The PCC and the MailOnline's publication of 'clearly inappropriate' creepshots

On 24 September 2012, MailOnline published an article about 'creepshots' - photographs of females taken without their knowledge (often 'upskirt' photos) - that were taken in a Georgia high school by a teacher and posted on Reddit.

The article admitted the photos 'were taken without the subjects' knowledge' and that the subjects 'are caught unawares by stealthy 'creeps' with cameras'.

It added:

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. 

As this blog noted at the time:

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...

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.

One person contacted the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre about the MailOnline article. Another complained to the PCC. The latter complaint was sent on 25 September.

The PCC replied:

The concerns you have raised relate directly to the unidentified girls in the photographs. Given the nature of your concerns, it may be difficult for the Commission to investigate or understand the matter fully without their involvement.

However, we do appreciate the significance of these issues. In such circumstances, we would often take steps to contact the individuals concerned to make them aware of our services. In this instance, it is clear impossible for us to do so as we cannot identify them. We may therefore have difficulty in pursuing this matter. However, we will ask the Commission to consider whether there are exceptional public interest reasons for it to proceed with an independent complaint. 

One month later, on 29 October, the PCC said:

The Commission has noted carefully your comments about the public interest in pursuing an investigation and it has decided to do so, on an own-volition basis. It will write to the newspaper for its formal response, passing on a copy of your complaint.

The person who made the complaint emailed on 4 January asking for news but received no reply. The PCC did respond to a further email on 7 February - which noted the MailOnline article was still 'live' - but only to say the matter was still under investigation.

No further information was received by the person who made the complaint until 9 April, when the PCC issued its decision. He saw none of the correspondence from the Mail and has no idea what happened in those six months.

The PCC's decision is worth repeating in full:

The Commission investigated, of its own volition, a complaint framed under Clause 3 (Privacy), Clause 6 (Children) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge). The Commission noted that the article under complaint had come to its attention because of a third-party complaint it had received from a member of the public concerned about the publication of the images with the article. The Commission had not received any complaint from any individual featured in the story. The Commission recognised the significance of the issues raised by the complaint, however, and had for this reason chosen to investigate the matter of its own volition. Nonetheless, it remained the case that without the involvement of any of the individuals concerned, the Commission faced a significant practical difficulty in making a finding on this case.

The Commission first considered the matter under Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 6 (Children).  The complainant said the photographs had apparently been taken without consent and apparently showed pupils at a school, potentially under 16. The complainant made clear that he was concerned about both the censored and uncensored versions of the article. He objected to the publication of the photographs.

The photographs under complaint had been republished by the newspaper from a website on which they had been posted by anonymous users. The faces of the women had not been shown and they were not otherwise readily identifiable. No verifiable information was available about where or when they had been taken.

Clause 3 states that everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life and that it is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent. Under Clause 6, young people should be free to complete their time at school without unnecessary intrusion; a child under 16 must not be interviewed or photographed on issues involving their own or another child’s welfare unless a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult consents; and pupils must not be approached or photographed at school without the permission of the school authorities.

The content of the photographs themselves – including the furniture, surroundings, and clothing of those shown in them – suggested that they showed pupils in educational institutions, as the newspaper had clearly accepted. The newspaper’s report quoted one individual who claimed to be a teacher taking photographs of his pupils without their consent. Against this background, the Commission was concerned by the publication of the photographs, and in particular, extremely concerned by their initial – albeit brief – publication in an uncensored state, which was – as the newspaper had immediately accepted – clearly inappropriate in light of the information reported in the story.

Given the nature of this case, the Commission reviewed closely the information provided by the newspaper about the background. It noted the newspaper’s position that the article had been prepared for publication on the US homepage by a US journalist and that the photographs had been left uncensored for several hours due to a “regrettable” error. The newspaper had confirmed that the matter had been raised with the editorial staff concerned to understand how the incident had occurred and to avoid any recurrence. It had instructed its US Picture desk to take greater care to scrutinise photographs of this kind and emphasised that decisions should be referred to line managers before publication to ensure that due consideration has been given to publication and that pixelation has been properly applied where appropriate before pictures can go live on the site. It had also reminded them of their obligations under the Code and noted that abiding by the Code remained a contractual condition of employment contracts for its journalists. During the course of its correspondence with the Commission it had decided to remove the article from its website, in view of the sensitivity of the material.

