
News - By now everyone must have heard about the disgusting homophobic Daily Mail article concerning the death of Stephen Gately by Jan Moir. I'll spare you another journalistic rant - but what is the fallout?
The public outcry to Moir's hate has been fast and fierce. Moir retaliated:
"In what is clearly a heavily orchestrated internet campaign I think it is mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones."
Heavily orchestrated? Yes Jan, we all gathered in our club house to decide how to bring you down. Newsflash: Social Networking, Tweeting, Blogs - they'll bring you down because you're talking rubbish. The general public have more power over what garbage news we're fed, so if you want to keep your job you'd better do some actual 'journalism'.
Stephen Fry was quick on the case, saying to his 800,000 or so followers: "I gather a repulsive nobody writing in a paper no one of any decency would be seen dead with has written something loathesome and inhumane."
The Times' Caitlin Moran wrote: "Jan Moir better pray she never needs another hair cut or interior design job," (love that one!)
Charlie Brooker began by tweeting: "Jan Moir manages to walk the difficult tightrope between being a bitch and a cunt."
He put his acerbic wit to brilliant use later with a full article for the Guardian Online. He described the Daily Mail beautifully: "It's like gazing through a horrid little window into an awesome universe of pure blockheaded spite. Spiralling galaxies of ignorance roll majestically against a backdrop of what looks like dark prejudice, dotted hither and thither with winking stars of snide innuendo"
Satirical blogsight Dailyquail pitched in with a lovely parody: "Some might say the death and the fact that the deathee was gay are unconnected. To them, I say: 'no'. Look at the facts - he died, and he was gay. Therefore he died of gay. If a young, healthy man dies whilst suffering from a cold, obviously nobody would suggest that the cold had killed him, but with gay it's different. Medical reasons, and that. Isn't it? Yes, I think it is."
If you were one of the many complainants who contacted the Press Complaints Commission to register your disgust, you may have received an email that it will not be taken further as you are not 'Gately's family'. Without wishing to sound hurtful, I was complaining on the basis that I found it homophobic, not just because it was someone famous.
So what can you do next? You could persist with the PCC on the reasons I just gave. You can contact your local MP and ask for a Complaints Commission that makes sense. What may prove to be most effective is complain to the companies that advertise in the Mail - tensions are already running high after some adverts were withdrawn. The Daily Mail claimed this was 'normal'.
'Normal', 'natural', you'd think they'd be more careful about those words...
Network: 





























Comments:
(6)Add a comment
Wednesday 21 October
By Alan Cork
What more can you expect from the Daily Mail newspaper which supported and openly backed Adolf Hitler up to 1939.
Reply
Thursday 22 October
By James
Erm it's called freedom of speech.
Friday 23 October
By Jonk
Indeed everyone is free to say what they like. But that includes the freedom to reap the consequences of that speech. It's not a protection.
Friday 23 October
By william elliott
It strikes me that this is an exercise in hyperbole. I imagine the majority of the 22,000 complainants have not read, or at least digested the article.
Moir refers to the passing of Mr Gately as 'not... a natural one', and this I understand to be the major bone of contention. The inference is clear, that the author considers the singers homosexuality to be unnatural, abnormal, a perversion even.
However, I would advocate a different reading of the sentence within the constuct of the article. The author is suggesting that a 33 year old doesn't just die. 'Natural causes' in one so young is anything but. The unfortunate chime with the homophobia of gay nature as unnatural / perverse is, I believe genuinely, unintentional.
The accusation of sleaze is, on the other hand, direct. As of now the facts are somewhat blurred, although it remains to be categorically denied that there was no sexual aspect to the union of three homosexual males, two married, after a night of heavy drinking.
If sleaze is considered to be disreputable, tawdry, lewd or indecent behaviour, for example, then that word used to describe married people partaking in potentially scandalous behaviour, is by the Mails standards, to be expected.
Whether the article is enough to justify calling the author a cunt is, at least, debatable.
Reply
Friday 23 October
By Ria
Nicely put Tim :)
Reply
Saturday 24 October
By Ian Smith
I see nothing wrong in her article. She is putting into words the thoughts and views of many of us. I thought it was a well-balanced piece.
Reply