I'm listening to PM at the minute and could feel the barely hidden joy emanating from the radio with the words, 'You can talk about this on the PM blog, read the articles in question and follow a link to the PCC...'

Yeah but unlike the Mail, the BBC won't report it 3000000000000 times, and shoehorn it into every story they possibly can over the next year.

Because they've got more class.

But I do like the straight down the middle writing of that story.



Who's PM?

Radio 4 political programme, 17.00 of a weekday evening.

I'll get me slippers...

Even Bob Roberts is heavily uprated, this has blown up in their face just a little bit.

I was a bit disappointed this was not discussed on the Jeremy Vine show today, and if it isn't tomorrow then I will be writing a very angry letter to the BBC.

Made my fuckin week!

I wrote about Jan's article on my blog www.p0pvulture.blogspot.com last week, but couldn't resist following it up when I saw two other articles in the Mail today. I'd ask "have they no shame?' but I think I already know the answer.

Janet over-bites back

Sometimes, the reaction to an event is as fascinating as the event itself. Take the Daily Mail's response to its own self-perpetuated controversy for instance.

Today, in Middle England's tabloid of choice, Janet Street-Porter wrote an eloquent response to Jan Moir's grubby little one-woman attack on journalistic standards. Although best known for accent as broad as the Thames estuary and a set of teeth that could be used for cutting decorative pastry cases, the Sarf London legend has talent and integrity to spare - so quite why she chooses to write for the Mail remains a mystery.

Nonetheless, her article is a sharp riposte to Jan's ignorance, pointing out that true equality means accepting that Civil Partnerships are as diverse and varied as straight relationships. Janet also makes reference to the fact that another gay man died last week. However, unlike Stephen Gately who died of natural causes, Ian Baynham's death was indeed a consequence of his sexuality.

He was beaten and kicked to death by a group of homophobic teenagers in Trafalgar Square. As Janet points out, "the number of attacks against gay men and women in London has risen nearly 20 per cent, and in a recent survey 90 per cent of the gay men and women questioned said they had experienced homophobic insults and abuse." Sadly, Street-Porter stops short of asking where those abusers go to have their attitudes validated.

Despite commissioning this article, the Mail can't quite resist putting its own editorial spin on the whole story. Showing the kind of revisionist approach usually applied by Holocaust deniers, an article appeared in today's issue under the headline "Stephen Gately debate dominates the internet".

By calling it a 'debate' rather than an 'outcry' (their usual preferred terminology for this kind of scandal) they make it sound as though Stephen is the one being discussed, rather than Moir's sour-faced savagery. Throughout the article, carefully chosen phrases like "worldwide debate", "thousands have been moved to comment" and "an extraordinary online response" cunningly mask the true significance of the story.

Of course, Jan's disingenuous defense is also tactically replayed, particularly the opening which reads "Some people, particularly in the gay community...", suggesting that only gay people would ever be disgusted by blatant homophobia. But the final straw in this hopelessly inaccurate article is the tagged-on final line, which reads "The Press Complaints Commission has received more than 1,000 complaints..."

Would it be churlish to point out that the 1,000 complaints were lodged in the first 24 hours, and since then, the PCC has logged 21,000 complaints - an all-time record? I guess if you want fact-checking, truth or reliability, the Weekly World News is your best bet.

Some thoughts from the excellent Dave Gorman

http://gormano.blogspot.com/2009/10/jan ... -that.html

It's on todays show

The first of the complainants with more clout seems to've gotten involved:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oc ... r-jan-moir

Aparently, Stephen's parents did come out at one point to say that there is in fact an hereditary heart condition in their family that causes sudden death at a young age, (rare, but certianly not unheard of, unless of course you get all your scientific & medical knowledge from reading the Mail).

I don't know if the autopsy confirmed this, or indeed if the fluid on the lungs finding is still cited as the cause of death, but either way, what were the chances do we think of people who commented on the story in such a jugemental & nasty way, hearing about this condition & thinking "well, we can't be sure, so I'll keep my mouth shut for now"?

Very unlikely, as has sadly been proved.

I'm fairly sure that Jan Moir has mentioned in the past that she "has gay friends".
If this were ever true, not only do I doubt that it will remain so for much longer, but it makes her comments no less awful. In fact, it makes them worse.

I hate the attitude some straight people have regarding their right to comment in any way-no matter how ignorant-on gay issues, simply because they think having gay friends means that clearly nothing they say about it can offend them, in a "well nothing I say bothers them, so I can't be wrong" kind of way, or "Well actually, I've got gay friends so therefor I know far more about this sort of thing than you".

It's so horribly patronising. I'm straight & I'm annoyed by it, so I can't imagine how much it would piss of a gay person.

Surely if she had gay friends, she'd know that she was making a wild sweeping judgement about gay people by writing about Stephen Gateley as if he died because all gay people lead selfish, hedonistic, dangerously promiscuous lifestyles?

She is an arsehole, her article has nothing to to do with his death or "free speech", & the backlash against it has nothing to do with the mythical "PC brigade" trying to silence yet another "voice of reason", (as some commenters on the website claim).

Fluid in the lungs in itself can be a sign of heart failure or weakness:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... lungs.html

I should imagine that a lot of commentators're waiting for the results of the further testing after all of this.

Gately's label complains to PCC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8319350.stm

25,000 complaints now

Moir's written a follow-up piece: The truth about my views on the tragic death of Stephen Gately, which is pretty much as you'd expect. Paints herself as a mere truthseeker, defends her accusations of sleaziness and goes on and on about the unanswered questions that I could swear were already answered by the coroner's report that had been done before she wrote the piece. Yes, he had a bit of weed, but he died from pulmonary oedema.



But he died of a condition he acquired naturally. He didn't get shot or run over.



Again, she does nothing to back up the idea that was a 'happy ever after myth'. I've literally never read or heard a single person suggest that civil partnerships would necessarily be more successful than straight marriage. Where the fuck are these people? Was it such a prevailing myth that it needed Jan Moir to bust it?



Come on now, was this the same 'talented young man' that you said 'could barely carry a tune in a Louis Vuitton trunk'?



Anyone who describes themselves as 'the silent majority' is a pathetic cunt.

So basically she's completely reversed the article by saying she has pandering to homophobic kneejerkers her writing for the Mail aims for.

Any journalist who has to explain an entire article by having to write another should take a good long look at what they're writing.

One other quote which stands out for me:



No. It should be a matter for a qualified coroner and the family in the first instance. Your wild speculation on homosexuality and associated hedonism, with no medical background or knowledge of the finer details of his final hours does not quantify your assessment and was just downright inappropriate.