I Only Look At The Pictures.

This story is not about Big Brother.

So what picture did the Mail Use on it's homepage?



This one. Which is to do with Big Brother, as you can tell. A cycnical mind might think: "Hmm, Big Brother is quite a popular subject, and this story is tangentially related. Clicky clicky linky linky...." - Which would also go some way to explaining why the headline is also so vague if you don't know what the story's about.

I'll say it now: Daily Mail, you are a bunch of lazy clickbaiting turds. STOP IT YOU SHITBAGS.

Desperately Seeking Something.

This man is 'desperately seeking attention' because of his choice of jewelery.

But when Katy Perry does this:


Then that's fine.

Why? Who the fuck knows. Maybe it's because pictures of a young woman in a rubber dress get more clicks than pictures of domestic abusers wearing video game themed jewelry.

And anyway, he might be desperate for attention, but you've fucking given it him, haven't you? "Look how desperate he is for attention, everyone! Here's another picture begging us for validation! Look, and another one! And a few hundred words about him! Look, he really wants attention but we're not going to gi-Oh, shit. Best write nasty shit about him instead, pass it off as that 'Reporter' account..."

Don't Miss.

Nah, I reckon I'll be alright if I do miss it, cheers.

What Do Flying Ants Look Like?

Cheers, Metro.

OUTRAAAAAAAAAGE.

Uh-oh.

There's more OUTRAGE coming.

I hope you're ready.

[Jeremy Clarkson] provoked a flurry of complaints after telling viewers of Top Gear on Sunday night that he had seen a Muslim woman wearing saucy underwear beneath her gown...

...By yesterday morning, seven viewers had already contacted the BBC to complain, while singer Lily Allen labelled the comment 'distasteful' on her Twitter site.

That's seven. Seven people complained about the most watched show on BBC 2.

And this is 'outrage'.

It's a good thing that the Daily mail have never published anything objectionable that might cause offence, an- OH HANG ON:

The Press Complaints Commission has received a record 22,000 complaints about Jan Moir's article about Stephen Gately since Friday – more complaints in a single weekend than the regulator has received in total in the past five years.

We haven't fucking forgotten about this you know, chaps. People still remember that you published the most complained about article in UK publishing history, and continue to employ the author of it so she can vomit her outdated, outmoded ways all over the internet for reactionary idiots across the country to read, then strip to the waist while running around the garden bellowing about immigrants eating the Queen's swans while wearing a monocle and smoking a pipe while the wife plays an old 45 of 'God Save the Queen'.

Anyway.

Thinking about it, if the Daily Mail were a robot, Clarkson would be the thing that you could use to make it short circuit and explode. He works for the BBC (Boo socialist lefty scum!), but he seems to have a general disdain for the Labour Party, and as a rule holds some rather right-wing views (Whether he believes them or not is a different story).

What's even more confusing is when (like in the comments of this story) Mail readers say that he's just being deliberately shocking, in a paper that prints the myopic and bigoted scribblings of one Richard Littlejohn - a man who writes deliberately hackneyed and controversial views of the world because he knows it will help his image as a man who 'pulls no punches'... Sound like anybody else (With curly hair and a programme about cars) that you know?

To be fair, the top rated comments disagree with the Mail's painfully obvious anti-BBC bias, and I think that quite often the most interesting information you can gleam from the Mail is when the stories and the commenters have differing opinions of the matter. If Clarkson were on any channel other than the BBC, the Mail would laud him as a non-PC hero for the Chipping Norton, big car, middle England, I've-never-seen-a-black-man-but-I've-read-about-them-and-they-sound-horrible set, but because he dare to be employed by an organisation that the Mail almost literally doesn't have a nice word for, he's damned to hell and back.

It's also worth mentioning that while half the story criticises Clarkson for saying what he did, then explaining (With the glee of a pig in shit) that he's been in trouble before, the rest of the article is filled with anti-Burka and Niqab sentiment that is a staple of the Mail. I mean for fuck's sake, if you're going to be a dick and pretend to be mortally offended at someone, don't go disagreeing with them a hundred words later, Christ.

Oh, just to put those seven complaints in perspective:

Top Gear had 5,800,000 viewers on Sunday. That's one complaint per 828,571 people. The Mail has a circulation of around 2,000,000, and received 22,000 complaints for the Gately article. That's one complaint for every 90 people.

Irresponsible Fear Farming.

Read this.

Right, now you've read the whole thing, hands up who thinks that the headline should be "EURO POLICE COULD SOON BE ALLOWED TO INVESTIGATE BRITONS IN UK, ASSUMING THE GOVERNMENT OPTS IN TO A SCHEME THAT WOULD ALSO ALLOW BRITISH POLICE TO TRACK FOREIGN SUSPECTS - ALTHOUGH WE DON'T KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT THE LAW WILL STRETCH YET"?

Scaremongering over a non story that contains far too many 'could's, 'might's and 'in theories', of course; but it's about Europe, so where did it appear in another one of the UK's papers today?



Ah. Yeah.

Outrage. OUTRAGE.

There's outrage brewing again.

There fucking is, it's coming. It's rumbling towards us like a giant bastard of a fuckcloud, ready to rain down tedious, middle England hatred.

It's coming...

Here it comes...

It's not a particularly helpful phrase...

BOOM! There's some real fucking rage right there, huh? I'm telling you, the person who said that must have been fucking fuming:- I can only assume the person quoted screamed that as their eyes burst in anger and their head split, snot blood and tears all congealing as they ooze onto the floor...

You can probably guess the score; The Mail have created themselves a bit of faux-outrage again (This time over a couple of ill-chosen words appearing in the background of a scene in Emmerdale), which they struggle to back up in the story and then unravels completely when the readers get their best crayons out to scribble their thoughts on the bottom of the page. The Mail talks of the aforementioned 'outrage', 'criticism' and 'slamming', and they demonstrate just how angry THE ENTIRE WORLD is with quotes from two people:- Namely mothers who were appalled that their children were exposed to such filth, and they didn't want to have to explain to their children what a 'jam rag' was.

Fair Enough.

Now, I'd like to interrupt this post to quickly post a few Emmerdale Spoilers and recaps here:

Leaving Zak alone, Sam hurries after Alfie in the grounds of Home Farm, only to be hit by an awful stench.

He's horrified to find that Alfie has dug up what appears to be a body.

Unfortunately while Shadrach was walking over the river he half collapsed from his liver disease and dropped his cans of beer in to the lake, upon retrieving them he was unable to hold his balance, from both the heavy drinking he'd done that day along with another sharp pain from his liver disease and he collapsed in to the river and drowned.

So, tasteful, family friendly entertainment all round then.

According to the Mail, Mediawatch also slammed the programme, although the actual quote doesn't seem to indicate quite the level of rage they imply:

It's not a particularly helpful phrase to refer to sanitary towels as "jam rags" , and it is unnecessary.

'It didn't need to be there at all.'

I'll give you a moment to regain your breath after reading that spewing torrent of offence, and then I want to look at the comments on the page:

When even the readers of the Daily fucking Mail aren't too bothered, it's fair to say that any outrage has been made up by the author (Who, in this case, is that busy little bee the Daily Mail Reporter). In fact, do a Google search for the story, and try and find some 'outrage'.

Go on, I'll wait.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...Find any? No, I didn't bloody think you would, because there's nothing to be offended about. If you don't want to have to explain it to your kids but haven't got a problem with explaining a bloke wearing just a hard hat on his cock, then you've got some fucked up priorities and I never ever want to come round to your house for tea; and if you genuinely don't find it funny, that's fine, but in the scheme of things, is it worth getting that worked up about, really?