[Johnny 1989]

I thought that considering that the UK's papers have this "wonderful" way of sensationalising stories to make them sound 1000 times worse than what they already are, I thought I'd start a thread on this.

Today's little gem was bought to my attention by my brother:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... upils.html

Oh dear, notice the * up on the protest banner

[Johnny 1989]

Also, seeing as the football365 forum had this idea, here is a blank template for you all to play with:

[DannyBoy]

The Daily Fail

[MK Chris]

Twitter has been going mad about The Sun today - the New Statesman puts it best:

David Laws's resignation prompted many thoughtful pieces on why, in this more tolerant age, a respected politician felt the need to conceal his sexuality. But today's Sun has no time for such liberal handwringing. Instead, the red-top runs a poll asking: "should gay people be cabinet ministers?"

[Boboff]

My FIL had a good take on this, as an ex copper, the problem is not with the man being gay, its with him keeping it a secret, it exposes him to blackmail.

Fair point.

[Yudster]

But blackmail can only be effective if the person being blackmailed feels that there is a reason to keep his secret under wraps. Its that which is being questioned - why on earth, in 2010, does anyone - plumber, footballer, dancer or cabinet minister - feel the need to pretend he is straight when he is gay?

[MK Chris]

Iain Dale - someone I don't normally agree with - has a take on this:

When Ken Livingstone came into the studio to trail his programme he said he couldn't understand why Laws would keep quiet about his sexuality "in this day and age". I understand only too well. I did the same thing for a number of years and only 'came out' (I hate that expression) to family and friends when I was 40. No one can understand how difficult it is, telling your parents that the person they thought they knew is actually someone else. Sort of. Everyone told me: "They will already know, you'll see". No, I replied. I know my parents. And I was right. They hadn't got a clue.

I will never forget that day, even though on many occasions I have wanted to. I'm glad I did it, but I know it was a tremendous shock to my mother and we have never discussed it since. So when David Laws explains why he wanted to keep everything private I understand only too well. The only reason was because he didn't want to hurt those closest to him, especially his mother. That's the thing about us gayers, we'll do anything to avoid hurting our mothers .

How it could 'hurt' your mother, I have no idea because I have a mother who loves me whether I'm gay, straight or whatever, but equally it is true that a lot of people's parents - and friends and other relatives - are old-fashioned. If that is the reason.

[foot-loose]

Twitter has been going mad about The Sun today - the New Statesman puts it best:

David Laws's resignation prompted many thoughtful pieces on why, in this more tolerant age, a respected politician felt the need to conceal his sexuality. But today's Sun has no time for such liberal handwringing. Instead, the red-top runs a poll asking: "should gay people be cabinet ministers?"

Far be it for me to listen to anything The Sun says, but with 76% of the people asked saying they couldn't give a shit about the sexuality of a cabinet minister, it's not a bad thing to put in print. Obviously if the results were different I'd be moaning about it.

That said, I question the legitamacy of any poll stats from that pile of crap.

Iain Dale - someone I don't normally agree with - has a take on this:

When Ken Livingstone came into the studio to trail his programme he said he couldn't understand why Laws would keep quiet about his sexuality "in this day and age". I understand only too well. I did the same thing for a number of years and only 'came out' (I hate that expression) to family and friends when I was 40. No one can understand how difficult it is, telling your parents that the person they thought they knew is actually someone else. Sort of. Everyone told me: "They will already know, you'll see". No, I replied. I know my parents. And I was right. They hadn't got a clue.

I will never forget that day, even though on many occasions I have wanted to. I'm glad I did it, but I know it was a tremendous shock to my mother and we have never discussed it since. So when David Laws explains why he wanted to keep everything private I understand only too well. The only reason was because he didn't want to hurt those closest to him, especially his mother. That's the thing about us gayers, we'll do anything to avoid hurting our mothers .

How it could 'hurt' your mother, I have no idea because I have a mother who loves me whether I'm gay, straight or whatever, but equally it is true that a lot of people's parents - and friends and other relatives - are old-fashioned. If that is the reason.

If you go down the route for a moment that being gay is a choice rather than "who you are" and THEN try seeing it from an old fashioned point of view then you can see why a mother could end up feeling hurt. Chuck a religious mother into that mix and ... I can understand why you'd keep your trap shut.

The obsession to "come out" gets right on my tits, so it does. Why is there such an emphasis on it? Breeders should be forced to "go in" or some shiz.

[MK Chris]

Twitter has been going mad about The Sun today - the New Statesman puts it best:

David Laws's resignation prompted many thoughtful pieces on why, in this more tolerant age, a respected politician felt the need to conceal his sexuality. But today's Sun has no time for such liberal handwringing. Instead, the red-top runs a poll asking: "should gay people be cabinet ministers?"

