Humbug dressed as a 25-year-old birthday girl.
Christmas may have come and gone, but there's nothing like some humbug at the start of January to fill up the papers. Yesterday the Grauniad printed a decent leader arguing that Kate Middleton, Prince William's girlfriend, was being hounded by the paparazzi, and that if the behaviour of photographers didn't improve, calls for a privacy law would naturally increase as a result. One of its best lines was the following:
How then does the Grauniad decide to fill up 5 pages of the following day's G2? By commissioning a piss-poor sub-Daily Mail article by Kira Cochrane about err, the differences between Ms Middleton and a certain dead woman! Not only is there over 2000 words of this guff, there's 6 photographs of Ms Middleton used, including one from her time at university where she took part in a charity fashion show, wearing only underwear and a transparent negligee.
The BBC also isn't immune from this startlingly moronic and boring hypocrisy. The front page of news.bbc.co.uk a couple of hours ago, now changed after one of the more eagle-eyed staff noticed the stupidity, featured the following stories at the top, followed by this at the bottom:
News International, in one of their rare as rocking horse shite sensible moves, have also decided to ban all photographs of Middleton taken by paparazzi from the pages of their newspapers, although this got off to a less than auspicious start when the TheLondonPaper (sic), apparently not informed of the decision, used one in today's editions. How long the ban, similar to ones which were imposed after Diana's death and quickly forgotten about will last is also open to question.
As is so often with the Street of Shame, it's hard to know whether anyone outside of London's media circles could care less about Ms Middleton and her relationship with Prince William. Kira Cochrane tries desperately to justify her article in G2 with the following conclusion:
No she wasn't. And no it won't. They'll only turn into "complicated, exciting and interesting" women if the press continues to splash constantly about them, believing that there's some kind of interest in their mundane, ordinary existence. Since Diana's death a myth has been built, and continues to be built, thanks to the efforts of countless biographers and conspiracy theorists that she was far more extraordinary than she in fact was. At the same time, there will always be Glenda and Glen Slaggs out there who will attack purely to fill space. This is how the media works: building up and kicking down.
The best way to deal with the monarchy is to entirely ignore it. Only when they prove what reactionary idiots they are (i.e. wearing Nazi uniforms, calling mild-mannered journalists "bloody awful" for simply asking questions at press conferences) should their activities be reported. The only other justification for mentioning their existence is when writing articles calling for their abolition. Once the supposed mystique which the media builds around them has been destroyed, it will be all the more easier to end this ridiculous and laughable anachronistic institution.
A degree of self-restraint by the press, avoiding using pictures of Ms Middleton on her own in her daily life, would reduce the enthusiasm of freelance photographers for taking them.
How then does the Grauniad decide to fill up 5 pages of the following day's G2? By commissioning a piss-poor sub-Daily Mail article by Kira Cochrane about err, the differences between Ms Middleton and a certain dead woman! Not only is there over 2000 words of this guff, there's 6 photographs of Ms Middleton used, including one from her time at university where she took part in a charity fashion show, wearing only underwear and a transparent negligee.
The BBC also isn't immune from this startlingly moronic and boring hypocrisy. The front page of news.bbc.co.uk a couple of hours ago, now changed after one of the more eagle-eyed staff noticed the stupidity, featured the following stories at the top, followed by this at the bottom:
News International, in one of their rare as rocking horse shite sensible moves, have also decided to ban all photographs of Middleton taken by paparazzi from the pages of their newspapers, although this got off to a less than auspicious start when the TheLondonPaper (sic), apparently not informed of the decision, used one in today's editions. How long the ban, similar to ones which were imposed after Diana's death and quickly forgotten about will last is also open to question.
As is so often with the Street of Shame, it's hard to know whether anyone outside of London's media circles could care less about Ms Middleton and her relationship with Prince William. Kira Cochrane tries desperately to justify her article in G2 with the following conclusion:
It turned out in the end that Diana was a much more complicated, exciting and interesting woman than that early coverage suggested. So it will likely prove with Kate.
No she wasn't. And no it won't. They'll only turn into "complicated, exciting and interesting" women if the press continues to splash constantly about them, believing that there's some kind of interest in their mundane, ordinary existence. Since Diana's death a myth has been built, and continues to be built, thanks to the efforts of countless biographers and conspiracy theorists that she was far more extraordinary than she in fact was. At the same time, there will always be Glenda and Glen Slaggs out there who will attack purely to fill space. This is how the media works: building up and kicking down.
The best way to deal with the monarchy is to entirely ignore it. Only when they prove what reactionary idiots they are (i.e. wearing Nazi uniforms, calling mild-mannered journalists "bloody awful" for simply asking questions at press conferences) should their activities be reported. The only other justification for mentioning their existence is when writing articles calling for their abolition. Once the supposed mystique which the media builds around them has been destroyed, it will be all the more easier to end this ridiculous and laughable anachronistic institution.
Labels: BBC hypocrisy, Grauniad hypocrisy, Kate Middleton, monarchy, paparazzi, privacy
| Permalink
Post a Comment