In this litigious age, guest publications about toothpaste tubes on Have I Got News For You probably feature many a disclaimer, but the Daily Mail must need them more than most. After all, even a police force that is itself still enormously sexist and racist might have to hold them to account if they printed their readers' comments without such equivocation. Of course, anywhere that invites public comment will draw its share of fuckwittery (just look at dear old CiF) but just how much responsibility should the Mail bear for the user-generated bile throughout their website?
Their Terms and Conditions make interesting reading. In amongst all the usual legalese about "waiv[ing] all your moral rights" by submitting content (that must really stick in their self-righteous readership's craw!) they also prohibit anything "threatening, defamatory, offensive, abusive, liable to incite racial hatred, discriminatory or" - of course - "blasphemous". This might seem reasonable enough, but for two things; firstly, the fact that they select what to publish, and secondly, that they deviate from their own guidelines.
Accurate journalism (forgive my inclusion of this phrase in a blog about the Daily Mail) depends upon reporting all angles of a given story, including those you don't like. This would excuse the decision to publish the gamut of submitted comments were there not such a clear, discriminatory bias; even with a wealth of objective and printable comments to choose from, the Mail consistently chooses to publish the most bigoted, even if this means repetiton of the unintelligible. Perhaps most tellingly of all, they would rather publish none at all than any that undermine the party li(n)e; the tale of Hans Blomberg's live televised sexual harassment of his co-host, for instance, remains conspicuously comment-free despite a number of cogent submissions made by various groups and individuals. Thus, although the Daily Mail cannot be held responsible for the content submitted, they are distinctly accountable for its editorial use.
On then to their supposed distaste for the offensive, abusive and discriminatory (I omit the small matter of "racial hatred" only for reasons of time, space and theme - feel free to submit your own treatises on this issue!) Prohibiting something in one's Terms and Conditions would seem to imply its unsuitability for publication, certainly on so controlled a basis as the one upon which Daily Mail commenting operates.
Behold, then, a few pearls of wisdom from merely the previous week that the Daily Mail considers neither offensive, abusive nor discriminatory*:
"She's quite hot, and just the right amount of stupid."
"Looks so much younger and really soft and pretty, just as women ought to be. Take note, girls..."
"people are losing their homes and havent got jobs and this silly women are having cash thrown at them... get some kids, a dog and a tubby hubby"
"Women should realise that men prefer long hair on women. Those who say they prefer short masculine styles are lying (to their wives/girlfriends with horrible short masculine hair)."
"As a red blooded male, I think [Cheryl Cole] looks fantastic, so get to the back of the queue all of you fatties."
"Single British women... are not comparable, most are overweight, bossy and lazy and oh, CAN'T cook"
"only a blind man would prefer UK women to what is the 'average' girl in Eastern Europe"
"There are Not many single women over 25 in the UK that are worth the effort 4 a relationship 2day. Wane be men/Power trippers/ drunks/pretentious, and all the problems they get into."
"Come on English women - start being feminine again!"
"British women...are too forward and not sophisticated."
"You only have to look at what British woman have become to realise why men are now looking elsewhere."
"Woman want their cake and eat it. Sorry ladies, you can do everything we do, but we can't have the kids so make a choice for crying out loud. is this why we have spoilt middle class kids running amok, spoilt little brats the lot of them. is this why marriages are falling apart. JOB OR KIDS not both."
And the award for Most Prejudice In One Post goes to:
"Although it may be easy for people to mock these guys i know exactly where they are coming from.
I am a guy in my early thirties not too ugly and doing fairly well for myself.
However, finding a woman in Britain who doesn't swear constantly, is fairly intelligent, keeps fit and healty and is not engrossed with chav celebrity pap is almost an impossibility !!!! and add to that pretty, single and can cook, no chance.
Its only a matter of time before they cotton on to this sort of business in Africa where i'm sure the women may actually be greatful."
*All comments quoted sic, much as it pains my linguistic sensibilities.
Their Terms and Conditions make interesting reading. In amongst all the usual legalese about "waiv[ing] all your moral rights" by submitting content (that must really stick in their self-righteous readership's craw!) they also prohibit anything "threatening, defamatory, offensive, abusive, liable to incite racial hatred, discriminatory or" - of course - "blasphemous". This might seem reasonable enough, but for two things; firstly, the fact that they select what to publish, and secondly, that they deviate from their own guidelines.