The Commission acknowledged the measures that had been taken. It noted that the preparation of material for publication online presents particular challenges but emphasised that the Editors’ Code of Practice applies equally to material published in print and online. It emphasised that the newspaper should continue to keep its processes under review, including in relation to staff training, to ensure that such an error would not recur.

It remained the case, however, that the Commission had no direct information about the circumstances in which these particular photographs had been taken. As it had noted, both the context and the photographs themselves strongly suggested that they had showed individuals who were unaware of being photographed, and indeed the newspaper’s report had stated this as fact. Nonetheless, the Commission concluded that it would not be appropriate for it to rule on the potential for intrusion posed by the photographs on the basis of conjecture, however well-founded. The Commission did not issue a ruling under Clause 3 or Clause 6 but it considered that the newspaper’s decision to remove the article from its website was appropriate in the circumstances. The Commission also noted that it would review the matter should it receive a complaint in future from any of the individuals photographed or, alternatively, corroboration of the circumstances in which the photographs had been taken.   

Finally, the Commission considered the complaint under Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge). The terms of Clause 10 set out that the press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices. The Public Interest clause of the Code states that the PCC will consider the extent to which material is already in the public domain, or will become so. In this instance, the newspaper was reporting on a matter of controversy involving the publication of material elsewhere on the Internet. This was different from an instance in which the publication or its agents had used clandestine devices or subterfuge to obtain journalistic material for the purpose of publication. The republication of photographs to illustrate a news story on the controversy did not raise a breach of Clause 10.

The PCC's wariness seems slightly strange - it admits the paper had stated the subjects were unaware they were being photographed 'as fact' and admits this is a 'well-founded' view. But the PCC says this is only 'conjecture' and essentially refuses to issue a clear adjudication because of that - despite calling publication of the photos 'clearly inappropriate'. There appears to be no evidence to dispute the claims made about the origins of the photos and, furthermore, the Mail reported on 27 September 2012 - three days after the original article appeared:

A high school substitute teacher has been fired after police say he took pictures of his students without their knowledge and posted them to a perverted website.

The uncensored photos were visible for around 15 hours on MailOnline - it is a matter of opinion as to whether the PCC's description of that as a 'brief' period is fair or accurate.

Moreover, the person who made the complaint noted the article was still up on MailOnline in February - many months after it was first published and the correspondence with the PCC began. It was only after all that time that it seemed concerned about the 'sensitivity of the material'.

MailOnline and the 'womanly curves' on a 14yo girl

Yesterday, MailOnline published an article about the 14-year-old actress Elle Fanning and the costume she was wearing for Halloween.

The headline was:

One day later, the headline was changed to:

This appears to have been a reaction to criticism on Twitter, and in the comments below the article:

Just want to add to the chorus of comments: She is 14, she is a child, stop talking about her as if she is a piece of meat! The only point of this article is to point out how she is hitting puberty and to sexualise her and that is just incredibly wrong.. please stop sexualising her and other young girls.
- Isabel, Wolverhampton, 2/11/2012 0:56

i actually can't believe 'womanly curves' on a child as been written.
- rebecca , newcastle, 02/11/2012 00:32

One of your creepiest ever headlines, DM - just plain gross.
- boredwiththemall, justhere, 1/11/2012 23:27

Totally inappropriate headline. She is 14 years old, please stop sexualising young girls.
- Earlybirrd, Cheshire, 1/11/2012 21:12

It wasn't just the headline that was changed - several parts of Leah Simpson's story were removed. So:

The 14-year-old took to Instagram to share a photograph of her Halloween outfit and wasn't afraid to flaunt her curves for the camera

became:

The 14-year-old took to Instagram to share a photograph of her Halloween outfit.

And:

Elle was a posing professional as she wore a metallic maxi dress which looked rather demure at first glance.

Although it covered up her chest area and thighs, the design featured a high split which allowed her to pop her leg out of the side.

When she turned around, flesh was on show as the cut-out material scooped to just above her derriere and featured clasps which fastened at the centre of her neck.

became:

Elle was a posing professional as she wore a metallic maxi dress.

