He was not healthy. He died from natural causes.
Sadly, yes, seemingly healthy people do go to sleep on the sofa - never to wake up again. It happens.
Strange article.
Mail: a truly despicable article ("nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death")
- Thread starter Badger Kitten
- Start date
Sadly, yes, seemingly healthy people do go to sleep on the sofa - never to wake up again. It happens.
Strange article.
I think that the initial phase of the campaign has run its course - those who speculate about retractions, etc. are, I suspect a small minority. All this really was, to start with, was a huge collective "Oi, you can't say that!", and as such it has been enormously successful.
I think that whatever is done now needs to be seen as a separate achievement building on that base - a record number of complaints to the PCC, and a real demonstration of the power of the Internet as a communications medium that can "talk back" to the Press and make our views known. Forcefully.
The DM might secretly delight in the notoriety, and, from watching a little group of people whom I know think that way, I can say that they have said what a lot of their core audience really wants to hear, and I expect they know it. The price they have paid in overall credibility was presumably, from their point of view, worth it to be able to set the cause of equality and diversity back another notch amongst their supporters.
And I can't think that there's anything to be gained from hoping this woman gets the sack, either: the DM can no doubt line up 5 more to replace her without breaking step.
No, I think the only thing that may bave been achieved as far as the DM is concerned is that they now know the 'net has teeth.
On the other hand, the huge benefit of this massive faux pas by the Mail, and the backlash that has resulted is the awareness among more and more people of just how nasty and reactionary the views of the Daily Mail , and therefore those whose opinions are represented by it, are. That's a lesson I don't think we can see too often - there are too many people who see the DM as a bit of a loony, but innocuous in a Colonel Blimp kind of way, kind of Middle England Tory rallying mag. The truth is that it's a bit nastier than that, so I'm more than pleased to see them doing a fine job of making that clear.
But think that's all the outcome we can reasonably hope for - anything else is probably going to need a lot of work.
I'd like the PCC's status to be very carefully looked at in the light of this - no newspaper should have ever thought it would be appropriate to publish material quite so obviously in breach of their Code. Perhaps Dacre might like to ponder on a conflict of interest here...?
I think that whatever is done now needs to be seen as a separate achievement building on that base - a record number of complaints to the PCC, and a real demonstration of the power of the Internet as a communications medium that can "talk back" to the Press and make our views known. Forcefully.
The DM might secretly delight in the notoriety, and, from watching a little group of people whom I know think that way, I can say that they have said what a lot of their core audience really wants to hear, and I expect they know it. The price they have paid in overall credibility was presumably, from their point of view, worth it to be able to set the cause of equality and diversity back another notch amongst their supporters.
And I can't think that there's anything to be gained from hoping this woman gets the sack, either: the DM can no doubt line up 5 more to replace her without breaking step.
No, I think the only thing that may bave been achieved as far as the DM is concerned is that they now know the 'net has teeth.
On the other hand, the huge benefit of this massive faux pas by the Mail, and the backlash that has resulted is the awareness among more and more people of just how nasty and reactionary the views of the Daily Mail , and therefore those whose opinions are represented by it, are. That's a lesson I don't think we can see too often - there are too many people who see the DM as a bit of a loony, but innocuous in a Colonel Blimp kind of way, kind of Middle England Tory rallying mag. The truth is that it's a bit nastier than that, so I'm more than pleased to see them doing a fine job of making that clear.
But think that's all the outcome we can reasonably hope for - anything else is probably going to need a lot of work.
I'd like the PCC's status to be very carefully looked at in the light of this - no newspaper should have ever thought it would be appropriate to publish material quite so obviously in breach of their Code. Perhaps Dacre might like to ponder on a conflict of interest here...?
kained&able
Here for the football.
I'm really not liking how the guardain especially have jumped all over this and are having diggs at the mail at every opportunity.
Makes them look petty.
dave
Makes them look petty.
dave
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
That element of their readership who only read the hard copy of the DM could still be quite unaware of the 'story' - certainly the small number of DM readers I know who I spoke with seemed completely unmoved either by the reaction or the initial piece..
