Monday, 8 February 2010
They don't care
The Express says sorry about telling a complete whopper last week:
In fact, it wasn't just the EU 'spouting off' according to the Express. As Tabloid Watch recorded, they'd actually said "Euro meddlers rule we can't have milk jugs". Which is something entirely different and implied that the EU would be banning them. Which of course they weren't.
I imagine if you're a teacher you often have to deal with kids who won't accept any form of punishment, and keep doing the same thing; or if you're a magistrate you'll keep seeing the same recidivist faces turning up in court, for the same old crimes. The Express is a bit like that, I think. It's never going to change its ways. It'll say sorry when there is a subject of the story who can prove they've done wrong, or threaten to sue.
Much easier, then, to simply target a huge mass of people instead:
The use of the word 'handed' is ridiculous - immigrants presumably get jobs by turning up to job interviews. The use of 'invasion' is unforgivable, and a disgrace to any pretence of journalism at the Express.
Just like those pesky kids in school, or recidivist cons, it's not that the Express doesn't know any better; it knows better, all right. It'll say sorry sometimes, but then just keep on doing what it's doing. Keep on spreading the same old pack of lies; keep on using the same dog-whistle terminology over immigration. They're not going to change because they just don't care.
FURTHER to our article “Now the EU spouts off...about our milk jugs” on February 3, we have been asked to point out that there is no proposed EU ban on milk jugs or any other milk containers.
The tests referred to in our articles were carried out by the University of Valencia, not at the behest of any agency of the EU.
The European Commission entirely shares the advice of the UK’s Food Standards Agency, that milk jugs that are clean and stored appropriately before and after filling are totally in line with EU legislation.
In fact, it wasn't just the EU 'spouting off' according to the Express. As Tabloid Watch recorded, they'd actually said "Euro meddlers rule we can't have milk jugs". Which is something entirely different and implied that the EU would be banning them. Which of course they weren't.
I imagine if you're a teacher you often have to deal with kids who won't accept any form of punishment, and keep doing the same thing; or if you're a magistrate you'll keep seeing the same recidivist faces turning up in court, for the same old crimes. The Express is a bit like that, I think. It's never going to change its ways. It'll say sorry when there is a subject of the story who can prove they've done wrong, or threaten to sue.
Much easier, then, to simply target a huge mass of people instead:
The use of the word 'handed' is ridiculous - immigrants presumably get jobs by turning up to job interviews. The use of 'invasion' is unforgivable, and a disgrace to any pretence of journalism at the Express.
Just like those pesky kids in school, or recidivist cons, it's not that the Express doesn't know any better; it knows better, all right. It'll say sorry sometimes, but then just keep on doing what it's doing. Keep on spreading the same old pack of lies; keep on using the same dog-whistle terminology over immigration. They're not going to change because they just don't care.
Sunday, 7 February 2010
Liz Jones fucks it up
This article, by Liz Jones, is perfectly acceptable:
Unfortunately this isn't the article that appeared in today's Mail, because for some reason it was decided by someone - presumably Jones herself - to introduce Emma Watson into the article, not with a shoehorn so much as a nine-pound hammer:
You could be forgiven for thinking the 'we' in that instance refers to 'we at the Daily Mail'. Let's not forget the newspaper's delight at her 'wardrobe malfunction' and how they used the opportunity to use another upskirt photo; or how they used paparazzi photos of her in a bikini; or how they said:
Jones isn't criticising her own employers, though, but society at large for valuing 'virginal' beauty above all other characteristics. I'm not so sure that you can uncouple that from what the mainstream media have to say about women's bodies from how women are seen, but there you are. Perhaps you can, perhaps you can't. All I do know is that Liz Jones had a perfectly reasonable article there, wrecked beyond belief by a clunky, jarring comparison between successful, young Emma Watson and the fate of Medine Memi. Surely there are better cases to choose when highlighting Western hypocrisy towards women's rights?
So, it's not that bad really. It just could have been so much better. Someone could have turned around, at any point, and said: Do you know what, Liz, this doesn't quite work... but no-one did, and so we're left with something pretty feeble instead.
The body of 16-year-old Medine Memi – her first name means ‘civilisation’ - was discovered tied to a chair in a hole in the garden of her home in a small village in south-eastern Turkey.