This sentence remain unchanged, however:

The model and fashion week regular has definitely got a knack for parading her best angles.

Elle Fanning is 14 years old. 

In September, MailOnline published four creepshots of schoolgirls of unknown age.

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)

14-year-old does 'bikini photo shoot'...

...and the Daily Mail calls the pictures 'stunning':

Tookey gets his ass kicked for kicking Kick-Ass' ass

To the surprise of no-one, Mail film reviewer Chris Tookey has produced a scathing 'review' of Kick-Ass.

He gives it one-star (rather than his worst rating, a turkey) because it is:

sporadically funny, efficient, and well shot.

But he goes on to say:

it's lightweight and silly, but it's also cynical, premeditated and mindbogglingly irresponsible.

Why?

The reason the movie is sick, as well as thick, is that it breaks one of the last cinematic taboos by making the most violent, foul-mouthed and sexually aggressive character, Hit-Girl, an 11-year-old.

Avoiding any mention of the film's plot, he goes on to explain - at great length - why he believes it's a paedophile's dream, even mentioning:

Worldwide child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry.

And that's partly the fault of this film that hasn't even come out yet, apparently.

He says of Hit-Girl:

she makes comments unprintable in a family newspaper, that reveal a sexual knowledge hugely inappropriate to her years.

Some might find the description of the Mail as a 'family newspaper' more offensive that anything in this film, but is the Mail as coy as he thinks? Err, no:


Indeed, when the Mail started getting 'outraged' by Kick-Ass on 28 February, they explained exactly what she says:

In one scene, the young serial killer – played by 13-year-old American actress Chloe Moretz – screams at her victims: ‘Okay, you ****s, let’s see what you can do now.’

In another, she tells her vigilante father she wants a puppy for her birthday. When he looks surprised, she says: ‘I’m just f****** with you, Daddy’, and asks for a razor-sharp knife instead.

And they repeated those quotes on 18 March, 24 March (twice) and on 31 March as well.

That's how unprintable they are.

Tookey is also appalled by what he believes is the sexualisation of Hit-Girl:

The movie's writers want us to see Hit-Girl not only as cool, but also sexy...Paedophiles are going to adore her.

One of the film's creepiest aspects is that she's made to look as seductive as possible...She's fetishised in precisely the same way as Angelina Jolie in the Lara Croft movies, and Halle Berry in Catwoman.

As if that isn't exploitative enough, she's also shown in a classic schoolgirl pose, in a short plaid-skirt with her hair in bunches, but carrying a big gun.

Classic school girl pose, with plaid skirt and big gun? Where have we seen that before?


Ah yes, on the Mail website on 28 February. And 18 March. And 24 March.

How can Tookey possibly continue to work for a media outlet which indulges in such 'exploitative' behaviour?

Oh and then there's this:


Yes, that's Tookey's own website, where all his film reviews are collected. Just look at that vile 'exploitative' picture of a 'schoolgirl...with her hair in bunches...carrying a big gun' he's used to illustrate his Kick-Ass review.

The hypocrite.

He goes on to refer to the:

grotesque glorification of prematurely sexualised...children

Several of the people who have commented on Tookey's review on the Mail website, who have seen the film, say it does no such thing (indeed, all but around 5 of the 62 comments are attacking Tookey's useless review). Frankly, it would be hard to imagine the BBFC giving the film a certificate at all, let alone a 15, if it did.

But if Tookey is so concerned about 'prematurely sexualised children' he should have another word with his employers. In the 'Don't Miss' section to the right of his review is yet another 'story' (meaning: pap pics with words attached) about Suri Cruise. Or, as the Mail describes her, a three-year-old in a 'super-cute' outfit:


The article begins:

In mini heels and grown-up clothes, she often seems a little older than her inconsiderable years.

And one of the picture captions, refers to her:

coy expressions.

That's on top of calling her, as the Daily Quail pointed out, 'precocious', 'cuddly', 'traffic stopping', 'cute' and 'impeccable'.

Then there was the description of an 11-year-old Katy Perry as 'pretty' with an 'innocent smile'.

