'World's worst role model' but great for attracting web traffic

On MailOnline today, a rant about Kim Kardashian:

Also on MailOnline today:

 

 

 

MailOnline has published 97 articles mentioning Kim Kardashian since 1 June.

The most popular stories on the Mail's website

Last week, this blog highlighted a MailOnline article about Kim Kardashian crossing a road. On the same day, Georgina Littlejohn was breathlessly explaining how Kim's sister Kourtney had been seen in 'high wedged sandals'. In an article which was essentially 'woman goes out wearing shoes', Littlejohn wrote:

the teeny tiny reality TV star must have been feeling particularly short yesterday judging by her shoes.

That same day, the latest ABCe figures showed that 77,250,993 unique visitors went to the Mail's website in May 2011, making it by far the most visited UK newspaper website (the Guardian was second, with 51.3m monthly visitors)

As this blog has pointed out several times before, MailOnline publisher Martin Clarke told the Press Gazette in 2009:

"It does annoy me that people say its all driven by search and showbiz stories because it’s actually not driven by either…

"Showbiz is less that 25 per cent of traffic. News is far more important to us that showbiz. News is what drives our site."

So, in the wake of the ABCe numbers, what does the Mail's 'Site's most read' section tell us about the popularity of the Mail's news and showbiz stories?

Here is the list of the ten most popular articles on their website so far today:


And the most popular over the last seven days:


And the most popular over the 30 days:


It shows that the Mail's news stories - what 'drives their site' - are less popular than 'woman dyes her hair', 'woman goes to Wimbledon' and 'footballer goes to Glastonbury'.

Compare that to the most read stories on the BBC website at time of writing:

Woman crosses road

The Mail website's obsession with reporting on everything that Kim Kardashian does reaches a new low with:


A close encounter with a bus? Oh no - is she OK?

The millionaire reality star - who is normally chauffeur-driven - was pictured crossing the road in Beverly Hills while coming in close proximity to a bus.

While it's not clear whether it was in motion, curvaceous Kim does have the figure and smouldering looks capable of stopping traffic.

So the Mail website has bought some photo agency pics of Kim walking down along pavement and crossing a road. One photo has a bus in the background and that was used as the basis for an article.

Daily Mail Reporter then gives us three sentences describing her outfit. But before you think this is one of the most uninteresting 'news stories' you've ever read, they exclusively reveal:

Kim...also found time yesterday to indulge in frozen yoghurt.

And it was only a few days ago that the Mail's Charles Sale was criticising the BBC for a 'ridiculous celebrity obsession'.

Links

Who knew?

Migrationwatch are advertising for a Director of Research. An opportunity to earn £45,000 for emailing press releases to the Mail explaining how there are too many evil immigrants in the UK, it sounds like very easy money.

Anton Vowl's application is here. 5CC can always be relied upon to take apart Migrationwatch's 'research'.

Some personal favourites from this blog: the stupidly worded poll (makes that polls), the million failed asylum seekers joining the NHS queue (which was plucked out of the air), and the amazing assumptions behind 'Each illegal immigrant to cost us £1m'.

Migrationwatch say they are:

recognised as the leading source for independent expert commentary on matters relating to migration into and out of the United Kingdom.

Apart from by themselves and the tabloids, who 'recognises' them as that?

Also from Anton, the Express gets into a 'fury' about @dianainheaven on Twitter. Good.

Over at Angry Mob, Uponnothing reveals how the Mail changed a headline on an anti-Gordon Brown story when the comments turned against them; and another classic example of the Mail choosing to highlight crime based on race.

The Daily Quail looked at Melanie McDonagh's unbelievable defence of Jan Moir, whose infamous column about Stephen Gately was, apparently:

off-message but factually truthful.

This despite the fact the coroner had said the death was natural and Moir said it wasn't. Still can't blame McDonagh for missing that news - the Mail buried it at the bottom of page 36.

Also worth reading is a post on the Beer Blog of Pete Brown (via Jeff Pickthall) - a look at how the media distorted figures on children and alcohol.

Meanwhile, 5CC has looked at why the Mail seems to have fallen out of love with Julie Spence.

Talking of the Mail and love: look - it's Kim Kardashian wearing two dresses in one night.

