Monday, May 26, 2014

Daily Mail - this is a new journalistic low EVEN FOR YOU.

***What the f*ck? In the hours since I wrote the piece below rather than take down the awful piece, the Daily Mail have "updated" their article to name her and un-pixelate the photos of her, and add more photos of her in swimwear and a quote from her Dad (saying she is devastated and didn't bully anyone). Sick.***

In the wake of the Santa Barbara shootings lots of people are talking about the extent to which the killer was involved with online "men's rights" groups and the extent to which exposure to "pick-up artist" communities and online porn had influenced his expectations about relationships and attitudes towards women and men around him. As has been widely reported, he left a video on YouTube and a "manifesto" in which he said he was angry that women were not interested in him and planned violence in reaction to this. Having written a piece myself on how sinister the pick-up artist movement can be I was interested to see what links others were drawing. Perhaps I should have known better, Daily Mail, but I clicked a link to your page... (I've done a screen grab because I don't want to publish a link)

Firstly you're using the occasion of a horrific mass murder as an excuse to print sexy pictures of a very young woman who has not consented to appearing in your newspaper. AND you're pointing the finger at this woman as if somehow the killings were her fault. Sick sick sick.

You claim the moral high ground by not printing her name. Obviously a slightly pixellated photograph is going to leave her completely identifiable to anyone who really knows her. AND you printed details of work that she's done and details about her family and their jobs. Frankly you would not have to be Sherlock Holmes to fill in the blanks.

And lets look at the details. You claim that Elliot Rodger was teased by this woman leading to him developing a hatred of all women. On that, three things:

(1) Where is the evidence that any teasing took place? In a video made by a man who overtly hates women. Is that a reliable source of evidence? Of course not. In fact it seems clear from his actual words (if you had bothered to listen to them) that in fact he had a crush on her and felt teased because she wasn't interested. THAT IS NOT TEASING, WOMEN HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT BE INTERESTED IN GUYS WHO FANCY THEM.

(2) One woman being mean to you (which all the evidence suggests she wasn't) is not a good reason to hate all women. Generalising based on one individual is one of the most basic forms of bigotry. Why haven't you mentioned this (other than by doing it throughout the rest of your paper)? Otherwise one guy shooting people would be a good reason to lock all men up (not just Daily Mail journalists).

(3) When did this awful alleged teasing take place? When she was in seventh grade (age 12 or 13). Yes seriously. YOU'RE BLAMING A TWELVE-YEAR-OLD GIRL FOR A MASS MURDER AND PRINTING HER PHOTO.

And you repeatedly mention the killer was a virgin and was angry about being a virgin. Could you perhaps explain WHAT YOU EXPECT A 12-YEAR-OLD TO DO ABOUT THAT?

Perhaps the most sickening sentence is this one "MailOnline has approached the girl for a comment but she has yet to respond.". You rang her up? What did you say??

"Hey really sorry to hear about people in your community being brutally murdered by someone you were at school with. Yeah you probably heard about it because he mentioned you in a video. Yeah, yeah, that guy. On the news, yeah. Stop crying. So we're going to write a piece about you on the world's most-read news website and print some sexy pictures of you we stole off Facebook in which we're going to be, erm, pondering the theory, that maybe the multiple horrible murders were actually your fault. We were wondering if you'd like to make a statement about... Why are you screaming at me? I'm a what? ... A sick, disgusting, immoral asshole? Yeah I get that a lot, it's kindof in the job description. So any statement from you or shall I just say you have yet to respond?"

New low, even for you Daily Mail. New low.

8 comments:

Giles said...

Sick. Just sick.

This is not a newspaper. I think that anyone removing the Daily Mail from shelves would be perfectly justified in doing so.

leo-rcc said...

This is beyond repulsive what the DM has done.

I've linked my facebook post to your article because I totally agree with everything you wrote, and I did not want to send any traffic to the daily fail website however little that might be.

qwerty said...

Press complaints commission?

Cruella said...

I wonder if they think they can get away with it because it's an American story.

Aaron Boone said...

This is the paper that after an unemployed man burned his kids to death, used the story to attack the welfare state with the headline 'The Vile Product of Welfare UK'

Nothing they do surprises me.

=8)-DX said...

Surely there's no better way to report on a mass murder fuelled by narcissism, male entitlement and misogyny, than providing a classy example of where that comes from in the culture?

ann said...

America needs to get rid of their second amendment.

John O'Connell said...

No good. PCC is voluntary and the DM will not sign up to it. No doubt because the DM year on year top the charts for complaints.