Is the Scottish Express even worse than the Mail?

[rts]

Superb! Article summed up rather nicely.

[Sput]

This guy is constantly fabulous, in fact I was saying earlier that reading his blog has reduced my going to the Daily Mail's site to get riled has reduced by about 90%, which means so too has the banner advertising revenue that I generated in doing so. Huzzah.

[Gavin Scott]

What a loathsome cunt she is.

I hope she dies soon, then I can tell her family that she was taking it all ways from a rugby team.

[marksi]

Today I don't have words to explain my feelings about (a) The Daily Mail and (b) Jan Moir. When I have managed to gather my thoughts into a coherent sentence I will post them here. In the meantime:

http://newsarse.com/2009/10/16/jan-moir ... al-causes/

The Daily Mail article is in breach of the PCC Code of Conduct, though as we have seen before, it is a completely fucking useless bit of self regulation. Why are newspapers allowed to "self-regulate" when I spend half my day pouring over compliance form after compliance form to ensure that broadcast television and radio complies with the myriad of OFCOM regulation, much of which is in place because of the fucking Daily Mail's readership?

EDIT: Charlie Brooker's published his thoughts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... y-jan-moir

[Sput]

She has put out a statement, and naturally she puts this all down to an orchestrated campaign, because obviously more than a few people couldn't POSSIBLY be outraged by someone being rotten to a dead guy. Secondly, when it comes to someone from the Daily Mail banging on about orchestrated letter-writing campaigns to complaints bodies - without a hint of irony - it's more than a little delicious! I heard a little discussion about it on R5Live earlier, and it was the second most complained-about story in the PCCs history.

I'm sure this will be dealt with brilliantly, what with Paul Dacre running the compliance bit of the PCC at the moment...

[Alexia]

What a stupid, ignorant, ill-informed woman Jan Moir is.

You need at least four players for canasta. Stupid mistake.

Incidentally the rest of the article is utter bile and she should be dragged over every hot coal available.

[Gavin Scott]

Orchestrated campaign, eh?

The pcc site links to a specific webform for making complaints about Ms Moir. The site is busy, but you'll get there if you're persistent. They are seeking a cause of action for your complaints, so its useful to quote the code itself, as mentioned by Mr Brooker, thus:

In my opinion this article breaches sections 1, 5 and 12 of your code of practice; namely accuracy, intrusion into grief and discrimination.

I have felt compelled to write to complain about Jan Moir's article, published in the online site of the Daily Mail, written about the death of Stephen Gately.

The article is riddled with unsubstantiated smear and speculation about the cause of his death, with an implication it was linked to his "dangerous" homosexual lifestyle. This, as I understand it, is a breach of the code of practice sections 1 and 12.

Ms Moir made the suggestion that, despite the findings of the coroner who performed an autopsy on Mr Gately, there was something more sinister about the cause of his death, alluding to "sleazy" acts with another man and his civil partner, on the basis that three gay men were present in one location. I found this to be both offensive and distressing; and a breach of section 12 of your code.

Finally, Ms Moir suggested that Mrs Gately was being disingenuous by stating that her son's untimely death was caused by an unknown medical condition, despite the coroner concurring with this.

I believe that, in light of the event being less than 7 days old, is an intrusion in the grief of both Mr Gately's family and his civil partner.

On a personal note I found the homophobic overtones of the article to be offensive in the extreme, and I fail to understand why the duty editor of the online site allowed this to be published, other than to conclude complicity in the opinion of the piece.

Yours in anticipation of a reply,

Gavin Scott

To which I received this reply.

Dear Gavin

Thank you for sending us your complaint about the Daily Mail article on the subject of the death of Stephen Gately. We have received numerous complaints about this matter.

I should first make clear that the Commission generally requires the involvement of directly affected parties before it can begin an investigation into an article. On this occasion, it may be a matter for the family of Mr Gately to raise a complaint about how his death has been treated by the Daily Mail. I can inform you that we have made ourselves available to the family and Mr Gately's bandmates, in order that they can use our services if they wish.

We require the direct involvement of affected parties because the PCC process can have a public outcome and it would be discourteous for the Commission to publish information relating to individuals without their knowledge or consent. Indeed, doing so might unwittingly add to any intrusion. Additionally, one of the PCC's roles is dispute resolution, and we would need contact with the affected party in order to determine what would be an acceptable means of settling a complaint.

On initial examination, it would appear that you are, therefore, a third party to the complaint, and we may not be able to pursue your concerns further. However, if you feel that your complaint touches on claims that do not relate directly to Mr Gately or his family, please let us know, making clear how they raise a breach of the Code of Practice. If you feel that the Commission should waive its third party rules, please make clear why you believe this.

Press Complaints Commission

[marksi]

This is another example of the difference between how various forms of media are regulated, or not regulated, as in the case of newspapers.

Why is it that the Daily Mail can run a campaign about the (unacceptable and stupid) Brand/Ross affair, which generated 60,000 OFCOM complaints, 59,997 of which were from people who hadn't heard it broadcast, never mind were affected by it; yet the same newspaper is governed by rules whereby only those directly affected can have their voice of protest heard?

[Sput]

Heh. Just hope it doesn't get too nasty. Someone aptly pointed out that to visualise twitter frenzies like this all you need to think of is an angry mob with flaming torches. Admittedly it's pretty much the same for Mail readers.

[Chie]

One of their front page headlines last week refered to Kevin McGee as the 'husband' of Matt Lucas - complete with single quotation marks :roll:

'Ex-partner' would've sufficed, but then that wouldn't have been a subtle dig at homosexuality would it. Morons.

[nidave]

I think most people should be complaining about the general point not the specifics. That spiteful bitch is saying my civil partnership is worthless and I am going to die earlier than my married brother. Those are the grounds I would use. I might do that once I get home...

I also hope the Daily Mail feels at least a little sense of irony when thy wonder what the fuss is about