Not to mention the Mail saying of the 'sweet' 15-year-old Angelina Jolie:

even at the age of 15, it was clear Angelina Jolie had star potential. With her bee-stung lips and sultry brown eyes...

And what about the time the Mail ran a picture of a 14-year-old girl's bum, so readers could judge if her trousers were too tight?

Tookey, with no small amount of egotism, goes on to cliam he is the only film reviewer brave enough to take this film on:

they'll get an easy ride from the vast majority of reviewers, who either don't care about the social effects of movies or are frightened to appear 'moralistic' or 'judgmental'.

It's a bit baffling to say a film critic is afraid of being 'judgmental' - surely that's in the job decription? But it's a good job we have Tookey to show us the way, then...

Or not, given this ludicrous, and breathtakingly crass, statement:

Do we really want to live, for instance, in a culture when the torture and killing of a James Bulger or Damilola Taylor is re-enacted by child actors for laughs?

Err, whoever said we did?

Mail implies man is flirting with 'stunning' under-age girl

Sometimes, the tabloids can still make your jaw drop, even when you think you have seen it all:

For the record, Laura Robson is 15.

One of the captions says:

Game, set and matched

And the article is quite clearly suggesting something is going on between the two biggest stars in British tennis - one of whom is 22, the other 15:

Andy Murray is not usually known for beaming smiles on the tennis court. But the quick wit and even faster feet of Laura Robson, the 2008 Junior Wimbledon champ, appear to have sweetened his mood.

What?

the pair have giggled their way to the final of the Hopman Cup

Ummm...

And their rapport on-court has continued after the end of each match at the press conferences.

This really shouldn't go any further...

Newly single Murray, 22, said...

Please stop, Daily Mail Reporter.

And Sportsmail Reporter is not much better. A couple of days before, the headline:

London calling: Andy Murray makes a date with Laura Robson for 2012 Olympics

also clearly implied this was more than just a tennis partnership.

A couple of years ago, when Robson won the Wimbledon Junior title, the Mail described her as 'stunning':


Then, Laura Robson was 14.

But it seems they don't care. On another recent article about Robson, they actually approved this comment:


Laura Robson is 15.

Mail admires 'pretty' 11-year-old with 'innocent smile'

After a series of decidedly creepy articles about the pre-school-age Suri Cruise and the picture of a fourteen-year-old's bum, the Mail is at it again, with the groundbreaking revelation that someone who is now 25 was once 11:


Now, there's nothing wrong with Perry putting a pic of her younger self on Twitter - the same evil Twitter the Mail seems to get lots of stories from.

But there's plenty wrong with the Mail using the picture and referring to her as a:

pretty, wide-eyed little girl

with an

innocent smile

and noting

My, hasn't she grown!

And all that is just above a very sexualised recent pic of Perry showing lots of cleavage and with her tongue out - a snap they first used a few days ago. It's all a bit weird.

Their colleagues at the Metro also go overboard in their descriptions:

Who is this wide-eyed, fresh-faced little lady? Surely not one of today's naughtiest pop sirens?

And then:

Who would have thought that this fresh-faced little princess would grow up to become a multi-platinum-selling pop vixen

And just in case you haven't go the picture:

who could have known that this angelic little lady would mature into the sexy saucepot

This juxtaposing of a child and a sexualised adult is troubling and, as with the Suri articles, it's not immediately obvious why they continually use this curious and inappropriate tone and language.

As Tracy Morter noted on Twitter, the Mail appears to be increasingly resembling 'some dodgy uncle with a bag of Werther's'.

Mail columnist complains about cynically exploiting girls' bodies for commercial gains

A few days ago, the Daily Quail wrote a Super sexy misogyny special which looked at several recent news-free articles from the Mail which were published mainly to get lots of celebrity flesh on the website.

Missing from the list was the Serena Williams 'swimsuit malfunction' article, which went so far as to show the actual moment the tennis player's nipple was exposed. All in the name of quality journalism, as Mail Online Editor Martin 'news is far more important to us than showbiz' Clarke would undoubtedly claim.

The infamous Daily Mail Reporter tried to link the Williams picture to the £50,000 fine handed out for her outburst at the US Open, in a desperate attempt to give it a news angle. But as they had already covered that story, they were fooling no-one.

