shop.

Martin 'news is far more important to us than showbiz' Clarke must be so proud.

Sun calls singer 'huge'; she isn't

'Mariah Carey is a huge star', sneers The Sun, in an article so pointlessly critical about a famous person's weight it could easily have appeared on the Mail website.

'Three dancers struggle to lift Mariah Carey,' it says, illustrated with this picture:
Which shows two lifting her quite easily.

The accompanying words read:

Wow, MARIAH CAREY seems to have put on some serious timber judging by these pictures.

I feel for the three dancers straining to lift the diva's junk-laden trunk...

Looking at the combined muscle the blokes had to use to hoist her off the ground, it might be better for Mariah to stick to floor routines from now on.

She's getting too heavy to Carey.

Nice. Of course, just a quick look at that pic shows Carey isn't anything like as 'heavy' or 'huge' as they make out.

Indeed, they admitted as much a couple of weeks ago, when they wrote:

the singer was on fine natural form at a screening of her new movie Precious in Toronto last night.

Clad in a black dress highlighting her actual boobs, Mariah proved she doesn't need computer geeks to make her look hot.

Still, got to make a narrative out of the photos they have bought somehow.

The Mail obsession with Britney's weight

Britney Spears has been photographed in a bikini, and needless to say the Mail is printing all the pics because it's in the public interest (good for bumping up the website hits). But what have they decided about her weight this time?

Well, she's back to her 'former glory' and has won the 'battle of the bulge'. Whereas last time she

looked bigger around the middle and both her thick arms and thighs betrayed her continuing passion for fast food.

The story even includes this entirely hopeless paragraph:

And just last month the singer hit the stage in Paris last month looking less than svelte.

Typing one handed has that effect.

Now let's just look at two pics of Britney, from the Mail's articles. The last time, when she was fat and needed a diet she looked like this:

And now she has 'won the battle and shed the excess pounds' she looks like this:
See the huge differences? It's amazing she even got out her front door in the morning before.

All this, of course, just one day after the Mail article about the pressure on how women should look.

Blame the 'magazines' for judging women, says Mail

With a complete lack of self-awareness, sometime Mail columnist William Leith has written on a subject close the Mail's heart - the female body.

Leith was talking to a female friend:

Something, she said, is making women hate their bodies. And the problem is getting worse...

Every day, women are bombarded with the same message - you have to be more beautiful than you were the day before...

Figures must be slim, but also voluptuous. They must be worked on, but must also look natural...

This female body-hatred has got out of hand. You can see it in magazines in the newsagents. From a distance, the predominant colour is the tawny-pink of perfect female flesh. And then, inside the magazines, you get all those features about cellulite, bingo wings and muffin tops...

Something, she said, is making women hate their bodies.

Something is behind all these airbrushed breasts and jutting bottoms.

How ironic. And all the fault of those 'magazines in the newsagents'. Obviously the Mail would never comment on a woman's cellulite.

No, those articles on Fergie, Jerry Hall, Mischa Barton, Martine McCutcheon and Jennifer Lopez were all in 'magazines in the newsagents'.

And they would never write about bingo wings. Just look at the articles on Madonna, Anne Robinson and Sarah Harding to prove that. Nor would they repeatedly offer advice on how to get rid of bingo wings. Oh no.

And you would never find the Mail calling perfectly normal, healthy looking women fat and unsightly, or catching them without make-up and holding them up as a figure of fun, as they definitely haven't with Britney Spears, Leona Lewis, Jennifer Love Hewitt and Kate Winslet (Call your stylist, Kate! Oscar winner Winslet steps out with scraped-back hair and NO make-up).

So the paper and its website that is always judging women based solely on their appearance is now wondering why some women may feel pressurised about how they look.

Imagine that.

Recommended

Two excellent posts from Anton about topics covered here many times - the rather creepy leering over Emma Watson, and the Mail's obsession with highlighting fluctuations in Mischa Barton's weight (yes, her too).

Mail tells woman to go on diet

A few days after its article on BDD, the Mail has decided to make light of such issues, with another nasty and frankly irresponsible attack on Britney Spears' weight.

