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?

[MadameDefarge]

Indeed, Petite. I daresay if you told him MNHQ hired 'illegal female asylum seekers' he would be round like a shot.

[MadameDefarge]

and not in a pervy way, either.

[MadameDefarge]

I do wish you had left the thread where it was though, Rooty.

[GinnelsandWhippets]

Yes Madame, a webchat would be awesome, not sure the Dm are up to it though.

Don't know if this has been posted already but I rather liked this article on this shooting, and the worrying culture of misogyny and entitlement that surrounds it. www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/27/your-princess-is-in-another-castle-misogyny-entitlement-and-nerds.html

[PetiteRaleuse]

I don't think MN are bff with the dm.. It's unlikely to happen.

[rootypig]

Interesting Madame. I thought about it. Tbh, when the thread was in chat, responses dried up. Presumably being marked feminism puts people off the thread. I think the anti DM headline communicated a similar thing - perhaps that is what I should have been more considered about in the first place. But this is part of our problem, surely.

Thanks for the support everyone. I have two social science degrees including one very relevant to the PCC code. And yet am still easily cowed by the sort of responses I've had on this thread. As long as 'codes' are defended in such an unthinking way, we haven't a hope.

The PCC DOES has an obligation to have regard to the ECHR, all public bodies do, this was one of the main provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. That fact alone should encourage anyone to email them.

[rootypig]

(The point about my degrees simply being that the PCC structure relies on reader / citizen participation, and being made to feel stupid for having an opinion about it kneecaps the model which is precisely what they want)

[MadameDefarge]

Its about societal tolerance...the DM being the DM about trivial things we can just roll our eyes. The DM being the DM even about quite serious issues and continuing their anti-woman stance is really really annoying, but to map that agenda onto the murder of women takes it to a whole new level of grotesquery, and kind of strips away our habituated eye rolling response because it reveals the bare bones of the DMs agenda.

[PetiteRaleuse]

It's not stupid to have an opinion about it. It would be stupid not to. But the PCC and it's successor won't be able to adjudicate on feelings created by vicious slants on articles unless you are directly impacted. The press have more freedom to say what the fuck they want than the beoadcast media who are supposed to remain factual and non biased.