Accurate journalism (forgive my inclusion of this phrase in a blog about the Daily Mail) depends upon reporting all angles of a given story, including those you don't like. This would excuse the decision to publish the gamut of submitted comments were there not such a clear, discriminatory bias; even with a wealth of objective and printable comments to choose from, the Mail consistently chooses to publish the most bigoted, even if this means repetiton of the unintelligible. Perhaps most tellingly of all, they would rather publish none at all than any that undermine the party li(n)e; the tale of Hans Blomberg's live televised sexual harassment of his co-host, for instance, remains conspicuously comment-free despite a number of cogent submissions made by various groups and individuals. Thus, although the Daily Mail cannot be held responsible for the content submitted, they are distinctly accountable for its editorial use.
On then to their supposed distaste for the offensive, abusive and discriminatory (I omit the small matter of "racial hatred" only for reasons of time, space and theme - feel free to submit your own treatises on this issue!) Prohibiting something in one's Terms and Conditions would seem to imply its unsuitability for publication, certainly on so controlled a basis as the one upon which Daily Mail commenting operates.
Behold, then, a few pearls of wisdom from merely the previous week that the Daily Mail considers neither offensive, abusive nor discriminatory*:
"She's quite hot, and just the right amount of stupid."
"Looks so much younger and really soft and pretty, just as women ought to be. Take note, girls..."
"people are losing their homes and havent got jobs and this silly women are having cash thrown at them... get some kids, a dog and a tubby hubby"
"Women should realise that men prefer long hair on women. Those who say they prefer short masculine styles are lying (to their wives/girlfriends with horrible short masculine hair)."
"As a red blooded male, I think [Cheryl Cole] looks fantastic, so get to the back of the queue all of you fatties."
"Single British women... are not comparable, most are overweight, bossy and lazy and oh, CAN'T cook"
"only a blind man would prefer UK women to what is the 'average' girl in Eastern Europe"
"There are Not many single women over 25 in the UK that are worth the effort 4 a relationship 2day. Wane be men/Power trippers/ drunks/pretentious, and all the problems they get into."
"Come on English women - start being feminine again!"
"British women...are too forward and not sophisticated."
"You only have to look at what British woman have become to realise why men are now looking elsewhere."
"Woman want their cake and eat it. Sorry ladies, you can do everything we do, but we can't have the kids so make a choice for crying out loud. is this why we have spoilt middle class kids running amok, spoilt little brats the lot of them. is this why marriages are falling apart. JOB OR KIDS not both."
And the award for Most Prejudice In One Post goes to:
"Although it may be easy for people to mock these guys i know exactly where they are coming from.
I am a guy in my early thirties not too ugly and doing fairly well for myself.
However, finding a woman in Britain who doesn't swear constantly, is fairly intelligent, keeps fit and healty and is not engrossed with chav celebrity pap is almost an impossibility !!!! and add to that pretty, single and can cook, no chance.
Its only a matter of time before they cotton on to this sort of business in Africa where i'm sure the women may actually be greatful."
*All comments quoted sic, much as it pains my linguistic sensibilities.
Posts
I read many of those comments today in the "Russian Brides" article and was so happy that they had pretty much ALL been downthumbed! The people thumbing are clearly sane after all! (Except where the BNP are concerned...)
ReplyDeletei dunno, us lot spend a lot of time down-thumbing too...
ReplyDeleteHaha true, are we sane???!! Hmmmm...
ReplyDeleteReading the tripe left by those astute adjudicators of female beauty (I classify them as such with the most caustic of irony) really is enough to drive you to despair. Even the mind-boggling sense of entitlement they so arrogantly insist on putting on display is depressing enough in itself before we even begin to address the contents.
ReplyDeleteWhat amused me about those knuckle-draggers salivating over "Eastern Europeans" is that my own husband, a Hungarian chose an overweight, Scottish, feminist academic who can't cook (he is infinitely more competent than I am in the kitchen) in preference to his compatriots, a choice that would no doubt completely baffle the Daily Wail males.
Not that I believe for one nanosecond that any woman or man should be judged on their appearance. Promoting insecurities about body shape, blemishes etc. is utterly reprehensible and serves only to boost the profit margins of the many parasitic diet and cosmetic companies who stand to gain from the resultant misery and self-loathing.