PDA

View Full Version : Daily Mail's Jan Moir on Stephen Gately


Minimus
16-10-09, 15:50
Jan Moir's comments are sick, vile and full of incite hatred. I hope Stephen Gately's family sue her, I hope she loses her job, and I hope she has a truly miserable life.

The article should never have been printed - it's sad to see freedom of speech being exploited by evil fascists like her who want to spread such poison.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html


"And I think if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy." Basically she's saying he was sleezy and dirty because he was gay. My brother sent me this and he is even more disgusted with her. Go him :p


edit: oh my God, she's changed some of it - no wonder some of you were saying it was fine!

I Need A Map
16-10-09, 15:59
Its all gutter press..Thats why I dont read The Star,Daily Mirror and the rest...
These "journalists" should be banned from society!
It would be a sad thing for his grieving family to read this rubbish...

Minimus
16-10-09, 16:19
I agree - have you seen the facebook groups? :vlol:

TRhalloween
16-10-09, 16:26
What a disgusting demon she is. I hope she gets sent back to Hell where she belongs.

Edit: That was extreme ... lol

Mad Tony
16-10-09, 16:39
Jan Moir's comments are sick, vile and full of incite hatred. I hope Stephen Gately's family sue her, I hope she loses her job, and I hope she has a truly miserable life.

The article should never have been printed - it's sad to see freedom of speech being exploited by evil fascists like her who want to spread such poison.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html


"And I think if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy." Basically she's saying he was sleezy and dirty because he was gay. My brother sent me this and he is even more disgusted with her. Go him :pHow is she a fascist? Horrible perhaps but I see nothing about fascism in there.

Oh, and did she actually say he was sleazy and dirty because he was gay, or are you just assuming?

Spong
16-10-09, 16:40
Daily Mirror? Don't you mean the Daily Mail?

Minimus
16-10-09, 16:51
How is she a fascist? Horrible perhaps but I see nothing about fascism in there.

Oh, and did she actually say he was sleazy and dirty because he was gay, or are you just assuming?

Did you actually read it?

And yes I meant the Daily Mail :whi:

(I am soooo flushed with embarrassment right now :o) maybe a nice moderator can change the name of the thread?

Mad Tony
16-10-09, 16:52
Did you actually read it?Yes, and it's got nothing to do with fascism.

Minimus
16-10-09, 16:55
Yes, and it's got nothing to do with fascism.

"fascism |ˈfa sh ˌizəm| (also Fascism)
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice."

It's fascist propaganda - The Daily Mail is a right-wing newspaper.

Mad Tony
16-10-09, 17:03
"fascism |ˈfa sh ˌizəm| (also Fascism)
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice."

It's fascist propaganda - The Daily Mail is a right-wing newspaper.:rolleyes:

Could you please point out exactly what part of the article had fascist leanings to it?

Err, no. While I agree the comments certainly weren't nice, how does that make it fascist propaganda? Does this mean that when the left-leaning newspapers make nasty comments completely unrelated to politics it means they're spreading communist propaganda?

Minimus
16-10-09, 17:06
:rolleyes:

Could you please point out exactly what part of the article had fascist leanings to it?

Err, no. While I agree the comments certainly weren't nice, how does that make it fascist propaganda? Does this mean that when the left-leaning newspapers make nasty comments completely unrelated to politics it means they're spreading communist propaganda?

She and other jounalists at the Daily Mail have an obsession with community decline and purity. Have a look;

top story: "'Cunning' mother claimed 130,000 benefits by faking infant son's illness - and even let him undergo surgery"
James says: (18:11:21)
2nd story: "Royal Academy artist's son locked up indefinitely for stabbing friend to death in row over taxi fare"
3rd story "Cheating teacher faces sack for 'altering students' exam papers to boost grades'"
4th story: "Police hunting for 'very ill' new mother after body of baby is found in bin liner at recycling plant"
5th story: "Police rapped for blunders in murder case of girl 'turned into kebab meat'"
6th story: "Caught on camera: The moment Tube worker told elderly passenger he will 'sling him under a train'"

See the pattern? They dont' print world news, political news or natural events on the planet. they print articles that instill fear that community is in decline - that there's something broken and something needing to be fixed. That's why Hitler's party got to power.
It's an evil newspaper.

Today's articles are about benefit cheats, knife crime, murders, violence etcall UK 'news', rather examples for their belief that the UK is in decline. It's supposed to be a newspaper, but they only report on one theme.

And THAT is propaganda.

they're EEEEEVIL!

Gabi
16-10-09, 17:07
(I am soooo flushed with embarrassment right now :o) maybe a nice moderator can change the name of the thread?
Done! :)

Minimus
16-10-09, 17:08
Done! :)

Thank you :hug:

Mad Tony
16-10-09, 17:16
You're analyzing my words far too much. End of discussion. Please talk about the topic, not a specific word I used.You still haven't explained what makes it fascist. All you've done is say that because the Daily Mail are right-wing and somebody on there posted a horrible article about a politically-unrelated topic, that makes them fascists spreading propaganda. :confused:

Minimus
16-10-09, 17:19
You still haven't explained what makes it fascist. All you've done is say that because the Daily Mail are right-wing and somebody on there posted a horrible article about a politically-unrelated topic, that makes them fascists spreading propaganda. :confused:

Check again please.

Spong
16-10-09, 17:21
You're analyzing my words far too much. End of discussion. Please talk about the topic, not a specific word I used.

You know what Mad Tony's like. He's like a pitbull with a baby.
But even so, you shouldn't really have used the phrase "evil fascists" where it wasn't warranted and wasn't true. What Jan Moir implied was close to the bone, nothing more. And even then, it's just an implication, she has every right to express cynicism over the whole thing.

"And I think if we are going to be honest, we would have to admit that the circumstances surrounding his death are more than a little sleazy." Basically she's saying he was sleezy and dirty because he was gay.

I disagree with that. Jan Moir never implied anything like you've assumed. I'm sure she'd have said the same thing if he'd been heterosexual. She was implying that the circumstances, the third guy being brought back to the apartment, was sleazy. And she's right. Does it not come across as sleazy to pick up a stranger in a bar for something that ostensibly appears the way it does? Just because Stephen Gately happened to be gay meant nothing.

Mad Tony
16-10-09, 17:23
You know what Mad Tony's like. He's like a pitbull with a baby.Is calling people pathetic insults all you ever do?

Spong
16-10-09, 17:29
Is calling people pathetic insults all you ever do?

Nope. I can juggle too.

But tell me I'm wrong. I mean, Minimus asked you not to carry on with the discussion, and what did you do (even though the post has been edited now)?