Still, the Mail's been a bit undecided about what to do with nipples this week (although a few weeks ago they were gutted they didn't see one). It happily showed Serena's but in Bel Mooney's article about the sexual revolution, a stock photo of naked hippies was censored. Well, sort of - the picture on the article contained pixellated nipples, apparently to spare us this dreadful, corrupting image:


Yet on the Mail's homepage, the trail for the article contained no such censorship:

And if you search for the article, it's not censored on the results page either.

Mooney's article was very strange and more than a little hypocritical. She criticises Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes for being bad role models for letting Suri wear heels, but doesn't criticise media outlets such as the Mail who disseminate dozens of pictures of her in heels and say she is 'growing up fast'.

She talks - in the Mail - of:

girls feeling abused and full of hate for their bodies - the very bodies so cynically exploited for commercial gains throughout a sexualised media.

Something the Mail would never, ever do, of course.

They wouldn't use four pictures of 19-year old Taylor Swift in her bikini and call her 'slender' and a 'bikini babe', would they? They wouldn't write in bold near the top of the article that you can scroll down to watch a video of her in said bikini?

And then, deciding Swift is perhaps too old, surely they wouldn't dream of printing five pictures of the 17-year old Miley Cyrus looking 'pretty' as she 'paraded around' in a 'skimpy neon pink two-piece'?

That wouldn't be cynically exploiting girls' bodies for commercial gains, would it?

Incidentally, that Miley Cyrus article was written by a Georgina Littlejohn, who has been busily churning out 15 articles for the Mail website in the last four day, all in the worthless celebrity gossip genre.

It appears that Georgina is indeed Richard's daughter.

Who said 'nepotism' at the back? The Mail has taken a stand against nepotism and people 'giving plum jobs to their friends' children' on many occasions, so obviously she got the job solely on merit. Obviously...

Going on the evidence so far, she's not much better at being a journalist than her father.

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?

Can a Sun columnist really complain about the 'early sexualisation of young girls'?

Last week, Nadia Saint commented on a Jane Moore column about 'the early sexualisation of young girls', in a paper where 'Rosie, 18, from Middlesex' is a Page 3 regular. But look at what the Sun say about Rosie:


If she is 18 now, and made her 'debut' nearly sixteen months ago, she must have been 17 then. Yet the 2003 Sexual Offences Act raised the legal age for topless modelling from 16 to 18.

So either the Sun broke the law then, or it is lying about Rosie's age now in order to make her seem younger than she actually is.

Which doesn't look good either way.

And for Moore to happily take the Murdoch shilling and then criticise the 'sexualisation of young girls' makes her seem a bit of a hypocrite.

But you get a lot of hypocrisy at The Sun these days...

Mail wants you to check out a teenager's bum

The Mail is reporting that a school in Nailsea has been sending female pupils home because they are wearing inappropriate trousers.

Several girls have been told off for wearing 'too tight' pairs of 'Miss Sexy'-branded trousers, and ordered to buy normal school issue ones.

The Mail decides to illustrate the story with a picture of one of the pupils, 14 year old Alex Dalby, with her back, and therefore bum, to camera.


The caption asks:

Too tight for school? Alex Dalby models the ''Miss Sexy' trousers

Is the Mail actually encouraging readers to look at this young teenager's bum, and see if her trousers are indeed 'too tight'?

More disturbing still is a comment from Dan Wilson in Bath:


Seems like Dan was just the audience the Mail were after...

Mail's crush on sixteen year old continues

The Mail website is back to one of it's favourite celebrity fancies - 16 year old Miley Cyrus.

The tone of the article is - 'can you believe she was pole dancing in micro shorts and boots'?

The point of the article is - 'look at these pictures of her pole dancing in micro shorts and boots'.

And then watch the website hits rack up.

The story begins:

Miley Cyrus is a teen star with a wholesome image.

But there was nothing innocent about her dance routine at the Teen Choice Awards last night.

Dressed in micro shorts, black leather biker boots and wearing piles of jewellery, the 16-year-old appeared older than her years as she cavorted around a pole onstage.

