Good point.
Oh.
It's worth pointing out that these two screencaps are of the same page in this story.
The article on Nasir demonstrates what sort of society we live in by publishing comments like this:
We all know what the Mail are like when it comes to the weight of female celebrities - They're too fat, too thin, 'stocky', 'skinny', 'saggy'... Basically unless your surname is Kardashian, you don't stand a shit's chance in a stormdrain* -although handwringing and moralising about how the Mail views women has been done countless times before by people more ennunciative than I like Anton Vowl, Upon Nothing and Tabloid Watch, and that's a can of worms I'm not prepared to delve into either way.
What annoys me is that there's somewhat of a continuity error on behalf of the Mail when it comes to the story: In the most recent article, it is said that "she had to wait six weeks until she could exercise" and "she couldn’t shift the extra weight after Bobby’s birth"; quotes that are accompanied by a clearly non-airbrushed, non made-up, poorly lit photo of Jennifer just after the birth.
But then in this story, just four weeks after giving birth, it's said that:
Looking slim but curvaceous, it’s impossible to tell Jennifer Ellison gave birth just four weeks ago.So make your fucking mind up, eh, Mail? Now I admit, for a change this actually seems to be a case of the Mail being overly nice to somebody, but the fact is, somewhere along the line, they were factually wrong.The new mother, who has already lost most of her baby weight, bared all for her new role in Calendar Girls.
Oh, and those "cruel comments" Ellison mentions?
The Daily Mail, a simmering cesspit where sympathy and civility go to die.
*Funnily enough, Kardashian's in the Mail at the moment as well, in a story about... Erm... The fact she's been wearing a bikini recently.
No comments:
Post a Comment