She had been buried alive as punishment for having talked to boys on the telephone. We know she was buried alive because of the amount of soil found in her stomach and lungs. Her father and her grandfather have been arrested.
Medine lived in a country mired in the dominance of a medieval, backwards-thinking, feudal patriarchy, albeit one that has been taking steps to stamp out violence towards women in its bid to be allowed into the European Union.
In 1998, the country’s supreme court overturned a law that criminalised adultery. In 2004, it introduced mandatory life sentences for those who carry out so-called ‘honour’ killings.
But despite these measures it continues to fail to protect its women and children. Four out of ten women in Turkey are beaten by their husbands. Half of all murders are ‘honour’ killings.
In an attempt to circumvent the stiffer sentences, ‘honour suicides’ have mushroomed.
Batman, a town in the south-east of Turkey, has been nicknamed ‘Suicide City’: three-quarters of all suicides here are committed by women – nearly everywhere else in the world, men are three times more likely to kill themselves.
Women who are told to kill themselves are usually given three options: a noose, a gun or rat poison. They are then locked in a room until they have done the deed.
Despite all of the above, President Obama made no mention of this shocking record on women’s rights in the speech he made during a visit to Istanbul last year in which he urged the EU to welcome Turkey with open arms.
He concentrated instead on the far less controversial issue of global warming.
Girls in Afghanistan are staying home because of a spate of acid attacks. In Italy, a country where until 1981 ‘honour’ was an ‘extenuating circumstance’ for murder, a young Moroccan woman was murdered last autumn by her father for wearing jeans.
In Iran, honour killings are legal. In Pakistan, a 17-year-old girl who, it was claimed, became pregnant by a man who was not her husband was forced to give birth before having her baby thrown to its death in a canal. The teenager was then mauled by dogs before being fatally shot in the head.
But can we in the West really claim the moral high ground when it comes to condemning these ‘honour’ killings’?
I would counter that the number of women harmed psychologically and physically by the West’s obsession with extreme youth far outstrips the number of women who are murdered for adultery, or even for the ‘crime’ of being the victim of rape in Islamic countries.
Every society has things it should be ashamed of. We have battered wives, domestic violence, child abuse, rape. These crimes are not done in the name of religion, other than as part of our cult of worshipping only women who are barely adolescent.
Violence against women is widespread in all countries. In Britain, 45 per cent have experienced some form of domestic abuse. In Germany, that figure is 37 per cent. Let’s not make this a war against Islam.
Let’s make it a war between genders, and try to fix it with education and emancipation, not prejudice.
Unfortunately this isn't the article that appeared in today's Mail, because for some reason it was decided by someone - presumably Jones herself - to introduce Emma Watson into the article, not with a shoehorn so much as a nine-pound hammer:
You could be forgiven for thinking the 'we' in that instance refers to 'we at the Daily Mail'. Let's not forget the newspaper's delight at her 'wardrobe malfunction' and how they used the opportunity to use another upskirt photo; or how they used paparazzi photos of her in a bikini; or how they said:
Emma Watson shows how much she's grown up at Harry Potter premiere
Jones isn't criticising her own employers, though, but society at large for valuing 'virginal' beauty above all other characteristics. I'm not so sure that you can uncouple that from what the mainstream media have to say about women's bodies from how women are seen, but there you are. Perhaps you can, perhaps you can't. All I do know is that Liz Jones had a perfectly reasonable article there, wrecked beyond belief by a clunky, jarring comparison between successful, young Emma Watson and the fate of Medine Memi. Surely there are better cases to choose when highlighting Western hypocrisy towards women's rights?
So, it's not that bad really. It just could have been so much better. Someone could have turned around, at any point, and said: Do you know what, Liz, this doesn't quite work... but no-one did, and so we're left with something pretty feeble instead.
A bit icky
The Mail is covering this story today:
And on every photo of the seven-year-old girl, there's this:
For me, that's just a little bit icky.
And on every photo of the seven-year-old girl, there's this:
For me, that's just a little bit icky.
Saturday, 6 February 2010
Terry's not All Gold
If nothing else good comes out of the John Terry saga, at least we won't ever see the "Terry's all gold" headlines ever again. They started surfacing at the start of the millennium and have carried on, pretty much unashamedly, ever since. Yes, his name's Terry. Yes, he's quite good at things. Yes, you could say he's "all gold". And yes, "Terry's All Gold" is a chocolate box assortment, the sort you'd buy if you you're too cheap for Milk Tray and don't like all that dirty dark chocolate in Black Magic. But that's pretty much the end of it. If John Terry played a really good game of football then celebrated with a low-end chocolate box assortment, then you could really go to town on the whole Terry's All Gold thing. But no matter. There won't be any of that shit any more. Actually I say "there won't be any of that shit any more" but I'm pretty convinced there will be a lot more of that shit in the very near future, as soon as he's promised to clean up his ways and stop being such a silly boy. I'm sure the 'Terry's All Gold', which is presumably on a template on tabloid newspaper subs' desktops, can get dusted off for a new outing, sooner or later.
Poor old Terry. It takes quite a lot to make me feel sympathy for such an odious character, but I did a bit this week. A bit. Don't get me wrong, I don't love him all of a sudden or something, and I certainly don't think any more of him this week than I did last week, but blimey. Being John Terry must feel a bit like being Ray Liotta in Goodfellas - constantly followed, knowing you're going to be found out, with a helicopter circling overhead - except it doesn't belong to the CIA or FBI, it belongs to Sky News. Ah, what would the BBC's detractors have to say if Auntie had taken a helicopter up to film a man's car driving along a road? All of a sudden, Terry was OJ. Except he hadn't fled from police and wasn't a suspect in a murder investigation; he got caught doing the nasty on his wife and family. What a spectacular week for Sky News - having made Peter Andre cry in a fairly tawdry bit of telly, they decided to aim just that bit lower. Many congratulations for trying to outdo themselves, though; it just goes to show they're always striving to be thought of as more awful than they already are.
But after all this, the England football team has a new captain. In place of someone who cheated on his wife, which was nothing to do with football, is someone who's currently going through a four-match ban for being violent on the football field; someone who previously forgot to take a drugs test and went out shopping. It's nice to know that the England football team, like Sky News, is always aiming a little bit lower. In case Rio Ferdinand - catchphrase "YOU'VE BEEN MERKED BRUV! HAHAHAHA!" during those never-to-be-forgotten World Cup Windups of years gone by - gets injured, there's always Steve Gerrard, a man who covered himself in glory last year by punching a DJ in the face, but who got away with it because he claimed he was punching the man in the face in self-defence because he got threatened. You might say "Ah but he wasn't convicted", which is true; but nor has Terry been convicted of any criminal offence, yet he still hasn't punched anyone in the face, has he? Well, not yet anyway. Perhaps tomorrow's News of the World will bring further revelations and perhaps that will make it even worse for him; we'll have to wait and see - well, I won't because I won't be buying it, but everyone else can make up their minds.
Everyone's aiming lower. Terry aims to outdo himself; the journalists reporting him aim to outdo themselves; and those replacing Terry as the figurehead of the England team haven't exactly covered themselves in glory in the past. Perhaps the thinking is that they've got their misdemeanours out of the way and the captaincy - the thought of holding that trophy aloft if England were to win the World Cup and to be taken into immortality - will be a good behaviour bond for them. That might be smart thinking, if it's been done that way. Might be.
In the meantime, the Terry story shows no signs of going away; as much as it's damaging to him it's obviously more damaging to those close to him, his family and friends. But now it's reached the point of no return, and it's a fairly easy free hit for everyone to have a bash at writing about it - and I'm no different, of course. I see (but which I hadn't seen) Jan Moir and Liz Jones have had a bash at it in the Mail, in their usual insipid and largely unreadable way. I almost end up feeling sorry for them as well. They must really hate themselves, having to write that guff every week, having to dredge up such clumsy tedium.
Hmm. It seems I've ended up feeling sorry for everyone. I must be a soft touch. This will pass, I'm sure, but in the meantime I can only apologise.
