MailOnline publishes 'creepshots'

On Saturday, the Guardian published an article on creepshots - photographing women without their knowledge (often 'upskirt' photos) - and revenge porn. Early in Kira Cochrane's article, she wrote:

Erin Gloria Ryan, a writer for popular women's website Jezebel.com, was alerted to the [creepshots] forum by concerned Reddit users who are trying to get it closed, partly because some of the pictures appear to have been taken in schools.

A day later, MailOnline's Michael Zennie wrote an article about Reddit and creepshots:

Zennie wrote:

Campaigners are fighting to close an online forum that promotes the photographing of unsuspecting women for users' sexual gratification.

The message board on the popular website Reddit was explicitly created by users who wanted to ogle candid photos that were taken without the subjects' knowledge.

The sub-forum is called 'CreepShots', featuring images of ordinary women on the street, in the gym or even at school who are caught unawares by stealthy 'creeps' with cameras.

Most shots focus on the buttocks or breasts of non-consenting women going about their daily lives - and users admit that 'at least 40 percent' of the images are of underage girls.

Someone at MailOnline then decided to illustrate the article with FOUR of the creepshot photos the article is complaining about.

There is no justification for publishing any of these images. Indeed, MailOnline has now removed all the photos from the article - albeit, some 15 hours after it was first published - a clear indication it knew this was a serious error.

Two of the photos were upskirt shots of schoolgirls whose faces were not shown. There was simply no way for the MailOnline to know how old they were. In one caption, they said:

Another image in a school tries to capture an 'upskirt' of a pupil.

In the other:

Online voyeurism: A large number of the 'Creep' forums are 'upskirt' images, apparently taken in school.

'Online voyeurism' indeed. It's not that unusual for the Mail and MailOnline to display such hypocrisy - as with The X Factor final, it can froth about sexualised images while simultaneously revelling in such material.

But in this case, MailOnline has gone further. It admits the photos were taken 'without permission' and yet deems them suitable to publish. It refers to the fact that many of the images are apparently of 'underage girls', yet deems them suitable to publish. Given the faces are covered, MailOnline has no idea how old any of the girls are, yet deems them suitable to publish.

Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre told Leveson he was "very proud of MailOnline." It won newspaper website of the year at the 2012 Press Awards. MediaGuardian recently named MailOnline publisher Martin Clarke as the 38th most powerful media figure.

* This is the article before the photos were removed - this blog has decided to censor the images:

UPDATE 1: During writing this post, and one hour after removing all the pics, MailOnline edited the article and re-published the first photo.

UPDATE 2: An hour after that, another photo re-appeared, but it was now partly censored with a black box.

(Hat-tip to Simon)

More journalists accuse MailOnline of plagiarism

On 1 September, Press Trust of India correspondent Rezaul Hasan Laskar tweeted:

And:

The version of the article that appeared on MailOnline was a word-for-word copy of the original - but with a 'Mail Today Reporter' byline.

A few days later, an update:

And:

A similar 'error' occurred a few days ago.

On 25 August, OPEN Magazine in India published an article by Lhendup G Bhutia about a:

four-year-old who went missing in a jungle and returned 38 years later.

A couple of weeks later, a version of the story was published by MailOnline. Several days after, OPEN accused the Mail of plagiarism:

We are surprised to find that UK’s Daily Mail has carried a similar story, plagiarising portions of OPEN’s feature. Here, we present only the portions of the Daily Mail story that are direct lifts, ignoring those parts that have been more efficiently rephrased.

And they give examples:

WHAT APPEARED IN OPEN

She keeps her new possessions by a window. A bottle of metallic green nail polish, a plastic comb, tubes of moisturisers and fairness cream, and a maroon lipstick—all gifted by women in the village. When she wakes up every morning, she scrubs her face with cream, paints her nails—regardless of any grime underneath—and combs her long hair, which she has taken to tying with a hair band.

WHAT APPEARED IN DAILY MAIL

She keeps her gifts from her neighbours by a window - a bottle of metallic green nail polish, a plastic comb, tubes of moisturiser and lipstick.

When she wakes up every morning she scrubs her face with cream, paints her nails and combs her long hair, which she has taken to tying with a hair band.

+++

WHAT APPEARED IN OPEN

Surprisingly, for someone believed to have lived in a forest away from human habitation and bereft of any social skills, Chhaidy is not shy of human interaction, although her expressions of fondness are childlike.

