The Mail and its misogynistic showbiz bollocks...

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 35
Forum Member
OK, so I seem to have developed a bit of weird addiction to trawling the Mail's website, predominantly so I can splutter incredulously at some of the utter crap they print. And for this I blame you, showbiz forum, I blame you.

But anyway, I was reading this article today (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1309723/Isnt-Daybreak-bit-early-Alexandra-Burkes-raunchy-outfit.html) and suddenly found it hard to believe that its writers could possibly be serious. I mean.... Jesus Christ. Really? REALLY?!?!

The comments are just as bad - 'I turned over after 20secs of her song... my kids were watching and her outfit was way too provocative' :confused:

Anyone else feel the same? Or is it just me and they are actually being perfectly reasonable, and not edging ever closer to cynical self-parody?
«1

Comments

  • Nuts In MayNuts In May Posts: 1,616
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes, they're a bunch of old misogynists who find continual fault with female celebs. Too fat, too thin, getting old, no make up .... blah, blah, blah. One exception though is today's piece about Gemma Arterton which I've put in a separate thread. I do wonder though, if she'd just been out in the street with no slap, would they have been negative in their reporting?

    Their showbiz stories are worth quoting sometimes, just for the sheer :eek: of them.
  • Gaspanic!Gaspanic! Posts: 2,933
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They do it for everyone and contradict themselves regularly. The funny thing is the people that comment and read the articles don't realise how thick they are.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,310
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The contradictions are what make me smile. The too fat/thin, too young/old, too much/not enough cosmetic surgery commentaries. The articles condemning fad diets and the articles serialising the latest fad diet book with sometimes mere days between them. The scare stories of how everything in the known universe either causes or cures cancer, sometimes simultaneous.
  • Vodka_DrinkaVodka_Drinka Posts: 28,740
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    OK, so I seem to have developed a bit of weird addiction to trawling the Mail's website, predominantly so I can splutter incredulously at some of the utter crap they print. And for this I blame you, showbiz forum, I blame you.

    But anyway, I was reading this article today (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1309723/Isnt-Daybreak-bit-early-Alexandra-Burkes-raunchy-outfit.html) and suddenly found it hard to believe that its writers could possibly be serious. I mean.... Jesus Christ. Really? REALLY?!?!

    The comments are just as bad - 'I turned over after 20secs of her song... my kids were watching and her outfit was way too provocative' :confused:

    Anyone else feel the same? Or is it just me and they are actually being perfectly reasonable, and not edging ever closer to cynical self-parody?

    The person who wrote that cant have been serious, can they?:confused: She's wearing what looks like a swimming costume. She's actually pretty covered up apart from her legs.

    People who read the Mail are pathetic.
  • Nuts In MayNuts In May Posts: 1,616
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The person who wrote that cant have been serious, can they?:confused: She's wearing what looks like a swimming costume. She's actually pretty covered up apart from her legs.

    People who read the Mail are pathetic.

    I'd imagine the Victorian ancestors of people like that covered up the legs of their pianos.....;) :D
  • RAINBOWGIRL22RAINBOWGIRL22 Posts: 24,459
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why would you let your kids watch Daybreak??

    Surely if TV is on the agenda before school there are actual kids programmes on? :confused:
  • SpiderMan 83SpiderMan 83 Posts: 11,590
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The person who wrote that cant have been serious, can they?:confused: She's wearing what looks like a swimming costume. She's actually pretty covered up apart from her legs.

    People who read the Mail are pathetic.

    The daily Mail is a nasty one sided paper, it that was there darilng Saturdays or Cheryl on daybreak wouuld have been a diffrent headline about how sexy they are looking etc.
    it seems with the dm its 1 rule for 1 and rule for another your right pathetic.
  • lexi22lexi22 Posts: 16,394
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    OK, so I seem to have developed a bit of weird addiction to trawling the Mail's website, predominantly so I can splutter incredulously at some of the utter crap they print. And for this I blame you, showbiz forum, I blame you.

    LOL. It's a love to hate thing! And they are absolutely infuriating. :D
    Anyone else feel the same? Or is it just me and they are actually being perfectly reasonable, and not edging ever closer to cynical self-parody?