Poor old Terry. It takes quite a lot to make me feel sympathy for such an odious character, but I did a bit this week. A bit. Don't get me wrong, I don't love him all of a sudden or something, and I certainly don't think any more of him this week than I did last week, but blimey. Being John Terry must feel a bit like being Ray Liotta in Goodfellas - constantly followed, knowing you're going to be found out, with a helicopter circling overhead - except it doesn't belong to the CIA or FBI, it belongs to Sky News. Ah, what would the BBC's detractors have to say if Auntie had taken a helicopter up to film a man's car driving along a road? All of a sudden, Terry was OJ. Except he hadn't fled from police and wasn't a suspect in a murder investigation; he got caught doing the nasty on his wife and family. What a spectacular week for Sky News - having made Peter Andre cry in a fairly tawdry bit of telly, they decided to aim just that bit lower. Many congratulations for trying to outdo themselves, though; it just goes to show they're always striving to be thought of as more awful than they already are.
But after all this, the England football team has a new captain. In place of someone who cheated on his wife, which was nothing to do with football, is someone who's currently going through a four-match ban for being violent on the football field; someone who previously forgot to take a drugs test and went out shopping. It's nice to know that the England football team, like Sky News, is always aiming a little bit lower. In case Rio Ferdinand - catchphrase "YOU'VE BEEN MERKED BRUV! HAHAHAHA!" during those never-to-be-forgotten World Cup Windups of years gone by - gets injured, there's always Steve Gerrard, a man who covered himself in glory last year by punching a DJ in the face, but who got away with it because he claimed he was punching the man in the face in self-defence because he got threatened. You might say "Ah but he wasn't convicted", which is true; but nor has Terry been convicted of any criminal offence, yet he still hasn't punched anyone in the face, has he? Well, not yet anyway. Perhaps tomorrow's News of the World will bring further revelations and perhaps that will make it even worse for him; we'll have to wait and see - well, I won't because I won't be buying it, but everyone else can make up their minds.
Everyone's aiming lower. Terry aims to outdo himself; the journalists reporting him aim to outdo themselves; and those replacing Terry as the figurehead of the England team haven't exactly covered themselves in glory in the past. Perhaps the thinking is that they've got their misdemeanours out of the way and the captaincy - the thought of holding that trophy aloft if England were to win the World Cup and to be taken into immortality - will be a good behaviour bond for them. That might be smart thinking, if it's been done that way. Might be.
In the meantime, the Terry story shows no signs of going away; as much as it's damaging to him it's obviously more damaging to those close to him, his family and friends. But now it's reached the point of no return, and it's a fairly easy free hit for everyone to have a bash at writing about it - and I'm no different, of course. I see (but which I hadn't seen) Jan Moir and Liz Jones have had a bash at it in the Mail, in their usual insipid and largely unreadable way. I almost end up feeling sorry for them as well. They must really hate themselves, having to write that guff every week, having to dredge up such clumsy tedium.
Hmm. It seems I've ended up feeling sorry for everyone. I must be a soft touch. This will pass, I'm sure, but in the meantime I can only apologise.
Friday, 5 February 2010
Listen up. Things are going to change
...though not completely, so don't worry.
As I wrote about a little while ago, there are going to be a few changes around the shambles that is here. I've already started making some of them - you may have noticed; you may not; you may be one of those people who stumbles across this place looking for some other place, or runs off in despair, having read a couple of paragraphs. I don't mind.
There will be a couple of other things changing too. Not just cosmetic, though that's going to happen. And soon. And I hope you like it. But I'll let you know about it all once it's done. Or rather, you'll see it. And go "Wow, how exciting!" or something.
As I wrote about a little while ago, there are going to be a few changes around the shambles that is here. I've already started making some of them - you may have noticed; you may not; you may be one of those people who stumbles across this place looking for some other place, or runs off in despair, having read a couple of paragraphs. I don't mind.
There will be a couple of other things changing too. Not just cosmetic, though that's going to happen. And soon. And I hope you like it. But I'll let you know about it all once it's done. Or rather, you'll see it. And go "Wow, how exciting!" or something.
Let he who is without... and all that
Sometimes it's wrong to sneer. Sometimes it's perfectly right, because some things deserve to be sneered at, but sometimes it's wrong. I find today's Guardian article by Roy Greenslade* about the new London Weekly newspaper a bit too sneery for its own good:
What a hoot!
Yeah, it's not like the Guardian would ever do celebrity news, is it? Oh hang on, what's this? Speaking of Bruce Willis, here's an interview with his daughter, Rumer, in the pages of the, let me, see, Guardian!
Ah, I see. Those are the lofty heights to which the London Weekly should aspire. Greenslade blog again:
Ho ho. Searching for Phil Tufnell in the Guardian's website, though, brings up this masterpiece of journalistic brilliance, the Strictly Come Dancing Liveblog:
And you have to admire the sheer nerve of the Guardian of taking the piss out of someone else for making spelling mistakes. Here's today's Corrections and Clarifications column, by the way:
Oh well, it was only page five of a national newspaper. Carry on having a right old laugh at the London Weekly, eh!
It might look a bit amateurish, this newspaper, but blimey. Let he who is without... and all that, surely? I make more than my fair share of speling errers here, after all...
* Or someone else, in fact. If he's not writing it, why is his enormous face at the top though? You don't get "Littlejohn - written this week by a putrid hyena that's been run over by a truck" do you? Though that may, of course, be an improvement.
But it has launched. To wide derision. We have finally got a copy in the office and are scanning some more pictures for your delectation.
What a hoot!
Page two asks: "Do you have any celebrity gossip? E-mail showbiz@thelondonweekly.co.uk" above stories such as "Bruce Willis won't say No to kids" and "Jude Law maturing into happiness".
Yeah, it's not like the Guardian would ever do celebrity news, is it? Oh hang on, what's this? Speaking of Bruce Willis, here's an interview with his daughter, Rumer, in the pages of the, let me, see, Guardian!
Do your parents [Demi Moore and Willis] give you acting tips?
They've always given me advice. If I had an audition or something, I'd work with them on it, or if I had a script that I was reading I'd ask them to check it out. They're extremely supportive. I couldn't ask for anything more.
Ah, I see. Those are the lofty heights to which the London Weekly should aspire. Greenslade blog again:
Page three may actually includes some fresh, "exclusive" content: "The London Weekly talks to Former England cricket professional, jungle king and dancing star Phil Tufnell who is set to make 2010 a year to remember with his New Year resolution to quit smoking." So, Phil, drop us a line and let us know how your interview with London's newest paper went.
Ho ho. Searching for Phil Tufnell in the Guardian's website, though, brings up this masterpiece of journalistic brilliance, the Strictly Come Dancing Liveblog:
6.41pm: A big drum-roll to welcome the finalists. Ola is wearing a dress that has horrific shoulder-pads. Natalie's dress has a pretty sequinned bodice and a feathery skirt. Bruce makes a funny-because-it's-true joke about Chris crying if he loses because Ola will beat him.
And you have to admire the sheer nerve of the Guardian of taking the piss out of someone else for making spelling mistakes. Here's today's Corrections and Clarifications column, by the way:
In an auction story, Giacometti's thin man makes fat price, the artist made additional appearances as Giacommeti and Giacommetti (4 February, page 5).
Oh well, it was only page five of a national newspaper. Carry on having a right old laugh at the London Weekly, eh!
It might look a bit amateurish, this newspaper, but blimey. Let he who is without... and all that, surely? I make more than my fair share of speling errers here, after all...
* Or someone else, in fact. If he's not writing it, why is his enormous face at the top though? You don't get "Littlejohn - written this week by a putrid hyena that's been run over by a truck" do you? Though that may, of course, be an improvement.
Orly?
The Telegraph is proud to bring you this breaking news:
Orly? Because I thought the ban was only in one Tesco store, in St Mellons:
According to the Telegraph:
I'm pretty sure it was just in one store. Perhaps Danielle Lloyd lives in St Mellons, in which case, fair enough. But she doesn't:
I think it's fair enough to ban anyone from wearing £120 tracksuits anyway - unless they're Jimmy Savile. But I can't help wondering if this is just a bit of maggot-dangling from Lloyd, which has been eagerly snapped up by thecelebrity obsessed tabloid press top-selling quality broadsheet in Britain. As it was, the original story is a fairly brilliant bit of news about nothing anyway, getting Tesco bang into the headlines for no good reason whatsoever. And now a bonus - a double dose of churnalism. Well, every little helps.
Danielle Lloyd 'targeted' by Tesco pyjama ban despite wearing £120 tracksuit
Danielle Lloyd, the glamour model, has complained that Tesco staff tried to bar her from a store after mistaking her designer tracksuit for pyjamas.
Orly? Because I thought the ban was only in one Tesco store, in St Mellons:
A Tesco store has asked customers not to shop in their pyjamas or barefoot.