WHAT APPEARED IN DAILY MAIL

Surprisingly, for someone believed to have lived in a forest away from human habitation for 40 years, Chhaidy is not shy of human interaction, although she is very childlike.

+++

WHAT APPEARED IN OPEN

Chhaidy, on the other hand, has received no medical or psychological attention. She spends her days moving from home to home, playing with anyone, young or old, who seems interested.

WHAT APPEARED IN DAILY MAIL

Since then she has received no medical or psychological attention. And she spends her days moving from neighbour to neighbour, playing with anyone, young or old.

And so on. There is no mention of OPEN in the Mail's article. 

MailOnline, overseen by Martin Clarke, was named newspaper website of the year earlier this year.

The wrong verdict (cont.)

When MailOnline publisher Martin Clarke appeared at the Leveson Inquiry, he had some explaining to do about the publishing of the wrong verdict in the Raffaele Sollecito/Amanda Knox appeal case.

It was, Clarke said, down to "human error and overzealousness" and stated:

"The thing than made me angriest was that there was no need for it… We had a thorough inquiry, as you can tell, advice was issued, firm advice, to people, and I’ll be very displeased if any of those things happen again."

Three days ago, a verdict in another high-profile trial. Granted, it was just one caption this time, not a whole article. But...

"Anders Behring Breivik has avoided jail after a court ruled he is in [sic] insane"

(Hat-tip to Kreuzberger for spotting this and taking the screenshot)

'Another example of Mail Online not bothering to change a word when cutting and pasting stories'

Yesterday, Daily Mirror football writer Simon Bird tweeted:

His article published at 22:30 on 15 June stated:

Everton are trailing Croatia striker Mario Mandzukic - and could land him for a bargain £7million.

The Croatia hitman, one of the stars of Euro 2012 so far with his three goals in two games, could be paired with team mate Nikica Jelavic at Goodison Park.

Mandzukic is on the radar of other Premier League sides too, because he is available at a “fair” price from his German club, Wolfsburg.

The 26-year-old was signed by Wolfsburg's then-coach Steve McClaren - a friend of Everton boss David Moyes' No2 Steve Round - for £6million and has two years left on his contract.

Everton were also interested in him two years ago, when he played for Dinamo Zagreb, and have had Mandzukic watched during the Euros.

His partnership with Jelavic at international level is thriving and could be rekindled on Merseyside.

The article on the Mail's website - which appears under the byline of 'SportsMail Reporter' - was published at 17:46 on 16 June and is a word-for-word copy:

In April, Mail Online publisher Martin Clarke told The New Yorker that his site 'adhered to fair-use rules'.

(Hat-tip to nutts2020)

UPDATE: By 6:25pm on Monday, the Mail's article had been removed.

'We don’t report pregnancies unless confirmed by the subject' (part 3)

This blog has twice noted the difference between what MailOnline's Martin Clarke told the Leveson Inquiry about reporting on pregnancy, and what his website actually does.

Lord Leveson was told by Clarke:

we don’t report pregnancies unless confirmed by the subject

and

we're not allowed to say somebody's pregnant unless they've confirmed it.

Recent articles about Drew Barrymore, Kate Middleton and Megan Fox suggested that wasn't entirely accurate.

And on 7 June, Charlotte Stamper spotted two more MailOnline articles which contradicted Clarke.

There was another article about Fox:

It includes the line:

The 26-year-old actress - who is understood to be pregnant with her first child - has so far refused to confirm or deny reports she is expecting.

And MailOnline also published an article about Gisele Bundchen:

This one begins by admitting:

She has so far failed to respond to rumours that she is pregnant.

So why did Clarke tell Leveson:'we don’t report pregnancies unless confirmed by the subject'?

'We don’t report pregnancies unless confirmed by the subject' (cont.)

In his witness statement for the Leveson Inquiry last month, MailOnline publisher Martin Clarke wrote:

For instance the other month a US website broke the news of Sienna Miller’s pregnancy which was swiftly followed by all our American rivals but not by us because we don’t report pregnancies unless confirmed by the subject.

At the time, this blog highlighted recent articles about Kate Middleton and Drew Barrymore which proved that MailOnline does sometimes suggest that someone is pregnant before they have confirmed it.