Far be it for me to listen to anything The Sun says, but with 76% of the people asked saying they couldn't give a shit about the sexuality of a cabinet minister, it's not a bad thing to put in print. Obviously if the results were different I'd be moaning about it.

It's more the fact that the question has been asked I think.

[Yudster]

I think I was just being idealistic -obviously many people DO still feel stigmatized by their sexuality. I'm just idealistically saying that it shouldn't be that way. And in that same contex I agree that the term "coming out" has absolutely no relevance to what should be, for anyone, a personal acknowledgement (not public) of their sexuality.

I supposed its really not all that long ago that male homosexuality was considered a perversion which was inextricably and inevitably linked with paedophilia, and female homosexuality was simply denied. That's only going back to the sixties and seventies, which is going to seem like ancient history to many of you lot but it really isn't, 40 years is nothing in terms of social (not cultural) development.

Given the sexual messes that many parliamentarians have got themselves into over the years, whatever their sexuality, perhaps the need to keep a private life private seems more pressing to them - but unless there is something weird going on, which it doesn't seem as though there was, it seems strange these days to mantain such a tight veil of secrecy. I agree wholeheartedly that I don't care whether government ministers are gay or straight, but I think I DO care if they are regularly putting themselves in situations where they really are compromising their integrity with the kind of shenanigans that have so often made the papers, gay or straight. But there's no suggestion of that here is there? Surely we don't all think that a gay MP is inevitably going to spend his free time tied to the ceiling with an orange stuffed in his mouth, any more than we assume a straight one is going to be trotting around the world with a call girl in tow?

[Johnny 1989]

Didn't think there was any point of starting a new thread, but this time it's the Mirror having a go at Moyles, must have been a slow news day as they blew this one way out proportion:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -22399532/

[Latina]

I can't remember that specific rant. Was it actually a rant, or all in jest?

[Johnny 1989]

I can't remember that specific rant. Was it actually a rant, or all in jest?

He was joking about with Lawro it wasn't snide at all, just the Daily Mirror doing their usual by making something sound 1000 times worse than it is

[Boboff]

Probably seen this before, sorry if you have.

[SAV1OUR]

Mitchell says if this goes to Number 1 he'll be proud of Britain.


It's long and you have to wait for the Radio 1 acknowledgement! It'll do.

[dimtimjim]

You're joking, the ruddy gays are in the cabinet now!!! Where will this all end?! Is there not a vaccination or something?!!!!!




(Joke post before the homophobe brigade strike down on me)

[R94N]

I can't believe I've never heard that Daily Mail song before..!

[SAV1OUR]

Haha:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/scie ... 012033313/

[Yudster]

That article couldn't seem to make up its mind what it wanted to say.

[SAV1OUR]

Oh yes it could!

[Yudster]

I read it again. Still think its crudely done and confused. I think I know what it THINKS its saying, but what is actually written is ambiguous at best, and contradictory at worst, depending on how you look at it. Anyway.

[nade]

Mitchell says if this goes to Number 1 he'll be proud of Britain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3q2iZuU5WM

It's long and you have to wait for the Radio 1 acknowledgement! It'll do.

Haha, that's brilliant, never seen that before. Also a nice touch that the guy put the names of the folk helping at the end of the video.

Oh and the original post... the usual high Daily Fail standard then, they really are at a level of standard matching the quality of journalism that is produced for the SUN.

[SAV1OUR]

This is an epic fail, so I'm digging this thread right up:



"Daily Mail even ran 'quotes' from prosecutors saying "justice has been done", when posting the wrong Knox verdict. Made-up quotes & scenes"

[MK Chris]

Yes, the Daily Mail royally fecked up on that one - although to be fair, so did the Graun's live feed. The Guardian, though, simply said she had lost her appeal (though that does not excuse it) - the Mail made up a complete story, including the 'fact' that she had slumped into her chair and sobbed.

I would also like to put in the Mail's big fat pants on fire lie from last week that ran in multiple editions - that 'ZOMG, THE ENTIRE BBC IS SHUNNING CHRISTIANITY BY STOPPING USING BC AND AD AND USING BCE / CE INSTEAD, oh, by the way, it's not the whole BBC, it's an editorial decision that can be made by individual programmes.'

This was covered nicely (as I posted in another thread, but seeing as it's fresh in my mind, it's more appropriate for here) by the tabloid blogger Five Chinese Crackers, who runs a regular 'Tabloid Bullshit of the Month award and emails the winner each month to notify them. (Unsurprisingly he hasn't got a response from one yet.)

[SAV1OUR]

Alan Partridge in an amusing take on Paul Dacre:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/audio/2 ... hard-bacon

PD:
"News is often something that someone, the rich, the powerful, the privileged, does not want printed."

Someone like Rupert Murdoch perhaps?