Mad Tony
16-10-09, 17:32
But tell me I'm wrong. I mean, Minimus asked you not to carry on with the discussion, and what did you do?What's your point? Minimus still hasn't explained what makes it fascist propaganda.

TRhalloween
16-10-09, 17:32
I disagree with that. Jan Moir never implied anything like you've assumed. I'm sure she'd have said the same thing if he'd been heterosexual. She was implying that the circumstances, the third guy being brought back to the apartment, was sleazy. And she's right. Does it not come across as sleazy to pick up a stranger in a bar for something that ostensibly appears the way it does? Just because Stephen Gately happened to be gay meant nothing.

She wouldn't have said this if he was heterosexual:

Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael.

Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened.

Mad Tony
16-10-09, 17:34
She's definitely homophobic by the looks of it. But fascist? Lol, no.

Minimus
16-10-09, 17:35
What's your point? Minimus still hasn't explained what makes it fascist propaganda.

I do not wish to continue with this "fascist" business please. If it would make you happy, I'll edit the first post.

Spong
16-10-09, 17:36
What's your point? Minimus still hasn't explained what makes it fascist propaganda.

Who really cares? You don't think the article was fascist (something I personally agreed with), why isn't that good enough for you? Minimus is entitled to believe what he wants isn't he?

Mad Tony
16-10-09, 17:36
I do not wish to continue with this "fascist" business please. If it would make you happy, I'll edit the first post.I'd just like to know why really. Whatever floats your boat. :wve:

@Spong: I never said she wasn't. But there's been no explanation. Doesn't matter though tbh. Does this mean that in future if I do something similar and wildly misuse a word will you come in and insult anyone who rightly questions me? :)

Spong
16-10-09, 17:41
@Spong: Does this mean that in future if I do something similar will you come in and insult anyone who questions me? :)

It wasn't an insult, it was a simile. I was making note of your determined nature. If you think that's an insult, well, that's your problem.

Reggie
16-10-09, 17:46
The problem with the Daily Mail is that its a tabloid that masquerades itself as serious journalism and of course, we all know its got as much a right-wing agenda as the Guardian does a left-wing one and given that the Guardian isn't exactly a British 'Pravda', I'm not going to go screaming that DM is a fascist rag either . Its just not a very good one. Jan Moir's article was sloppy and biased journalism.

interstellardave
16-10-09, 17:47
Jan Moir's comments are sick, vile and full of incite hatred. I hope Stephen Gately's family sue her, I hope she loses her job, and I hope she has a truly miserable life.

While I can agree with your outrage (after all, it's your right to be outraged!), I would hope you would not sincerely mean what you say above... your comments about her are also vile, even when said in anger... it doesn't suit you well, or do you credit. I would assume, without knowing you, that you're better than that. ;)

Minimus
16-10-09, 17:51
It doesn't suit you well, or do you credit. I would assume, without knowing you, that you're better than that. ;)

Although I don't think we've ever spoken, I have seen you around the forums and you're right, it doesn't suit me and I'm not usually like this. My brother feels the same (well, actually worse :eek:), but I think the reason why I'm so outraged is because my brother is gay so I do feel strongly against the subject. I'm just sick of the media and how they portray homosexuals :)

Mad Tony
16-10-09, 17:54
I don't often see homophobia in the media that much.

Spong
16-10-09, 17:55
I don't often see homophobia in the media that much.

I was gonna say that. And when I do see it, they're reporting on the general public, not airing their own opinions as it were.

interstellardave
16-10-09, 17:57
@ Minimus: No, we've never spoken... but I have a very detached way of looking at things. In general it doesn't do anyone any good to have hateful feelings about others, even if it's felt to be justified. For one, it doesn't change the person in question, but it will negatively affect the person holding onto such feelings.

If Miss Moir truly hates homosexuals (or any group of people) it's likely that she is a bitter and unhappy person... you've probably heard that millions of times before, but it's no less true! The best way to go is to just let it go.

Minimus
16-10-09, 18:07
@ Minimus: No, we've never spoken... but I have a very detached way of looking at things. In general it doesn't do anyone any good to have hateful feelings about others, even if it's felt to be justified. For one, it doesn't change the person in question, but it will negatively affect the person holding onto such feelings.

If Miss Moir truly hates homosexuals (or any group of people) it's likely that she is a bitter and unhappy person... you've probably heard that millions of times before, but it's no less true! The best way to go is to just let it go.

Yes you're right, but I'm just trying to put across my point of view. :)

I Need A Map
16-10-09, 18:35
Daily Mirror? Don't you mean the Daily Mail?

Any of them really lol:ton:
I must admit that the mirror isn't the worst but its up there!

Another Lara
17-10-09, 10:17
I don't often see homophobia in the media that much.

I honestly do not see why people are saying this one comment in a whole article means that Jan Moir (and the Daily Mail) are homophobic or, even more extreme, fascists!

Jan Moir is renowned for her tongue in cheek comments, but she is an anti celebrity reporter, not anti gay! If anything she supports gay rights and so all this jumping on the band wagon clearly shows that the comments are made by non readers of the Daily Mail who regularly read her articles.

Admittedly I do work at the Daily Mail, but I do have a certain level of cynicism since working there, but that's for all newspapers, not just the Daily Mail as they are all the same in terms of making a mountain out of a mole hill, as that's what sells papers!

Back to the point, the Mail may be more right wing than other papers, but there's no way it's fascist... Tory maybe on occassion, but no way fascist!

And just for the record, there's plenty of gay men (and women) that work not only in my office, but in all departments for the newspaper, so how could they be homophobic if they employ the people they supposedly are against?!

(I would like to point out as well, I'm not necessarily agreeing with her article, I think she could have worded it better, but my point is that Jan Moir and the paper she works for are not homophobic)

illuminati30
17-10-09, 11:06
Sorry i created another thread about this without knowing this was here. She is indeed a vile creature, and it makes me wonder if she herself is in a marriage oar partnership and living 'happily ever after'.

Draco
17-10-09, 20:27
You guys do realize that tabloids exist to get your attention right? And you are playing right into their hand.

marla_biggs
17-10-09, 20:39
Burn her at the stake!

Nannonxyay
17-10-09, 20:43
That woman is an idiot. She makes it seem as if only gay people are capable of killing themselves and uses that to back up her underlying opinion about gays. She used Kevin McGee as an example of this. She also seems to believe that the fact that there was another man at their hotel that that somehow linked to Stephen's death. The media sickens me sometimes.