Today, MailOnline's Sarah Bull turned her attention to Megan Fox:

She has so far refused to comment on rumours that she is expecting her first child with husband Brian Austin Green.

But pictures of Megan Fox last week appeared to show a much-expanded stomach, suggesting reports that the actress is expecting are true...

Despite the fact that Megan has yet to either confirm or deny the pregnancy reports, it has already been claimed that the 26-year-old actress is expecting a little girl...

The couple will reportedly welcome their daughter into the world at the end of September with Megan having no movie commitments until 2013.

'We don’t report pregnancies unless confirmed by the subject'

In his witness statement to the Leveson Inquiry, MailOnline publisher Martin Clarke talked about reporting pregnancies:

For instance the other month a US website broke the news of Sienna Miller’s pregnancy which was swiftly followed by all our American rivals but not by us because we don’t report pregnancies unless confirmed by the subject.

He made a similar point in his oral evidence:

Similarly, there are things that we can't write, pregnancy stories, for instance. The PCC says that we're not allowed to say somebody's pregnant unless they've confirmed it.

All of which sounds as if the MailOnline wouldn't dream of reporting a pregnancy unless it is 'confirmed' by the pregnant woman.

From six days ago:

And in November, MailOnline was not shy about reporting some feeble speculation and rumour about an unconfirmed 'pregnancy':

(Hat-tip to satnav at the Mailwatch Forum)

Fake Twitter accounts have 'fooled other people' says MailOnline publisher

Martin Clarke, the publisher of MailOnline, gave evidence to the Leveson Inquiry today. He was asked by David Barr about the monitoring of Twitter for stories:

A. We monitor the Twittersphere and quite often Twitter will alert you to a story that you weren't otherwise aware of. Sometimes the tweet will be the story. If somebody tweets a comment, then obviously very often we will -- the fact that somebody's tweeted that comment is the story. Obviously you have to be careful that it is genuinely the tweet from the person you think it is, and there have in the past been rogue tweets with fake accounts that have fooled other people on the Internet, but Twitter now takes steps to make sure that celebrity accounts are who they say they are, they verify it, so you know if an account is the person it claims to be. Quite often the tweet will be the story.

Q.  Can I have some idea of the level of checking that your organisation goes to before publishing a tweet-based story?  Will you contact the maker?

A.  It depends.  If it was a celebrity who tweeted a picture of themselves and a comment attached and that is -- then that is the story, and providing we know from previous experience that that tweet account is genuine, then the story is checked. That's it.

If the tweet was alleging something contentious, then obviously you would have to check it out in the normal way to normal journalistic standards. It depends.

Q.  What steps do you take to ensure that tweets really are from who they say they are?

A.  Unless they're verified accounts, then we treat them with huge suspicion. 

Unfortunately, Barr did not then present Clarke with an example of MailOnline being fooled, which happened just last Saturday and was revealed by The Media Blog. MailOnline reported, in a now-deleted article:

(pic from The Media Blog)

The tweet in question had in fact come from the fake Twitter account @MissKatiePriice, not Katie Price's real account (which Price used to criticise the Mail's 'poor journalism').

And that wasn't exactly a one-off. In June 2010, the spoof Twitter account @ceostevejobs was the source for a Mail story, despite the clear announcement:

'Of course, this is a parody account'

Interesting, then, that Clarke, in saying 'there have in the past been rogue tweets with fake accounts that have fooled other people on the Internet', tries to pretend these things happened 'in the past' and only to 'others'. 

And it's not just spoof accounts, but joke tweets mistaken for genuine news. In the case of Jeremy Vine getting special permission to play hymns on BBC radio, and Carol Vorderman renting a luxury yacht, MailOnline hacks completely failed to get a joke. Not exactly 'check[ing] it out in the normal way to normal journalistic standards'.

'The celebrity stuff drives the site'

As this blog has pointed out once or twice before, MailOnline publisher Martin Clarke told the Press Gazette in 2009:

News is far more important to us that showbiz. News is what drives our site.

But last week, Simon Heffer - editor of the RightMinds section of MailOnline - admitted what most of us knew already. He told the Guardian:

The celebrity stuff drives the site.

Just take a look at the MailOnline's most read articles in the last 30 days. At time of writing, these are stories about Jodie Marsh (x2), Zara Phillips, The X Factor (x2), Amanda Knox, Pippa Middleton, Cheryl Cole (x2) and Rihanna.