It seems to me for an impact to be made above the great strides made through BK etc. (and this isn't meant to detract from what everyone has done) the printed paper needs to publish something more prominent than the Janet Street Porter article?
It seems to me for an impact to be made above the great strides made through BK etc. (and this isn't meant to detract from what everyone has done) the printed paper needs to publish something more prominent than the Janet Street Porter article?
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
This
The Moir article went one further in a newspaper that already has a very poor attitude to race/gender/sexuality/class/religion. The Fail constantly places itself on what it considers to be a 'moral high-ground' pedestal, constantly accusing every group that it has in its sights. Calling it out in such a way, is not only right, but way overdue.
electrogirl
dignity is overrated
I've stayed away fromthis thread but I kind of agree. I think the article is disgusting, but I think it's all getting a bit 'LOOK HOW OUTRAGED I AM! ME! I am SO OUTRAGED!'
There's always going to be some of that, yes. And by its nature, it'll tend to be more visible than the situations where someone quietly says "Bloody hell, that's disgraceful" but doesn't choose to post all over the web saying so.
Perhaps a handful of people are grandstanding their way around the FB group, now. But there's 10,000+ people in that group...so the vast majority aren't doing what you describe.
The same goes for this thread. I've been quite impressed with the thoughtfulness of the debate, which has been in quite marked contrast to the few people who are behaving somewhat attention-seekingly and annoyingly in the way you describe.
trashpony
Hag
I hope that things change as a result of the unprecedented level of complaints. I want the PCC to investigate and for a House committee to explore why the PCC isn't a public body and challenge that. Ideally, I would like the PCC to become a public body and to investigate complaints about the press in the same way Ofcom do about broadcast media. It's a bizarre system in this country that print isn't subject to the same rules and regulations as other media.
The other thing that has been interesting about this is the battle between old media and new media. New media has totally changed the geography of the way people absorb and share information and the DM failed to understand that I suspect.
I'm delighted that so many people haven't affected a faux ennui about the issue - without them getting off their arses and making their voices heard, there wouldn't have been so many complaints and, without them, the PCC would never have issued the statement they did.
The other thing that has been interesting about this is the battle between old media and new media. New media has totally changed the geography of the way people absorb and share information and the DM failed to understand that I suspect.
I'm delighted that so many people haven't affected a faux ennui about the issue - without them getting off their arses and making their voices heard, there wouldn't have been so many complaints and, without them, the PCC would never have issued the statement they did.
stethoscope
Well-Known Member
I didn't know that! So, care to dish any dirt? Is there any dirt? I'm slightly (weirdly) fascinated just what goes on inside the Daily Fail machine!
Badger Kitten
oof
Looking at the reaction, it looks like genuine outrage, not outrage by proxy to me. For the timing as much as the content - the eve of a man's funeral. Sure, the Mail's been foul for years and I'm sure there's an element of schadenfreude in some people in seeing it get hoist by its own petard. But why do you think people are manufacturing outrage? The initial response can be seen on the Mail's very own website, within an hour of it being published in the early hours of the morning, Mail commenters were voicing revulsion. Then peopel started to twitter it, then it started to spead. I read the whole first 4 hours of twitter with the janmoir tag and all I saw was genuine 'OMG it's FOUL!
can't believe it' type reaction.There's a lot of stuff in Media Guardian, but that is a huge section and TBF it is a huge Media story. And it brings in celebrity controversy as well, which is why it went nuclear.
Both Stephen Gately's husband and his mother have spoken publically about his death.
Google currently associates 120 articles with that, 810 with Jan Moir's article, just from today
Well, yes, but that is because the Moir thing has gone on since Friday and the mother speaking and the partner speaking only happened today. And they're straight reportage, whereas the Moir thing is a) opinion/reaction/debate AND b) reportage of a developing story - Moir's reaction, the number of complaints, the reaction of the Irish Mail, etc etc.
^^ this
^^^ this as well.
Hmmm. You'll have to wait for my book. The walls have ears.
quimcunx
imprimeo, lamino, distribuo
I definitely think that there is a bigger issue here regarding the PCC and would like to see a light shone in that direction. It's finding the best way to do that that is the question.
Are there anyself-appointed existing bodies (argh mary whitehouse flashback) which monitor print media, other than on single issues?
Are there anyself-appointed existing bodies (argh mary whitehouse flashback) which monitor print media, other than on single issues?
kained&able
Here for the football.
I wouldn't be surprised if ideas are already being discussed.
ok, here's my two-penny's worth. The bullying internet argument doesn't work because no one is saying she shouldn't be allowed to say what she thinks, just that she shouldn't be able to say it unchallenged. Free speech isn't a woolly "everyone's entitled to their opinion and everyone's valid" point of view it's that everyone says their opinion, then you have a good old barny about it, and you get to see which argument has holes. And the point is her argument has big old, factual, opinion-based and snide underhand holes, and some good responses have shown those holes (and shown what a shoddy publication the mail is for allowing them to be published). Does that makes sense?
Also, as an aside, not only did she use decorous wrong, if she was saying he was decorative, a "posh spice" of boyzone, she was wrong - he was more a mel b - he did quite a lot of lead vocals. Shows again what a crap, poorly research article it was.
ho hum, not sure this is all that relevant
Also, as an aside, not only did she use decorous wrong, if she was saying he was decorative, a "posh spice" of boyzone, she was wrong - he was more a mel b - he did quite a lot of lead vocals. Shows again what a crap, poorly research article it was.
ho hum, not sure this is all that relevant
It is relevant, yes. It's a good description of what the protest over the page was really about - there is a tendency by those who are maybe more sympathetic to her arguments to try and undermine the opposition - "the gay lobby", "the bullying internet" - rather than stand up and defend the article. Because even they know that it was an indefensible bit of rabble-rousing nonsense built on surmise and conjecture: and they loved it for all that.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
The thing is, this, in itself changes nothing at all. The Mail doesn't care, they get this every now and then and they just ride it out. They don't get it that often because the magic combination of astoundingly obvious insensitivity, celebrity and mass adoption as an Internet Thing don't coincide that often. They also know that the really offensive stuff they publish never gets that sort of stick because they balance it so that there are enough bigots who will agree; this was just a balance failure on their part, an editor's mistake.
The PCC doesn't care, they get it quite frequently and they're an entirely pointless body which couldn't do anything significant even if it wanted to, which it doesn't. I would say that the only real positive effect that might come out of this is that people realise how completely useless they are.
The PCC doesn't care, they get it quite frequently and they're an entirely pointless body which couldn't do anything significant even if it wanted to, which it doesn't. I would say that the only real positive effect that might come out of this is that people realise how completely useless they are.
gosub
~#
I think the Press do care, they have gone very quiet this afternoon only First Post and Stern doing articles, I think thats coz they would rather the notion of PCC reform went away. Trouble is new media has built connects to the other Estates and if a conserted effort IS made they could have a problem
eta as Brendan O'Neill says "The end result of this twitch-hunt could well be an even bossier PCC" As merely a consumer of media I'm not sure that isn't just pompous outrage
eta as Brendan O'Neill says "The end result of this twitch-hunt could well be an even bossier PCC" As merely a consumer of media I'm not sure that isn't just pompous outrage
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
I think there may have been more people publishing articles than that. I see the BBC front page is full of them for instance.
rollinder
Dont walk away in silence
got a reply from m&s today -
"Dear Ms .........,
Thank you for your email.
At M&S we do not tolerate any form of discrimination against a person.
We have contacted the Daily Mail and asked for our advertisement to be removed.
Many thanks again for contacting us about this matter"
and apparently this has made it to Wales -
was on an S4C news/discussion programme this afternoon, according to my mum (watching with english subs) they mentioned Facebook and Twitter, the Mail article attacking it, and that she's blaming it all on Stephen Fry.
"Dear Ms .........,
Thank you for your email.
At M&S we do not tolerate any form of discrimination against a person.
We have contacted the Daily Mail and asked for our advertisement to be removed.
Many thanks again for contacting us about this matter"
and apparently this has made it to Wales -
was on an S4C news/discussion programme this afternoon, according to my mum (watching with english subs) they mentioned Facebook and Twitter, the Mail article attacking it, and that she's blaming it all on Stephen Fry.
Similar threads