That article included yet another example of 'look what [insert name] has posted on Twitter', which the media seems to lazily rely on for celebrity gossip these days.

A particularly curious example of this was when The Sun took a jokey tweet from pop singer Katy Perry and turned into an actual article about her 'skipping work to watch porn'. But they hid some of what she said with this exceptionally cryptic bit of censorship:

*** ***** *****

Any guesses?

Back to the Mail and their oh-so-consistent coverage of swine flu continued with this article:

It's official, the swine flu 'pandemic' is over (shame it cost us £1billion and scared thousands witless)

'Scared thousands witless'? Good job the Mail wasn't involved in any of that. Oh:

How swine flu could be a bigger threat to humanity than nuclear warfare

That was another gem from Michael Hanlon, the Mail's Science Editor, who also produced this astonishing piece of scaremongering nonsense:

Killers in your kitchen: Gender-bending packaging, exploding floor cleaners and toasters more deadly than sharks...

'Gender-bending packaging'? Really?

Over on the evil Facebook, Hugh has created a list of all the things the Mail says give you cancer, from bras to chips, peanut butter to talc, and, of course, Facebook itself.

Another Mail obsession is ageism. When Arlene Phillips was replaced as a judge on Strictly Come Dancing, the Mail was delighted to bash the BBC over claims of ageism and wrote lots of supportive articles about her.

Until she dared go outside without make-up on. Then she looked:

washed out

and:

ensured she looked her 66 years.

With friends like that...

In Amanda Platell's unsurprisingly useless review of 2009, she called Alesha Dixon, Phillips' Strictly replacement, 'Clot of the Year'. She wrote she was:

Nicknamed 'Ditto' Dixon because of the hopeless way she drearily parroted her fellow judges' comments

Dixon was, of course, nicknamed 'Ditto' by, err, Platell. That doesn't really count.

And Platell's unjustifably nasty attacks on women (and they almost always are on women) continued into 2010, when she turned on Andy Murray's mum for no apparent reason at all:

Of course I'll celebrate if Andy Murray wins tomorrow's Australian Open final, but does he really have to grimace like a savage?

You wonder what makes a young man so full of ugly, uncontrolled rage - and then you see his fishwife mother screaming from the sidelines.

Charming.

(Hat-tip to the contributors of the Mailwatch Forum)

Mail gets over-excited as Kim Kardashian eats salad and does some 'writing'

After a bit of a quiet period, the Mail website is back in full Kim Kardashian mode.

First she was dragged into a fascinating 'story' about her sister's marriage. Then they covered the pic she posted on her Twitter when she was at the dentist, which led Mail columnist Lauren Booth to complain about seeing her at the dentist.

Her other sister then gave birth so she was mentioned again, and they followed that with the less-than-impressed reviews of her acting appearance in 'CSI: New York'. But an evident lack of talent isn't going to stop them.

So on Tuesday - her sixth appearance so far this month - they decided to go into quite excessive detail about an advert she has done for a fast food outlet. In which she eats chicken salad. There are five screenshots, an embedded video of the whole ad to (ahem) enjoy and lots of breathless description:

in another scene she is seen in the bath, naked, covered only by bubbles as she pops a slice of apple into her mouth.

Phwoar, eh? They say the ad is a:

reenactment of her sex tape

although a sex-tape where the woman is clothed and eating chicken must be a strange one.

And then, in an amusing typo:


That's 'writing'. Not 'writhing'.

That's what happens when you type one-handed...

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?

The Mail's obsession with Kim and Suri continues

The Mail website's ludicrous obsession with Kim Kardashian hits a new low.

She has made two appearances there in the last few days. On 9 October, she went outside wearing clothes. This was so important the Mail had to report on it. They didn't even care that two of the four pictures used were out of focus. They were using them anyway.

Two days later she was out at some awards event and so they included a pic of her - and other dressed up celebrities - in their important coverage.

But today's excuse to get Kim Kardashian into any story going really is a jaw-dropper:

Is Kym Marsh turning into Kim Kardashian?

Errr, no, probably not. The infamous Daily Mail Reporter continues:

As Kym Marsh filmed court scenes for Coronation Street yesterday, her outfit couldn't have been more demure.

