ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
The Mail and BFQOTY(15 Posts)
I absolutely loathe the use of the term "luvvie" - wtf does it even mean? A term that is somehow supposed to be derisive of someone who is in entertainment and happens to be of wealthy stock? The fact that the Mail have tried to bandy it about just shows how desperate they are to try and turn people against the posh boy.
I like Jack Whitehall, some of his stuff can be pretty sharp. I suspect he (and Corden) went too far on BFQoTY because that was real alcohol they were drinking, and most people I know turn more and more twattish the more alcohol goes in them
Then again, when can you expect sense from the Mail? "24-year-old drinks alcohol on TV after the watershed, and then acts pissed all night, egged on by his equally drunk mate." Stop the press!
I had the somewhat dubious pleasure of hearing Amanda Platell speak at a Women in Journalism do once, not long after she was sacked from being William Hague's press secretary (he'd lost the election, she wasn't singled out). She moaned that while all her female friends had been v. sympathetic, none of them had offered her a job. Boo hoo hoo.
I find it fairly despicable that they're trying to get at Whitehall by going after his family. And it's not as if they've succeeded in dragging up any dirt either. So what they've done is to try to use the politics of envy by citing the value of their house and the fact that he's had a public school education - which are normally within the values they try to promote in other contexts.
It's also pretty low that they've chosen to focus on Whitehall to the exclusion of the others on that programme. They seem to have gone for the youngest person because they perceive that he may be the easiest target.
I'm really not impressed by that article by Amanda Platell, either. I really don't understand how she has the face to whinge about misogyny when she works for a paper that blatantly despises women, and indeed she gets in some pretty misogynistic digs against other women later on in the same article.
I saw Jack Whitehall at the Comedy Club in Manchester, just before he became a regular on TV.
Most of his routine was based on the fact that he was a white, well-educated, clueless chap with a very wealthy daddy and his (Jack's) desperation to rebel and the hilarious consequences of his varying success/failure.
Why do the DM think that is news and worthy of outrage?
Yes, OP, I've been enjoying reading the increasingly desperate attempts to drum up "outrage".
I didn't think that they could get any more hypocritical or desperate, then I saw the two further articles today.
Their own readers aren't supporting them and their use of words such as "vile"., "despicable", etc are hilarious.
You would think they would realise that they are going nowhere with this petty, vindictive "campaign"
FWIW I don't think Jack Whitehall has ever hidden his background, quite what point they were making about his home and his father's affairs is beyond me.
Time the DM and their so called journalists found something worthy to write about
The Mail campaign is amusing, they are so desperate to make a big issue out of it but however hard they try, no-one cares. Look at the comments on the Mail website - everyone basically going 'huh? What is your problem?' last time I saw it.
That's even before you get into the massive hypocrisy of the printed Mail fulminating about morality while the website trades on pictures of women without many clothes on and boosts the number of users by scraping the barrel of 'celebrity'. They make all those cheap gossip mags look like quality journalism. And lift half their content from the Beeb - that organisation they rail against - or from other sources without credit. Not even nicking web copy from the Beeb but programme notes, ffs.
Although, there is probably a large element of "who you know" that gives them access to the lucrative jobs.
uptheamp, hasn't it alwasy been that way from the days of Python and before?
Pop stars, actors, comedians are often from privileged public school backgrounds - not because they are the best ones, but because the Establishment prefers them to us hoi polloi.
well there is the cambridge footlights, dont they basically run the bbc comedy department now
Good article by Amanda Platell on this type of coarse, often misogynist type of humour.
Our TV stations are full of posh pillocks pretending to be laddish and hip and making buckets full of cash by peddling coarse humour, and the middle-class luvvies who run our TV stations on their huge salaries, just keep shovelling it out to the public.
Interesting article, but I didn't like the bit where they mention his family. It's got nothing to do with them.
However, I think that people are interested to know about Mockney types from public schools and how many 'comedians' and actors etc. get their 'breaks' in the 'business', sometimes by who they know, and how some of them affect a faux-laddishness to ply their trade.
I am surprised that the Daily Mail readers are giving green arrows to this type of 'comedy'. Are they really the legendary Mail readers or are they Mockneys, luvvies and litterati?
here? it is an incredibly bitchy article isn't it? not really surprising for daily mail though
I think it's about the Big Fat Quiz of the Year. The Mail is making a desperate fuss about it and making themselves a total laughing stock in the process.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Anyone else enjoying the Mail's desperate attempts to stir up a fuss about this? They've now had articles for five days in a row moaning because some comedians said something near the knuckle a few minutes AFTER the watershed. Today they're having a total bitchfest about the fact that Jack Whitehall has a posh background, how very dare he. The hilarious thing is that, despite their best efforts, they've only managed to dredge up 160 complaints, and you can bet most of those come from Mail staffers. They've had more complaints themselves, their comments columns are full of people telling them to stop being so damn stupid. And they're wondering why Channel 4 can't be bothered to respond.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.