Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

This is fucking disgraceful (Daily Mail)

209 replies

rootypig · 26/05/2014 16:09

Daily Mail is framing a teenage girl as being at the root of the Santa Barbara shootings, because she 'teased' the perpetrator (according to his 'manifesto'). They have posted pictures of her (with her face pixelated, some concession), in varying states of undress, of course (bikinis, short shorts, things that best fit the narrative).

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2639555/Meet-model-named-Santa-Barbara-killer-reason-saw-women-mean-cruel-heartless-creatures.html

I loathe them already, but this has shocked me. The poor girl. How can they get away with this?

OP posts:
Original poster
rootypig · 26/05/2014 19:04

They are discussing her conduct when she was a child.

I KNOW that they won't take this view, but that doesn't mean that my interpretation is wrong, whatever we mean by that - intellectually indefensible.

OP posts:
Original poster
rootypig · 26/05/2014 18:58

His is the end game for male entitlement, it has nothing to do with bullying, teasing or any other thing that any woman or child has done to him. He believed he was owed sex, and when he didn't get it, he decided to punish the world.

Well said Chaos

(sorry for endless little posts, am trying to coral DD and be online outraged at the same time)

OP posts:
Nancy66 · 26/05/2014 18:57

'Children' means under 16. This woman is in her 20s

Her privacy is protected because she is not named and she is pixelated. TBH even if they had named her I reckon they'd still have been ok.

Original poster
rootypig · 26/05/2014 18:57

Farce I appreciate that, but what is the logical end to that argument? we shouldn't look, and we shouldn't discuss, because it in part benefits them? Isn't that an incredibly dangerous argument? It would only work if we could deprive them of the oxygen of publicity. But what is driving the DM market share is people who agree, not people who don't Sad

I highlighted thoroughly that it is DM link, so that people who do not wish to click, don't. I am using MN as a forum to discuss it, as opposed to their website, in part to avoid those outcomes.

OP posts:
Original poster
rootypig · 26/05/2014 18:42

On a narrow interpretation it doesn't violate the code. I don't doubt that that PCC will find that the article doesn't violate their code. But I think it does. I think, if they purport to care about privacy, and children, and the fair reporting of crime, and discrimination, then the article absolutely violates their code.

OP posts:
PetiteRaleuse · 26/05/2014 18:40

The PCC won't think it does. Nancy is right, the guidelines aren't broken.

Doesn't detract from it being a disgustingly intrusive and nasty article though.

Original poster
rootypig · 26/05/2014 18:39

Nancy if you're somehow qualified to tell me in what way I'm wrong, then I'd be happy to hear it. But just saying I'm wrong, without explaining why, is so unhelpful.

And the code, as it is written, is as a matter of necessity a question of interpretation.

OP posts:
TheFarceAndTheSpurious · 26/05/2014 18:33

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

EffectiveCommunication · 26/05/2014 18:31

I kind of feel sorry for the guy who killed people in a way, he was let down as much as his victims. His parents seem to have done all they could to prevent this from happening.

CaptChaos · 26/05/2014 18:30

The DM hates people with disabilities as well, so quite why you're defending it now is beyond me, SF. My DS also has ASD, was also institutionally bullied, also with police involved. You have to move on and model having a PMA, holding as much anger and hatred as you do is not healthy for you, the object of your hate couldn't give a shit about it.

The killer killed because he was a misogynist and a racist. Quite a chunk of his manifesto talks about white girls preferring 'dirty' black men over him. Concentration camps for women.

His is the end game for male entitlement, it has nothing to do with bullying, teasing or any other thing that any woman or child has done to him. He believed he was owed sex, and when he didn't get it, he decided to punish the world.

Nancy66 · 26/05/2014 18:26

it doesn't matter what you think rooty - it's not down to individual interpretation.

TereseaGreen · 26/05/2014 18:25

"Daily mail haters" I'm going to rebrand them " the enlightened".

The individual who committed these hideous crimes has committed a hate crime. If this person had committed crimes against old people do you think there would have been provocative images of the elderly to accompany the "article"? No. This is what makes the "reporting" so hideous.

Disgusting, mysongisitic reporting which is nothing more than an excuse to berate women and post images of an attractive young woman in various states of undress. Titilation for the masses eh? I doubt none of the families who have suffered such a tremendous loss will be looking to blame this girl. The finger needs to remain pointed at the perpetrator. No matter how unappealing the profile is.

Itsfab · 26/05/2014 18:24

The Mail might not be blaming the woman but their "Meet the girl who...." head line is disgusting. Ooo, look at the girl who drove a boy to kill Hmm.

Original poster
rootypig · 26/05/2014 18:24

Nancy - you think it doesn't. I do.

OP posts:
EffectiveCommunication · 26/05/2014 18:23

I am sure her face was visable earlier. I didn't read the article, glad I didn't now.

LumpySpacedPrincess · 26/05/2014 18:22

Spittin, you don't say outright that you hate all girls but you have shown in your comments that you do have a problem with women. What your son went through was awful and it has obviously taken its toll on you.

This is a thread about a nasty piece of misogynistic journalism and your first contribution showed that you are transferring your anger towards an individual who hurt your son onto someone else, purely because they are a girl.

Itsfab · 26/05/2014 18:22

"But WHY did he hate women? That's why I joined in - to show you HOW it can happen."

So if your son killed half a dozen women that would be fine as it was justified because one woman was unkind to him?

Nancy66 · 26/05/2014 18:19

it doesn't violate any of those points in the code.

thecatfromjapan · 26/05/2014 18:18

I think "DailyMail Haterz" would be a T-shirt i'd be happy to own.

MmeLindor · 26/05/2014 18:16

Spittin
I meant bullying from one person - and I don't mean to belittle your son's suffering by saying that.

Be honest. Wouldn't you be horrified if your son wrote that he dreamed of putting women in a concentration camp and watching them starve?

thecatfromjapan · 26/05/2014 18:14

I guess I'll join you in that, rootypig. Many thanks for making it easier by looking up the relevant sections. Smile

SpittinFevvers · 26/05/2014 18:13

Well, AF, you can't make some people see things no matter how hard you try. Daily Mail haters especially.

AnyFucker · 26/05/2014 18:11

SF, the correct thing to do when realising you are digging an ever-deeper hole, is to put the spade down

Original poster
rootypig · 26/05/2014 18:11

I think the article violates the code article 3 (privacy), 6 (children), 9 (reporting a crime) and 12 (discrimination).

www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html

OP posts:
Original poster
rootypig · 26/05/2014 18:07

Anyway I am making a complaint to the PCC about this article, though I hardly live in hope it will have any effect, I feel I must use the established channels to register my disgust.

If anyone would like to follow suit, you can do it here www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/makingacomplaint.html

OP posts: