The Daily Hate Mail?

[DesDownunder]

Jane Moir column in the Daily Mail sparks a row in British papers.

Reported in the Huffington Post

Seems to me Jane Moir's concept of R.I.P. is somewhat misplaced.

If you can bear to read her column, go ahead X marks the link, but try not to throw things against the wall if you read it.

This woman's ability to be insensitive is beyond measure, her muck-raking ability is right up there with FauxNews.

She needs to be charged with something approaching a hate crime, of course, that's just my irate opinion.

I am not often moved to use profanity at a personal level, but this woman really tempts me.

Only this article in the Guardian worked to mildly allay my ire.

[Bruin Fisher]

Jan Moir (no 'e', and no balance, compassion, or humanity, either, it seems) and her nasty article have broken all records for the most complained-about piece. The Press Complaints Commission received over 21,000 complaints about the article over the weekend - by far the highest level of complaint in the history of the Commission.

Press Complaints Commission statement

It may destroy Jan Moir's career and if so I'm sorry for her family, but I think I'm rather sorry for her family anyway - they're saddled with a family member prepared to write such stuff for public consumption, and without supporting her smears with any evidence at all. How did she get the job in the first place?

[DesDownunder]

Thanks for the link and the correction Bruin.

Perhaps I was having a Freudian slip when i misspelled Jan's name, I may have been under the impression she was just a plain Jane, but I see now that would be unfair to all the really nice plain Janes out there..

(Perhaps her family agrees with her? My condolences to them in case they don't.)

On how did she get the job? I just hope that it wasn't a decision to flame support to reverse the recognition of gay rights.

[colinian]

Another real sadness about Gately's death is that it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships.

Another real sadness about heterosexual marriage is that, in the U.S. "...50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri." From the Huffington Post: "...legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts appears to have no effect on the Massachusetts divorce rate. That poses a big problem for highbrow critics of gay marriage..."

Colin

[JamesSavik]

The whole tone of that article was seething with venom. She sounded like she was reporting on the death with glee.

[DesDownunder]

I find this theory behind Fox News' so called success may well apply to The Daily Mail. If so, they went too far, completely underestimating their UK Audience.

[Bruin Fisher]

The next episode in this sorry tale has been reported here:

BBC News website article

The Press Complaints Commission received 25,000 complaints about Jan Moir's article in the Daily Mail, but their rules restrict them - they will only take action if someone directly affected complains. Now Stephen Gately's bereaved partner has complained, so the PCC will investigate.

They are often criticised for being toothless, let's hope they find some teeth this time.

[The Pecman]

You know, I see both sides of this. I'm very much a "freedom of the press" guy, and the problem is, this freedom also extends to people who have marginal, obnoxious opinions.

If they're not spewing hate (Naziism, racism, violence, and so on), I'm not sure there's an issue beyond just disagreeing with her opinion. There are thousands of people who oppose gay marriage, and they should be allowed to speak their opinion, no matter how much we object to it.

At the same time, we also have the freedom to avoid buying the paper, to protest her remarks, and to avoid patronizing the newspaper's advertisers. That's what I would advocate: boycotting the paper and its advertisers.

If the paper had had any brains (unlikely, given that it's part of Rupert Murdoch's empire of crap), they would've run an opposing editorial on the opposite page for a point/counterpoint approach. To me, that's the only way to deal with controversial issues like this.

I still have yet to hear a single anti-gay marriage critic explain to me how gay marriage would change or affect heterosexual marriage in any way. The only comment I've heard is, "well, if we allow two men to marry, then the next thing you know, they'll want to marry dogs or sheep!" It's at times like this I'd like to carry around a large sock filled with manure, just to slug these morons...

[DesDownunder]

Well said Pec, but I should point out that my partner is living with an orangutan, and yours is living with a duck!

[The Pecman]

A screaming duck, at that.

Yeah, my partner has a law degree, and whenever disputes like this come up, he points out the 1st Amendment rights we have in this country. He's occasionally said, "even Nazis have the right to have a parade, provided they have a permit and don't create violence or carry any signs promoting hatred."

It's bad enough when newspaper columnists campaign against gay marriage. Where I get upset is when an out-of-state organization like the Mormons spend millions of dollars to create TV commercials and print ads against gay marriage -- in states other than Utah. To me, there's a fine line between free speech and propaganda, and I think that's where the line gets crossed.