    I sometimes wonder about that too, the self-parody, whether it's deliberately provocative to get hits and people commenting. It's hard to believe that they can be quite as moronically stupid - not to mention borderline deranged at times - as they come across.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,020
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Oh I am so glad other people see what I see. What is their obsession with KK, stupid pointless stories of a stupid pointless person and dont get me started on the comments.
    Previous to DS I posted numerous comments that just disappeared. In fact I manage to get about 3 through. If you criticise them or say they are on someones payroll dont waste your time trying to get that posted.
  • phil solophil solo Posts: 9,669
    Forum Member
    The person who wrote that cant have been serious, can they?:confused: She's wearing what looks like a swimming costume. She's actually pretty covered up apart from her legs.

    I love the way the caption to the first picture refers to her wearing a "see through lacy basque" when it isn't see-through at all (and, from my limited experience with womens lingerie, doesn't look like a basque either!)

    The Daily Mail - manufacturing outrage on behald of middle class twits since 1896


    :rolleyes:
  • TakaeTakae Posts: 13,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    phil solo wrote: »

    The Daily Mail - manufacturing outrage on behalf of middle class twits since 1896

    :rolleyes:

    :D:D:D

    The Sun is just as bad. They are one of major leaders in playing the misogynistic game.

    Didn't they use to publish vitals along with age? "Mrs. Jane Smith, 25, is still feeling devastated after her husband died from an unfortunate encounter with a lawn mower running amok. The busty beauty, 38DD-22-39, says, "Life will never be the same again.""
  • soulloversoullover Posts: 1,515
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Their Femail page is full to the brim of z-listers in their bikinis.
    "Kerry Katona shows off her toned stomach' 'Peaches shows off her amazing body' 'various soap stars displaying their ample assets'. Then we get 'Madonna showing her veiny hands' etc etc..
    The media has become so shallow I'm embarrased for it...and us for reading it. Nobody cares any more about real issues - hedonistic and shallow times for sure.:(
  • jessicatjessicat Posts: 202
    Forum Member
    OK, so I seem to have developed a bit of weird addiction to trawling the Mail's website, predominantly so I can splutter incredulously at some of the utter crap they print....

    Anyone else feel the same? Or is it just me and they are actually being perfectly reasonable, and not edging ever closer to cynical self-parody?

    I am exactly the same. I hate it so much, but yet somehow find myself looking at it and repeatedly being "outraged" much in the style of a daily mail columnist encountering anything that isn't stereotypically straight, white, middle age and middle class.

    I justify my persistence in looking at it on the grounds that I go there to counterbalance the red and green arrows on the comments section. If it all gets too much and it makes me really angry, a read of this uncyclopedia article on the Mail always makes me feel better :D
  • TheEricPollardTheEricPollard Posts: 11,582
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'll admit I enjoyed the time a Daily Mail journalist modelled Poundland's new make-up range and an expensive brand in the photos for an article about it, just days after writing a piece slagging off Catherine Zeta Jones's appearance. Rather a lot of commenters had noticed it was the same woman writing both and she got left some right comments.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,161
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    This is what the Daily Mail does though. It's like journalistic crack. The Daily Mail probably knows that people love to be outraged on some level and works off that. Indifference or being ignored is worse for them than people talking about them and reading their stuff.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,310
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    CJ32 wrote: »
    This is what the Daily Mail does though. It's like journalistic crack. The Daily Mail probably knows that people love to be outraged on some level and works off that. Indifference or being ignored is worse for them than people talking about them and reading their stuff.

    In fact they can be far more outrageous online than in print and get immediate edited and moderated feedback so readers can feel validated in their outrage - you need look no further than all the comments containing anti immigration and borderline (and often not so borderline) racist rants from ex pats who 'had to leave this country because it got so bad' but can't see the irony in their situation as immigrants in someone else's country.