Breaking news from the Mail website

MailOnline is the second most visited newspaper website in the world.

And why not - after all, this is the website that, today, brings the world such incredible news as 'woman takes off shoes':


and, err, 'woman takes off shoes':


In the words of MailOnline chief Martin Clarke:

News is far more important to us that showbiz. News is what drives our site.

No escape

The Mail website asks:


'TOWIE' refers to The Only Way Is Essex, a 'constructed reality' show that is broadcast on ITV2. In the week ending 8 May, BARB records viewing figures of 1.5m - the second most-watched programme on the channel.

Therefore, it should be fairly easy to 'escape' from the programme.

But there seems to be little escape from 'news' about the cast members of TOWIE if you ever browse the Mail website. On 24 May (at around 8pm) there were six articles about the show on the homepage.

Indeed, since the 23 May, the Mail website has published all this:


And what fascinating stuff it is, too.

Even by the usual standards of MailOnline chief Martin 'news is far more important to us than showbiz' Clarke, 22 articles in just over four days seems a little over-the-top.

But the fact that the cast are currently on holiday in Marbella means the Mail can publish even more pictures of young bikini-clad women on their website.

Of course, at times the Mail pretends to be appalled by the show. It pretends to ask, with a sigh, 'is there no escape?' while also 'reporting' on every bikini change. After it won the Audience Award Bafta earlier this week, Claudia Connell lamented:

watching shallow, vain, dim people being shallow, vain and dim is only entertaining for a few minutes. And not in a ‘so bad it’s good’ kind of way.

Then she added:

TOWIE owes its success to a youth audience, a youth vote and incredibly good PR that ensures that the Day-Glo cast are never out of the headlines, whether they’re falling drunkenly out of nightclubs or making bitchy comments about one another in interviews.

'Never out of the headlines'.

Quite.

Mail's latest faux outrage

Too rude for TV? Billie Piper bleats like a sheep for perverted client in Belle de Jour's latest distasteful call girl adventure. So says the Daily Mail website. In full 'high horse' mode.

And it wasn't just 'perverted' and 'distasteful' but:

demeaning

and:

disturbing

Nice to see Daily Mail Reporter knows where the Mail's office thesaurus is kept.

Good job, too, that only 650,000 people watch the show and the details of this 'disturbing' scene aren't too widely known.

Oh:

In white lingerie and a pink robe, Belle is confident that she will soon remind him of what he has been missing.

Talking to camera, she says: 'It's so sad when they're like that. Give me an hour with him, he'll be a new man.'

But as the action hots up, Simon reveals he has a penchant for the farm yard - or rather pretending to be an animal.

He says: 'Let's do it like dirty dogs. You dirty cow. You little pig. You dirty, dirty, dirty goat.'

Belle obliges him, replying: 'I'm so dirty. I'm a goat. I'm a chicken. I'm a dirty ewe.'

In a scene which becomes increasingly humiliating, she has to fulfil the wish of her paying customer when he asks her to 'bleat like a sheep'.

It sounds so ridiculous that it must surely have been played for laughs. Does the uptight Mail not realise that?

Clearly not, because Daily Mail Reporter has taken it all very seriously, pretending to be outraged while also giving every 'perverted' detail of what happened and even included a screenshot of Piper during this 'distasteful' 'romp'. Along with three other pictures of her not wearing very much.

The article says:

As a high-class call girl, there is nothing that Belle de Jour won't do for money.

As a low-class website, there is nothing that MailOnline won't do for hits.

Mail invites you to look up a woman's skirt

Mail hack James Tapper must be so proud. He has spent some time looking up Venus Williams' skirt and then produced an article inviting readers to do the same.

And his less-than-dazzling prose is accompanied by several photos of Williams which have been specially chosen so you can do just that.

MailOnline Editor Martin Clarke said last year:

News is far more important to us that showbiz. News is what drives our site.

Well, the Williams story is filed in the News section:


So it rather depends on what you call 'news'. Clarke's definition seems to be stretching it.

But it's not just the lack of news value, it's that the Mail sees value in running an article which is all about looking up a woman's skirt.

Sex, lies and Georgina Littlejohn

Two actresses are going to kiss in a soon-to-be-released film. Yes, it's the Mail website's latest shameless attempt to boost visitor numbers by attracting the dirty mac brigade.

And it's yet another example that shows Mail Online Editor Martin Clarke's statement that 'news is far more important to us than showbiz' may not be entirely believable.

She could be your Mamma! Amanda Seyfried, 24, in lesbian scene with Julianne Moore, 49 contains five screenshots from the film, two mid-kiss, and one of Seyfried naked. This from the same organisation that was pretending to outraged by a bit cleavage the other day.

And who is the star journalist behind this masterpiece?

Georgina Littlejohn, of course.

She adds in such search-engine-friendly terms as 'girl-on-girl action', 'Megan Fox', 'naked', 'lesbian' and 'steamy lesbian scene', just to make sure it'll get lots of hits.

She also includes this clunking segue:

But the buzz surrounding her steamy scenes seemed to have gone over Amanda's head yesterday as she was seen leaving a medical centre in Los Angeles last night.

Ouch.

But they've got a pap shot to use and they are determined to use it.

It's not the only clunker. Earlier in the piece, Littlejohn writes:

In these never-seen-before screen shots from the film, which is released in March...

It's an interesting use of the word 'never' when the Huffington Post was running them yesterday.

Mail ogles 18yo in bikini - in close up

The Mail website article Twilight New Moon actress Kristen Stewart courts controversy in a marijuana leaf bikini has several classic Mail features.

One: it's got a pic of a young actress in a bikini.

Two: it's got a drug angle.

Three: the 'controversy' is mainly in the Mail's head.

Four: there's no news in it whatsoever.

And that fourth point would be true even if this picture of Kristen Stewart in a bikini was new. But it's not. As the story acknowledges - the pic is from July 2008 and appears (from a Google search) to have been widely available on the internet since February 2009.

So why drag it out now?

Partly because the new Twilight film is currently doing good business at the box office and the Mail is desperate to boost visitor numbers by doing an article that mentions it.

And partly because the Mail is increasingly obsessed with celebrity flesh. So they begin with the pic:


There hasn't even been proper research done for this because although they claim in the caption that the man is a 'male friend', the comments say he is actually her brother.

But they could run that pic, if they really had to, and leave it at that.

There is absolutely no need whatsoever to zoom in on Stewart's breasts for this second image:


Is MailOnline Editor Martin Clarke going to try and pretend this is about something other than an excuse to have a perv at a teenage girl's breasts?

Star continues lying about Jordan, Mail continues publishing pics of her tits

The Daily Star should be renamed the Daily Jordan. The tawdry rag has had the over-inflated, over-exposed (insert whatever it is you think she does/is here) on the front page for every one of the last six days, and for nine of the last ten.

Is there really nothing more important going on in the world?

And every front page headline is a piece of total fiction. So Jordan's 'girl on girl jungle lust' didn't exist. Her 'fumble in the jungle' didn't happen either and was her having a shower.

The next day they revealed:


The Star said she had:

let slip she is doing I’m A Celebrity to impress her ex-husband.

'Let slip'?

She told OK! magazine: 'Hopefully he’ll watch the show and realise what a decent person I am.'

So she 'let slip' to magazine with weekly sales of around half a million? A magazine that happens to be owned by Star owner Richard Desmond. Surely this isn't just some lame cross-promotional fluff is it?

For the full interview with Kate, see this week’s issue of OK! magazine out now.

Oh, it is.

But even in the excerpts the Star publishes, she says neither she wants Pete back, or that she wants to re-marry him. Indeed, she quite clearly says the opposite:

She said: 'I’m 100% not looking for love. The producers told me they’re putting a fittie in there, but I’m quite happy with the relationship that I’m in.'

The next day there was no pic, but her name still appeared in the headline:


Star front pages about 'fixed' reality shows emerge at least once per series (for Big Brother, X Factor, or whichever series is on at that time). But did I'm A Celebrity contestant Camilla Dallerup really reveal the, ahem, 'TV show's dark secret' as the sub-head suggests? Is there a direct quote where she says 'fix'? Take a guess...

On Friday, the front page was this:


The side-bar shows the Star is already running stories on Celebrity Big Brother, so that will be the paper's next obsession. The main headline is another lie though, and also, given the lack of punctuation, nonsense. But did she says she would quit? Not quite:

I’m absolutely ready to leave. I’ve had enough.

'Ready to leave' is not exactly the same as 'I'll quit' though, is it?