What a vile article from a vile woman. I couldn't give a damn if someone from here worked with The Daily Mail. I think it's disgusting that she would say such things. I know The Daily Mail employs gay people but that doesn't mean anything. Jan can still be a homophobe and work in a gay-friendly environment.

Reggie
17-10-09, 21:16
You guys do realize that tabloids exist to get your attention right? And you are playing right into their hand.

Well said. I bet the sales of Daily Mail shot up today as a result of this.

Minty Mouth
17-10-09, 21:18
I dont really get the uproar about this. I think she was just highlighting the shady nature of the death, which is understandable. I dont understand how she was relating the death to homesexuality though, which is probably why Im not absolutely disgusted like everyone else :p

Buffy87
17-10-09, 21:27
As much as I loved and adored Stephen ( being a massive Boyzone fan since I was 6).. and as much as I agree with the fact that this woman is pretty low to be so disrespectful to a guy who was a pretty decent individual ..( well he was nice to me when I met him so that's what I base this on rightly or wrongly) I can't help but feel that re-analysing it over and over again is giving her the publicity that she wants. To be honest...the article offended me mainly for its sheer disrespect and lack of compassion for all those who are grieving for him as to whether I think it was homophobic or not I won't say - its disrespectful for a start before we even go into that been an issue.Truth be told I couldn't care less about whether she loses her job, loses some friends or gets off scotfree, I care a lot more about the fact that someone I grew up admiring is gone at 33, when he had a lot more left to give. This woman is a complete non entity to me.

*Yes I know me commenting makes the fact I don't think we should be analysing it a bit of a moot point but whatever...*

Minimus
17-10-09, 22:18
...which is probably why Im not absolutely disgusted like everyone else :p

Have you seen most of the comments on that webpage and on this thread? ;)

Burn her at the stake!
That woman is an idiot. She makes it seem as if only gay people are capable of killing themselves and uses that to back up her underlying opinion about gays. She used Kevin McGee as an example of this. She also seems to believe that the fact that there was another man at their hotel that that somehow linked to Stephen's death. The media sickens me sometimes.

What a vile article from a vile woman. I couldn't give a damn if someone from here worked with The Daily Mail. I think it's disgusting that she would say such things. I know The Daily Mail employs gay people but that doesn't mean anything. Jan can still be a homophobe and work in a gay-friendly environment.

I agree with both :tmb:

Love2Raid
17-10-09, 22:20
Who even reads that crap?

It's her job to feed the ones who live on hate. Most of us don't agree with it. So let's just ignore it and move on.

Minimus
17-10-09, 22:27
Who even reads that crap?

It's her job to feed the ones who live on hate. Most of us don't agree with it. So let's just ignore it and move on.

If we ignore it, who's to stop something like this happening again in the future? My brother sent her a very, very angry email to her work email address...


and her personal address :whi:

Super Badnik
17-10-09, 23:09
Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships.

Gay activists are always calling for tolerance and understanding about same-sex relationships, arguing that they are just the same as heterosexual marriages. Not everyone, they say, is like George Michael.

Of course, in many cases this may be true. Yet the recent death of Kevin McGee, the former husband of Little Britain star Matt Lucas, and now the dubious events of Gately's last night raise troubling questions about what happened. What the...?! Who is this stupid little bimbo?

Minimus
17-10-09, 23:10
What the...?! Who is this stupid little bimbo?

Lulz she's brunette :p

Encore
18-10-09, 00:04
As much as I loved and adored Stephen ( being a massive Boyzone fan since I was 6).. and as much as I agree with the fact that this woman is pretty low to be so disrespectful to a guy who was a pretty decent individual ..( well he was nice to me when I met him so that's what I base this on rightly or wrongly) I can't help but feel that re-analysing it over and over again is giving her the publicity that she wants. To be honest...the article offended me mainly for its sheer disrespect and lack of compassion for all those who are grieving for him as to whether I think it was homophobic or not I won't say - its disrespectful for a start before we even go into that been an issue.Truth be told I couldn't care less about whether she loses her job, loses some friends or gets off scotfree, I care a lot more about the fact that someone I grew up admiring is gone at 33, when he had a lot more left to give. This woman is a complete non entity to me.

*Yes I know me commenting makes the fact I don't think we should be analysing it a bit of a moot point but whatever...*

Very good post. I agree with you. Who the **** cares what this person thinks? Is she some kind of higher authority?

TRhalloween
18-10-09, 00:05
Lulz she's brunette :p

He didn't say "blonde" ;)

JRod2208
18-10-09, 00:09
I fail to see why it matters. She's obviously an ignorant, hateful person. So, rather than get your panties, or boxers/briefs, in a knot, ignore it. I see it as she is not worth my time and I'm getting on with my life.

Lara's Nemesis
18-10-09, 00:14
As people have said who really cares what some idiot from the rag that the Daily Mail is has to say about it. She was just pandering to her readership, totally spineless.

I was however really impressed with the reaction of the rest of the band, they all must have been really close.

Another Lara
18-10-09, 09:44
I dont really get the uproar about this. I think she was just highlighting the shady nature of the death, which is understandable. I dont understand how she was relating the death to homesexuality though, which is probably why Im not absolutely disgusted like everyone else :p

^ At least someone sees sense and actually READS the article before jumping on the "Burn the homophobes!" wagon!^


It's interesting to see that when people have been speaking sense on this thread, others just ignore it as it interferes with their petty little rants... The fact that I work at the Daily Mail and so know for a fact that there is no such thing as homophobia around any part of the paper completely goes conveniently overlooked in order for people to **** Jan Moir off... that's mature!

As they say "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story"... seems it's not the journalists this time, but our very own TRF members! ;)

Minimus
18-10-09, 10:33
He didn't say "blonde" ;)

Bimbo is typically a blonde, pretty woman.

Here's an article on Yahoo - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20091018/tuk-anger-mounts-over-gately-story-6323e80.html


Some of you are saying "who cares". A lot of people worldwide care.

Reggie
18-10-09, 10:36
The article was homophobic. Charlie Brooker wrote a pretty spot on article article about it:

The funeral of Stephen Gately (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/stephen-gately) has not yet taken place. The man hasn't been buried yet. Nevertheless, Jan Moir of the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html) has already managed to dance on his grave. For money.
It has been 20 minutes since I've read her now-notorious column, and I'm still struggling to absorb the sheer scope of its hateful idiocy. 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.
On the Mail website, it was headlined: "Why there was nothing 'natural' about Stephen Gately's death." Since the official postmortem clearly ascribed the singer's death to natural causes, that headline contains a fairly bold claim. Still, who am I to judge? I'm no expert when it comes to interpreting autopsy findings, unlike Moir. Presumably she's a leading expert in forensic science, paid huge sums of money to fly around the world lecturing coroners on her latest findings. Or maybe she just wants to gay-bash a dead man? Tragically, the only way to find out is to read the rest of her article.

VV Click link below for full article VV



Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir

Minimus
18-10-09, 10:50
The article was homophobic. Charlie Brooker wrote a pretty spot on article article about it:



Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir

Thank you for posting that. :)

Another Lara
18-10-09, 15:59
The article was homophobic. Charlie Brooker wrote a pretty spot on article article about it:



Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir

For one thing Charlie Brooker is more famous for putting his foot in it than anyone...

Another thing... you use an article written about an article for evidence? Sorry that just isn't evidence to me! He's basically another writer jumping on the band wagon!

He describes the whole article as being "gay-bashing" and yet there's nothing in it at all to implicate that!

If anything the one word she should not have used is the word "sleazy", but I think she used it in terms of a celebrity death (and she's not the only one saying it! How many other newspapers have commented on the fact there was a third man in the apartment?!)

I really think you guys need to take a deep breath, step back and read the article fully without all this prejudice that you accuse her of having! ;)

Make up your own opinion rather than following the loudest protesters!They are usually the furthest from the truth... ;)

Super Badnik
18-10-09, 16:05
I have to say, i don't think the article was really that hateful. Just extremely ignorant, Jan Moir obviously dosen't live in the real world when it comes to this issue, or maybe she does but in the 1950's. Nevertheless though, some of the comments regarding Gately's sexuality seem very snide to me and why the Daily Mail still have this article on their website is beyond me.

Reggie
18-10-09, 16:06
Make up your own opinion rather than following the loudest protesters!They are usually the furthest from the truth... ;)
I am following my own opinion and Brooker's article sums up how I feel about the subject. I'm not going to rant about it myself because professional journalists and activists have already done a fine job already. And I actually read the Daily Mail most days because its the only newspaper my parents will buy, just that I don't buy into the DM right-wing biased ethos - point is, I've read Jan Moir's articles and others in the paper, not just this one and I often find myself disagreeing so this is nothing new for me and certainly not bandwagon jumping. You can't expect everyone to just agree when her comments were so inflammatory and controversial.

TRhalloween
18-10-09, 16:11
For one thing Charlie Brooker is more famous for putting his foot in it than anyone...

Another thing... you use an article written about an article for evidence? Sorry that just isn't evidence to me! He's basically another writer jumping on the band wagon!

He describes the whole article as being "gay-bashing" and yet there's nothing in it at all to implicate that!

If anything the one word she should not have used is the word "sleazy", but I think she used it in terms of a celebrity death (and she's not the only one saying it! How many other newspapers have commented on the fact there was a third man in the apartment?!)

I really think you guys need to take a deep breath, step back and read the article fully without all this prejudice that you accuse her of having! ;)

Make up your own opinion rather than following the loudest protesters!They are usually the furthest from the truth... ;)

She relates his death to Kevin McGee's recent suicide and says this somehow has something to do with civil partnerships.

Another Lara
18-10-09, 16:13
I am following my own opinion and Brooker's article sums up how I feel about the subject. I'm not going to rant about it myself because professional journalists and activists have already done a fine job already. And I actually read the Daily Mail most days because its the only newspaper my parents will buy, just that I don't buy into the DM right-wing biased ethos - point is, I've read Jan Moir's articles and others in the paper, not just this one and I often find myself disagreeing so this is nothing new for me and certainly not bandwagon jumping. You can't expect everyone to just agree when her comments were so inflammatory and controversial.

I do agree with your opinion that her articles aren't always ones that people agree to 9as I myself don't agree with them a lot of the time), I'm just trying to get people to realise that the article anti celeb, not anti gay...

It's only being seen as anti gay, due to other members of the media highlighting one word out of the whole article as a homophobic rant!

She relates his death to Kevin McGee's recent suicide and says this somehow has something to do with civil partnerships.

And I think she only used this as an example due to the fact that this is the most recent celebrity death and so is fresh in people's memories... :)

jackles
18-10-09, 16:15
Soooooo I decided to read the article and what came across was some inconsistencies that made me question the balance of the article. She stated that 33 year old men don't just die.....but they do. My brothers mate in his twenties did exactly that after a game of football no less. People have dodgy sexual lives or take drugs whether they are gay or straight. Marriages break up....fact of life. So what is to blame for hetero-sexual relationships breaking up then?

Generally in the media there seems to be a salacious lingering over the fact that there was 'intimacy' between the men. If it has no relevence on his death why are the papers even mentioning it? Because it titillates and sells papers.


I agree that there is an anti celeb vibe but celeb partying is old news...from the days of Fatty Arbuckle to Amy...those with money indulge in excess.



I have to say I tried reading it without any bias and those were just the impressions that it made on me.

Super Badnik
18-10-09, 16:32
And I think she only used this as an example due to the fact that this is the most recent celebrity death and so is fresh in people's memories... :)But she also says it (along with this story) "strikes another blow" to the "myth" of "happy-ever-after" civil partnerships.

Lemmie
18-10-09, 18:49
The article seems homophobic to me, but of the Daily Mail's columnists, I prefer to bash Melanie Phillips.

Minimus
18-10-09, 19:54
The article seems homophobic to me, but of the Daily Mail's columnists, I prefer to bash Melanie Phillips.

Lol :p

illuminati30
19-10-09, 13:20
21,000 Complaints

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/19/jan-moir-complain-stephen-gately

disneyprincess20
19-10-09, 13:30
21,000 Complaints

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/19/jan-moir-complain-stephen-gately

Although if you look at the Daily Mail, they say there's only been "more than 1,000 complaints (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221360/Stephen-Gately-debate-dominates-internet.html)". Way to downplay the drama.

Chocola teapot
19-10-09, 16:04
More than 22,000 Now.

Jack Croft
19-10-09, 16:11
More than 22,000 Now.

Wow, can someone recap on what was said?

jaywalker
19-10-09, 16:12
Its just like the Ross/Brand debacle tho, people will happily complain cos everyone else is complaining.. people who havent even read it will make a contribution to the backlash. It totally dilutes and distorts the genuineness of the issue at hand, but will never end. They think they are helping by showing their `disgust` at an issue, but without actually 100% reading it etc shows even more how fickle the world is becoming and more nannying (oh i darent say `blah` in case i get grief etc)

@Jack Croft - thats kinda the problem as i was just saying, people arent actually reading the whole thing they are just going on the reports from the news or from other people and joining in.

