Diana, Kate and yet more Mail hypocrisy

Whatever you think of the royal family, and in particular Dianamania, you can't deny that Charles Spencer's speech at his sister's funeral was a powerful piece of oratory. Let's look at one section in particular:

"It is a point to remember that of all the ironies about Diana, perhaps the greatest was this - a girl given the name of the ancient goddess of hunting was, in the end, the most hunted person of the modern age. She would want us today to pledge ourselves to protecting her beloved boys William and Harry from a similar fate and I do this here, Diana, on your behalf. We will not allow them to suffer the anguish that used regularly to drive you to tearful despair."

In the aftermath of Diana's death and funeral, Fleet Street exercised its usual total lack of self-awareness by attacking the paparazzi photographers they blamed for Diana's death. With Earl Spencer's words filling their sails (and ignoring the bit where he pointed out that the tabloid press were "at the opposite end of the moral spectrum" to his sister) they laid into the evil men on motorbikes who had (literally) driven The People's Princess to her death*.

With one eye on its sales figures and the other on what is arguably Private Eye's greatest-ever front page, the owners and editors of the Daily Mail decided to take a moral lead. They pledged there and then that never again would the Mail purchase or publish photos taken by paparazzi snappers that intruded into the private lives of individuals, regardless of how famous they were.

Thirteen years later, all that is obviously forgotten. We're well-used to the long-lens pictures of famous women going about their daily lives, taking their kids to ballet lessons and so on. Today the Mail even has what is clearly a long-lens pic of a 17-year-old girl sharing a moment with a male friend in a nightclub.

But bearing in mind that the pledge to never again publish paparazzi photos came right after Diana's death, and right after her brother pledged to protect her children from the press intrusion that "used to regularly drive" their mother to "tearful despair", I'd like to know the Mail's justification for publishing this piece of vitally important news:

Yes, that's right folks - Diana's eldest son's bride-to-be went shopping in the town near where she lives! In jeans! And ballet pumps! And there are photos to prove it! Photos from Camera Press, an independent photo agency that specialises in photos of celebrities and royalty! According to well-placed sources, Anglesey is currently crawling with freelance photographers who are all eager to get a potentially lucrative snap of Ms Middleton going about her daily business. And with the Mail providing a ready market for their wares, who can blame them?


*And yes, I'm well aware that she was ACTUALLY driven to her death by a drunk driver and would probably have survived if she'd been wearing a seatbelt, but bear with me here, OK?

Mail pervs over a four-year-old

By now we're all pretty used to the Daily Mail perving over underage girls. We're also used to the paper being freakishly over-interested in the comings and goings of pint-sized fashion icon Suri Cruise. But now they seem to be combining the two in a way that is downright creepy:

"Long-limbed Suri"? SHE'S FOUR YEARS OLD, YOU PERVERTS! But there's more - click through to the story and you get this:

"With the same long brunette hair and wide eyes, little Suri Cruise is beginning to look more like mother Katie Holmes every day. The lookalike pair certainly mirrored each other's expressions as they stopped by a local ice cream store in Los Angeles yesterday."

"The lookalike pair"? Just so I'm absolutely clear here, Suri Cruise is FOUR YEARS OLD. Her mother is 31. She has breasts, and hips and other adulty things that her "lookalike" daughter lacks. Despite the Editor's Code being very clear about the fact that you can't run stories about a child simply because her or his parents are famous, there's also a full-length pic of the "long-limbed" Suri on her own. The caption takes things to a whole new level:

"Ballerina beauty: The four-year-old is growing into a gorgeous little girl"

I really don't want to labour the point but SURI CRUISE IS FOUR YEARS OLD. FOUR! I'd tell Uncle Creepyhands over at Associated Newspapers to get a grip on himself, but I get the horrible feeling he already has, and not in the way I'd hope.

Note that at the foot of the story is a little appeal:

Do you have a story about a celebrity? Call the Daily Mail showbusiness desk on 0207 938 6364 or 0207 938 6683

Yes, you too could scale the journalistic heights of the 21st century Daily Mail website (motto: "News is far more important to us than showbiz. News is what drives our site") if you can come up with a scoop as devastating as "Mother takes young daughter for ice cream after ballet class".

PS: Suri Cruise is FOUR YEARS OLD.

What a difference a day makes

As has been pointed out on countless occassions by countless members of what I should probably call the "tabloid-watching community", the Daily Mail website (motto: "News is far more important to us that showbiz. News is what drives our site") likes nothing more than publishing pictures of young ladies in various states of undress.

So when the Mail was offered "raunchy" pictures of Glee's female cast members in return for a huge plug for gentleman's fap-mag GQ, there was never any doubt that such important "news" would be given extensive coverage. So extensive, in fact, that the paper eeked TWO stories out of it in one day.

First there was this:

Then there was this:

The byline on one article is the classic "Daily Mail Reporter", but it could just as well be "Dirty Old Man" judging by the content:

"Michele, 24, delights her admirers in micro-mini white knickers, thigh-high blue and white striped socks, and a blue and white top that reveals a taut and toned bare midriff ... She pulls the ensemble together by sucking on a lollipop and leaning suggestively against a school locker. Co-star Dianna Agron also features in the shoot, at one point wearing a sexy cheerleader outfit with a barely there skirt and red high heels."

But by this morning, the moral tide was turning. Instead of the fun and frolics of the day before, the thought of seeing Quinn and Rachel in their smalls was enough to provoke that old favourite of the Daily Mail - FURY!

As the outraged members of the USA's Parents Television Council say:

"It is disturbing that GQ, which is explicitly written for adult men, is sexualizing the actresses who play high school-aged characters on Glee in this way. It borders on pedophilia. Sadly, this is just the latest example of the overt sexualization of young girls in entertainment."

Many other examples of the overt sexualisation of young girls in entertainment can, of course, be found all over the Mail website. Including on the story in question - so that the Mail's moral readers can see just how outrageous the pictures are, the article helpfully includes four of them. On top of the seven used in the other two stories. Plus two more of Lea Michele in character, dressed in a school uniform. Which prompted one of the Mail's window-licking readers to comment: