to be INCENSED with the Mail Online?

[Mintyy]

Look, I know its a horrible right wing rag with a very questionable attitude towards women and this is the reason why I don't read it regularly ...

but I want to know if it is possible to do something to stop its lurid, wanton and totally unnecessary coverage of unspeakable animal cruelty cases!

I don't look at it all that often but every time I do there is some horrific story on there including pictures with NO WARNING. I can't recommend that you look at it today (very very upsetting banner headline including pictures) but I hope some of you will so that you know what I mean.

If I tweeted I would be twittering about this right now! Is there anything else the ordinary punter can do? Can I complain via the website? I can't face going back on there just now.

Agree with ginny, even though its distressing.

I think there's a difference between covering these stories - and they need to be reported - and using the most horrific detail in the headline and using extreme pictures. They are there for shock value rather than any public interest concern.

It's the same with the child abuse stories.

I cannot look at the DM

Serenitysutton I would hope that some do. That was what caused me to do so.

If one person who sees that picture thinks "this is terrible, what can I do about it?" and then donates to Soi Dog or the like, then that's a step closer to ending this practice. How can that be discouraged?

Exactly.

The Mail Online coverage is lurid and headline-grabbing. Are they fronting a campaign to stop the practice?

I would expect the Mail to make it optional to click on any pictures of animal cruelty (if they really must).

They are posted alongside stories of Kim Kardashian's latest haven't I got a big bum pic.

It is not entertainment.

I would like to see how a broadsheet newspaper would cover the same story. I am convinced it would be handled more sensitively but with no less of an impact. Infact, isn't a well known thing that over-exposure to graphic/explicit images lessens their impact?

ginnycreeper - you don't seriously think this story in the Mail Online is going to have any impact at all?

Don't go on the site at all?

Stop reading it, simple

Well it has generated discussion here, has it not?
I agree the Mail's motives aren't great and the article is sensationalist but I'm still glad it's out there.
Cows, pigs and sheep are no different to dogs and they endure inhumane treatment at the hands of humans every day.
Any article which makes people think more carefully about their own part in this is positive, imo.

Its not that simple. Really it isn't.

I don't go on porn sites that depict violence and depravity (I don't visit any porn sites actually) but I object to them being available without censorship for anyone on the internet to see.

Infact, isn't a well known thing that over-exposure to graphic/explicit images lessens their impact?

I've read that in relation to film violence/pornography etc, but not wrt social action/donating to charity.

It doesn't seem to be the case for graphic images on tobacco products, though I don't know if the two can be compared.

you don't seriously think this story in the Mail Online is going to have any impact at all?

This seems to be one of those arguments of 'it's unlikely to happen, so we shouldn't try'. I think we should.

ginnycreeper - you don't seriously think this story in the Mail Online is going to have any impact at all?

After reading the article (and looking at the pictures) I've had a look at the Soi Dog Foundation. Also, the article does provide a link to a campaign that's running. Which I have just signed.

savedogs.soidog.org/petition

So, I suppose it is having an impact on people (even though, Minty, you are right, the pictures are extremely distressing).

But in what way is the fact that its out there a good thing MoreCrack?

Do you think most people aren't aware there is terrible cruelty towards animals in the world?

What has the Mail Online achieved other than distress people (or gratify the ones who love a bit of animal torture)?

If they are so bothered they should campaign against the cruelty or donate a large amount towards animal welfare charities instead of printing a frankly hideously salacious horrific article and enjoying people's shock.

Well you are a lot less cynical about that website's motives than I am, that's for sure Rosey.

The Mail is a seriously harmful publication

The pictures are terrible, but without this exposure this cruelty is more likely to continue to happen. If the cruelty stops, then the pictures won't be available. More exposure is needed, not less.

If it leads to people becoming aware of and supporting the campaign, I don't care for their motives. I am sure of that.

Perhaps we should ask for it to become a Mumsnet campaign and have pictures of pet alsatians being slaughtered on the home page?

Now who's being sensationalist?

At any rate, they don't have Alsatians over there.

Apologies Rosey, it looked like an alsatian in the picture I saw that I didn't want to see. I didn't study it too closely!

I'm not being sensationalist at all. If its ok to have these uncensored unhidden and unhide-able pictures on the home page of the Mail Online (which is online media accessible to all) then its ok to have them on Mumsnet.

Mintyy, I agree with you totally. I don't want to see pictures like this and I think it's appalling that they put them there with no warnings. I know I probably have my priorities wrong but animal torture pictures stick with me horribly. I fucking hate the Mail.

Was it cruelty or killing them to eat? The latter is no different to killing cows even though it looks strange to us.

And let's not forget the people in this country who demand the right to kill animals for food without stunning them first. We let them get away with that.

Go and have a look Bob.