Reggie
19-10-09, 17:36
Just deserts to the DM then? They're usually the first to scream out when something 'outrageous' happens on TV/Radio. The Ross/Brand debacle being a prime example.

illuminati30
19-10-09, 18:49
Its just like the Ross/Brand debacle tho, people will happily complain cos everyone else is complaining.. people who havent even read it will make a contribution to the backlash. It totally dilutes and distorts the genuineness of the issue at hand, but will never end. They think they are helping by showing their `disgust` at an issue, but without actually 100% reading it etc shows even more how fickle the world is becoming and more nannying (oh i darent say `blah` in case i get grief etc)


I don't agree because many people were put off complaining because to complain to PCC is actually rather difficult, involves filling a lot of thing's in, and you have to state exactly where the codes of conduct have been broken. It's time consuming, so you have to read it in order to make a formal complaint, as well as the codes of conduct, and we are talking formal complaints here to PCC, not just letters to the newspaper. Each person filled in these forms, myself included (who has never complained before and is not easily offended), and then you have to state why. So i totally disagree. This is nothing like the Ross and Brand thing, anyone can see that, and Jay, I am rather disappointed in you for making the comaprison. This report was the lowest of the low, posting hateful comments, during a time when people are in mouring, about one of the nicest people you could meet. It's nothing like Ross and Brand behaving like a pair of fannies. Derren Brown urged people to make the formal complaint, the view being, it's all well and good to say 'that's bad' to stand up and be heard and actually do something about it, is a totally different matter. His quote was 'complain when it matters'.

EDIT: By the way, the actual codes which were broken were:

Clause 1,3,5 and 12 - which relate to accuracy, privacy, intrusion into grief and shock, and discrimination.

Writing inaccurate information about someones death, writing hateful material and discriminating, and intruding a families privacy during a time of grief and shock is not serious, then i am sorry, I certainly do not know what is, but it certainly is not the same as Ross and Brand. Being someone who never complains, i didn't give a flying **** what Ross and Brand said or did, I am not eaily offended, but this kind of thing incites hate, and we all know what that leads to.

Now this woman's defense was sickening, and she has tried to belittle it:

Moir, who has won a British Press Award, made a statement defending her column (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/16/jan-moir-stephen-gately-response) late on Friday, saying it was not her intention to offend, blaming a "heavily orchestrated internet campaign" for the furore and adding that it was "mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones".

Sorry Moir, people have better things to do that orchestrate such things. Also, it's not mischievous, it is clearly discriminatory and vile.

Minimus
19-10-09, 19:49
I am beginning to feel a bit sorry for her - yes, she shouldn't have written it, but it's been in the news :eek: and everything - BIG news. I'm sure this has taught her a valuable lesson.

illuminati30
19-10-09, 22:31
I am beginning to feel a bit sorry for her - yes, she shouldn't have written it, but it's been in the news :eek: and everything - BIG news. I'm sure this has taught her a valuable lesson.

She writes the news, so what can she expect. There are always consequences. so no i do not feel the slightest bit of sympathy.

Nannonxyay
19-10-09, 22:53
^ At least someone sees sense and actually READS the article before jumping on the "Burn the homophobes!" wagon!^


It's interesting to see that when people have been speaking sense on this thread, others just ignore it as it interferes with their petty little rants... The fact that I work at the Daily Mail and so know for a fact that there is no such thing as homophobia around any part of the paper completely goes conveniently overlooked in order for people to **** Jan Moir off... that's mature!

As they say "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story"... seems it's not the journalists this time, but our very own TRF members! ;)

I've read the article. I still stand by my opinion. I don't like the people you work for and I don't like The Daily Mail. And if you're offended by that then so be it because it's something I believe to be true. How can you say that there is NO homophobia what-so-ever in your company? There's homophobia in every company within the employees. You'll get homophobic people working in any place.

Right. So we're ****ging Jan Moir off? Good. She deserves it for ****ging off a dead man and making horrible comments about him when his family are mourning the loss of him. We're not being immature, we're expressing how disgusted we are by what she has said.

And this is NOTHING like the Ross/Brand case to whoever said that, it's completely different. The Ross/Brand case was not nearly as offensive as this. I believe Jan Moir commented once before at how outraged she was at the Ross/Brand case and now she's being more a thousand more times offensive by making comments about a dead man. Woah. Hypocritical much?

Minimus
20-10-09, 06:56
I've read the article. I still stand by my opinion. I don't like the people you work for and I don't like The Daily Mail. And if you're offended by that then so be it because it's something I believe to be true. How can you say that there is NO homophobia what-so-ever in your company? There's homophobia in every company within the employees. You'll get homophobic people working in any place.

Right. So we're ****ging Jan Moir off? Good. She deserves it for ****ging off a dead man and making horrible comments about him when his family are mourning the loss of him. We're not being immature, we're expressing how disgusted we are by what she has said.

And this is NOTHING like the Ross/Brand case to whoever said that, it's completely different. The Ross/Brand case was not nearly as offensive as this. I believe Jan Moir commented once before at how outraged she was at the Ross/Brand case and now she's being more a thousand more times offensive by making comments about a dead man. Woah. Hypocritical much?

Very true, I was thinking this myself :tmb:

jaywalker
20-10-09, 07:35
I don't agree because many people were put off complaining because to complain to PCC is actually rather difficult, involves filling a lot of thing's in, and you have to state exactly where the codes of conduct have been broken. It's time consuming, so you have to read it in order to make a formal complaint, as well as the codes of conduct, and we are talking formal complaints here to PCC, not just letters to the newspaper. Each person filled in these forms, myself included (who has never complained before and is not easily offended), and then you have to state why. So i totally disagree. This is nothing like the Ross and Brand thing, anyone can see that, and Jay, I am rather disappointed in you for making the comaprison. This report was the lowest of the low, posting hateful comments, during a time when people are in mouring, about one of the nicest people you could meet. It's nothing like Ross and Brand behaving like a pair of fannies. Derren Brown urged people to make the formal complaint, the view being, it's all well and good to say 'that's bad' to stand up and be heard and actually do something about it, is a totally different matter. His quote was 'complain when it matters'.

EDIT: By the way, the actual codes which were broken were:

Clause 1,3,5 and 12 - which relate to accuracy, privacy, intrusion into grief and shock, and discrimination.

Writing inaccurate information about someones death, writing hateful material and discriminating, and intruding a families privacy during a time of grief and shock is not serious, then i am sorry, I certainly do not know what is, but it certainly is not the same as Ross and Brand. Being someone who never complains, i didn't give a flying **** what Ross and Brand said or did, I am not eaily offended, but this kind of thing incites hate, and we all know what that leads to.

