The Most Beautiful Piece Of Music Ever...
Music8 mins ago
Mail Hypocrisy Again ...
21 Answers
I know we shouldn't be surprised, but the Mail seems oblivious to its own double standards -
Giving prominent space to writer Daisy Goodwin's assertion that she was 'groped' by a potential London mayoral candidate, while simultaneously referring to a twenty-four-year-old professional athlete, the defending Wimbledon champion, as a 'glamour girl' as though we live in 1971 when it suits them.
Pathetic.
Giving prominent space to writer Daisy Goodwin's assertion that she was 'groped' by a potential London mayoral candidate, while simultaneously referring to a twenty-four-year-old professional athlete, the defending Wimbledon champion, as a 'glamour girl' as though we live in 1971 when it suits them.
Pathetic.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Mail is little more than a comic, often the articles seem to be copied from The Sun which you would expect the second comment.
To me the real problem here is that someone can be accused of a historical incident in the press without Plod or any Courts invovled.
In this country we presume innocence, trial by (+Social) Media is not acceptable.
To me the real problem here is that someone can be accused of a historical incident in the press without Plod or any Courts invovled.
In this country we presume innocence, trial by (+Social) Media is not acceptable.
TTT at 19.04 - I am intrigued that you could read anything else into Mr Inverdale's perfectly clear message to the young lady's father which was - 'Your daughter is never going to be an attractive woman, but never mind, she's still a good tennis player, so her absence of attraction won't matter ...'
If he spoke to me about one of my girls in such a manner, it would not end well.
If he spoke to me about one of my girls in such a manner, it would not end well.
In terms of hypocrisy, the Mail referring in the same issue about sexual abuse, and then referring to a mature woman using the term 'glamour girl' an outdated label from the seventies to describe women who posed topless, or in provocative poses, is insulting to the lady in question.
She is not a 'glamour model' she is a professional athlete, and she is not a 'girl', she is an adult woman.
I would suggest that confusing the label 'glamour' which is entirely specific in this use and context, with the general adjective 'glamorous' which is something entirely different, confuses my point about the hypocrisy of the paper.
A 'glamour girl' and a glamorous woman are not the same thing.
She is not a 'glamour model' she is a professional athlete, and she is not a 'girl', she is an adult woman.
I would suggest that confusing the label 'glamour' which is entirely specific in this use and context, with the general adjective 'glamorous' which is something entirely different, confuses my point about the hypocrisy of the paper.
A 'glamour girl' and a glamorous woman are not the same thing.
//referring to a mature woman using the term 'glamour girl' an outdated label from the seventies to describe women who posed topless, or in provocative poses//
If I hear the term 'Glamour girl', I don't think of women posing topless or so-called 'glamour models'. To me it describes a woman who makes an effort to be glamorous and succeeds. I would describe Amanda Holden, whose main purpose in life seems to be enhancing her looks, as a glamour girl - and she's in her 50s - or Joan Collins who's 90.
I think it's far more hypocritical to complain about the Mail doing what its done but having no reservations whatsoever in slavering over well-known women simply because they are attractive.
If I hear the term 'Glamour girl', I don't think of women posing topless or so-called 'glamour models'. To me it describes a woman who makes an effort to be glamorous and succeeds. I would describe Amanda Holden, whose main purpose in life seems to be enhancing her looks, as a glamour girl - and she's in her 50s - or Joan Collins who's 90.
I think it's far more hypocritical to complain about the Mail doing what its done but having no reservations whatsoever in slavering over well-known women simply because they are attractive.
TTT - 'Realism' in that context aligns with a belief in 'plain speaking' which always means - I feel I have the right to be rude to you, and you have to put up with it.
Just because a stranger decides your child is 'never going to be a looker' does not entitle him to share that offensive observation with you, without redress.
Just because a stranger decides your child is 'never going to be a looker' does not entitle him to share that offensive observation with you, without redress.
Latest Posts
What's The Issue With Self Service?
News13 mins ago
Why Are Oxbridge Students Now Terrorist...
News21 mins ago
Body & Soul37 mins ago