But here's the thing: she wasn't pole dancing. A pole attached to what looks like an ice cream cart came on stage and she spent about 30 seconds holding it. There was no 'cavorting'. And to say there was 'nothing innocent' about the routine is a very large overstatement, seemed solely designed to set the minds of middle aged men (such as those who edit the Mail and its website?) racing.

Indeed, by modern pop standards, it looked fairly innocent.

Still, there's five very large pictures of Miley attached to the story, just so everyone can have a good look at how shocking it all is.

Then the Mail adds:

Perhaps Miley, the star of Hannah Montana, was hoping to charm an older audience than her loyal teenage fanclub.

Hmmm - trying to attract the attention of an 'older audience'?

You certainly wouldn't get the Mail trying such tactics...

Recommended

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

Mail says 'have another look at how awful these pics are'

Following on from Tuesday's Mail article about the Miss Teen Queen UK website, the Daily Quail points out that only a few months back, the Mail had no such problem with the contest when it was reporting on one of the girls involved, who had overcome spinal surgery to compete.

But now, as Claude reveals, the Mail is so appalled it had to repeat how awful it all was in Saturday's paper. With another two page spread. With several more pictures. None of which had the faces pixelated (unlike on Tuesday).

Look how shocking this is! No, REALLY look!

The tabloids - especially the Mail - do have a habit of writing a story which says 'isn't this shocking?' and then provides copious amounts of pictures to prove just how shocking it is.

For example, many years ago, the Mail ran several pages of comment and screenshots revealing how shocked it told us we must be about Channel Five's infamous gameshow Naked Jungle.

But this seems rather more serious. The article Teen beauty contest that lists vital statistics branded 'a shop window for sex offenders' gives details of a competition called Miss Teen Queen UK, an online beauty pageant for 13-19 year old girls. The 'quote' in the headline is adapted from comments made by the Director of Kidscape.

The problem is in the first paragraph, which reads: 'A beauty pageant has been labelled a 'shop window for sex offenders' by a leading children's charity after it published the breast sizes of girl entrants as young as 13.'

And how does the Mail choose to illustrate this story? With a screenshot of one contestant's profile - and it's readable. So although her face is pixelated, her 32B chest measurement isn't. If the Mail finds it so repulsive for the organisers to publish 'the breast sizes of girl entrants as young as 13' why publish the breast size of this 15 year old on its website? (Also seen are her waist and hip measurements, and her dress size.)

The Mail uses two other pictures from the site - one a young girl with face pixelated (although easily identifiable, if you wish to find her) and a screenshot of the website homepage, where one of the models has her top unbuttoned quite low.

What the Mail wants to do is not only be appalled, but also 'prove' how evil the internet is (again). At least it's not Facebook this time. But the use of these particular images seems gratuitous and rather creepy - if the Mail really finds this so awful, why use screenshots revealing what it is most complaining about?

It's likely the Teen Queen site has had more hits today as a result of the Mail story than at any time previously. It is, at time of writing, the eighth most read story on their site. So are they really concerned that this website is a 'shop window for sex offenders'? Because they appear to be doing all they can to point people to that window for a look.

Mail hearts Miley

At the start of April, the Mail was leering over Miley Cyrus as she attended some music award ceremony.

At the start of April, the Mail was leering over Miley Cyrus as she attended her movie premiere ('flashes her legs in a VERY short dress').

Yesterday, the Mail was leering over Miley Cyrus as she 'soaked up the sun in the Bahamas' in a bikini.

Miley Cyrus is 16 and a half.

Mail likes teen girls (cont.)

After calling a 14 year old girl 'stunning' a week ago, the Mail is now leering over a 16 year old girl. This time it's Miley Cyrus who is 'growing up fast' - which is a fairly sleazy euphemism. She appeared at the Academy of Country Music Awards in a 'revealing evening dress' that 'flashed some leg and back', eventhough it's not a very revealing dress at all. She 'looked years older than 16', they leer.

In fact, when not being pervy, the story is comparing Cyrus' dress with that of Nicole Kidman, making out that the former had on a 'less modest' dress. But both are wearing a floor-length gowns with a split in the leg, and while one has her whole back out, the other has her shoulder and part of her back out. There doesn't seem that much difference really...

Mail's unsettling interest in a child

There's something not quite right about the Daily Mail calling a 14 year old girl 'stunning'.