This is fucking disgraceful (Daily Mail)

[rootypig]

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?

[thecatfromjapan]

Hello rootypig - I have the the same e-mail.

Do you think there is any mileage in me e-mailing to explain that i think "public interest" is not served by an article like this because it adds to a climate where violence against women is made tolerable and acceptable.

I might try that, just for the heck of it. When you actually think about it, that is just what it does, and it should be completely unacceptable. It is completely Alice-through-the-looking-glass that this is not a truth universally acknowledged ...

[PetiteRaleuse]

The thing is they didn't break any actual rules. You can email them lots of opinions on the culture they are fostering but as long as no rules are broken they won't give a shiny shit.

The only thing that will work is if people stop reading, linking, clicking.

But that won't happen because they know their audience and don't care what a minority of readers think.

[PetiteRaleuse]

I'm not defending them btw. I loathe the Mail. I thought the Miliband furore might have an effect and open people's eyes a bit but I was, evidently, naive.

[Nancy66]

Exactly. The code is very specific. People really seem to struggle to get their head around that though.

[PetiteRaleuse]

Well that's understandable nancy it is rarely spoken of really. Other than the current changes.

[Nancy66]

Sure but pretty easy to understand once you go online and read it I'd have thought

[TheWholeOfTheSpoon]

I haven't read the link, but is the woman in question the daughter of an 80's pop star? Because if so, it's highly unlikely her family will complain to the PCC seeing as they spoke to the Mail in the first place.

[rootypig]

Hi cat . I was slightly surprised by the response and emphasis on privity, for want of a better term, though now it makes sense, in terms of an anti-floodgate type policy.

Am thinking about public interest - though it's widely invoked in the law, definitions are not forthcoming. This is presumably extra judicial since PCC is self regulating, but limiting freedom of expression is permitted under the following heads in Art 10 ECHR:

• necessary and proportionate limitation
  
• to pursue a legitimate aim, namely
  

o the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety;
o the prevention of disorder or crime;
o the protection of health or morals;
o the protection of the reputation or rights of others;
o preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence; or
o maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

So I suppose I will borrow this structure and write back to them to say that I think that it is proportionate, and that it is necessary to protect certainly the reputation and rights of this individual (though that must collapse into defamation) and the rights of women as a group under Art 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

I agree wholeheartedly with you that the article belittles women, and legitimises disregarding and targeting women, but I have zero faith that they will agree or take is seriously.

I have had a quick scout about for some Art 10 cases for suppor but the law seems very scattered and undeveloped inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/court-of-human-rights-five-recent-article-10-cases/.

I suspect the type of journalism we are talking about is too nebulous and insidious to be accommodated within its framework, which is geared toward specific incidents, rather than a culture.

www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Hate_speech_ENG.pdf

[rootypig]

People really seem to struggle to get their head around that though.

"people" are trying to express their beliefs and engender change, rather than just be told what to do.

Of course the PCC has so covered itself in glory, we must all bow before its code.

[Nancy66]

Thewhole - her dad is a stuntman (or was).

[Nancy66]

nobody is saying you have to 'bow before its code' - just that it's very clear and if it hasn't been broken then it hasn't been broken and all the complaining to them in the world won't make any difference.

[snoofle]

He wasnt right in the head. End of really.
Except I know a person like this. And for a few years after I knew him well, I used to listen intently to local news whenever an incident anything like this nature happened.

Because I am aware that at some point, it could be him. And there are people like him up and down the country that are scarily not that far away from doing things similar.

[rootypig]

"all the complaining to them in the world won't make any difference"

Well that means that there is no remedy, and that is why your dear PCC is being dispatched. The fact that my complaint will land in the hands of IPSO can only be a better thing, if not a good one.

Anyway, it makes a difference to me, I would like to voice my protest and since the PCC is the body to which I am expected to complain, complain to them I will.

[rootypig]

^^ substitute recourse for remedy, I didn't mean the legal sense

[PetiteRaleuse]

"Public interest" is very vague though. And can be argued til the cows come home.

[rootypig]

The courts usually call the cows in from pasture

I don't expect anything to come of it, which is pretty sad, considering the subject matter. I just have my views and my conscience, as we all do.

[PacificDogwood]

"If you believe, however, that there are exceptional public interest reasons for the Commission to proceed with an independent complaint under the circumstances, we would be grateful to hear from you in the next seven days."

"Do you think there is any mileage in me e-mailing to explain that i think "public interest" is not served by an article like this because it adds to a climate where violence against women is made tolerable and acceptable."

Yes.
I think that would be an excellent response. IMO there is a HUGE public interest in stopping such twittery.

It's a great example why 'codes' and legislation only works to a point - if somebody finds a loophole that allows them to follow their own twisted agenda without actually breaking the defined rules, they can without being held to account. Even if it is not in the spirit of the intended rules.
It's frigging disgraceful. Bottom feeders.

[PacificDogwood]

twittery = twattery

[MadameDefarge]

the code can be 'adhered' much in the same way as personal attacks on MN can be reformulated to skate within the guidelines.

[WowOoo]

Go Rootypig!

I agree with you and lots of other rational posters here. Nothing intelligent to add to the debate.

[MadameDefarge]

Patronising posters because they are not intimately familiar with the code looks rather like a distraction technique - just because they can doesn't mean they should.

[MadameDefarge]

Complaining to the world about the disgusting nature of the DM's coverage might just make a difference. History does at least teach us that protest does influence policy.

[MadameDefarge]

It would be marvellous if MN could organise a webchat with a journalist or manager from the Daily Mail...so we could put our issues with them out there and for them to answered fully and with public acknowledgement of their position.

[PetiteRaleuse]

I am salivating at the thought of a webchat with Dacre :o

[PetiteRaleuse]

(And not in a pervy way)