Now this woman's defense was sickening, and she has tried to belittle it:

Moir, who has won a British Press Award, made a statement defending her column (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/16/jan-moir-stephen-gately-response) late on Friday, saying it was not her intention to offend, blaming a "heavily orchestrated internet campaign" for the furore and adding that it was "mischievous in the extreme to suggest that my article has homophobic and bigoted undertones".

Sorry Moir, people have better things to do that orchestrate such things. Also, it's not mischievous, it is clearly discriminatory and vile.

I wasnt saying at all that the ross/brand thing was the same ISSUE, i was simply stating that the number of complaints have been comparable altho i think that the ross thing actually got more complaints in grand total (most likely due to as u rightly say the very simple nature for complaining about that compared to complaining via the pcc).

disneyprincess20
20-10-09, 08:35
^ At least someone sees sense and actually READS the article before jumping on the "Burn the homophobes!" wagon!^

It's interesting to see that when people have been speaking sense on this thread, others just ignore it as it interferes with their petty little rants... The fact that I work at the Daily Mail and so know for a fact that there is no such thing as homophobia around any part of the paper completely goes conveniently overlooked in order for people to **** Jan Moir off... that's mature!

As they say "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story"... seems it's not the journalists this time, but our very own TRF members! ;)

Aside from the whole 'homophobia' debate, you've got to admit that some of what she wrote is just plain offensive.

"A founder member of Ireland's first boy band, he was the group's co-lead singer, even though he could barely carry a tune in a Louis Vuitton trunk."

That's not exactly respectful of the recently deceased, is it?

jaywalker
20-10-09, 09:03
It was definitely not an article that should have been published when it was without every detail being known etc.. regardless of sexual orientation the `death` of a celebrity is always going to carry an air of `who/what/where/when/why` etc.. otherwise magazines like heat and the like wouldnt exist week in and out.

Personal opinions wont change the `need` to fuel this unending requirement of the population to know everything about everyone. At some point the whole story will come out, but in the mean time i hope the husband is getting the support from his family and friends, and that the 3rd guy isnt selling the story to a paper (always a possibility :()

As i said i am not condoning what was written OR trying to belittle it in anyway shape or form. However the reaction of `burn her, kill her` cannot ever be seen as conducive or rational a response from people can it?

Oh also yes its possible every office has someone who is homophobic, but its the same for having a racist, a bigot, a sexist.. every office has people in them that are not representative of the company as a whole. When i write things i have the signature saying `my opinions are my own` thats there to ensure if i say something i believe but is not something the company stands for i am not speaking FOR the company as a representative.. but because i am posting in a public place people will see it as such regardless of that.. this was an article published by the DM but doesnt necessarily mean the DM is being represented by the article (make sense?). People will say but they published it therefore condoned it, but thats not the case, if they took every story and editted it to try and ensure it offends no one then they'd be hounded by those saying its quelling freespeech and that malarky (regardless of topic). The DM has to `trust` its journalists a bit for their articles or they wouldnt write for them. This was just one article thats gone too far, will definitely be interesting to see the final outcome from the PCC.

disneyprincess20
20-10-09, 09:12
As i said i am not condoning what was written OR trying to belittle it in anyway shape or form. However the reaction of `burn her, kill her` cannot ever be seen as conducive or rational a response from people can it?

As far as I can see, the argument is that her article was hardly a rational response to the sudden and untimely death of a young man. The tone of the article (aside from any implications) is still biased against Stephen Gately ("He was the Posh Spice of Boyzone, a popular but largely decorous addition") and coming so soon after his death, this was incredibly offensive. You're right that the timing of this is all wrong, but her response to his death also seems irrational.

Personally, until she issues a full apology or is punished in accordance with the rules set out, she deserves all she gets. She's made her bed, now she has to lie in it.

jaywalker
20-10-09, 09:25
As far as I can see, the argument is that her article was hardly a rational response to the sudden and untimely death of a young man. The tone of the article (aside from any implications) is still biased against Stephen Gately ("He was the Posh Spice of Boyzone, a popular but largely decorous addition") and coming so soon after his death, this was incredibly offensive. You're right that the timing of this is all wrong, but her response to his death also seems irrational.

Personally, until she issues a full apology or is punished in accordance with the rules set out, she deserves all she gets. She's made her bed, now she has to lie in it.

Oh agree there, she has to accept the consequences of her actions.

disneyprincess20
20-10-09, 09:38
People will say but they published it therefore condoned it, but thats not the case, if they took every story and editted it to try and ensure it offends no one then they'd be hounded by those saying its quelling freespeech and that malarky (regardless of topic). The DM has to `trust` its journalists a bit for their articles or they wouldnt write for them. This was just one article thats gone too far, will definitely be interesting to see the final outcome from the PCC.

Of course they can't write something that offends no one, but they can put procedures in place to make sure it offends less people, or at least has some shred of evidence to back the statements made. Her Editor, and any procedures in place, failed miserably, and they should be punished for it.

jaywalker
20-10-09, 09:46
Of course they can't write something that offends no one, but they can put procedures in place to make sure it offends less people, or at least has some shred of evidence to back the statements made. Her Editor, and any procedures in place, failed miserably, and they should be punished for it.

Am sure it wont just get washed under the carpet etc.. The people involved will be dealt with appropriately.

And, as we all know, the world will move onto the next issue to debate/discuss etc..

disneyprincess20
20-10-09, 09:54
Am sure it wont just get washed under the carpet etc.. The people involved will be dealt with appropriately.

And, as we all know, the world will move onto the next issue to debate/discuss etc..

Just because another scandal will come along a few months, it doesn't lessen the offence caused by her comments in this scandal. The fact that the Daily Mail are downplaying this does not help the perceived reputation of the paper. As you've stated, the Daily Mail was not necessarily being represented by the article, and other employees of the Daily Mail aren't represented by this article either. The Daily Mail has a reputation for generating scandal, and now that this one seems to have backfired, the appropriate steps should be taken to rectify any offence they have cause, unknowingly or not.

My opinion of this (rather than any reasoned argument) is that she should be fired, as should her Editor.

jaywalker
20-10-09, 09:57
Just because another scandal will come along a few months, it doesn't lessen the offence caused by her comments in this scandal. The fact that the Daily Mail are downplaying this does not help the perceived reputation of the paper. As you've stated, the Daily Mail was not necessarily being represented by the article, and other employees of the Daily Mail aren't represented by this article either. The Daily Mail has a reputation for generating scandal, and now that this one seems to have backfired, the appropriate steps should be taken to rectify any offence they have cause, unknowingly or not.

