I was much maligned in my last article for criticising the Daily Mail’s outrage over a joke involving the words “cuts”, the Tories, and the letter “n”...and then taking down a post in which one of our readers used the actual word at which the aforementioned joke hinted.
I was criticised thus:
I was criticised thus:
“tris..
Sorry I didn't mean to offend. I was just trying to confirm my suspicions that blogs are really full of fart and piss. Happy to sneer at the Daily Mail for trying to defend the right to decency yet banning naughty words themselves. Quite sad. But fully predictable. Apologies again.”
Well, I did my best to explain the subtle difference in English humour between hinting at something, and saying it out loud, but to no avail, I fear.
The part, however, that made me fall about with laughter was our correspondent’s belief that the Daily Mail was standing up for “the right to decency”. Oh please.
I didn’t have to wait long for proof that the Daily Mail cares not one stuff about decency. Not only did the above picture of Lady Gaga appear in the online edition of the paper (every bit as available to young and old alike as the dead tree version), but it was joined by many others including one of her backside.
Now I have no objection to these pictures, but I’ll not be lectured in decency and the fight there for, but someone quoting that kind of paper at me.
The Daily Mail cares about money. That’s it. Nothing more and nothing less.
Sorry I didn't mean to offend. I was just trying to confirm my suspicions that blogs are really full of fart and piss. Happy to sneer at the Daily Mail for trying to defend the right to decency yet banning naughty words themselves. Quite sad. But fully predictable. Apologies again.”
Well, I did my best to explain the subtle difference in English humour between hinting at something, and saying it out loud, but to no avail, I fear.
The part, however, that made me fall about with laughter was our correspondent’s belief that the Daily Mail was standing up for “the right to decency”. Oh please.
I didn’t have to wait long for proof that the Daily Mail cares not one stuff about decency. Not only did the above picture of Lady Gaga appear in the online edition of the paper (every bit as available to young and old alike as the dead tree version), but it was joined by many others including one of her backside.
Now I have no objection to these pictures, but I’ll not be lectured in decency and the fight there for, but someone quoting that kind of paper at me.
The Daily Mail cares about money. That’s it. Nothing more and nothing less.
Is that what a blow up doll looks like? The standard of journalism is falling daily just like most of the visual media.
ReplyDeleteNow, how would I know what a blow up doll looks like CH?
ReplyDeleteWhat I hate is the pursed lip journalism of the Mail, interspersed with this kind of thing. If they are so concerned wth falling standards in life, why did they feel the need to print 9 photos of this daft tart half naked at a party?
Not that they are alone, as you say.
PS: I would have thought, CH, that if you were desperate enough to buy yourself a blow up doll, you'd want one that looked a bit more human...
ReplyDelete...unless all you could afford was a very cheap one.
Nah at my age only the real macoy will do. The main blogospere seems to be on short time working these days as if everyone is waiting for an un-envisaged(if that's a word) event.
ReplyDeleteProle-feed for the "proles" in best 1984 traditions tarted up with a soupcon veneer of pseudo-religious/ethical outrage: Decadent pimps the "liberal" MSM and trollopes their "journalists" in a long tradition of them across the board.
ReplyDeleteI actually couldn't care less if they do it, David. As far as I'm concernerd Lada Gaga can appear nude in the paper with a daffodil sticking out of each ear. But it makes me kinda cross when, on the next page, they take the opportunity to lecture us about probity and propriety and how everything is going to the dogs for the want of good old fashioned English respectablilty...
ReplyDeleteOf course the trouble with respectablility is that it's a tad dull and doesn't sell papers much.
Can you imagine how upset a Daily Mail reader would be if they came away from reading the paper feeling well informed rather than moral outraged?
ReplyDeleteHa ha. Agreed.
ReplyDeleteArrest anyone for nudity in public, it is a clear violation of decency. And no filthy dirty teachers teaching kids how to have sex in schools.
ReplyDeleteNo one had to teach me how to have sex in school, Dean. I worked it out for myself!! (Joke).
ReplyDeleteTechnically speaking the old slapper up there wasn't nude, and she covered all the important parts.
It's a bit 'nanny state' to tell people what they can wear, and it becomes blurred round the edges when you start saying what can and cannot be exposed.
I think you just have to rely on people's common sense...Clearly she's not got the 'sense' part of that particular coupling, but makes up for it with plenty of "common".