But the black polo neck and knee-length skirt couldn't disguise the va va voom effect of newly single Kym's post-surgery figure.

Her hour-glass shape is as impressive as that of famously curvy U.S. reality TV star Kim Kardashian.

And that is it. There is no other mention of La Kardashian in the article, which is mainly about Kym Marsh having bigger boobs.

It's just a totally gratuitous mention of a woman they keep gratuitously mentioning because they know she boosts their website traffic.

And that can only be the reason they are following the every move of another person - Suri Cruise.

Yesterday, the three-year old girl was walking down the street with her mum, wearing a pink dress and carrying an empty coffee cup. The Mail wanted everyone to know.

Before that, she was playing hide and seek in 'a green patterned maxi dress and red shoes'. The Mail wanted everyone to know. Twice.

On 10 October, she was on the film set where Tom Cruise was shooting his latest movie. The Mail wanted everyone to know.

Two days before, she was out getting an ice cream. Three year old wants ice cream! The Mail wanted everyone to know.

The day after that, she was snapped outside, dressed in clothes. The Mail wanted everyone to know.

In that article, Mail journalist Richard Price called her a

strikingly pretty toddler

but warned:

rather more disturbingly, she is wearing lipstick. Of course, all little girls are fascinated by make-up, so perhaps this was a one-off treat for a child desperate to imitate her glamorous mother.

Yet Suri has been routinely wearing nail polish for well over a year now. Fast forward to another recent shopping trip and the lipstick has gone.

So the lipstick was there, and then it wasn't. Big news indeed.

What's really 'disturbing' is the Mail's obsession with a three-year old girl. Of course, given her parents, she's going to get attention, but six news-free stories in seven days is beyond belief.

But Suri Cruise, like Kim Kardashian, adds traffic from America. As website editor Martin 'news is far more important to us than showbiz' Clarke knows all too well.

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.

Mail puts Kim Kardashian into Letterman story

The news that David Letterman has confessed to affairs with female employees after a blackmail attempt has been covered by all the papers. For example the Guardian, Times, Sun, Express and Star:























All much the same. Because it's a story about Letterman you get a picture of Letterman. The Mail decides to play it a little differently:

And who is that woman in the pic with Letterman?

It's Kim Kardashian!

The Mail website really is obsessed with her. After four days since her last appearance, it was about time she was back.

Martin hearts the Sugababes too

MailOnline Editor Martin 'news is far more important to us than showbiz' Clarke is at it again.

In the past week he has published two more pictures of Kim Kardashian (here and here) and included another entirely pointless mention of her in this story which is actually about someone else, but manages to drag her in anyway. Luckily, the fascinating article where she met Mel B included one of Kim's groundbreaking tweets, just so we know why the Mail is so obsessed with her:

'Just touched down in Vegas! Going to Pink’s Hot Dogs! YUM! Wow Cupcake's & Hot Dog's in one day!'

OK, maybe we don't.

But Kim better look out because it seems Martin has his eyes on some other half-dressed young ladies. You would imagine that any article which includes 20 photos, and a video report, would be something of significance.

After all, the story on the razing of the Calais Jungle - a subject so close to the Mail's heart - had 17 pics and a video.

What could possibly be more important to the Mail than that? What piece of earth-shattering news is this?

Errr, well, it's that one woman has left a pop group and another woman has taken her place.

Of course, it's especially handy that the new line-up of the Sugababes are doing a very photo-friendly video shoot dressed in leather. Look - you can see their cleavage! Look! You can see their bums! In leather! This pic even has the 'enlarge' option so you can blow it up and, ahem, enjoy it in more detail. Why pick that particularly photo, one of only two which can be enlarged?

Yesterday, Anton posted on the Mail's pervy story about the dresses of Countdown's Rachel Riley, which included the immortal line:

Sometimes it seems like the Mail writes like a sex-crazed old codger having a lazy wank under a tartan blanket.

Too right.

These two leering articles on the Sugababes and Riley appear on the very same day as Terence Kealey, from Buckingham University, said that female students who 'flaunt their curves' should be enjoyed on a 'look but don't touch basis' as a 'perk' of the job.