My opinion of this (rather than any reasoned argument) is that she should be fired, as should her Editor.

Every newspaper has a reputation for generating scandal.. Its not just the DM..

disneyprincess20
20-10-09, 09:59
Every newspaper has a reputation for generating scandal.. Its not just the DM..

But the Daily Mail like to do it with such regularity. Admittedly, the Sun does it the most spectacularly, but the Daily Mail tend to go the furthest with their accusations.

jaywalker
20-10-09, 10:04
News of the World, Telegraph, Mirror, Star they've all had their time in the `media` spotlight for stories.. Moreso then the DM..

The DM is known for printing stories which people `think` but dont want to say out loud (talking in general now by the way not about this article). People call them doom merchants, nay sayers. but in todays environment i dont want to read how things are going to be `fine hopefully soon` i want to know whats actually wrong now to get it sorted etc.

Oh if this had been in the Telegraph etc could guarentee identical posts with simply the name DM replaced with Telegraph (or whoever). I am sure theres somewhere online you can see litigious stats against the media and DM wont be at the top am sure.

disneyprincess20
20-10-09, 10:18
News of the World, Telegraph, Mirror, Star they've all had their time in the `media` spotlight for stories.. Moreso then the DM..

The DM is known for printing stories which people `think` but dont want to say out loud (talking in general now by the way not about this article). People call them doom merchants, nay sayers. but in todays environment i dont want to read how things are going to be `fine hopefully soon` i want to know whats actually wrong now to get it sorted etc.

Oh if this had been in the Telegraph etc could guarentee identical posts with simply the name DM replaced with Telegraph (or whoever). I am sure theres somewhere online you can see litigious stats against the media and DM wont be at the top am sure.

The Daily Mail is known for printing stories which some people `think` but don't want to say out loud.

Other papers may have had better processes in place to stop this. In fact they must do, otherwise there would be a slew of offensive articles out now. The fact they they generate scandal is not new, it's the fact they are doing it using the death of a young man that's the sickening bit. No other paper has been this blatant over a young man's death when so little of the facts have been made public yet, and in such a callous manner.

jaywalker
20-10-09, 10:34
The Daily Mail is known for printing stories which some people `think` but don't want to say out loud.

Other papers may have had better processes in place to stop this. In fact they must do, otherwise there would be a slew of offensive articles out now. The fact they they generate scandal is not new, it's the fact they are doing it using the death of a young man that's the sickening bit. No other paper has been this blatant over a young man's death when so little of the facts have been made public yet, and in such a callous manner.

but i think thats the point, we dont know details but WANT to know.. We expect to be told every detail about every story.. As i said this is about a celebrity death to me, nothing to do with his sexual preferences.. As i said, timing.. At some point in the future we'll be told what actually happened.. THEN the stories will begin again from other papers..

Note - just read somewhere that the PCC doesnt actually have to take into account any `public` complaints, only those `directly` involved, ie the people named or discussed in the article.. that seems a bit wrong to me.. As i've learned the PCC has a really lengthy complaints system so people would have to do more then just tick a box to complain, and then to read that kinda defeats the object doesnt it? I believe the sheer number of complaints tho means this cant be just ignored so hopefully that rule of the PCC will get changed

disneyprincess20
20-10-09, 10:40
but i think thats the point, we dont know details but WANT to know.. We expect to be told every detail about every story.. As i said this is about a celebrity death to me, nothing to do with his sexual preferences.. As i said, timing.. At some point in the future we'll be told what actually happened.. THEN the stories will begin again from other papers..

You may expect to be told, every detail about the story, I don't. What she wrote in her article (I refer you to the eariler quotes, which have nothing to do with his sexual orientation) was not facts, or anything near the facts. It was opinion and it was offensive, possibly deliberately offensive. If or when more details arise, then more definitve conclusions regarding his death can be drawn. However, the fact that details may or may not arise in the future do not change the fact that less than a week after his death she wrote, and the Daily Mail published, a scathing and offensive article about his life based on nothing but opinion. I still fail to see how that is right.

jaywalker
20-10-09, 10:44
You may expect to be told, every detail about the story, I don't. What she wrote in her article (I refer you to the eariler quotes, which have nothing to do with his sexual orientation) was not facts, or anything near the facts. It was opinion and it was offensive, possibly deliberately offensive. If or when more details arise, then more definitve conclusions regarding his death can be drawn. However, the fact that details may or may not arise in the future do not change the fact that less than a week after his death she wrote, and the Daily Mail published, a scathing and offensive article about his life based on nothing but opinion. I still fial to see how that is right.

I didnt say it was right did i..

I dont expect anything personally, i was more on about the undeniably VAST majority of tabloid news readers and internet users who scour the papers/net for any tidbit of info.. They are definitely in the majority am afraid, rightly or wrongly.

disneyprincess20
20-10-09, 10:49
I didnt say it was right did i..

I dont expect anything personally, i was more on about the undeniably VAST majority of tabloid news readers and internet users who scour the papers/net for any tidbit of info.. They are definitely in the majority am afraid, rightly or wrongly.

The thing is, all that is still irrelavant to the fact that Jan Moir and the Daily Mail have both been incredibly offensive regarding the death of Stephen Gately. Other papers may or may not have done this in the past, but it doesn't justify what they've done and it doesn't lessen the offense caused this time. Yes, other scandals, will come along, and without details the cause of his death will be speculated about, but none of this excuses what they have done now. The only thing that will appease this is either a full apology or punishment.

jaywalker
20-10-09, 10:50
The thing is, all that is still irrelavant to the fact that Jan Moir and the Daily Mail have both been incredibly offensive regarding the death of Stephen Gately. Other papers may or may not have done this in the past, but it doesn't justify what they've done and it doesn't lessen the offense caused this time. Yes, other scandals, will come along, and without details the cause of his death will be speculated about, but none of this excuses what they have done now. The only thing that will appease this is either a full apology or punishment.

Which i agreed with you on, this wont go unpunished am sure

Another Lara
20-10-09, 12:10
Aside from the whole 'homophobia' debate, you've got to admit that some of what she wrote is just plain offensive.


That's not exactly respectful of the recently deceased, is it?

I never said I agreed with what she wrote (I hardly ever agree with her articles) as I think the family should just be left in peace to mourn their loss and it's nobody's business what did happen in that apartment (unless there was foul play); my whole argument is the fact that people give such extreme comments without even reading the article and jump on the bandwagon!