Notices have been put up in the chain's supermarket in St Mellons in Cardiff saying: "Footwear must be worn at all times and no nightwear is permitted."
According to the Telegraph:
The supermarket giant has introduced a dress code banning people from shopping in their pyjamas, it emerged last week.
I'm pretty sure it was just in one store. Perhaps Danielle Lloyd lives in St Mellons, in which case, fair enough. But she doesn't:
But Lloyd, 26, said she was wearing a Juicy Couture tracksuit when staff at the Tesco Express in Theydon Bois, Essex, accosted her over her attire.
I think it's fair enough to ban anyone from wearing £120 tracksuits anyway - unless they're Jimmy Savile. But I can't help wondering if this is just a bit of maggot-dangling from Lloyd, which has been eagerly snapped up by the
It's compassion Friday!
The story - a teenage girl tried to enter Britain illegally by hiding in a car dashboard. The newspaper - the Mail. The response?
Not all comments were voted as popular by fellow readers, though, and some received red arrows of disapproval:
Ah, it makes you proud, doesn't it. No...?
Not all comments were voted as popular by fellow readers, though, and some received red arrows of disapproval:
Ah, it makes you proud, doesn't it. No...?
Thursday, 4 February 2010
ZaNuLab jumps the shark
You thought it was only ham-faced idiots greencrayoning ill-thought-out responses to online news articles who thought that 'ZaNuLabour' was still funny, didn't you? As with 'Harperson', it's the kind of feeble poo-throwing that provokes not even so much as the chortle it probably didn't even bring about in the first place - but it's been so long ago, and I've seen it repeated so many times, that it's almost become the real name of the Labour Party*. But... it's not just the online comment bumgrapes who use the term. Now it's real MPs.
Now I'm all for MPs being allowed to say what they like and not being tied to some kind of on-message party machine, and to have the ability to express themselves in whatever way they see fit, but Jesus. ZaNuLabour? In what way are Labour supposedly acting like ZaNuPDF, according to Rob Wilson MP? Oh, by introducing electoral reform. They're just like them in that regard, I see. Silly me. I didn't realise that introducing electoral reform - and we can argue later about the late, late stage at which it's been brought in, the hastiness of it, presumably as a sop to the left or to attract wavering Lib Dems, or whatever, and the supposed rubbishness of the story itself - was a bit like how Robert Mugabe might behave. Now it all makes perfect sense. It's 'rigging the electoral system'. Somehow. And there's even a hilarious joke about Lib Dems in there!
Sparkling.
Thanks to @liquidindian for spotting it!
* Ah, you might say, but wasn't 'Tory' originally an offensive slang term? It was, yes. But it was reclaimed. People like the Tory Reform Group**, the sort of Tories a dripping-wet leftie like me can think of as being anything other than despicable, are quite happy to use the term.
** Ah, you might say, but surely they just chose that name to avoid the rather oxymoronic idea of 'Conservative Reform'. Which is possible but I'm sure they could have thought of another name if Tory had really been so much of a problem.
Now I'm all for MPs being allowed to say what they like and not being tied to some kind of on-message party machine, and to have the ability to express themselves in whatever way they see fit, but Jesus. ZaNuLabour? In what way are Labour supposedly acting like ZaNuPDF, according to Rob Wilson MP? Oh, by introducing electoral reform. They're just like them in that regard, I see. Silly me. I didn't realise that introducing electoral reform - and we can argue later about the late, late stage at which it's been brought in, the hastiness of it, presumably as a sop to the left or to attract wavering Lib Dems, or whatever, and the supposed rubbishness of the story itself - was a bit like how Robert Mugabe might behave. Now it all makes perfect sense. It's 'rigging the electoral system'. Somehow. And there's even a hilarious joke about Lib Dems in there!
Sparkling.
Thanks to @liquidindian for spotting it!
* Ah, you might say, but wasn't 'Tory' originally an offensive slang term? It was, yes. But it was reclaimed. People like the Tory Reform Group**, the sort of Tories a dripping-wet leftie like me can think of as being anything other than despicable, are quite happy to use the term.
** Ah, you might say, but surely they just chose that name to avoid the rather oxymoronic idea of 'Conservative Reform'. Which is possible but I'm sure they could have thought of another name if Tory had really been so much of a problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