    They can now get click throughs from people who wouldn't dream of buying the actual paper but who now can read what they say without having to lay out the purchase price yet who are unaware that each click makes it easier for the Mail to charge higher advertising rates which means that despite their circulation falling their advertising revenue continues to soar.
  • I love EllieI love Ellie Posts: 8,009
    Forum Member
    Yes, they're a bunch of old misogynists who find continual fault with female celebs. Too fat, too thin, getting old, no make up .... blah, blah, blah. One exception though is today's piece about Gemma Arterton which I've put in a separate thread. I do wonder though, if she'd just been out in the street with no slap, would they have been negative in their reporting?

    Their showbiz stories are worth quoting sometimes, just for the sheer :eek: of them.

    Some articles they'd like you to read today. Spot the theme.


    You'd never guess she could be facing a prison sentence! Carefree Paris Hilton shops in a VERY low cut dress

    The Glee's knees: Lea Michele shows off her slim legs on date night in a pair of ultra tiny shorts

    Fashion's Big Night Out: Gossip Girl's Leighton Meester wears a racy corset dress... but Blake Lively gets Anna Wintour's vote

    Lady Gaga causes outrage as she poses naked in raw meat 'bikini' on cover of Vogue
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 5,485
    Forum Member
    I boycott them now mainly because of their snidey showbix coverage

    'showing off her curves' is one of their favourite phrases, which basically means 'Look, look! She is *nearly*, *almost* fat... oooh!"

    What do the DM staff look like, then? Swimsuit models on and all, I'm sure.
  • fitnessqueenfitnessqueen Posts: 5,185
    Forum Member
    Some articles they'd like you to read today. Spot the theme.


    You'd never guess she could be facing a prison sentence! Carefree Paris Hilton shops in a VERY low cut dress

    The Glee's knees: Lea Michele shows off her slim legs on date night in a pair of ultra tiny shorts

    Fashion's Big Night Out: Gossip Girl's Leighton Meester wears a racy corset dress... but Blake Lively gets Anna Wintour's vote

    Lady Gaga causes outrage as she poses naked in raw meat 'bikini' on cover of Vogue

    Plus...
    Jessica Simpson covers up her famous curves in a frumpy outfit... but her new man doesn't seem to mind

    (In Daily Mail land "curvy" means "bigger than a size 10 and therefore a huge fat heifer")
  • I love EllieI love Ellie Posts: 8,009
    Forum Member
    Plus...



    (In Daily Mail land "curvy" means "bigger than a size 10 and therefore a huge fat heifer")

    They had a classic one a couple of months ago.
    They were bashing "paedos" and generally getting the high moral ground on something.
    That was followed by one of the above style articles in the showbiz or femail section; "doesn't she look gorgeous in her bikini".

    The "gorgeous" girl in question was 14 years old.
  • SloopySloopy Posts: 65,209
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The DM seems to have a list of celebrities whom they can't stop gushing about, but there are others who can't seem to ever get it right as far as they're concerned - too fat, too thin, too haggard, holiday pap shots of 'cellulite', etc.

    All tabloids are bad though. They're all getting very Heat magazine-esque in their style of reporting. You can't waste time taking it too seriously.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,310
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They had a classic one a couple of months ago.
    They were bashing "paedos" and generally getting the high moral ground on something.
    That was followed by one of the above style articles in the showbiz or femail section; "doesn't she look gorgeous in her bikini".

    The "gorgeous" girl in question was 14 years old.

    Their stalking of Suri Cruise is very questionable.
  • Nuts In MayNuts In May Posts: 1,616
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    diary_room wrote: »
    I boycott them now mainly because of their snidey showbix coverage

    'showing off her curves' is one of their favourite phrases, which basically means 'Look, look! She is *nearly*, *almost* fat... oooh!"

    What do the DM staff look like, then? Swimsuit models on and all, I'm sure.

    Daily Heil editor.

    Liz Jones

    Perfect arent they? ;) :eek: :p
  • I love EllieI love Ellie Posts: 8,009
    Forum Member
    vidalia wrote: »
    Their stalking of Suri Cruise is very questionable.

    Creepy. Very creepy.
  • I love EllieI love Ellie Posts: 8,009
    Forum Member
    vidalia wrote: »
    Their stalking of Suri Cruise is very questionable.

    And they're at it today!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1309917/Tom-Cruise-takes-little-Suri-fun-day-playground.html
Sign In or Register to comment.