I know some people have read it and do find it offensive but I think that's due to seeing things differently to how she meant them (due probably to her lack of sensitivity on the subject, but then she is a reporter!)

Regular readers of the Daily Mail would see that there have been two articles already taking a dig at Jan Moir for what she wrote, one indirectly (as in Jan Moir isn't mentioned but it is clearly about her) and the other runs her into the ground, and is written none other by a new addition to the Daily Mail's columns, Janet Street Porter!

As Jay has said, what the reporter writes, does not reflect the views of the Daily Mail, and clearly the Editors, when reading through the article could not see (like me) that it could be portrayed in such an extreme way!

Minimus
20-10-09, 17:15
If Gately were a black man and this article had been racist instead of homophobic, things would have been a lot different.

Mad Tony
20-10-09, 17:21
If Gately were a black man and this article had been racist instead of homophobic, things would have been a lot different.I don't think so. As you must've already noticed by now this story has gotten a considerable amount of attention. The same would've happened had this article been racist.

Minimus
20-10-09, 19:21
I don't think so. As you must've already noticed by now this story has gotten a considerable amount of attention. The same would've happened had this article been racist.

I personally think a lot more would have been done.

Lemmie
23-10-09, 12:44
Jan Moir has released an apology for her article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/23/jan-moir-stephen-gately-apology

One quote:

"However, I accept that many people – on Twitter and elsewhere – were merely expressing their own personal and heartfelt opinions or grievances. This said, I can't help wondering: is there a compulsion today to see bigotry and social intolerance where none exists by people who are determined to be outraged? Or was it a failure of communication on my part?"

I'd say it was the latter. At least.

Another Lara
23-10-09, 12:49
Jan Moir has released an apology for her article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/23/jan-moir-stephen-gately-apology

One quote:

"However, I accept that many people – on Twitter and elsewhere – were merely expressing their own personal and heartfelt opinions or grievances. This said, I can't help wondering: is there a compulsion today to see bigotry and social intolerance where none exists by people who are determined to be outraged? Or was it a failure of communication on my part?"

I'd say it was the latter. At least.

I think it's both if I'm honest, looking at some of the comments made on this thread....

I read the article in today's Daily Mail, I think it's clearly a mix of different factors: bad timing on her part, using some bad choice words (again on her part), people jumping to conclusions and also people jumping on the band wagon...

At least she did apologise and it wasn't swept under the carpet...

disneyprincess20
23-10-09, 13:23
The thing is, I don't think that was an apology. In her first article she said he "couldn't carry a tune in a Louis Vuitton Trunk" and called him a "largely decorous" member of the band. This week she finished the article he was a "talented young man". This to me smacks of her trying to save face. She also never outright apologises, and talks about how she's been victimized. There's only one victim in this, and it Stephen Gately's legacy. He was a perfectly respectable pop-star until her article, and I firmly believe she should have left his memory alone. Does she have no respect for the recently deceased?

I can't imagine anyone ever asking her to write a eulogy.


EDIT:
As Jay has said, what the reporter writes, does not reflect the views of the Daily Mail, and clearly the Editors, when reading through the article could not see (like me) that it could be portrayed in such an extreme way!

But the Daily Mail still published it. The onus of blame in this scandal is on Jan Moir, not the Daily Mail, but they still have to take responsibility for the fact that they commissioned her work and published it. I fully understand all the disclaimers, but is doesn't excuse the fact that they've caused offence and have not been punished yet.

Another Lara
23-10-09, 13:31
The thing is, I don't think that was an apology. In her first article she said he "couldn't carry a tune in a Louis Vuitton Trunk" and called him a "largely decorous" member of the band. This week she finished the article he was a "talented young man". This to me smacks of her trying to save face. She also never outright apologises, and talks about how she's been victimized. There's only one victim in this, and it Stephen Gately's legacy. He was a perfectly respectable pop-star until her article, and I firmly believe she should have left his memory alone. Does she have no respect for the recently deceased?

I can't imagine anyone ever asking her to write a eulogy.

That is totally not true!

There was countless newpapers writing countless artciles about his death and why there was a third man in the apartment!

People have to stop "forgetting" about other newspapers out there, just because Jan Moir's is the antichrist at the moment!

disneyprincess20
23-10-09, 13:36
That is totally not true!

There was countless newpapers writing countless artciles about his death and why there was a third man in the apartment!

People have to stop "forgetting" about other newspapers out there, just because Jan Moir's is the antichrist at the moment!

Ok, let me re-phrase, before his death, he was a perfectly respectable pop-star. Not all the details have been relased surrounding his death (and frankly I don't care) and she made some very bold statements too soon, and she's admitted that. What I've got an issue with is her insinuations of him as a person, not as a homosexual or as a person in a civil partnership. She was rude about him as a pop-star, for no particular reason other than to be offensive, ans she hasn't apologised for it, but changed her tune pretty severely. That's what I've got a problem with: what she wrote about him as a singer, as a member of Boyzone and as a person. Anyone with any moral decency would not have written that about a recently deceased person in the first place, so they wouldn't have had to apologise for it.

Also, how many other papers called his death "sleazy"?

Draco
23-10-09, 15:19
If I think someone sucks and really don't understand why they are famous or popular, I'm certainly not going to lie about it. Why does everyone expect her to?

disneyprincess20
23-10-09, 15:55
If I think someone sucks and really don't understand why they are famous or popular, I'm certainly not going to lie about it. Why does everyone expect her to?

Because he passed away very recently, and the family and all his fans were still (and possibly are still) greiving when the first article came out. If you were at someone's funeral you wouldn't walk up to the family and call the deceased a prat, even if you didn't like the deceased. Just a bit of human decency wouldn't have gone amiss here.

Spong
23-10-09, 15:59
...If you were at someone's funeral you wouldn't walk up to the family and call the deceased a prat...

Did Jan Moir do that then? :eek:
Because I thought she just aired her opinions on the (somewhat dubious) circumstances surrounding SG's death in a newspaper article.

disneyprincess20
23-10-09, 16:02
Did Jan Moir do that then? :eek:
Because I thought she just aired her opinions on the (somewhat dubious) circumstances surrounding SG's death in a newspaper article.

Nope, it was a metaphor. She used her public platform to make derogatory comments about a recently deceased person. She also made her feelings about Gately as singer ("couldn't carry a tune in a Louis Vuitton Trunk") quite clear. This is the bit I've got an issue with, not what she's said about his death. She's realised she made to comments too soon, but she hasn't apologised for the personal insults against someone recently deceased. That's what's ticking me off.

Minimus
23-10-09, 16:48
I'm agreeing very much with disneyprincess20.