Topics about a single subject's Daily Mail experience
:sunglasses: 56.3 % ❤ 3.1 % :thumbsup: 7.8 % 😯 1.6 % :grinning: 25 % 🙏 1.6 % 😟 3.1 % :shit: 1.6 %
The "sticks and stones may break my bones" crowd, who probably threw a shitfit over Ryan Giggs refusing to sing the English national anthem at the 2012 Olympics.
SoulBoy wrote:
Tue Oct 22, 2019 6:51 am
Dear Harry and Meghan: I feel for you... but sometimes a stiff upper lip IS the best cure, writes LIBBY PURVES in an open letter to the Sussexes

For fuck's sake. How can someone with experience of suicide in the family manage to possess so little empathy or knowledge of the complexities of mental health?
Because they're being quite well paid to pretend they don't, which in and of itself says more than even my most imaginatively nuanced trawl through the swearing dictionary.
They're on one...

JANET STREET-PORTER: Glorious Cher and indestructible Lady Glenconner don't have much in common but they could both teach Harry and Meghan a thing or two about toughening up ... g-two.html

'Using African kids as a backdrop to complain about your over-privileged life is offensive': Black US conservative commentator lashes out at Royal couple ... arkle.html

RICHARD KAY: Whispered briefings, angst-ridden confessions, dynamite TV interviews... I fear Harry has failed to learn the lessons of his parents' public feud ... harry.html

Meghan Markle uses hair as 'curtains' to shield her face and displays 'barrier gestures' with her hands at first public engagement since ITV documentary, body language expert claims ... event.html

God, I really hope Harry takes these vultures to the fucking cleaners.
Kreuzberger, Cyclist, Boiler liked this
The Sun's Jane Moore is increasingly becoming one of the worst culprits when it comes to this obsession with slagging off Meghan and Harry.

Yet another one of her columns dedicated to them:

JANE MOORE Prince Harry needs a break – and he needs to break this narrative of self-pity

THE six-week hiatus Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are taking from the, er, slog of royal duties can’t come soon enough. Not least because the rest of us could do with a break from the perpetual “woe is me” narrative. ... self-pity/
The price we pay for a free press is that some run with that freedom by levelling relentless criticism which sails under the flag of "fair comment".

We can't have it both ways. We laugh up our cuff at everything from Spitting Image caricaturing John Major to John Crace humiliating the Maybot.

There is no law against it and neither should there be.

TL;DR. Some nasty little specimens like Jane Moore exploit loopholes.
I don't think she should be 'stopped' from making these constant attacks as such, no matter how rabid or relentless it is, I just don't think a national newspaper is the place for it.

With the might of a national tabloid behind them, these people's snide attacks on the chosen target aren't just one person ranting. It's a hate machine which far outweighs any sort of fight-back or defence the target can muster. It isn't a fair match. The chosen target can go on social media and state why said columnist is lying/bullying/obsessing but the reach is far less than the columnist.

I know it's never going to change but there is something seriously wrong with these far reaching hate machine tabloids personally attacking whoever it is the Editor has a personal grudge against, especially if that person hasn't got the same clout to defend themselves. It just turns into a hate campaign which potentially influences the opinions of hundreds of thousands of people, or possible even millions. That's why when they do target someone who has the power/means/motivation to fight back then I wholeheartedly support them in their attempt to cut the columnist/newspaper down to size.

Having said that, is there not a point where it goes from a columnist "just giving their opinion" to actual targeted harassment which could be very damaging? I suppose as long as they avoid libel they're safe but there ought to be some sort of limit, in my opinion.
Watchman, Boiler, Cyclist liked this
Nothing we don't already know about The Sun but a little insight into these wankers:


On 12 April this year the front page headline of the Sun was ‘NOT IN MEG BACK YARD’. The report began: ‘Prince Harry and Meghan have infuriated Royal Household staff at Windsor by banning them from using a car park — because it overlooks their new home.’

The allegation was false: the couple had not banned anyone from using a car park. That may not come as a shock; after all, only 7 per cent of the population say they would trust a Sun journalist to tell the truth, and in any case, who cares about royal car parks? 

None the less there is something revealing and important about this story and the way the Sun behaved. It illustrates extremely well how easily fiction, masquerading as journalism, gets into print and into public conversation. And although this particular front-page fiction happens to have been about royalty, the next one could be about you or me or anyone else. So it matters. Here is what happened.

The day before its report appeared, the Sun told the royal household it was working on a story about Prince Harry and his wife banning staff from the car park. In response, a representative of the couple stated that, although the arrangements for use of the car park had changed, that decision had nothing to do with the Sussexes. 

Why did the Sun think otherwise? It would report that a ‘royal staffer’ had told its reporter the following: ‘To say we’re upset and annoyed is a massive understatement. We can only assume that Harry and Meghan don’t want to look out of their window and see cars coming and going and members of staff walking into the club.’

That was the sum total of the paper’s evidence that the couple were responsible. No documents. No named source. Just an unnamed person, vaguely described. And even by the Sun’s own account this person did not actually state as fact that Prince Harry and his wife imposed the alleged ban, merely that ‘we can only assume’ it was them.

As we’ve seen, despite the denial the Sun went ahead and published a front page lead story presenting the allegation against the couple in outraged terms. Three headlines, a picture caption and two paragraphs appeared across the front page and a further three headlines and 12 more paragraphs on page seven.

The first seven paragraphs described, in tones of indignation, an apparently high-handed decision by the royal couple – hinting strongly that it was made by the duchess. The result was inconvenience and expense for ‘low-paid’ royal staff, it was said, and all because the couple did not want their view spoiled.

Then in the eighth paragraph, nearly halfway down the section that appeared on the inside page, the Sun reported:

‘Last night a senior source at Windsor Castle insisted Harry and Meghan had not demanded the change. They said the car park would not be closed entirely but confirmed fewer people would be able to use it. They added the decision was made as a result of a review by the superintendent of the castle.’

After this the angry story of the unreasonable royals resumed as before.

Twenty-four hours after publication, following a complaint made on behalf of the Sussexes, the Sun removed the article from its website. Within days it also offered to publish on page two a correction stating: ‘We now accept that the parking changes were not requested by the Duke and Duchess. We are happy to correct the record and apologise for any distress caused.’

Pause for a moment here. Not one new fact had emerged, yet suddenly the Sun was ready to admit its story was wrong. What does that tell us? It tells us that the Sun knew all along that it could not defend its story.

The paper only admitted the story was wrong after it had splashed the unjustified allegation over its front page and its website, allowing word to spread among its readers and beyond for a whole day. Then, once the damage was done, it swiftly offered a brief correction to be buried on page two.

Why the Sun felt comfortable acting in this way becomes clear when we look at the consequences of its action, or rather the absence of consequences.

Prince Harry and his wife knew that few readers would notice a short paragraph on page two. The false allegation had been made on the front page so they said the correction should be there too, or at least a short notice drawing attention to it. When the Sun refused, they took the matter to IPSO, the puppet complaints body of the corporate press. 

Feeble though IPSO is, it does promise to ensure that corrections receive ‘due prominence’, and the royal couple felt they had a strong case. They underestimated the shamelessness of those they were dealing with.

While IPSO made no attempt to defend the Sun’s claim that the couple were responsible for the ban, it declared that the ‘wording and promptness’ of the paper’s correction proposal were ‘sufficient’ and that putting the correction on page two would be ‘sufficiently prominent’. The Sussexes’ claim was thus rejected. 

How was this justified? Prepare for some vintage IPSO doublespeak.

The so-called regulator stated: ‘The front page headline “NOT IN MEG BACK YARD” was a play on words which did not, in isolation, suggest that the complainants were behind the changes to the car park…’

The key words here are ‘in isolation’. It's true that if you saw those five words out of context you would struggle to find meaning in them. But as IPSO knew very well they were not presented in isolation.

They appeared alongside a large photograph of the Duchess and a mugshot of her husband with the caption: ‘Ban… Harry and pregnant Meghan’. And the article below, to which the reader’s eye was artfully drawn, began bluntly: ‘Prince Harry and Meghan have infuriated royal household staff at Windsor by banning them from using a car park…’

No one in their right mind could deny that the message of the front page was that the couple were responsible for the supposed ban, but – like Nelson putting the telescope to his blind eye and saying: ‘I see no ships’ – IPSO’s complaints committee arbitrarily chose to view the headline ‘in isolation’ and see no allegation at all.

Next, IPSO expressed its approval that the royal couple’s denial had been ‘included’ in the Sun’s report – taking no account of the fact that it was buried halfway down page seven.

And finally, IPSO ‘noted that the claim under complaint was not one of a personal nature about the complainants, relating to their private or family life, but rather related to actions relating to royal staff, and the external affairs of their official residence’. The implication of this bizarre observation seems to be that the Sun should be less accountable for lies about royalty when the lies merely concern how they deal with their staff.

Such were the shameless contortions of logic in which, just a few weeks ago, IPSO was prepared to engage to justify refusing to make the Sun correct on its front page a demonstrable and harmful falsehood that it had published on its front page.

Consider what this means. For the Sun there is almost no downside to publishing on its front page a story which it has been told is false and which it has no means of justifying. All it has to do to satisfy IPSO is to mention the denial low down on an inside page and – some time later – offer a one-paragraph correction at the bottom of page two.

Now ask yourself this. How many times has the Sun done this? Since it has every interest in putting sensational fictions on its front page and since there is nothing to stop it, we may assume that the answer is many times. And the same applies to all its principal rivals. None of them is accountable to the people they write about.

Finally, consider this. If they are doing this to a popular royal couple who have media teams and lawyers at their beck and call, what are they doing to ordinary people who cross their path? What are they doing to innocent victims of tragedy, to young sports people and others who suddenly find themselves famous, to friends and relatives of the well-known? They trample over their lives too. And yours may be next. We need Leveson 2.
They've managed to turn yesterdays programme about Prince Charles and the Duchy into an attack on Meghan and Harry...

'A documentary about his WORK - not him': Viewers praise Prince Charles's ITV show as 'a lesson in being a royal' in the wake of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's controversial interviews ... -show.html

I've got to admit, and I think I've probably said this before, I do really think Charles is actually a good egg.

And another:

'Did you ask Dad if he was OK after two heart attacks?': Meghan Markle's half-sister Samantha brands her a hypocrite for complaining no one asks about her wellbeing - and says it's 'ludicrous' for a millionaire 'to complain about anything' ... thing.html
The main story online. Because there's nothing else happening at the moment, obviously.

Prince Harry drives Meghan Markle to Windsor Castle in electric car as couple host a round-table discussion on gender equality with young people from South Africa, Bangladesh and Iraq

I haven't looked any further, but I'm sure it's a well-balanced piece of reporting. And not a huge dog whistle in any shape, way or form.
Guess which royal story is the one that most excites our myopic media …

Jeffrey Epstein continues to cast his shadow over Prince Andrew, but somehow it’s Meghan’s choice of decor that gets the press in a froth

Marina Hyde ... opic-media
  • 1
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 40
Boris Johnson

PMQs. I don't think Starmer did that well today. […]

The Tories, Generally

And deservedly so.

Sir Keir Starmer

Oh, I dunno. I grew up in an incredibly racist era[…]

Mark Francois MP

See also Liam Fox being touted as head of the WTO.