This is surely a new low for the Daily Mail(18 Posts)
I read the Daily Mail, along with every other national newspaper, because I am a retired journalist and it's force of habit.
But today, there's this disgraceful article about a poor child who has a medical condition that means she's matured far too early. Her dear mother has not just publicised her daughter's condition, but there are photographs of the little girl too.
Some comments after the article say sanctimoniously that oh yes, the condition needs to be 'publicised'. OK, yes, but WHY not use pseudonyms for the mother and daughter and definitely NO PHOTOGRAPHS. The little girl's privacy has been horribly invaded, full details of her premature development. I am amazed that the Mail - and the mother - are allowed to do this. What is the child going to go through at school, now her condition is so blatantly publicised? Did the mother get paid for divulging these details of the poor little girl?
I've hesitated to put the link here, but I will. Hope MNs will protest (my comment didn't appear, surprise surprise) but I'm also writing to the editor of the DM and complaining to IPSO.
Perhaps you should have not given the story additional reach by linking to it here?
I wondered about this as well I really don't know what the mother was thinking.
Did so because I would like there to be protests to the Mail group.
There is no low that the Daily Mail won't stoop to, it is vile. And the more outrageous, morbid or disturbing a story the more goulish and gleeful the reporting of it is. They print some seriously disturbing stuff but apparently it's okay as they blur parts of the photos out. I doubt they give a shit about this little girl or the ramifications their article will have for her. God knows what her mother was thinking. I really hope the Mail goes the same way as The News of the World, the world would be a better place without this toxic tabloid garbage.
When you live in an area full of ignorant people, publicising, like this can be beneficial, speaking as a Mum of two children diagnosed with SN, after they started mainstream school. It stops the rumours and bullshit.
The people around the family, the girls peers, know that there's something going on, with her.
This puts paid to any shit stirring.
Just a POV from someone who could see why they'd go to the papers, as I live in an area were what's said, would get nasty.
It's the same for the Parents, of disabled children, who go on the JK show.
One side thinks it's voyeuristic, the other side that it's a way to raise awareness.
The little girl is 10, too young to protect her own privacy I think. If she was 18, it would be fair enough for her to publicize her story, but at that age, I don't think it's right of anyone to expose her private life in the papers. Not sure what complaining to the DM will achieve. If anything, there's more publicity for the article, more revenue, they are winning. Sorry, no idea what to do!
The daily mail is a shit barrel of scum
Last week they had an article about the pilot of the Shoreham Airshow disaster. They'd tracked him down walking his dog in the forest and taken loads of photos, describing him as "parading around" and other various vile terms.
They pick people, feature them in their newspaper in all sorts of degrading ways and then don't even consider people's actual lives. It's disgusting and damaging to people who are made in to these sort of overnight celebrities
It's tabloid journalism. The DM will market itself as middle class, but it's effectively the same principle from the Sun to the Times they will run stories that they think will appeal to their readers. The mother has clearly instigated the article, whether that to raise awareness or just for publicity or whatever her motive, she's chosen to make her daughter's condition public & probably taken payment for it as it doesn't appear unsolicited. Newspapers will publish anything that sells. I'm not a fan of the DM or any tabloid, but I'm sure having a moral compass is not a deciding factor about a story for any journalist. The issue surely is the fact that the mother would sell the story, not that an amoral journalist, with consent, publishes it.
Completely inappropriate to intimately discuss a child's personal development like this in a tabloid rag.
She might want to be open and honest about it...she may have decided that letting people know about the condition is a way to help her DD accept it OP.
And why refer to her as "Her dear Mother"?? Odd wording for a retired journalist.
I don't see as how its any different to publicising any condition in the papers? My eldest daughter started her periods at 9, and it was really difficult for her, knowing that she isn't the only one could be very helpful another girl.
"And why refer to her as "Her dear Mother"?? Odd wording for a retired journalist."
I agree that it's a good idea to publicise the condition. I agree that it's a horrible invasion of the child's privacy to have disclosed her name and photos of her.
And I wouldn't put anything past the Daily Heil, quite frankly.
guilty im sure having a moral compass is not a deciding factor about a story for any journalist really? You think journalists who exposed the thalidomide scandal, abuse in care homes, child sexual abuse didn't fight and work hard to bring those stories to public attention?
Whether you agree with one particular article or not it's odd and ignorant to slam an entire profession of thousands of hard working people. Personally I watch the news - it matters to me to hear about an earthquake in Italy or the banning of the burkini. All of these stories are brought to us by the journalists you seem to despise.
I saw the article on mail online and without even opening the article I was already irked by it. The mother should really have thought about what this would do to her poor daughter. Just another example of really really poor journalism
so, you don't think any parents of a child with a medical condition of any sort should talk about it in the media? this is a genuine question to those who think she shouldn't have done this, because i'm failing to see why its any worse than any other story.
That's not what's being said though, is it.
The issue is not the publicising of the complaint, it's the disclosing of the child's name and photos, so she no longer has any privacy.
It's a GREAT idea to publicise conditions like this. It's bloody WRONG to give photos of the child, and her full name, as she has no control over this and may come to regret her mother's carelessness in future.
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.