The Mail reported on the 'outrage' his comments caused and note he has:

been attacked by student groups for showing an 'astounding lack of respect for women'. Others have accused Dr Kealey, who is married, of appearing to satirise harassment...his brand of 'humour' was met with disgust.

So the Mail and its website - both run by middle aged men - can include many, many photos of women bending over in leather and it isn't a 'perk', it is 'news'. Another middle-aged man comments on looking at girls who are 'flaunting their curves' and he's a pervert who doesn't respect women.

That might sound a bit like hypocrisy.

Paul and Martin heart Kim

Right.

Paul Dacre, Mail editor, and Martin Clarke, from MailOnline: a question.

Which one of you has the biggest crush on Kim Kardashian?

I only ask because yesterday the Mail website had a story - quite high up on the right hand side - about how Kim's ass is shrinking (apparently).

I would have guessed you were doing your usual 'look how much weight this sleb has lost/gained', but you covered her weight loss two days before when Kim unveiled her 'bikini body' with pics on her Twitter page.

And you published three pics of her in various bikinis, just to be sure.

Four days before that, you had a picture of her at a film premiere. That was a day after you thought it imperative to tell the world she had changed her hair colour from blonde to dark. And that was a day after you carried some pics from her latest photoshoot.

You didn't write about Kim the day before that one, because you were too busy writing about her sister Kourtney instead.

And I guess you might have thought your readers could be getting bored of her after you wrote about Kim's car seats the day previous.

Which was three days after the Twitter pic of Kim in her underwear which you were very excited about. You put an exclamation mark in the headline and everything.

Was that just reassurance she was still hot after you ran pap pics of her 'bleary eyed' and without make up four days before?

In fact, were you both on your summer holidays in August? Because there was only one other picture of her, yet two of sister Kourtney.

July was much more like it. She couldn't go shopping, split from her boyfriend, 'flaunt her curves' at a film premiere, or wear a skintight jumpsuit without you rushing to tell your fascinated readers.

You also thought it necessary to talk about the milkshake named after her and the shoes she wears.

In June there were film premieres, award shows, and more insightful exclusives about her sisters.

May saw you carry two lots of pics of her in bikinis within three days, plus Kim in 'killer heels' and being voted the 53rd Hottest Woman in the World.

All those votes, eh guys, but not enough to get her in the top ten. Still, you are trying hard to get her higher next year.

There were four articles about her between 21 and 27 April, revealing such vital info as her being on holiday, getting sunburn, dying her hair and going to another film premiere.

Everytime she appears in public or opens her mouth or someone talks about her you can't wait to write about her and what she's up to and - more importantly - print lots of pictures of her.

Especially if she has her legs, cleavage or bum on show. Or is in a bikini. Or has her bum on show. Or her cleavage. But even if not you just can't get enough.

You even publish a pic of her on all fours in her underwear to accompany a film review of a movie she's hardly in.

I bet you were overjoyed when you had to write about her denying she had had a boob job. I mean, phwoar, then it's, like, your job to look at her boobs. And you got to see her as a teenager in her bikini. I bet that was a memorable day, huh?

And then there's another question - why are you so obsessed with this woman? A look at her Wikipedia shows she made a sex tape, appeared in Playboy, has done a little acting, came eleventh on Dancing With The Stars and her family has a reality TV show.

Is this really a life so fascinating that you have to inform us of every little detail, such as when she goes on holiday or dyes her hair?

Or is just, you know, she has big boobs and a big bum and you two like your women curvy?

Anyway, if you don't have some weird creepy crush on this woman (Paul, you know you are 33 years older than her?), then it can only be that you are using all those photos because you know people (men) are interested in seeing pics of her.

Given that her public profile in the UK is practically none, it is useful for pulling in the hits from across the pond. And for keeping that title of most hits to a newspaper website per month.

And Martin, one final thing. Is there anything you would like to say about your Press Gazette interview when you:

dismissed suggestion[s] that success of the website was down simply to the volume of show business and celebrity stories it carries....

'It does annoy me that people say its all driven by search and showbiz stories because it’s actually not driven by either'...

'News is far more important to us that showbiz.'

Because people might start to get the impression you weren't being entirely honest.