And then today:

At least the punctuation is correct. And there's a weird bit of innuendo too. But did she definitely say she was going to die on the reality show? Not quite:

She cried: 'I am petrified I’ll die. Please don’t let me fall. I feel like I’m being executed every day.'

Lots of people are petrified of dying. That doesn't mean it should be on the front page of what is supposed to be a newspaper.

Perhaps a dossier on all this should be sent to the Press Complaints Commission (for all that's worth). This is front page lie after front page lie. It's not accidental, it's a deliberate ploy to sell more papers and to hell with the truth.

Clause 1 of the Code of Practice says:

The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information

So how does all this muck not violate that?

And it's not just the Star who are obsessed with Jordan either. The Mail, which regards itself as the absolute model of middle-class reserve and good taste, now has a website which doesn't give a toss about any of that. It's become dedicated to celebrity flesh, reaching the nadir in the two upskirt pictures it has run this week. On top of that, it has now decided to publish as many pictures of Jordan's tits as it possibly can.

On Wednesday, Jan Moir wrote an attack on Jordan calling her - apparently without irony:

as charming as leprosy.

She accused her of 'whining' and 'self justification'. Also without irony. Moir also referred to her as:

rapacious, publicity-mad, boobilicious madam... KP Nutty... humourless, balloon-breasted, great, roaring She-Chav... ghastly... she looks like a toothy Donald Duck in an Alice Cooper wig. Five minutes after stepping out of a sheep dip of fake tan...

And the article comes with five pictures of Jordan just so you can see how 'balloon-breasted' she is.

The same day, another article included no fewer than 13 pictures of her and there were 13 more in following day's update, including this one, for which there is simply no excuse:


That can now be added to the many charges against Mail Online Editor Martin Clarke and his claim that 'news is far more important to us than showbiz'.

No, Martin, half-naked women are far more important to you than anything.

Mail loves pictures of Tess Daly in her pants

The Femail section of the Mail website is the bit where they do all the Heat-style sleb gossip and paparazzi pictures. The third story there this morning is the 'news' that Tess Daly is fronting an advertising campaign for frilly knickers shop La Senza:


Cynics might suggest that using two pictures of a blonde in lingerie (plus another of her in a bikini) is a shameless way of getting hits to the website.

They would be right.

After all, isn't this the exact same story, with two of the exact same pictures, that the Mail website published only three weeks ago:


Yes. It is.

Here's an extract from the original 'story':

The campaign is Tess's first major lingerie campaign in more than ten years.

La Senza said Tess's Steal The Show campaign, which features her in a showgirl setting with top hat and cane, aims to bring together the two sides of every woman - playful and fun, yet glamorous and confident.

Tess said: 'As a mum-of-two, I was flattered to be asked to model for La Senza's Christmas lingerie campaign.

'It was great fun becoming a showgirl for the day, complete with top hat and cane.'

And here's an extract from today's brand new story:

La Senza said that Tess's Steal The Show campaign, which features her in a showgirl setting with top hat and cane, aims to bring together the two sides of every woman - playful and fun, yet glamorous and confident.

The campaign is Tess's first major lingerie campaign in more than ten years and while she had been looking glowing and slender on the show, she looks in even better shape in the adverts - no doubt thanks to clever lighting in the studio.

'As a mum-of-two, I was flattered to be asked to model for La Senza's Christmas lingerie campaign,' she said earlier this month.

'It was great fun becoming a showgirl for the day, complete with top hat and cane.'

Amazing. It's as if they have just used the same pics and words as three weeks ago to cash in on the fact she was on TV last night.

Perhaps Mail Online Editor Martin 'news is far more important to us than showbiz' Clarke would like to explain where the news value is in this once, let alone twice.

Lots of tits at the Mail

A quick fact for Mail Online Editor Martin Clarke who once claimed 'news is far more important to us than showbiz'.

If you search the Mail website for 'cleavage', look at how many results you find:


That's even more than the 867 results you get at The Sun.

But it's a good job we have the Mail asking those important 'news' questions such as:

Guess who broke Posh's 'no cleavage' rule?

and

Where on earth has Christina Aguilera's cleavage gone?

Just over a year ago, a Mail article by Louise Janson carried the headline:

For goodness sake, Liz, Jordan, Posh, Amy, put them away - we're suffering from cleavage fatigue

'We' may be, the Mail very obviously isn't.

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.