'Who ate all the croissants?' they ask, pointing their finger at the 'distinctly fuller figured' Britney as she arrived in Paris for some concerts:

After finishing the British leg of her world tour Britney Spears took a well-earned two-week break. But it appears that the holiday has had an impact on her figure - with Britney looking distinctly fuller-figured as she took to the stage in Paris. The singer's thighs and arms looked larger than before.

They include a series of pictures of her looking as if she's in fairly normal shape for her height. One of them includes the caption: 'Time for a diet?'

Thankfully, the comments also think the Mail is being ridiculous with almost every one of the nearly 30 left so far critical of the story:

• no wonder women feel constantly worried about their shapes and sizes, if someone the size of britney is criticised for being 'overweight'.
• She is what at the most a size ten!!! Come on people get a grip!!! This is what a normal sized person looks like!!
• "Time for a diet?" & "Who ate all the croissants?" Really? Are you kidding me?
• That's a "full figure"? God help the rest of us!

Of course, the Mail has form on this. In contrast to saying she has put on weight in the last two weeks, the paper was claiming back on 16 March that Britney was 'noticeably wider in the waist'. And on 5 March that she was 'bigger than ever' with a 'rather fuller figure'. In other words, her weight hasn't really changed over the last several months - she certainly doesn't look much different in the pics.

But the Mail knows that photos of Britney in stockings, boots and corsets will go down well with the their middle aged male readers, and thus they have to dream up an angle so it doesn't look like they are just using them so they can have a perv.

But it seems hard to believe the Mail feels it is perfectly acceptable to tell a young woman who looks normal, fit and healthy that it's time for her to diet.

Mail launches another feeble attack on Hollywood actress

The Mail has its not-very-sharpened claws out for another Hollywood actress. After attacking Megan Fox for being the 'dumbest Hollywood star ever' based on almost no evidence, it's now asking if 'anyone' can take Cameron Diaz seriously in a new straight film role.

In fact, the headline asks 'will ANYONE now take Cameron Diaz seriously'. The journalist who penned the article - Lina Das - clearly isn't much a film buff. She begins:

We are so used to seeing Cameron Diaz fulfilling Hollywood's perception of her as a sexy, sassy, fun, but lightweight actress - thanks to a string of sexy, sassy, fun, but lightweight movies - that it's hard to believe anyone could take her seriously.

Which firstly assumes that being a comic actress is somehow easy and therefore 'lightweight'. Being good at comedy is not easy - just ask anyone who sat through You Don't Mess With the Zohan or The Love Guru.

But also, Das seems to believe being in 'serious' films is somehow unusual for Diaz. She mentions that: 'Three years ago, she ventured outside her comfort zone to play a troubled sister in the family drama In Her Shoes. It was well received by the critics, but it flopped'. But if the critics liked it, surely that shows SOMEONE does take her seriously?

And before that there was Gangs of New York, Vanilla Sky and Any Given Sunday - none of which were exactly a barrel of laughs. And even some of her comic roles - such as Being John Malkovich and Last Supper - have hardly being the type of knockabout stuff of Shrek and Charlie's Angels that Das seems only to have seen.

It's shoddy journalism, but more than that, there seems to be a perception that because Diaz is 'sexy, sassy' she can't possibly be taken seriously. In the same way that FHM's 'sexiest woman in the world' Fox can't possibly be anything other than an airhead.

Mail hates women, part 2

Just as Megan Fox is named the sexiest woman in the world (read: public eye) by FHM, the Mail has decided to set the attack dogs on her. Again.

Last week it was suggesting she was hideously deformed because of her thumbs. Now they are asking if she is 'the DUMBEST star ever?' Because, you know, you can't possibly be the 'sexiest woman in the world' and not dumb.

But the evidence they produce is so thin, it's hard to believe someone spent the time putting it together, for no other reason than to have a bitch about her (the byline is the infamous 'Daily Mail reporter').

A clue might come in the fact she has called for the legalisation of cannabis, which they highlight and would clearly disapprove of - but is that really the dumbest thing a Hollywood star has ever said?

She also is quoted talking about Transformers, which she admits she is 'terrible' in:

'I can't s**t on this movie because it did give me a career and open all these doors for me. But I don't want to blow smoke up people's a*s. People are well aware that this is not a movie about acting.'

Which seems to be quite self-aware and hard to disagree with. It certainly doesn't sound like someone who has 'amazed fans with her ignorance'.